Sitting of 10 December 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petition from Lincoln, against alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women; Prom Halifax; Home Counties Union of

  1521
  Women's Liberal Associations; Lancaster; Saffron Walden; and, Wood-ford; to lie upon the Table.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PENSIONS AND SUPERANNUATIONS ALLOWANCES.
  Return [presented 7th December] to be printed. [No. 373.]
  TRANSVAAL CONSTITUTION, 1906.
  Copy presented, of Letters Patent and Instructions relating to the Transvaal and Swaziland Order in Council [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Copy presented, of the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance, No. 29, of 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Report No. 512 (Southern Nigeria, Annual Report for 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th July; Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for certain classes of Shops within the Hebden Bridge Urban District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  INCOME-TAX.
  Copies presented, of Extracts from Treasury Letters, dated October, 1842, and August, 1856, relating to Relief from Income Tax in certain cases [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (TRADE).
  Copy presented, of Review of Trade of India for 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  LUNACY.
  Copy of Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the Visitors of Lunatics between 1st April, 1906, and 30th September, 1906 [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH HE VOTES.

  Inspection of Workshops in Convents.
  MR. H. BEAUMONT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that, in institutions belonging to religious orders which have been expelled from France and which are now domiciled in England, a number of young girls are employed in laundry work, lace-making, and dressmaking; whether he is aware that charges were made against the cruelty and sweating practised in these institutions in France; and whether he intends to introduce any legislation for the protection of the young girls so engaged.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I fear I can add nothing to the Answer which I gave on 27th November to the hon. Member for North Down,† to the effect that the question of regulating industrial work in religious and charitable institutions, when carried on by way of trade, is now under consideration; but that, apart from this, I cannot take action with a view to the inspection of religious institutions.

  The Grenada Education Ordinance.
  MR. CHARLES DUNCAN.: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction throughout the Island of Grenada, West Indies, owing to the recent Education Ordinance
  † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1425.

  1523
  passed in the Legislature of this Crown Colony where the taxpayers are unrepresented; and, in view of the petition sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies against the same, will the ratification of the Crown be withheld till this petition is considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Exception was taken to certain points in the Education Ordinance by the Archbishop of Port-of-Spain on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in Grenada, and a petition on the subject was received from a large number of Roman Catholics in the Island. Lord Elgin most carefully considered the objections, but, as the Ordinance had the approval both of the Board of Education in Grenada and of the Legislative Council, and was supported by the Roman Catholic representatives in the Council, the Secretary of State saw no sufficient reason for advising His Majesty to exercise His power of disallowance in regard to it.

  Removal of Monthly Courts from Cromarty.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether he has received copies of resolutions passed at a recent meeting of the inhabitants of Cromarty and district protesting against the petition of the procurators of Tain and Dingwall to discontinue the monthly courts at Cromarty; and, seeing that the removal of cases arising in the Cromarty district to either Tain or Dingwall for trial would entail great hardship on litigants of small means on account of the extra expense such a course would involve, will he consider the expediency of arranging for the monthly court at Cromarty to be continued as at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) I have received copies of the resolutions referred to by my hon. friend, but no petition for the discontinuance of the monthly courts at Cromarty has reached me.

  Qualifications of Teachers in State-aided Elementary Schools.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether lady students, who have already partly qualified for the L.L.A. degree of St. Andrew's University
  1524
  in the belief that when qualified they would be eligible for teaching modern languages in State-aided secondary schools, would be eligible for such positions, under the new regulations, provided they have obtained the L.L.A. degree.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) As the hon. Member has already been informed in correspondence, there are at present-no regulations whatever as to the qualifications of teachers in State-aided secondary schools. It is open to the managers of these schools to appoint a teacher whom they believe to be competent, independently of whether such teacher has obtained the L.L.A. of St. Andrew's University or any other degree.

  Repair of Irish Lightships—Trade Union Wages.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the work of repairing the Irish lightship has been taken away from Dublin and placed with an English firm at Appledore; that according to the terms of contract the Dublin firm is bound to pay the trade union rate of wages ruling at the port, while the wages at Appledore are below the usual trade rates, and the workmen there are not recognised as tradesmen by the Shipwrights Union; whether he is aware that the Irish Lights Board invited tenders for the repairs of one of their vessels, "The Torch"; that a tender from an Irish firm was forwarded to the Board of Trade, with a recommendation that it be accepted, and that this vessel has been sent to Appledore; and whether he will take steps to have the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons carried into effect, and give local employment to the workmen in Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) It is hardly correct to say that the work of repairing lightships has been taken away from Dublin and placed with a firm at another place. Tenders for the repair of the lightships are invited by the Commissioners of Irish Lights in each case as occasion arises, and those received are always carefully considered on their merits. In the case of the "Torch,"

  1525
  the Commissioners recently recommended the acceptance of a tender from a Dublin firm, but the Board of Trade did not consider that the Commissioners were justified in passing over one received by them from a firm at Appledore, who were in the habit of tendering for and performing this class of work for the Commissioners, and who offered to do the work for a considerably smaller sum and in half the time. A wages clause is inserted in this contract stipulating that competent workmen are to be employed, and that they are to receive such wages as are generally accepted as current for their respective trades in the locality.

  Loch Ryan Oyster Fisheries.
  MR. HUGH BARRIE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that among the articles recovered from Loch Ryan, in the presence of the General Inspector of Sea Fisheries, were two strongly-built boxes, 30 inches high, chained together and loaded with stones, which showed no trace of oyster spat, and which had wound round them an entanglement of barbed wire, suggesting that such boxes had been laid down by the Oyster Fishing Company to prevent fishing with nets there; and whether, in view of the danger caused thereby to craft sailing in the shallow waters of Loch Ryan, he can state how many such boxes were laid down, and where, how many recovered, how many still unaccounted for, and what effort was made to trace them; whether he is aware that the Oyster Company have been in the habit of depositing stones and rough gravel in the shallow waters of the loch, and that the manager of the Oyster Company, when under examination at a committee meeting of the Stranraer Town Council, stated that his company were acting within their rights in depositing extraneous matter in Loch Ryan; and will he say whether the assurance asked for from the Oyster Company had since been received.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I understand from the General Inspector of Sea Fisheries that only one box was recovered in his presence the description of which accords fairly with the particulars in the hon. Member's Question, except that the
  1526
  wire with which it was bound was not barbed. The Loch Ryan Oyster Fishery Company state that thirty boxes were placed by them a little below low-water mark, in July, 1905, at various points on the east and west sides of the Loch, and were left down for about four weeks, with a view of collecting spat. At the expiration of that period they took up all the boxes which they could find (twenty-two in number). The remaining eight they were unable to recover, although they frequently endeavoured to find them by grappling and sweeping, and they can only suppose that the missing boxes must have been taken away by other parties. The Company also state that no stones were deposited by them, but that it is essential to the proper working of the fishery to remove the large stones and boulders from the bed of the loch, and to deposit thereon a thin layer of broken pieces of brick, tiles, etc., no larger in size than an oyster shell. I have no information as to the proceedings at the Stranraer Council committee meeting referred to. The Company have given an assurance that they will not in future place in the loch any obstructions such as the boxes referred to.

  Building Regulations in Pentonville Road.
  MR. HORNIMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the tribunal of appeal in the case of an appeal by the owners of the premises Nos. 190–208, Pentonville Road against the certificate of the superintending architect of metropolitan buildings defining the general line of buildings on the north side of Pentonville Road between Southampton Street and North Street; whether he is aware that the effect of the decision will be to make it lawful to erect buildings 80 feet in height in place of the existing one-storey shops; and whether, in view of the desirability of wide thoroughfares and of the fact that the advisory board of engineers, in their Report to the Royal Commission on London Traffic, pointed out that an Act of Parliament of 1756 enacted that no buildings should be erected within 50 feet of the sides of the Pentonville, Euston, and Marylebone Roads, and urged that the principle on which the Act was based should now be acted on, he can see his way to take

  1527
  immediate action to prevent the air space and width of thoroughfares like the Pentonville Road being seriously diminished.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. I have made inquiry on the subject to which it relates, and understand that the facts are substantially as stated. I am, however, informed that the tribunal of appeal expressed their willingness to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on a question of law, and that the London County Council are taking steps to get a case stated. I have myself no powers in relation to the width of streets in London.

  Payment of Jurors' Expenses.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether many petitions have been received at the Home Office from county councils and other important public bodies in favour of the payment of the expenses of jurors attending assizes and quarter sessions; and whether he is prepared to consider the question of introducing a Bill to deal with the subject during the course of next session.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) About ten years ago representations were received from nine county councils and a great many minor bodies, but since then scarcely anything has been heard at the Home Office on this subject. I have no reason to think there is any strong feeling in favour of legislation, and I do not at present contemplate proposing any Bill for the purpose indicated.

  Birching for Sleeping out in Dorsetshire.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the justices for the county of Dorset have sentenced any prisoner to be birched for the offence of sleeping out since his predecessor wrote on the 12th August, 1905, to the chairman of the quarter sessions, expressing his opinion that birching was not an appropriate punishment for such an offence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Since August, 1905, no order for whipping
  1528
  has been made by the Dorset Quarter Sessions in any case under the Vagrancy Act.

  Sunday Closing of Shops—Suggested Legislation.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, having regard to the report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Sunday closing of shops, he will consider sympathetically the widely-spread desire that legislation on the subject shall be introduced in the next Session of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I can assure the hon. Member that the matter has my sympathetic consideration, but I am afraid I cannot at the present time say anything as to the prospects of legislation.

  Convocations of Canterbury and York— Letters of Business.
  MR. PAUL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Letters of Business to the Convocations of Canterbury and York will be printed and distributed to Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I understand that the Return will be issued to-morrow.

  Postal Delivery in Inniscarn District, County Derry.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General, when it is intended to give effect to the promised acceleration of postal deliveries in Inniscarn and district, county Derry; whether he can state why the letters are sent via Moneymore, which is over six miles distant, instead of by Dessertmartin, which is under two miles distant; and whether the matter will receive immediate attention.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am sorry that it is not at present practicable to accelerate the delivery at Inniscairn, either by serving it from Dessertmartin or otherwise, except by a revision of the duties now performed by two established postmen, which would involve their compulsory transfer to

  1529
  other offices. I do not feel justified in adopting this course, more especially in view of the fact that the number of letters which would be accelerated in delivery would be very small. The difficulty has been personally explained to Mr. Kerlin, of Inniscairn, who applied for an acceleration of his delivery, and should an alteration in the circumstances hereafter render an improvement in the service practicable, I shall be pleased to sanction the arrangement.

  Learners in the Irish Postal Service.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he is aware of the state of affairs existing in the Irish Postal and Telegraph Service by reason of the number of learners for whom no appointments can apparently be found; is he aware that several of these youths have been in the service for upwards of three years; under these circumstances can he say why an examination for male learners is announced to be held in Dublin and other Irish centres in January next; and when the vacancies announced for that examination are likely to occur.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am aware of the facts of the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I may explain that the position has recently been met by a large increase of pay to learners with upwards of three years' service. The vacancies offered for competition in January for learners in various parts of the United Kingdom already exist either on the learners' class or on the class above to which a learners is about to be promoted. In the case of Dublin a considerable number of vacancies for learners will shortly occur, and learner from other parts of Ireland have been invited to transfer to Dublin, but very few are willing to do so. The filling of vacancies for learners at the bottom of the class will not affect the prospects of learners already in the service.

  Appointment of Messenger to Postmastership of Killucan.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state on whose recommendation and on what grounds
  1530
  a messenger in the secretary's office in Dublin was recently promoted to the postmastership of Killucan; were any applications for this position received from sorting clerks and telegraphists; and was the vacancy announced in the Post Office Circular.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I appointed the messenger in question to the postmastership of Killucan because he was, in my opinion, the most suitable candidate. Applications for the post, which was duly advertised in the Post Office Circular, were received from several sorting clerks and telegraphists.

  Erection of Pillar-box at Longstone, County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the necessity for the erection of a pillar box at Longstone, near Annalong, county Down; whether he is aware that a number of fishermen in the district spend a considerable part of the year at their industry in Scotland and England, that the correspondence is therefore considerable, and that Mr. William Doran has offered a free site for a pillar box; and whether, in the event of its erection, he will arrange to have it cleared every day by the postman who passes the place on his return journey to Annalong.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry on this subject, and will send the hon. Member an Answer in due course.

  Pay of Dockyard Writers.
  SIR JOHN BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether in view of the fact that no reply has been sent to the petitions forwarded by the dockyard writers during the last three years he can say when it is anticipated that the Report of the Committee will be published which in March last it was hoped to publish at an early date; and whether seeing that the Navy Estimates for 1905–6 and 1906–7 state that the pay of the writing staff is under revision, the revised scheme of pay will, when promulgated, date from 1st April, 1905.

  1531
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Report of the Committee referred to in the reply to the hon. Member on the 21st March last,† has been considered, and as a result certain improvements in the position of writers employed in the dockyards, etc., were granted and promulgated to the establishments on the 30th July last. Subsequent inquiries into questions affecting the writing staff have been conducted by the same Committee, and their further Report will shortly be presented to the Board and duly considered. In the event of any additional changes being introduced it is not contemplated that they would be given retrospective effect.

  Report on Naval Manæuvres.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the published Report of the naval manæuvres, he will include a list of the vessels which were originally designated to take part in the manæuvres, but which were unable to do so, or which parted company from their fleets owing to engine-room troubles or other causes.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). The Admiralty have not yet decided as to the form the Report of the naval manæuvres will take.

  The Case of the Crosbie Estate.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he will supply a copy of the case or questions on the Crosbie estate upon which the Judicial Commissioner gave his decision last Tuesday.
  (Answered by MR. Cherry.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they understand an appeal will probably be taken in this case, and until the appeal has been heard it would appear to be desirable to treat the ease as sub judice.

  Salaries of Local Government Board Officials.
  MR. LUPTON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what are the salaries of Mr.
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 360.
  1532
  G. Walsh, Local Government Board inspector for the Nottingham and Lincoln districts, known as the North Midland Poor Law district, and Mr. A. J. Cole, auditor for the Lincolnshire district.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Mr. Walsh's present salary is £600 and Mr. Cole's £675.

  Clothing of Inmates of Workhouses.
  MR. COWAN (Surrey, Guilford): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will, by administrative order, require all boards of guardians to clothe the inmates of unions with garments of a colour and pattern as the wearers may select, so long as the cost of the material is within contract prices.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Local Government Board in a circular, which they issued in January 1895, referred to the question of the clothes to be supplied to inmates of workhouses. They drew attention to a previous circular, in which it had been pointed out. that the clothing need not be uniform either in colour or material. They specially suggested that the clothing worn by inmates when absent on leave from the workhouse should not be in any way distinctive or conspicuous in character.

  Poppy Cultivation in India.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the area under poppy cultivation in India has increased from 542,633 acres in 1894–5 to 612,230 acres in 1904–5, the latest year for which published figures are available; and, if so, whether the measures he has in hand for reducing the area under cultivation will effect a reduction at least to the level of twelve years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am aware that the area under poppy has increased to the extent stated. I consider that an immediate and substantial reduction is desirable, and I have given instructions to this effect. I cannot undertake that the limit of the area under poppy in 1894–5 will at once

  1533
  be reached, as this would be attended with inconvenience to the cultivators. But, in view of the probable decrease in the China demand, progressive reductions may be anticipated.

  Sale of Opium.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state why the Government of India, in 1901, fixed the standard number of Bengal chests of opium for export at 48,000; and whether, looking to the fact that in 1905–6 the number of chests sold was 37,695, in 1896–7 39,000, in 1897–8 39,000, in 1898–9 39,450, and in 1899–1900 41,700, he can see his way to directing that the number of chests sold in future years should be reduced to at least the level of the sales of ten years ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The standard number of Bengal chests of opium for export was fixed in 1901 at 48,000 chests because it was considered that the area of cultivation as it then stood would ordinarily produce that quantity of "provision" opium. Up to 1901 the higher standard of 54,000 chests had been nominally in force, but owing to the deficient yield of successive seasons and the necessity for replenishing the reserve stock it had been necessary to restrict the sales much below this standard between the years 1895 and 1900. By 1901 the reserve had been brought up to a sufficient amount, and it became possible to sell the whole annual production, subject to the limit of 48,000 chests. It would be premature to make any statement of future policy at the present stage of the Chinese programme of opium reform.

  Opium in Store.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India what was the number of chests of Bengal opium remaining in store on the 31st March, 1906; whether the stock in store has steadily increased during late years and is now more than double the amount in store ten years ago; and if he will consider whether the accumulations of stock are a reason, apart from other considerations, for reducing the areas of poppy cultivation and the manufacture of opium.
  1534
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The number of chests in store on 31st March, 1906, was 76,059. Ten years before, owing to bad seasons, the reserve was below 30,000 chests on a corresponding date. In dealing with the question of the area to be licensed for poppy cultivation in the immediate future I have not overlooked the consideration mentioned in the last part of the question.

  Opium Cultivation in India.
  SIR HENRY COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the circumstances under which 9,059 acres were cultivated with poppy in the Punjab in 1903–4 and 5,970 acres in 1904–5; and whether, looking to the fact that the cultivation in this province is remote from the Government opium factories at Ghazipore and Patna, he will consider whether poppy cultivation in the Punjab should not be altogether abolished.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The cultivation of poppy in certain districts of the Punjab has long been permitted. The crop is grown under the usual restrictions, and the produce is used by the excise department of Punjab instead of Bengal opium. As at present advised I see no reason for dealing specially or exceptionally with the question of the cultivation of opium in this particular province.

  Leave Allowance of Indian Officers.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that an officer on combined leave is compelled to draw his privilege leave allowance in India; and whether he will arrange that in future an officer shall have the option of drawing the privilege leave portion of his pay at the Home Treasury, in the same manner as his furlough pay is disbursed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have consulted the Government of India, as I promised in July last, as to the desirability of allowing officers on combined leave in this country to draw their privilege leave pay at the Home Treasury. The reply of the Government of India will doubtless reach me shortly, and until I receive it I do not propose to

  1535
  make any change in the existing procedure.

  Delay in Inspection of Estates in South Westmeath.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire of the Irish Estates Commissioners what is the cause of the delay in their inspectors visiting a number of estates for sale and evicted farms in South Westmeath; and if he will press on the Commissioners the urgency of making a speedy inquiry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that such delay as has occurred in inquiring into the applications of evicted tenants in Westmeath is due to the very large number of such cases which have to be inquired into in all parts of the country. Seven applicants from Westmeath have already been reinstated. An additional staff of inspectors for the purposes of these inquiries has recently been appointed, and the Commissioners intend to have the outstanding applications from Westmeath inquired into as soon as possible.

  Captain Caldbeck and Ballacolla Estate.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three tenants upon the Killermogh portion of Captain Caldbeck's property, Ballacolla, Queen's County, are being excluded from the proposed sale of the larger part of the estate; and will he see that the Estates Commissioners withhold their sanction to the sale unless those three tenancies are included.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to identify the cases of the three tenants referred to. If full particulars of the names and holdings of these tenants should be furnished to them, they will inquire into and consider the matter.

  Dromara Embroidery Classes.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements can be made to have the embroidery classes in Dromara court house,
  1536
  county Down, held at an earlier hour in the evening, so that girls living at some distance from the village may be enabled to attend them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The embroidery class at Dromara is held from 6 till 9 p.m. The County Down Committee have informed the Department of Agriculture that no representations have been made to them in favour of a change of hours. The Department have, however, now requested the secretary to the committee to consult with the instructress with the view of arranging, if possible, that the hours may be changed from 5 to 8 p.m.

  Labourers Cottages at Aghalee (Antrim.)
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the failure of the Aghalee Rural District Council, county Antrim, to provide cottages under the Labourers Acts; whether they are aware that some of the applications have been before the council for four years, and that their present landlords will not repair the straw roofs of the labourers' cottages; and whether, having regard to the fact that the council have provided for only twenty cottages in the five parishes within its area, and that sites for the proposed cottages can be had voluntarily, he will give directions to have officers appointed to discharge the duties which this council fails to perform.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board have received a few individual complaints, but no general memorial or complaint in respect of default on the part of the Aghalee District Council in providing labourers' cottages. The Board are not aware, and do not think it likely, that some applications have been before the council for four years, seeing that the council's last scheme was made in 1904. The Board have no information as to whether landlords have refused to repair cottages. Twenty-one cottages have been built in this district, which is the smallest in Ireland, and the council had agreed to provide twenty-three more, but suspended further operations pending the passing of the recent

  1537
  Act. They are now acting in accordance with rules issued by the Board by inviting representations from labourers, and, until it is proved that they are unwilling to carry the Acts into practical effect, it would be premature to consider the appointment of an officer for the purpose. The hon. Member may rest assured that the Board will act up to the spirit of the Act recently passed.

  Kinallen Embroidery Classes.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the classes under the County Down Committee of Agriculture for embroidery and sprigging at Kinallen, county Down, are to be held in the local Orange Hall; whether he is aware that a number of intending pupils decline to attend the classes under these circumstances; and whether it is intended to reconsider the arrangement.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture are informed by the County Down Committee that the embroidery class at Kinallen is held in the Orange Hall because no other room is available. The Committee state that they are not aware of any intending pupils who decline to attend the class because it is held in the Orange Hall, and that no representations have been made to them in favour of a change of the place of meeting. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the Kinallen district is wholly inhabited by Protestants, the Committee say that they do not see their way to alter the present arrangements.

  Captain Caldbeck's Estate.
  MR. DELANY: TO ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a notice to quit has been served upon Mr. Edward Phelan, Ballacolla, Queen's County, at the suit of Captain Caldbeck; and, seeing that proposals for sale are pending upon this estate, will the Estates Commissioners intervene to effect a settlement in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question. No tenant of the name of
  1538
  Edward Phelan is included in the schedule of tenancies lodged in respect of the estate of Captain Caldbeck. In the event of the completion of the sale to the Commissioners they will be prepared to consider any application which Phelan may make to them.

  Untenanted Land at Nobber, County Meath.
  MR. PATRICK WHITE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what reply the Estates Commissioners have received from Colonel Lyster Smythe to their inquiry about his untenanted land at Nobber, county Meath.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet received a reply from Colonel Lyster Smythe.

  Irish Estate in Chancery.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return of the Irish estates in the Court of Chancery giving the extent in statute acres in each case, the rent roll of each estate, and the number of years it has been in Chancery; whether any attempt has been made by the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners to purchase any of those estates; and, if so, when and why did the negotiations fall through; and could he give the names of such estates.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have referred this Question to the Lord Chancellor, who informs me that the preparation of the Return asked for would involve labour and expense out of all proportion to any possible advantage that could result from the Return. The employment of a large additional staff of skilled persons would be necessary for the investigation of the records of proceedings of the Four Courts of Equity, as well as of the proceedings of the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners, respectively, and before the Return could be completed many of the estates included in it would probably have been sold. In these circumstances, I am afraid the Return cannot be granted.

  Government and Cotton Gambling.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Prime Minister, whether, in face of the opinions expressed by the British President of the International Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers' Association at their International Cotton Congress held in London on the 15th ultimo, as to the time that must lapse before the British and their Continental neighbours can develop cotton-growing to the extent of the demand for manufactured cotton goods, and the necessity of attending to all sources of supply, especially from India, and further, taking into consideration the fact that the imports of East India cotton into Great Britain were killed many years ago by the somewhat similar gambling systems which, during the past few years, have also jeopardised the supplies of American cotton, His Majesty's Government propose International co-operation to cope with this evil and give support to the proposals of this International Congress to defeat cotton gamblers under the option and future systems as carried on in the American, British, Egyptian, and other cotton exchanges.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I am not prepared to admit the accuracy of the statements in the Question with regard to the imports of raw cotton into the United Kingdom from the East Indies. His Majesty's Government do not propose to take steps of the nature suggested.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Dockyard Wages.
    MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the recent advance in wages to the various trades and grades in His Majesty's dockyards have been awarded in accordance with the petitions presented to the Admiralty by the representatives of the dockyard employees; and whether such petitions included the average rates of wages from all parts of the country where Government work is executed.
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): The advances of pay recently made are the outcome of exhaustive in-
    1540
    quiries made by the Board of Admiralty when they visited all the Home dockyards and received deputations of the men. As regards the second part of the question, the petitions in some cases included particulars as to the average rates of wages ruling in the districts referred to, but they were not generally uniform in this respect.
    MR. JENKINS: Is it not the fact that the Government accepted the principle of the trade union rate of wages, or at any rate the payment of the like wages in dockyards to those for similar work in private establishments? And does not the Return just issued show that the Admiralty are in fact paying 10 per cent. less at the present time?
    MR. LAMBERTasked for notice of the Question.

    H. M. S. "Renown."
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty to what cause must be attributed the delay in carrying out the work of reconverting the "Renown" into a battleship.
    MR. LAMBERT: I am sorry, but I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply of my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty on the 22nd November. †

    Torpedo Boat Duties.
    MR. NIELD: I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many of the eighty-five torpedo boats on the list would be required to undertake in war duties similar to those allotted to torpedo boats Nos. 65 to 73, and whether only thirty of the eighty-five torpedo boats on the list have any serious fighting value; and how many of those of the remaining fifty-five which took part in the recent manœuvres proved themselves incapable of attaining their estimated speed of seventeen to eighteen knots.
    MR. LAMBERT: I can only refer the hon. Member to the detailed statement made in reply to his previous question on the 2nd August. ‡ As regards the second part, it is not considered desirable to
    † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1190.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, clxii. 1343.

    1541
    publish details of the speeds attained by warships during the recent manœuvres.

    Guns for the Navy.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what date mark X was finally adopted by the Admiralty as the standard 12-inch gun; and whether the guns of this class mounted in the "Dreadnought" wore originally destined for the armament of one or more of the ships now under construction or completing for sea.
    MR. LAMBERT: I can only repeat what was said by my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty, in answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 27th November, that it is not considered desirable in the public interest to give information as to the particular mark of guns supplied to ships.

    United States Naval Programme.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg-to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the American Navy Department has reported to Congress that it is necessary to increase the original programme of battleships from two to four; and whether any change in the British programme for 1907–8 is contemplated.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the hon. Gentleman whether, in the interests of the continuance of the friendly relations existing between the United States and this country, he would repudiate the suggestion that an increase in the American Navy was a reason for an increase in our Navy.
    MR. LAMBERT: That is a Question as to policy which I would rather not answer. In answer to the first part of the Question, the Admiralty have no information apart from a statement in the Press. In answer to the second, the Estimates for next year are now tinder consideration.

    Cavalry for Scotland.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHERGRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to see if a suitable site for a brigade of cavalry can be obtained in Scotland.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state what decision has been arrived at with regard to Lord Rosebery's offer to supply free of charge any land that may be required for the accommodation of the Scottish cavalry.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): It is obviously impossible for me to arrive at any decision until some definite materials are before me. When I have these they will be considered without delay in connection with principles of cavalry distribution and training which are being worked out. Possibly what the hon. Member for West Cavan has in his mind in the other part of his Question is the fact that Lord Rosebery and his oldest son not long ago presented the nation with a site for a battery near Dalmeny, very generously refusing to accept any payment for it.

    Hilsea Artillery Brigade.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the brigade of artillery now quartered at Hilsea, in Hampshire, which brigade is not fur removed from the First Army Corps, has boon provided with the new guns; and whether any defect has lately been discovered in the new guns now being served out.
    MR. HALDANE: This brigade has not yet been re-armed. No defect in the new guns has lately been discovered.

    Good Conduct Army Pay.
    CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that soldiers of corps, who enlisted before April, 1904, other than cavalry, artillery, and infantry, are suffering by the fact that when they gave up their right to good-conduct pay on 1st April, 1904, they were led to believe that they would receive service pay so long as they remained in the Army; and whether seeing that in the cavalry, artillery, and infantry an emolument has been substituted which is known as proficiency pay, he will say why other corps do not participate in this.
    MR. HALDANE: All men who were in receipt of, or eligible for, service pay on 1st October, 1906, will continue to earn it for the whole period of service with the colours for which they had contracted before that date. As regards the last part of the Question, proficiency pay is given to the three fighting arms only. The other branches of the Service are considered to be sufficiently provided for by the grant of engineer pay, or special rates of pay for technical qualifications.

    Cavan Gaol.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will say what is the present cost of upkeep, and generally, of the military barracks at Cavan; is any part of the old disused gaol in Cavan owned by the War Office authorities; if so, what is the tenure, what is the rent, and to whom is it paid; and how many men are accommodated in Cavan.
    MR. HALDANE: The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland reports as follows:—The average annual cost of up-keep of Cavan Barracks in £175. All the disused old gaol is at present hold by the War Office from the Irish Government, as long as required by the former. The rent is £37 17s. 2d., paid to T. R. Blackley, representing Lord Farnham. The accommodation is seven married, seventy single men; and there are in occupation seven married, eleven single. Ten are on the lodging list.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: Do the War Office propose to continue the occupation of this gaol indefinitely?
    MR. HALDANE: I cannot say.

    The Scots Greys.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state, with reference to the Scots Greys, what proportion of the men are English, what Scottish and what Irish.
    MR. HALDANE: The percentages of the non-commissioned officers and men in the Scots Greys are as follows:—English 31 percent.; Scottish, 67 per cent.; Irish, 1 per cent.; India and Colonies, 1 per cent.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Are not the English mainly recruits for drafts in India?
    MR. HALDANE: If notice is given of that Question I will inquire.
    AN HON. MEMBER: Is it not the fact that for the last three years recruiting been has entirely confined to Scotland?
    MR. HALDANE: I think it is very doubtful, as the regiment has moved about a good deal.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: How many of these Scottish soldiers have fathers and mothers born in Ireland?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Soldier's Death at Caterham.
    SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the death of Frederick Henry Geall, aged 19, who recently joined the Coldstream Guards at Caterham; whether he is aware that the cause of death was certified to be septic poisoning; to what cause the fatal disease was attributable; and whether any other recruits have been similarly infected.
    MR. HALDANE: Private Geall, Coldstream Guards, died of septicæmia following ulcerated sore throat at Caterham on the 13th ultimo. On the 21st November, Private A. Morris, of the same regiment, was admitted to the hospital with malignant scarlet fever and died on the 24th, the local medical officer of health agreeing in the diagnosis. The similarity of the throat symptoms in these two cases point to the probability of Private Geall's death being due to scarlet fever, although the actual symptoms at the time of death did not justify such a diagnosis. Although it has not been possible to trace the origin of the disease in either case, it is thought that Morris derived his infection from Geall or at least from the same source. There have been several recent cases of scarlet fever in the neighbourhood of the barracks, some occurring in the street immediately behind them. The room in which these men died has been thoroughly disinfected and all the other prescribed measures

    1545
    have been taken. No further cases of scarlet fever have occurred up to the present.
    MR. LUPTON: Is it not the fact that this was a healthy young man who, vaccinated with lymph from a diseased calf, died a few days after from blood poisoning?
    MR. HALDANE: The diagnosis points to a very different conclusion.
    MR. LUPTON: But was not septicæmia —blood poisoning—the cause of death?
    MR. HALDANE: I have told the hon. Member the view of the doctor.

    Small Arm Ammunition.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is an age limit laid down in the Army Ordnance regulations for ·303 small arms ammunition; if so, whether it has boon decided to increase this age limit, and for what reasons, and by how many years; and if, in view of the recent instances of deterioriation of cordite in India, resulting in several separate explosions, he will consider the advisability of not extending the age limit of ·303-inch cordite small arms ammunition.
    MR. HALDANE: No ago limit is laid down in the Army Ordnance regulations for small arm ammunition. Instructions were some years ago sent to the commands abroad not to keep small arm ammunition beyond a certain time, but these instructions turn out, in the light of further experience and of fuller knowledge, based on scientific investigation, to have been ill-founded. The whole matter is being reconsidered in the light which the investigations of the scientific departments of the War Office have thrown on it. The explosions in India were not of small arm ammunition.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: Has any extension of the age limit been authorised?
    MR. HALDANEreplied in the negative.

    Disbanded Battalions.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State
    1546
    for War if he will say in what manner he proposes to deal with the 210 officers, 189 non-commissioned officers, and 1,491 men of the disbanded battalions who have neither retired nor been discharged, have not been transferred to existing battalions, or passed to the Reserve; and whether the officers, non-commissioned officers, and men are in receipt of full pay pending a decision being arrived at as to their ultimate fate.
    MR. HALDANE: They will be supernumerary to establishment until transferred to other regiments, should they desire it, or until absorbed in their own. They will remain in receipt of full pay.

    Bounties.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total amount of money expended to date in payment of bounties to men of the disbanded battalions in order to induce the men to join battalions of other regiments; whether bounties have been paid to men to induce thorn to join other battalions of their own regiment; and from which Army Vote is the money taken.
    MR. HALDANE: The total amount spent to date is about £2,560. No bounties are paid to men on being posted to other battalions of their own regiments. The charges are taken against Vote 1, Subhead F..

    Curragh Camp—Use of Military Horses for Private Purposes.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the custom of the military stationed at the Curragh Camp, county Kildare, to keep horses and vehicles to carry soldiers and their wives between the camp and adjacent railway stations on private business; whether fares for the journeys are deducted from the pay of the soldiers who use or whose wives use those vehicles, and the amount handed over to the sergeants' mess fund; is there a licence paid for such vehicles; are the horses Army horses and the drivers soldiers; do the military authorities pay any contribution to the up-keep of the roads; do the hackney-car owners of the Curragh district pay a weekly fee for the privilege of standing at the Curragh Camp for the purposes

    1547
    of hire; and will he inquire into the practice, if any, of the use by the military of vehicles in competition with the qualified and licensed car-owners of the Curragh district, with the view of discontinuing any such practice?
    MR. HALDANE: The Question concerns a matter of local administration on which the War Office has no information; but I have no objection to asking the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in Ireland for a report, and I will let the hon. Member know the result of my inquiries.

    Volunteer Camps.
    MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the Army Council consulted Volunteer opinion before arriving at the decision to abolish fourteen days camp training for next year; and whether the Institute of Commanding Officers of Volunteers unanimously approved of four- teen days training.
    MR. HALDANE: The Army Council's decision to abolish the fifteen days training of field Army battalions is based on reasons which I have already given to a Question by the hon. Member on 21st November last;† it implies no judgment as to relative value of the longer and shorter periods of training for Volunteers. On this latter question Volunteer opinion deserves, and will receive, full consideration.
    MR. MCCRAE: Was not a proposal to abolish the fourteen days camp for one year only made by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, and had to be abandoned because it was so detrimental to the force?
    MR. HALDANE: I can only answer for my own misdeeds.
    MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Volunteer Advisory Board of 19th December, 1903, on fourteen days camp training.
    MR. HALDANE: The Reports and the statements made in the confidential
    † See (4) Debates, clxv., 814–5.
    1548
    conversations which are recorded make up a document which it would not be right to publish, but I will show it privately to my hon. and gallant friend. It was promised that it should be treated as confidential in order to encourage individual officers freely to express their views.
    MR. CARLILE: Was not the Report in favour of fourteen days training—were not the officers unanimously in favour of it?
    MR. HALDANE: I think it is very likely.

    Indian Princes and the Official Gazette.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if be will forbid the unnecessary publication in the official gazette of personal orders regarding the feudatory princes of India, such as the recent restriction of their freedom to travel, which they regard as injurious to their ancient dignity and in contravention of their treaty rights; and whether he will deprecate the use by the India Office of the discourteous term "Native Chiefs" when referring to these princes of India, who are officially addressed as "Your Highness."
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): I see no reason, as at present advised, to issue orders as suggested in the first part of the Question. I am not sure that I perceive any discourtesy in the term "Native Chiefs," and I need hardly say no discourtesy can be intended.

    Sierra Leone Rubber Trade.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the unrestricted powers of trading in India rubber, which the West African Produce Company possess in 4,000 square miles of the Sierra Leone Protectorate, confer a monopoly of trading in India rubber or in any other kind of forest produce on that company in the whole or any part of the specified area; whether any other trader or company can go into the region covered by the concession and trade in India rubber or in any other kind of forest produce; and can the native sell his rubber to whomsoever he will.
    THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Secretary of State cannot undertake to interpret the meaning of these concessions, which is a matter for the Courts of the Colony, but he is advised that it is doubtful, having regard to the law of Sierra Leone, whether the concessions are valid.

    Transvaal Mines Department Returns.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether all Returns of the Transvaal Government Mines Department will in future be open to the inspection of the public.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State learns from Lord Selborne that the Chamber of Mines has consented to waive any objection to the publication of the mining Returns based on the ground of a previous understanding as to the figures relating to individual mines being confidential. The Mines Department is now engaged in preparing the Returns; their compilation is stated to be a work of great magnitude, and will take four or five weeks.

    Recruitment of Chinese Coolies.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the recruiting of coolies in China, under the Convention of 13th May, 1904, has now been finally closed; and whether the recruiting agencies, set up with the assistance of British consular officers under the terms of that Convention, have been abolished.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The British consular officers were instructed to resume, as from 30th November last, the functions delegated by them to the Transvaal emigration agents in respect of recruiting, and no recruiting under the Convention is now possible.

    Tanjong Pagar Docks Arbitration.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have been received from the Governor of the Straits Settlements as to the difficulty the Colony will have in raising the money to pay for the
    1550
    Tanjong Pagar Docks; whether the nationalisation of those docks at the price named in the arbitration award will involve any increase in the dock dues at Singapore; and whether any discussion has taken place between the Colonial Office and the dock company as to the possibility of returning to the status quo before the question of expropriation was raised.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that the Colony will have difficulty in raising the money required, or that the amount of the purchase price will involve an increase in the dock charges. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

    Opium in the Malay States.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information relative to the anti-opium movement in Singapore and the Malay States; and, if not, whether His Majesty's Government will consent to make full inquiries with reference to this reported opium cure.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received copies of Resolutions, passed at public meetings, advocating the suppression of the opium traffic. The latter part of the hon. Member's Question presumably refers to the alleged discovery of a plant which will cure the craving for opium. The Secretary of State has no information with regard to this matter beyond the statements which have been made in the public Press.
    MR. ALDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire further?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Certainly, Sir.

    Prison Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Premier Diamond Company has offered the Natal Government £30,000 for permission to employ the rebel Zulu prisoners in its mines, the period of employment for such prison labour to last two years; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. MYER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that the new Natal Government intend to open negotiations with the Premier Diamond Mining Company with the object of sending the native prisoners captured during the recent military operations in that Colony to work in the mines, and that the company offers £30,000 for their use for the next two years; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in the matter; can he also state the number of prisoners taken; and whether there is any precedent in modern times, except in semi-barbarous countries, for the sending of political prisoners to work in mines.
    MR. BYLES: To ask ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, has the Colonial Office received information that the new Natal Government is negotiating for the sale of Zulu political prisoners to the Premier Diamond Mines; and, if so, will the Imperial Government interfere to prevent such a transaction.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received no official information as to such intention on the part of the new Natal Government. I understand that the number of rebels who have been sentenced to imprisonment is 4,192.
    MR. BYLES: Can the hon. Gentleman state specifically if such a transfer would be contrary to the Act?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not think it would be, as the practice had obtained in South Africa for a long time. He could not say, on the spur of the moment, whether such a transference, if proposed, would require the assent of His Majesty's Government, but certainly they would be informed of it in time to make representations to the Natal Government, and in deciding they would be governed by the desire, as far as possible, to alleviate the condition of these people.
    MR. BELLOC: Will the Colonial Office take care that the sum
    1552
    paid for this forced labour is equal or superior to the sum that would be ordinarily paid in wages for labour of a similar kind?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I think that is a very material and important point.
    MR. MYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Commission to inquire if there ever was any rebellion among the natives?
    MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
    MR. MOLTENO: Can the hon. Gentleman see his way to: suggest to the Natal Government that these 4,000 natives should be returned to their homes, where there is severe distress owing to scarcity of food in consequence of the women and children being left without their natural providers and protectors; it being unusual in cases of this kind to punish with great severity the whole of the rank and file?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am very largely in sympathy with the desires of the hon. Member, and if any opportunity should occur which would enable the Colonial Office to bring them into reality or bring them near realisation, I can assure him that opportunity shall not be allowed to pass.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is there any case in which white prisoners of war are put on labour of this kind; if not, why are these men thus treated?
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Governor of Natal, so that he may know the views of this House?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will, of course, communicate with him.

    British Indians in the Transvaal.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Government will lay the correspondence, in connection with the recent Transvaal Ordinance dealing with Indian subjects resident in the Colony, upon the Table.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to lay the correspondence until towards the end of this month, when Lord Selborne will have received the despatch conveying Lord Elgin's decision.

    Illegal Flogging at Lagos.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any official information showing that on twelve Jekri dock and wharf labourers at Lagos applying to a British port official there for their wages (which were due), stating that they were starving, this official ordered them on board the steam launch "Otto," took them out into mid stream and there administered to them twenty-five lashes each; and, if so, what action he intends to take in regard to the matter.
    The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
    MR. BENNETT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that a British port official at Lagos recently caused twelve native dock labourers, who applied for their wages, to be taken on board the steam launch "Otto," and to be given twenty-five lashes each; and, if so, whether the official in question has been arrested.
    MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the excitement among the native community of Lagos at the action of a British port official who, upon being applied to for money on 4th December by twelve Jekri men (dock and wharf labourers), ordered them on board the steam launch "Otto," took them out into mid stream of the river, and there had twenty-five lashes given to each, because the men asked for wages which were due and stated that they were starving; and whether he will at once inquire into these allegations.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Governor of Southern Nigeria reports that the incident in question, which occurred on the 2nd instant, was brought to his notice on the 6th instant, and that he immedi-
    1554
    ately ordered an inquiry. The result of the inquiry was to show that the Port Officer, Captain Hughes, did not himself strike anyone, but that he ordered the native headman to do so because the men refused to work. The blows were inflicted with a small whip. Most of the men received only one blow each, and no one received more than six. The medical Report is to the effect that the flogging was not severe and that the men are not now suffering from any injuries. On four men there are no marks, and on the others only slight skin abrasions. The affair has been much exaggerated in the newspaper reports; but while these whippings do not appear to have been cruel or severe, they are of course illegal and improper. The port officer has been censured by the governor, and the Secretary of State reserves his decision as to any further action until he receives the Report which the governor has promised.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Do the Government consider censure is sufficient punishment on an officer who has done this illegal act?
    MR. CHURCHILL: We must see the official Report before expressing an opinion on it.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I suggest that you give him five years penal servitude.

    Sleeping Sickness Cure.
    MR. REES:: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir Patrick Manson and Dr. Daniell have satisfactorily established the fact that a cure for sleeping sickness has been discovered by a medical practitioner in Ceylon; and, if so, whether he will supply the authorities in the British Central Africa and other Protectorates with the necessary information, in view of the apprehensions entertained in such quarters regarding the spread of this disease.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have communicated with Sir Patrick Manson, who informs me, I am sorry to say, that there is no truth in the statement to which my hon. friend refers.

    British Indians and Central Africa.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office will consider the policy of offering land grants in the British Central Africa Protectorate to British Indians in the Transvaal who may be willing to emigrate thence.
    MR. CHURCHILL: There is very little land at the disposal of the Government in the British Central Africa Protectorate. It is open to British Indians who emigrate to the Protectorate to acquire land under the regulations in force. But the information at the disposal of the Secretary of State does not lead him to suppose that it is at present necessary to offer special terms to such immigrants.

    Transvaal Constitution.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether jurisdiction over native races will be excluded or restricted in the forthcoming Transvaal constitution.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Nothing can be added to the statements made to Parliament on this subject on 31st July until the letters patent are published.

    Lions at Chiromo.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Messrs. Kennelly and Foster have announced that, as lions have taken complete command at Chiromo and suburbs, and unsettled native labourers to such an extent that they cannot carry on work in and around the township, they are reluctantly compelled to wind up their affairs after fulfilling their existing engagements; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the correctness of the information supplied to him as to the exaggeration of the damage done by lions in and around Chiromo.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Such an announcement has in fact been made in the local press by Messrs. Kennelly and Foster, but the Commissioner is not certain whether the presence of lions is the solo and absolute cause of the dissolution of partnership between these gentlemen and of their withdrawal from business. He is
    1556
    indeed not wholly able to free his mind from the suspicion that the statement referred to contains some flavour of levity, which would, as my hon. friend will I am sure agree, be out of place in dealing with such a painful subject. Careful inquiry will, however, be made.

    Brunei Coal Tax.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed by his Department, or the Government of the Straits Settlements to impose an export tax on the coal raised from the Brooketon mine in the Sultanate of Brunei; whether he is aware that this mine is being opened out by His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak under a lease which has still about sixty years to run; that it has hitherto been developed at a financial loss to Rajah Brooke; and whether, seeing that on this new industry the loss entailed by this development is estimated at $80,000 for the incoming year, he will say on what principle such a tax would be imposed on a nascent industry which is being created at a sacrifice in an impoverished country, with the risk of causing the mine to be shut down, while on the other hand His Majesty's Government has recently withdrawn the duty levied on all coal exported from Great Britain.
    MR. CHURCHILL: His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak has communicated direct to the Secretary of State his objections to the proposed export duty on coal referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and Lord Elgin has been glad to refer the matter to the High Commissioner for further consideration. Pending the latter's reply I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

    Brunei Residency.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies from what source the cost of the recently created residency at Brunei is found; if from the Federated Malay States and Brunei, in what proportions; whether the Secretary of State has had before him a copy of the petition, signed by the present Regent and his Ministers, addressed to His Highness the Rajah of Sarawak, praying for his influence to effect the absorption of Brunei into

    1557
    Sarawak; and whether, in view of this and of local circumstances, the Colonial Office propose to assent to such absorption.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The British President is also Colonial Secretary of Labuan and is paid from Labuan funds. In other respects the cost of the residency is borne by Brunei, aided by an imperial contribution of £600 which is made in return for the discharge by the President of the duties of Consul for Sarawak and North Borneo. A copy of the petition referred to has been communicated to the Secretary of State. It is signed by the Pengiran Bendahara, who is one of two joint Regents, and by certain other persons, most of whom cannot be identified. There is no reason to sup-pose that any considerable proportion of the people of Brunei desires annexation to Sarawak. The idea was strongly opposed by the late Sultan to whom a promise was given that his dynasty should be uphold. His Majesty's Government are not as at present informed, inclined to depart from the policy which has been adopted.
    In reply to a further question,
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was aware that the hon. Gentleman was well informed on this subject, and he proposed to arrange an interview for him with the Secretary of State at which the matter could be fully discussed.

    Nigeria Railways.
    MR. LONSDALE: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has yet been arrived at by the Government in reference to railway development in Nigeria, and whether he can make any statement to the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It has boon decided by the Secretary of State that the Lagos railway shall be extended without delay from Oshogbe to Illorin. The policy in Northern Nigeria is still undetermined.

    Colonial Conference.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the date for the assembling of the next Colonial Con-
    1558
    ference has been changed; and, if so, what is the reason for the alteration.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The date of mooting of the Colonial Conference has not boon altered.

    Fresh Shipment of Chinese Coolies.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a fresh shipment of Chinese coolies is about to leave, or has just left, China for the gold mines of the Transvaal; and, if so, what steps His Majesty's Government intend to take, in view of the assurances given on behalf of the Government that the last shipload of Chinese had gone to South Africa before the l5th November.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The steamship "Cranley" left Ching-Wang-tao on 27th November with 1,000 coolies on board for the Rand. It is the last vessel that will carry Chinese coolies to South Africa, as the Consular authority to recruit and embark was withdrawn on 30th November. The coolies on board do not amount to a complete shipload, and are the remainder of those for whom licences had been issued. But I am quite free to admit to the House that the figures at my disposal had led me to believe that the total number of coolies licensed to be imported had already been accomplished without this last shipment, albeit incomplete, and the information contained in the newspapers was to me as unexpected as it was unwelcome.
    MAJOR SEELYasked whether the hon. Gentleman would make further inquiries as to whether his first information was not correct that the whole 16,000 had already been sent; and, if so, whether he would take steps to have these men returned.
    MR. CHURCHILL: If it should appear that any of these 1,000 men were not covered by the licences which the Cabinet have decided must be recognised, then I entirely agree that steps would have to be taken to prevent their landing in South Africa. But I think there is no chance of that being the case.

    Abyssinia.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair

    1559
    whether the Emperor Menelik has signified his approval or otherwise of the arrangement encored into between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of France and Italy with reference to Abyssinia.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Emperor Menelik has expressed his thanks to the Governments of Great Britain, France, and Italy for the communication of the agreement to him, and for their intentions, declared therein, of maintaining the independence of Abyssinia. His Majesty at the same time stipulates that the agreement shall not in any way limit his own sovereign rights.

    Morocco.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Sultan of Morocco has taken any steps to remedy the state of affairs at Tangier as the result of the collective note from the European representatives.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has not yet received any report as to the result of the representation.

    Macedonia.
    MR. CHANCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement of Baron d'Achrental that the improvement of the administration of justice in Macedonia must now be brought nearer realisation; and whether the Government will do all in their power to encourage and promote judicial reforms in that country.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government have always recognised the great importance of this point, and will certainly do all in their power to encourage judicial reform in Macedonia, and to promote it in concert with all the other Powers concerned.

    Salonica Outrage.
    MR. W. D. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information relating to the murder of a Vlach in the streets of Salonica and the
    1560
    murder of four Vlach peasants by a Greek band near Karaferia; and whether he will consider the advisability of making further proposals to the Powers directed to the prevention of such outrages in Macedonia.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have no information relating to the murder of a Vlach in the streets of Salonica, but have heard of an attack by a Greek band on four Vlachs on the road between Doleni and Kovardjik. As regards the last part of the Question, His Majesty's Government have constantly under consideration the possibilities of mitigating the disorders in Macedonia, and will continue to do all they can in concert with other Powers to improve the state of affairs.

    Income Tax Repayments.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Income Tax Departmental Committee of 1905 reported that the raising of the income tax from 8d. in the year 1900 to 1s. 2d. in 1901 increased largely and rapidly the claims for repayment; and if any estimate can be formed from the figures then obtained of the sums which are still overcharged each year to the smaller payers of income tax, owing to the method of deducting the tax from their dividends before they are received and leaving them to get the tax back.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E): The Board of Inland Revenue have no materials upon which it would be possible to frame an estimate of how many taxpayers, entitled to claim repayment of income tax, fail to make claims, or of the aggregate amount of money involved.

    Income Tax—Relief for Married Persons.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take into consideration in his next Budget, or in any new scheme for income tax, the advisability of allowing greater relief to married persons and, in particular, to married persons with families dependent on them.
    MR. ASQUITH: In the consideration which I am giving to the subject of

    1561
    income tax, I will not lose sight of the hon. Member's suggestion.

    Income Tax on Colonial and Foreign Securities.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer under what section of the Act the Board of Inland Revenue refuse to refund income tax to British subjects resident abroad upon interest of Colonial and foreign Government securities, on the ground that these are assessed under Schedule C and not under Schedule D, as are dividends of other foreign securities, this notwithstanding the 188th section of 5 and 6 Victoria, cap. 35.
    MR. ASQUITH: Under Schedule D., liability, in respect of income arising out of the United Kingdom, is only incurred by residents within the United Kingdom, and therefore the interest on foreign and Colonial securities chargeable under that schedule is not liable to duty when received by any person resident outside the United Kingdom, although the payment may be actually made within the United Kingdom. Under Schedule C, income tax is chargeable in respect of all Colonial and foreign Government securities, the interest of which is payable in the United Kingdom. By administrative Treasury concessions of very long standing, exceptions from the charge under Schedule C are made in favour of:—(a) Foreign and Colonial securities owned by foreigners resident abroad; (b) Colonial stock owned by inhabitants of the colony contracting the loan. Section 188 of the Act of 1842 has no application to the point raised by the Question.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is a Treasury Minute granting to foreign subjects resident abroad relief from income-tax upon foreign and Colonial securities, the dividends of Which are payable in the United Kingdom, relief which is refused by the Inland Revenue to British subjects residing abroad; and, if so, whether he will cause a copy of such Treasury Minute to be laid on the Table.
    MR. ASQUITH: The authorities under which the Board of Inland Revenue act are Treasury Letters dated 7th
    1562
    October, 1842, and 5th August, 1856, copies of which I have laid on the Table.

    Canadian Three per Cents.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Canadian Three per Cents, now stand at a higher price than some of the securities guaranteed by the English Government; whether the credit of any colony has ever before stood higher than the credit of the Mother Country; and what steps, if any, he can take to remedy this condition, which is causing uneasiness among the investors of this country.
    MR. ASQUITH: The comparative credit of two countries cannot be fairly judged by the relative prices of two stocks, one of which is directly charged upon the Revenues of the first country, while the other is merely guaranteed by an indirect charge on the Revenues of the second country. The date at which the stocks are respectively redeemable is also a material circumstance. I am glad to note the satisfactory price of the Canadian Three per Cents.; but a comparison between the yield which this stock and Consols return respectively to the investor at current prices will shew that it is not correct to say that the credit of the colony stands higher than that of the Mother Country.

    Income Tax on Companies' Profits.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the difference between the amount of the profits shown in the balance sheets of companies supplied to the Income Tax Commissioners, and on which income tax is paid, and the amount of the dividends actually paid by these same companies to the shareholders; and whether, in view of the amount of this difference, he will give instructions or introduce legislation to enable the companies to obtain exemption or abatement from the proportion of such profits which belongs to those shareholders although not distributed amongst them.
    MR. ASQUITH: The records of the Board of Inland Revenue do not contain the information necessary for such a comparison. Under the Income Tax Acts a company is chargeable on the

    1563
    whole of its profits, whether distributed to the shareholders or not, and I am not prepared to recommend to Parliament a change in the law in the direction suggested.

    Trustee Stocks.
    MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the knowledge of the stock markets that fresh issues of certain Home trustee securities are likely to be shortly made, Canadian Three per cent. Stock stands higher than some trustee stocks guaranteed by the British Government; and whether he will take steps to prevent, anyhow for some years, any new issues of trustee securities by the Government or municipalities from ranking as trustee investments, and so improve the value of existing trustee stocks and better the credit of the country,
    MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that, in determining what stocks are to be, and are not to be, "trustee" securities, it would be legitimate to have regard to any considerations other than the merits of the stocks themselves. In the cases referred to by my hon. friend new issues as a rule rank pari passu with existing issues, and there is therefore no ground for such discrimination as is suggested. I have no doubt that the fact that further issues of certain stocks which are guaranteed by the British Government are anticipated has a good deal to do with the present low range of prices of such stocks, as compared not only with Canadian Three per cents., but also as compared with Consols (in regard to which the difference is still more marked); but I cannot think that our credit would be enhanced by an arrangement implying that we no longer regarded our guarantee as of sufficient value to justify a trustee investing in a security which carries it.

    Payment of Members.
    LORD E. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the recent action of the French Chamber in raising the stipends of all its members from £360 a year to £600; and whether he can indicate at what date he is likely to be able to provide the sum of £402,000 a year, which would be required to pay a salary of £600 a year to every
    1564
    Member of the British House of Commons.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

    Juvenile Offenders.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will insert in the Bill relating to children's offences now being prepared by him provisions to enable a fine inflicted on an offender under the age of sixteen to be recovered against the parent, except the parent shall satisfy the Court that the offender is beyond his control, and to suspend the execution of a sentence of imprisonment, whether in default of a fine or not, passed by a Court of summary jurisdiction on such an offender, until it has been confirmed by the Home Office.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Section 2 of the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, imposes liability on parents and guardians for offences committed by children under sixteen in certain cases, and I do not think it would be practicable or just to push that liability further. Nor do I think it would be right to impose on a Government Department such a duty as is indicated in the latter part of the Question. When offences against the law are committed by persons under sixteen the question what punishment, if any, should be imposed must be decided, as in other cases, by the judicial tribunals that hear the evidence and have the defendants in person before them.

    Corporeal Punishment in Prisons.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the Returns presented to the House of all sentences of corporeal punishment inflicted upon prisoners between the 1st of January and the 31st December, 1904 and 1905 respectively, the number of strokes ordered by the respective Judges were in fact inflicted; whether there were any cases during the said period in which the whole or any part of the sentence was remitted or was not imposed; and, if so, whether he will give

    1565
    the number, and state the details of such cases mentioned in the Returns.
    MR. GLADSTONE: In all, except one, of the cases mentioned in the two Returns relating to indictable offences the number of strokes ordered by the Judge were inflicted. The one exception was in the case of J. F., convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 28th July, 1904, and ordered to receive six strokes. In this case the prisoner was found to be medically unfit.

    Indictable Offences—Convictions in1905.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of convictions for indictable offences during the year 1905 against clergymen of the Church of England and ministers of other religious denominations, solicitors, company promoters, licensed victuallers, bookmakers, and moneylenders respectively.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. To obtain the information asked for by the hon. Member would involve the separate examination of some 50,000 records of criminal cases; and even if it were possible to undertake this labour, the results, depending as they would necessarily do on statements made by the prisoners themselves, would be of small value. There would, for instance, be hardly any bookmakers, as I understand that gentlemen of that profession almost invariably return themselves either as accountants or as commission agents.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: But have you not the information at the Home Office in connection with the forthcoming publication of judicial statistics for 1905, and did not the right hon. Gentleman accept the declarations of prisoners on a; recent return as to their religious persuasions?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot enter into an argument. It is not the case that we have the information at the present time.

    Privilege Cabs.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what has been the result of his negotiations
    1566
    with the railway companies with respect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Cabs and Omnibuses on the question of the privilege cab system, and what action, if any, he proposes to take; whether he proposes to amend the existing order with respect to sub-letting of cabs in accordance with the recommendation of the same Committee; and, if so, whether he can state when the new order will be issued.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that the negotiations up to the present have not been altogether satisfactory. Failing agreement, the only alternative course would be legislation. As regards the second part of the Question I am awaiting a report from the Commissioner of Police, which I understand will reach me very shortly.

    Conviction of a Northumberland Justice.
    MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Henry Oswin Bell, J.P., licensee of the Earl Grey Arms, Broom-hill, Northumberland, who was fined £2 and costs at Morpeth petty sessions on 27th November last, for having permitted drunkenness upon his premises on Sunday, 21st October; whether he is aware that Sergeant Short, of Broomhill, stated that on that Sunday afternoon fifty people left the public house more or less under the influence of drink; that he described the scene as a drunken procession to the village, and stated that he had never known a worse conducted house than the Grey Arms; whether he is aware that this licence was granted to the Northumberland Public House Trust Company, of which Mr. Henry Oswin Bell is the secretary, and that Mr. Henry Oswin Bell is a justice of the peace for the county of Northumberland, as well as licensee of this public house; and whether in view of this and similar breaches of the law owing to imperfect supervision, he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to secure that the holders of licences shall be resident upon the premises in respect of which they are licensed.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I had not heard of the case in question, and as my hon.

    1567
    friend knows, I have no power under the existing law to take the course suggested. I will consider the matter in connection with the proposed Licensing Bill, but I do not desire at present to express any opinion on the suggestion.

    Telegraphic Delays in Wales.
    MR, REES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused at Carno and at other places in Central Wales in which the telegraph office is at the railway station, where telegrams are detained owing to the other occupations of the staff, and because preference is necessarily given to railway messages; and whether he will consider the advisability of having a telephone at the local post office in such cases, in order to expedite the delivery of telegrams.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I am aware that inconvenience is caused at certain places in Central Wales by the delay of telegrams owing to their being dealt with at railway stations, and that such delay is attributable to the causes given by the hon. Member; but the local Postmaster is not aware that Carno is one of the places which suffers inconvenience on this account. In 1903 the residents in Carno asked for the extension of telegraph business to that office; and, as the probable business was small, the extension was offered under guarantee. The offer was not accepted, but I am still prepared to undertake the extension under guarantee. The terms are now more favourable to the guarantors, as, under the concession announced in April last, they would now be liable for one-third only, instead of one-half, of any deficiency.

    Carno Postal Arrangements.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange for a second delivery and despatch of letters at Carno and at Cemmes, in Montgomeryshire; and whether he will provide a wall letter box in the village; of Carno at a distance of half a mile from the post office, and at or near the railway station.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have called for a report on this subject, and on
    1568
    its receipt I will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

    Tiree Mail Service.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTUER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the condition of the mail service of Tiree, and to the fact that, although a steamer is timed to bring mails three times weekly, none were landed between the 19th and 26th November owing to the exposed position of the landing place at Scavinish, although, by going a mile further, a landing could be affected in calm water at the Bay of Gott; and whether he will consider the best means of improving these conditions.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware that, owing to stormy weather, the mail steamer did not call at Tiree between the 19th and the 26th ultimo. The question of arranging for the steamer to call at Gott Bay instead of Scavinish has been considered on many occasions in the past, but such an alteration was found to be impracticable. No recent inquiries have, however, been made, and I have, therefore, called for a fresh report on the subject. On its receipt I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Portuguese Fish Duties.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Portuguese Government are contemplating raising the import duty on fresh fish from ten to thirty-nine years, which will seriously affect the trade of British and German trawlers which fish off the coast of Morocco and land their catch in Portugal; and whether he will remonstrate with the Portuguese Government.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): I am aware that a Bill has been brought in by the Portuguese Government to raise the duty on fish in the manner stated. The matter is engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government.

    United States Import Duties on Works of Art.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether

    1569
    he is yet in a position to state the result of the communications which have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with reference to the import duty levied in the United States upon British works of art, which is at the rate of 20 per cent. ad valorem, as compared with 15per cent. charged upon works of art imported from other European countries.
    MR. KEARLEY: I am not yet in a position to give the hon. Member any further information as to the communications which are passing.
    MR. LONSDALE: Will it be given before the prorogation?
    MR. KEARLEY: I can name no date.

    Commercial Mission to Canada.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Mr. Richard Grigg has been sent by the Board of Trade on a special tour to Canada; and whether he will state the purpose of his visit.
    MR. KEARLEY: Mr. Grigg has been sent to Canada on the recommendation of the Commercial Intelligence Committee on a commercial mission similar to those already undertaken to South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand and other countries. The purpose of his visit is to inquire into the condition and prospects of British trade in the Dominion, and to suggest the names of suitable gentlemen for the position of correspondents of the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade in various parts of Canada.

    New Welsh Official Receiver.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Mr. Owen Ellis has been appointed as an official receiver in Wales; and whether such an appointment necessitates any qualification of a legal character.
    MR. KEARLEY: Mr. Ellis Owen— not Mr. Owen Ellis—has been appointed as an official receiver in Wales. The Answer to the second part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative.
    MR. ASHLEY: Is there any precedent for appointing to such an office a gentleman without legal qualifications?
    MR. KEAKLEY: I am not quite sure but I think there is.

    Merchandise Marks.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that match-boxes manufactured abroad and imported into this country, bearing no mark of origin, are then filled with matches and labelled with the name of a firm of manufacturers in the East End of London, preceded by the words "manufactured by"; whether he is advised that this practice is a violation of the Merchandise Marks Act; and, if so, will he take steps to stop the practice.
    MR. KEARLEY: The question whether the practice complained of is a violation of the Merchandise Marks Act depends upon whether in the particular case a false trade description has been applied to the box. If a complaint is lodged with the Board of Trade in accordance with the regulations framed by the Department, a copy of which I have caused to be furnished to my hon. friend, it will be carefully considered with a view to prosecution if the circumstances disclosed and evidence are such as to justify such a course.
    MR. KEIR HAKDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): If the law does not meet the case, will the Board of Trade undertake to amend it?
    MR. KEARLEYasked for notice of the Question.

    Education Estimates.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is now able to announce the detailed estimate upon which the Treasury has granted an extra expenditure of £1,000,000 under the Education Bill.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH,): The Board have nothing to add to the reply given to this precise Question on 22nd May last, and to the statement made by the President on 9th April on this matter when introducing the Education Bill.
    †See (4) Debates, clvii., 1118.
    MR. ASHLEY: How can we discuss the Education Bill without this information?
    MR. LOUGH: It can be discussed on the information given in the Vote.
    MR. ASHLEY: Which is nothing at all.

    Swansea Education Dispute.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that all the teachers in the Swansea Church schools, including head, certificated, and uncertificated, are at present in receipt of salaries less than the corresponding salaries of teachers in the council schools, and less than they would have received under the arrangements originally made with them by the managers; and whether he can inform the House when he will receive the opinion of the law officers for which he is waiting.
    MR. LOUGH: As I have already stated, I cannot at present enter into the matter of alleged differentiation between salaries of teachers in council schools and salaries of teachers in voluntary schools in Swansea, nor am I yet in a position to say by what date I shall be in possession of what it is necessary for me to have in the way of legal advice before I can enter into that question.
    LORD R. CECIL: When were the law officers asked to give their opinion?
    MR. LOUGH: I cannot say, but I will inquire.

    Registration of Still-born Children.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the advisability of introducing a Bill to deal with the registration of still-born children; and, if so, whether he can deal with the subject of death certification generally or partially, in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1893.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN-BURNS, Battersea): I think that it is desirable that the law as to the registra-
    1572
    tion of still-born children should be amended when a suitable opportunity offers; but I am not in a position at present to promise a Bill on the subject, or to say how far any such Bill could deal with the other matters referred to in the Report of the Select Committee.

    War Office Buildings.
    MR. W. T. WILSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the amount of overtime at present being worked at the new War Office, especially by the carpenters and joiners; and whether, in view of the lack of employment in the building trade, he will endeavour to put a stop to the overtime with the object of finding employment for some of those who are at present unemployed.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The overtime now being worked at the new War Office is unavoidable in connection with the removal of the Department into the building. The removal could not be efficiently carried out by the double-shift system, even if the amount of overtime would justify resort to that method. It is my wish to utilise the double-shift plan whenever and wherever the circumstances warrant its adoption, and I long ago gave stringent orders to this effect.

    Petitions against the Education Bill.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division, as Chairman of the Public Petitions Committee, if he will state how many petitions have been presented in favour of and against the Education (England and Wales) Bill respectively; and what aggregate number of signatures such petitions represent respectively, distinguishing how many of such petitions are officially signed by a chairman on behalf of a meeting or otherwise in a representative capacity.
    MR. H. J. WILSONreplied that there was some difficulty in giving a precise reply, but the total number of signatures which appeared to be, broadly speaking, against the Bill was 802,899. They were contained in 6,938 petitions,

    1573
    fifty of which were signed by chairmen of meetings. There were certain petitions for alterations of the Bill, but he had no information, without long search, as to what the nature of those alterations was. The twenty-nine petitions in favour of the Bill contained 175 signatures. Fifteen were signed by chairmen.

    Civil Service Retirement Regulations.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is approximately the number of persons who, being employed in clerical work under conditions similar to those imposed upon the aged writers in the Board of Education, will, like them, be discharged with £100 gratuity each, and without a pension, as soon as age renders thorn unfit for further service.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. MCKENNA): So far as my information serves, the number of writers who are eligible on retirement for the gratuities allowable under the Treasury Minute of 1886 (including those in the employment of the Board of Education) is thirty-one

    Gratuities to Civil Servants.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount expended in each of the last throe financial years on awards of gratuities of £100 each to persons employed on clerical work in Government Departments.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. MCKENNA): I am informed that the Answer to my hon. friend's Question is, in 1903-4, £400; in 1904–5, £ 400; in 1905–6, £100.

    Transport in Tiree.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will endeavour to improve the condition of the inhabitants of Tiree with respect to their means of transport to and from the mainland.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR:, Forfarshire): If any reasonable proposals to effect the purpose indicated in the hon. Member's Question are laid before me they shall be considered.

    Dublin Telegraphists' Reliefs.
    MR. DELANY (Queen's County-Ossory): I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that a regulation has been laid down by the Controller of Telegraphs in Dublin prohibiting telegraphists on eight hours continuous duty from having more than one incidental relief of ten minutes duration; and will he see that the regulation is immediately withdrawn in the interest of the health of the staff.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No regulation of the kind has been laid down, but steps have been properly taken at Dublin to prevent the abuse of casual relief in the case of a few officers. In any case where there was any suggestion of possible injury to health the medical officer has been consulted.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: How many men work this continuous duty?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked for notice of the Question.

    Transvaal Constitution.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can name a day for the discussion of the letters patent granting the new Constitution to the Transvaal and the subject of land settlement in South Africa.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Next Monday.

    Gambling Legislation.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's intention to regulate the practice of gambling in the Malay States so that it may do as little harm as possible, he will consider the desirability of introducing similar legislation for the United Kingdom.
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir.

    Premature Publication of Official Documents.
    LORD R. CECILasked the prime Minister whether he could inform the

    1575
    House what was the reason why the Report of the Royal Commission on Corrupt Practices at Worcester had been published before it had been circulated to Members of that House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was not aware of the fact, but if it is the fact it is another instance of the extraordinary facility with which some things get most improperly into the Press before Members of the House receive them. There are so many cases. I do not know what can be done to prevent it.

    The Transvaal Constitution
    MR. BRIDGEMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the fact that yesterday a detailed and categorical summary of the proposed Transvaal Constitution was published, in Reynold's Newspaper, whether he could explain how this occurred, and what action he proposed to take in view of the fact that this was not the first time that a breach of confidence had been committed in that newspaper.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have certainly seen the report referred to, and, as the hon. Gentleman says, it gives a categorical account of certain points in the Transvaal Constitution; but that is hardly surprising in view of the fact that I laid all these matters very fully before the House on 5th July last, before we rose for the autumn holidays. As far as I have been able to see there is nothing in the news-paper referred to which was not contained then in my speech. It seems evidently to have been, not a case of intelligent anticipation on the part of the Press, but of intelligent revival.

NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND (EXPENSES).
Committee to consider of authorising the charge on the Consolidated Fund of an annuity presently payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, and of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of expenses incurred under any Act of the present session to establish a Board of Trustees to manage the National Galleries of Scotland; and for other purposes (King's Recommendation signified), tomorrow.—(Mr. Whiteley)

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Order read, for Consideration of Lords' Amendments.
MR. PAULasked for Mr. Speaker's ruling on a point which seemed to him of some constitutional importance—whether the Lords' Amendments taken as a whole were not a serious and substantial encroachment upon the privileges of the House. The famous Resolution passed by the House of Commons in 1678, declared—
"That all aids and supplies to His Majesty in Parliament are the sole gift of the Commons, and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies should begin with the Commons; that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint in such Kills the ends, purposes, and considerations and—"
he begged the House to note these words—
"conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants, which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords."
That Resolution was far more drastic and comprehensive than the kindred Motion carried by the House after the departure of the Stuarts in 1692, because that related to taxation only, and yet it was that Motion, repeated by the House on a Motion of Lord Palmerston in 1860, which enabled Mr. Gladstone, by an ingenious device, to deprive the House of Lords, as it was supposed, for ever of all control over the taxation of this country. The first clause of the Education Bill as it left this House ran—
"On and after the first day of January, 1908, a school shall not be recognised as a public elementary school unless it is a school provided by the local education authority."
And a public elementary school was a school entitled in the first place to a grant, from the Exchequer, and in the second place to a contribution from local rates. His contention was that this was the governing clause of the whole Bill, and that almost all the other clauses contained modifications or qualifications of it, or exceptions from it. The Lords had amended it by alterations of date which were not material, and by these words—
"And unless some portion of the school hours of every day is set apart for the purposes of religious instruction."
He submitted that that was a substantial change of the conditions under

1577
which a school was entitled to grants of public money. Clause 13, which provided an additional Parliamentary grant of £1,000,000, the Lords had not amended, but he cited it to show that the grant of public money applied to every part of this Bill. He maintained that the Bill was not an education Bill with financial clauses, but a financial Bill with educational clauses. As a sample of the Lords' Amendments he cited that which provided that where an order was made allowing a school to continue as a State-Aided school the Board of Education might pay to the school a Parliamentary Grant as if it were a public elementary school, notwithstanding anything contained in the Act. He submitted that that was a distinct alteration of the conditions made in regard to a pecuniary grant from public sources. He had not been able to find that the precise point he was raising had been decided by any of Mr. Speaker's predecessors; but there was such a thing as indirect evidence, and there were few things more valuable in controversy than the deliberate admissions of the other side. This was not a question between Parties, but between two Houses of Parliament; therefore every peer was a hostile witness. The question had boon twice raised in the House of Lords, in 1897 and 1902, both times on Education Bills. In 1897, Lord Halsbury denied the right of the peers to make any alteration in Committee upon the Voluntary Schools Bill. He was, of course, aware that the Lord Chancellor had no authority in another place; there could be no authority where equality, fraternity, and anarchy prevailed. Amendments by Lord Spencer and the late Lord Kimberley were withdrawn in consequence of Lord Halsbury's pronouncement. So much for the Bill of 1897. The Bill of 1902 was no more a money Bill than the present measure. In fact he should contend that it was far less financial, but when it went up to another place the same question was raised, and Amendments were withdrawn, or not put, on the same ground. Lord Halsbury on that occasion did not commit himself, but another great lawyer, Lord Davey, made a very important utterance. He ventured to refer to Lord Davey both because he was an eminent Judge and because he himself desired to make in that Bill vital changes, and when he said vital he meant
1578
mortal. Lord Davey's speech delivered on 9th December, 1902, was so short and so full of matter that he would conclude what he had to say by reading it—
"My Lords, I should not presume for one moment to set my opinion against that of the noble Duke, who has had such a vast experience of Parliamentary life, larger, perhaps, than that enjoyed by any other Member of your Lordships' House. I am, however, bound to say that it is not my opinion alone, but also the opinion of others better qualified to speak, that the Resolution of the House of Commons of 1678, which has now been acquiesced in by this House for upwards of 300 years" [he supposed that should be 200 years], "no longer remains a mere Resolution, but has become part of the constitutional law of this country. I quite agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other night, that in a Bill of this kind, which deals not only with finance but also contains a number of other provisions, we need not be too particular in scrutinising Amendments which may affect either the 'conditions, qualifications, or limitations' of the grant which is made by the Bill. Hut undoubtedly this Bill does come within the definition 'aid or supply' to His Majesty, referred to in the Resolution of 1678, and the constitutional practice of this House arising out of that Resolution has been not to interfere with either the amount, extent, or incidence of the rate which such a Bill enabled a local authority to raise. I have given careful study to the provisions of this Hill, and endeavoured to make myself acquainted with its clauses, and the conclusion I have come to is that every Amendment of importance is so dependent on questions of finance, either of rating or of Parliamentary grant, that it would be difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to make any Amendment of real substance, such as some of us on this side of the House would desire to make.… I will take another example. There is a good deal of difference of opinion with regard to Clause 7, which imposes on the local education authority the obligation of maintaining denominational schools, and there are many things in it which we would like to alter. I feel very strongly, for instance, on the provision, which was not in the original Bill, which enables the trustees on a charitable trust to charge a rent for the use of the master's residence. I find tucked away in the clause the words, 'Compliance with this section shall be one of the conditions required to be fulfilled by an elementary school in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant.'"
He submitted that almost every one of the provisions of this Bill was a provision for obtaining a Parliamentary grant and a rate as well. He submitted to Mr. Speaker, the supreme authority on this question, whose word in this House was law, that the representatives of the people, equally proud of this House and equally jealous of its privileges, on whatever benches they

1579
might sit, could not protect their rights and the rights of those who sent them here, unless they refused even to consider any of the Lords' Amendments which affected either the amount or the distribution or the condition of any pecuniary grant from the National Exchequer or from the local rates.
MR. SPEAKER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Northampton for having given me private notice of his intention to raise this very important question. I understand the argument which he submits to me is this—that this House ought not to consider any of the Amendments which have been sent up from the other House by reason of the fact that these Amendments will or may alter the conditions under which the Parliamentary grant has been in the past or will be in the future given to the schools of the country. But the hon. Member dealt in the course of his argument with the question of Clause 13. With regard to that I will dispose of it first, and say that in my opinion the Bill is not governed by Clause 13. That clause might be excised from the Bill entirely, and yet the Bill would stand good, and could be applied and administered. The Bill was not brought in as a money Bill, and it has not been treated as a money Bill. No Amendment has been moved on Clause 13. Therefore, so far as Clause 13 goes, I do not think any infringement of the privileges of this House has been committed. There are certain Amendments which, as they come up, I shall be prepared to deal with, and shall be ready to advise the House as to my opinion whether they are or are not infringements of the privileges of this House. But the hon. Member goes beyond that, and asks me to rule that all the Amendments are infringements of the privileges of this House. In asking me to do that I think he is asking me to press the position which this House has taken up on questions of privilege far beyond the rule which has hitherto obtained. If the argument of the hon. Member were pressed to its logical conclusion it would prevent the House of Lords from dealing with any question which affected the Army, or the Navy, or the Civil Service, or with any object whatever for which any grant is voted by this House. I do not think that that is the intention of the
1580
Resolution which he cited; and it certainly has not been, up to the present time, the practice of this House to press its privileges so far. Therefore, I am driven to the conclusion that the hon. Member has asked me to lay down a rule which has never hitherto been adopted by this House, for which he himself said he was unable to find any direct precedent, and for that reason I cannot accede to the view he has put forward. He cited two-cases in support of his argument. With regard to the Voluntary Schools Bill of 1897, that was introduced as a money Bill in Committee of the Whole House, and was treated as a money Bill throughout. Therefore that precedent, I venture to say, does not apply. With regard to the Education Act of 1902, it is true that certain objections were taken in the other House to amending that Bill, but nevertheless the Bill was amended in the other House; and "when the Bill came back to this House no question was raised as to a breach of privilege having been committed; and therefore no ruling on the point was given, from which it may be assumed that this House accepted the view that it was within the power of the other House to make the Amendments which they then made. For these reasons I feel myself unable to make the ruling which the hon. Member proposed.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): Once more the scene shifts to the House of Commons. I think I shall be following precedent and certainly consulting the convenience of the House if I am allowed now to state the view which His Majesty's Government takes of the present position —which is one of gravity, both as affecting the Education Bill and also in its constitutional character—and to state the course which they propose to advise the House to adopt in regard to the Lords' Amendments. But the moment I begin to essay this somewhat difficult task I find myself, however closely I may restrict myself to the Lords' Amendments, doing something which is very like asking the House once more, for the second time in the short compass of one Parliamentary year, to consider the provisions of another Education Bill. I say that because I am persuaded there is no man in this House, sit where he may, who does not full well recognise that in

1581
no conceivable circumstances would it have been possible for this House, constituted as it is at present, to read the second time any such Bill as that which has been sent to us by the House of Lords. The Government commands an unusually great majority. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister commands in an unparalleled degree, I venture to think, the affection and confidence of the House. But no majority, however big, no loyalty, however great, would have been sufficient to carry the Second Reading of such a Bill as the Bill now before us. Our own Bill presented some difficulties. The Bill as amended would have presented none, for it would have been from first to last a sheer impossibility.
But the peculiarity of the position does not stop there. If this Bill as amended by the Lords represented a genuine intellectual effort on the part of another place to come to the assistance of this harassed assembly, to do its work in a more orderly and better considered fashion than it can do for itself, such a Bill—even although it would be impossible for his Majesty's Government to recognise the right of the Opposition in another place—a permanent and most unfriendly Opposition— to draft our measures for us—would have a certain amount of interest, it might be only of an antiquarian nature, and I dare say we should have found its perusual and consideration useful to us in some particulars. But we are carefully prevented from any such view of the Lords' Amendments, for they have accompanied their own Bill to the very portals of our House with expressions almost of vituperation and contempt. They do not recommend it to us. They do not say it is a good Bill; indeed, they say it is a bad Bill. I do not complain that they say it is fundamentally a bad Bill, because of course by that they mean that there still lurks in it some portion of its original badness. The original goodness, in my sense of the 'word, still is to be found adhering to it. They assure us it is an unworkable Bill, they wash their hands of responsibility for it, and they say we must take the whole responsibility. It follows, therefore, that the Bill we are about to consider is in no sense our Bill; it is in no real sense their Bill. It is a miserable, mangled, tortured, twisted tertium quid. It is something which no man will father. It received on its
1582
Third Reading the support of only one Bishop of the Establishment, and it is a Bill, therefore, which the Church of England repudiates. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I quite agree that scores of rooks caw from their steeples, but the Bill is one which no Nonconformist would touch with the humblest of fireside implements. What are we to do with a Bill returned to us in such a condition as that? From a careful study of the Amendments, which I have had printed and circulated in the White Parliamentary Paper, I do not believe that any man, however oblique may be his vision, however blinded he may be by Party prejudice or ecclesiastical prejudice—I do not, I say, believe that any ordinary House of Commons man, carefully per us this White Paper, can have any doubt whatsoever that the Amendments made in another place are of so extensive a character—I am not dealing with their speeches, although some of these were very drastic— so formidable, so penetrating, so permeating, so cumulative that, though the House of Lords thought it wise to read our measure a second time, they none the less, and notwithstanding that important step, felt themselves at perfect liberty to make such alterations as constitute the Bill sent back to us not our Bill but an alternative solution of their own. No doubt some of the critics in another place, some of them men whose importance I recognise, paid lip service to our two great cardinal principles of popular control and no tests for teachers. I ask the House to consider those Amendments as they affect those principles.
But first a word as to what is meant by popular control. The Bill of 1902, for which the right hon. Gentleman opposite is responsible, transferred, wisely or foolishly, from school boards the vast duty, the enormous responsibility, for providing for the primary education of their district, and for coordinating secondary education so that both should go together, to county councils, city councils, borough councils, 'and municipal councils. From that great alteration enormous consequences have followed, which perhaps nobody except those whose misfortune it is to spend their days in the Board of Education have had an opportunity of fully realising. These bodies measure their importance by the greatness of their

1583
responsibilities. In all those thickly populated districts, those places where the mind of England is made up, those bodies have become infected with a lofty ambition. They are determined to municipalise education from top to bottom; they are determined to get whole and complete control over all the machinery of education, from the infant class to the University. They are determined to be masters in their own schools. The Board of Education know this full well, because it is our duty as the custodians of the vast Parliamentary Grants which the Chancellor of the Exchequer places at our disposal to see that they are properly expended. We have, therefore, occasionally to interfere, and our interference is very often bitterly resented. For these localities say, "We know our own wants better than you do, and this mistrust of us and of our honourable intentions is most unfair." But these Amendments of the Lords, almost every one of them, cut down popular control, restrict popular control, and put the Board of Education again and again over the heads of these great elected authorities, and in many material respects most seriously interfere with their discretion and their freedom of action. And these men will come and say, "What is the good of asking us to give up time, leisure, and money to the discharge of what might be the noblest duty open to a citizen, of looking after the education, primary and secondary, in the locality where we live, and the wants of which we think we know better than anybody else—what is the good of asking us to make all these sacrifices, if at the critical moment, when it comes to taking a decision upon some vital matter, the Board of Education, acting under an Act of Parliament, comes down and interferes with our action, hampers, fetters, and controls it?" And does so, mind you as they will say, not in the interest of education as a whole, but in the interests of denominational schools. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh.'"]
Lest it be supposed these are assertions incapable of being supported, I will take the Amendments in their order. Clause 1 passed this House without any Amendment or alteration. In the other House it is substantially amended by the addition of words so that a school is not to be recognised as a
1584
public elementary school unless some portion of the school hours of every day is set apart for the purpose of religious instruction. [OPPOSITION cheers.] No religion is mentioned, but I suppose by those cheers it is contemplated that the religion will be that of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cries of "Any religion."] I should like to point out that the words inserted by the Lords are a direct repeal of Section 97 of the Act of 1870, a section which is supposed to prevent any differentiation between any one kind of school and another. It expressly makes it clear that no local authority, no school board, is to be required to provide religious instruction as part of its duty; and, therefore, this clause, with the Lords' Amendment inserted, repeals that section. Consider how it interferes with popular control—with the local authorities in the discharge of their duty. In most cases they have prepared admirable syllabuses which have received high support. They have consulted Church dignitaries, both of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome, in the preparation of these syllabuses; and practically it may be said that—though no doubt they vary from place to place—as a rule, a rule from which there is not the faintest probability of there being any departure, all the educational authorities of the country, with hardly any exception, have of their own free will and accord prepared syllabuses satisfactory to at all events the great majority of the people. And it is my anxious desire, and always has been, that these syllabuses should multiply and increase. But I know perfectly well that the moment you say to these local authorities who hitherto have not done these things "Do it you must," all my hope of getting a reasonable, suitable, and proper syllabus for that religious instruction which I at all events desire as much as any man in this House will be frustrated and destroyed. [" No."] Surely you ought to know that for yourselves. Anybody who has had anything to do with public authorities must know that they do not like Acts of Parliament compelling them to do the thing they hitherto have not done; and in this clause they have perfect freedom to do it in the most perfunctory and unsatisfactory manner. I am justified in instancing this first Amendment as a considerable and

1585
important departure from the principle of popular control.
I come now to Clause 2. I remember perfectly well when it was under discussion in this House my right hon. and gallant friend the Member for one of the divisions of Shropshire, came to me and put before mo the case of private owners of schools. He said these private owners could do what they liked with their schools—turn them into stables if they chose—for they were not trust schools, their owners were absolute owners. They had built them out of the kindness of their own hearts, they were near their own houses, and had adopted a particular kind of architecture and would be sorry to see it interfered with. "Do you not think," he said, "you could introduce, to meet those cases, not more than 1,100 or 1,200 over the whole country, a few words which would enable those private owners to do the work themselves and send in the bill to the local authorities?" I thought it a reasonable and proper provision, and I accepted it. But what did the House of Lords do? They immediately seized hold of it, as they have done all through this Bill with every concession that has been made, to turn it into a right, not of private owners of some 1,100 schools, but of the owners of all the voluntary schools, 14,000 in number, who are to be at liberty to do the repairs if they like (the local authorities not being at liberty to do them), and to send in the bill. I say that is a most unreasonable thing. It is not business. It would hamper the local authorities beyond all expectation, and would increase the expenditure on all the alterations that may be necessary when schools are taken over under this clause. The Board of Education, I need hardly say, are to be the arbiters in case of any dispute. The arbitrament we were willing to accept for 1,100 or 1,200 schools; but now we are to exercise this rôle of arbiter in the case of 14,000. The local authorities, one and all, will justly complain of this interference, and of the increased expenditure, and of the delay that will be occasioned by any such alteration. So much for Clause 2, which undoubtedly does most materially interfere with popular control.
I come now to Clause 3. Everybody in this House will remember the lively scene we had one evening
1586
on the two mornings a week provision. I stuck to my guns there, and maintained that the true interpretation of the clause was that the religious instruction was to be given on two mornings so as to secure that every child got his two mornings and no more a week; and it was perfectly well understood that it was for the local authority to make the arrangement and to consider what circumstances might render it necessary to have more than two days a week allotted for the purpose, with a view to the children having their teaching on their two days a week. That was acceded to. The House of Lords come in and they alter the words to read "on two mornings a week in school hours at such times as may be consistent with the proper conduct of the school and for not less than a clear half-hour on each morning on which the instruction is given." I have no point to make as to the clear half-hour, but I do say it is absolutely essential that the local authority should be master in its own school house, and should have the right of determining whether or not entry on more than two days a week is really necessary. But this question, under sub-section (3a), is another dispute which is to be referred to the Board of Education. The time of the President of the Board of Education is mapped well out for him for the next ten years. To that clause there is a remarkable addition—1 think it is the addition which was introduced into the Bill by Lord Salisbury in another place. It is sub-section (2), which says—
"If the parents of a reasonable number of children attending any public elementary school require facilities for their children of the same character as those to be afforded under the foregoing provisions of this section, and, in the opinion of the local education authority, those children cannot conveniently attend some other public elementary school in which facilities for religious instruction of the special character desired by the parents are afforded, the local education authority, without prejudice to any of their powers or duties under this section, shall, so far as it is in their opinion reasonably practicable to do so, afford those facilities in the school within school hours accordingly."
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Crowe, whoso conduct of the Bill in another place I would certainly stop to praise if the praise of a colleague had any intrinsic value whatever, had this clause in view when he referred to "envious Casca," but it is a most decided rent. The entry to the board school is entirely

1587
inconsistent with the doctrine of popular control. Clause 4, as amended, I will deal with separately a little further on. Our original Clauses 5, 6, and 7 are all gone; they have disappeared from the Bill. Clauses 5 and 6, I admit, reappear in a somewhat different shape later on, but Clause 7 is gone altogether. I speak here, I admit, with very considerable: emotion. Clause 7 was my own pet clause —flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bone—because I believed that Clause 7 would have had the effect of making the conscience clause, which hitherto has had a long but useless career, a genuine reality, a reality which it can never possibly enjoy so long as you transfer the whole brunt of it from the parent who ought to bear it to the shoulder's of the child. So long as you have the child exposed to the teacher's sarcasm and to the ridicule of the playground, to say nothing of the ostracism from those school treats and buns and milk wherewith the clergy and the gentry of the neigbourhood are accustomed to popular is denominational education, you need never hope to have a sound and reasonable and workable conscience clause. I admit Clause 7 was in a somewhat parlous state. Three of my colleagues voted against it in this House, and Lord Ripon, stalwart among stalwarts, and Radical among Radicals, felt it necessary to vote against it in another place; and I have very little doubt, whatever happens to this Bill— if it succeeds, as we all hope it may succeed, in passing into law—that that clause will disappear. In me at all events it will always have a most sincere mourner. Look at 7a at the bottom of page 8 on the White Paper—
"If any persons consider that a new public elementary school with facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14, of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, is required in any district, they may give public notice of their intention to provide a school-house for the proposed school,"
and—
"when such notice has been given the Board of Education shall determine whether the proposed school is required, and in so doing"
—then follow certain words with which already I am only too familiar—
"shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case,"
—that is to say, all sorts of perfectly inconsistent things, the wishes of the
1588
parents, the economy of the rates, the interest of secular instruction. They "shall take into consideration" any appeal made by the ratepayers; and if they determine that the school is required an arrangement is to be made by the Commission, and after the powers of the Commission shall have expired, it is to be done by the powers of the Board of Education.
Well, now, I really ask the House what has become of popular control over the whole area assigned to the charge of each particular authority if any such provision as this is by any possibility to become law? The thing, I may venture to say, almost becomes a farce. Men all over the north of England and in London and elsewhere will inquire, "What is the good of being on a local authority if all my power, all my responsibility, all my opportunity of doing what I consider to be good are to be absolutely destroyed and vitiated?" As to that appeal to the Board of Education, I venture to say that if Parliament were ever to insert into any Bill any provision such as this, allowing an appeal on behalf of denominational schools from any place by any person, they ought to take upon them selves the responsibility of showing how it is to act. For at present it is a mere matter of the which or fancy of whoever happens to be at the head of the office. Every such school as this increases the rates. In all these schools I frankly admit, otherwise the case would not arise, there are a number of parents who have the religious education of their own children in mind. They will all be of necessity, ex hypothesi, unanimous in favour of the permission being given for the school. Therefore, the President of the Board of Education, if he is a denominationlist, will say that the wishes of these parents should be carried out, altogether irrespective of the £339 14s. 2d. extra which it will cost to the rates. If he is an anti-denominationalist he will say, "I must put on one side the wishes of the parents. They cannot be allowed to compete with the important question of the increase of the rates." All I can say is that in the interests of common justice and fairness, and something like continuity, it is, in our judgment, the duty of the House of Commons not to shirk this question as hitherto always has

1589
been done. If you are going to insert this provision do so boldly, and say in what circumstances the wishes of the parents are to be consulted, and not allow two absolutely inconsistent and irreconcilable policies to sway backwards and forwards in the mind of the President. It is an impossible duty, and the object of my calling attention to it is to show that it is absolutely fatal and destructive, and to say that with this provision it is impossible to maintain that this is a Bill to secure, preserve, and maintain popular control. I will not say anything about Clause 7b relating to inspection of religious instruction, although that is an interference with popular control, since it closes the school while the inspection of religious instruction goes on Clause 8, with the by-law of my hon. friend the Member for Oxford University, makes religious education compulsory in school hours part and parcel of the Bill, and it has final words of a similar character.
"The obligation of a parent to cause his child to attend school shall, notwithstanding any by-law "—
that is, the by-law of my hon. friend—
"include an obligation to cause the child to attend at the school-house during the portion of the school hours allotted to instruction in religious subjects. Provided that the local education authority and the managers shall provide during the time so allotted, for children who are withdrawn by their parents from any such instruction, some form of secular instruction, and that a parent shall not be subject to any penalty under this section for not causing his child to attend the schoolhouse during any time so allotted, if he shows to the satisfaction of the Court that he has caused his child during that time to attend some form of religious instruction elsewhere. "
I do not know that that is pre-eminently reasonable. I do not know how the Court can become satisfied that for half an hour each day the child has been given religious education. I should have thought that if a parent could show that the child was being taught something, oven though the instruction were secular, that would have mot the necessities of the case. I mention this clause to show the substantial character of the Lords' alteration. Now I come to the new clauses added. Clause 9a, on page 13, runs thus —
"(1) Where the local 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
1590
school-house, and the school is one in respect of which facilities in accordance with Section 3 or 4 of this Act are desired, the owners of the schoolhouse may appeal to the Commission appointed under this Act, and that Commission shall—"
and so on, and if the Commission are of opinion that there are sufficient grounds of refusal they shall—
"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 facilities desired."
Now there again is a very similar instance of that unilateral principle of which we complain. It is difficult to see how you can reconcile this with the principle of public control. As the Bill left the Commons the local authority had complete liberty whether they would take over a school or not, except that when facilities under Clause 4 were demanded and had been denied that was an exception; but this new clause upsets the whole principle of public control.
I should like to say a word, too, upon the peculiar position of the Commission. It will be remembered that when the idea of a Commission was started it was strongly resisted, and we had hon. Gentleman opposite out of their stores of historical illustration comparing it to the institution of the Star Chamber. By way of meeting the objections I said over and over again that the duties of the Commission would be judicial, and would be exercised by three Commissioners in accordance with the law. That got over some of the objections, and when I gave the names of the three distinguished lawyers who were to be appointed Commissioners then the position was changed, and admiration of the clause was expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The gentlemen named as Commissioners have told me that they had no notion until they had followed the debate of the just place they held in the affections of hon. Gentlemen opposite. These three gentlemen are unwilling—I think I may say at all events they are alarmed—at the prospect of having allotted to them duties of an administrative and not of a judicial character, duties that will require, they think, a staff, an amount of information and of assistance not in contemplation when they were confined to judicial work. Therefore if all this new duty is added there is

1591
very great doubt whether these gentlemen—one of whom, being abroad, I have not consulted—would be willing to accept the responsibility. I have said enough to show that the Amendments of the Lords affect, vitally affect, the doctrine of public control. They would render it almost impossible for a local education authority hereafter, if the Bill became law, to accept with any sense of duty the responsibility of an office the real duty attaching to which it would not be allowed to discharge.
And now I come to another point, the "test for teachers." How have the Lords dealt with that question in their principal Amendments? Now, I admit it is much easier to demand that there shall be no tests for teachers than it is to see that you get it; but that is no reason for not making the demand. Justice has very often been sold, or denied, or delayed since Magna Charta was presented in 1215, but the barons were right in insisting upon the declaration that, according to the common law of England, justice should not be sold, denied, or delayed. So I say we were justified in doing all we could, in face of craft, machinations, and denominational devices, to insist that no religious test should be imposed on a teacher on his appointment or in the course of his employment. It was a delicate point, but it was a necessity—it was part and parcel of our Bill that we meant to prevent the application of such tests directly or indirectly. That was the only reason for forbidding teachers in a transferred school under Clause 3 from giving Catechism or Prayer-book teaching, even though they were willing to give it. We wished to prevent this because we had suspicion—and can any man honestly say that the suspicion is unjustifiable or unreasonable—that if a teacher were allowed to undertake the duty he would be asked by some one, somewhere, not necessarily formally or in public, but sometime or other, it might be at tea time, whether, if appointed, he would volunteer for this teaching. If, in such circumstances, he said "No," can you doubt that in many cases his chance of getting the appointment would be very materially reduced? We make no mystery about the reason, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in it; we ask the House, is it an unreasonable suspicion?
1592
Of course, if the thing is done, we all know the nature of children as to which there has been much ado. Of course, they will follow their regular teacher, because they love him, or because they fear him, ample reasons both of them to secure a child's attention. This is a question we have to consider in the light of the immense importance the Church of England attaches to it—[An HON. MEMBER, "And the Catholics"]—the Roman Catholics are on a different footing. [" How?"] The Church of England, then, means and includes the Church of Rome, if you like. I only wish to shorten my remarks. The point I am upon is this, the importance the Church attaches to this privilege, or this right—call it as you may -the importance they attach to it is in itself a measure of the degree of pressure that will be employed in many places to secure the advantage of this teaching. The clause in the Lords' Amendment would compel the local authority to appoint the teacher, if willing ["No"]—they say "shall"— to give special teaching. It is an unqualified provision, it makes no distinction between town and country, between head and assistant teachers, it will permit any teacher to give the teaching if willing. Therefore, so far as our attempts to secure that there shall be no tests for teachers are concerned, they must be considered as struck out of the Bill and destroyed by the action of the House of Lords
Now turn to sub-section (3) of Clause 8—
"In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act, the local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the school"
—and then it goes on—
"and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which the extended facilities are afforded."
Now, how are the parents and local authority to satisfy themselves that a particular teacher—say a Roman Catholic —is qualified to teach the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith? They cannot do it. All they can ask is, "Are you a good Catholic, a good Roman Catholic?" and if the man or woman says "Yes," there is an end of the matter so far as the local authority is concerned. But

1593
is that bare question and that bare answer to be a sufficient test of the qualification of a teacher to give theological teaching of a difficult and precise character? I say it cannot; be done, not even by Archbishops and Bishops, who cannot exercise a sufficient control over their own clergy in such matters. That is not the fault of the Bishops and Archbishops; it is inherent in human nature, we all know it, no man can pry into the depths of our souls and find out what we believe and what we do not believe, or if we are qualified to teach that belief. I do not deny the importance of belief, but who can judge of it? Some of the best Bible lessons ever known were given by Dean Stanley, and yet there were those who questioned his right to be called a good Churchman or even a good Christian. The Amendments, I say, will destroy the whole fabric of both public control and abolition of tests for teachers, and our interest in the Bill if confined to this would be entirely gone.
But just a word or two upon the Amendments to Clause 4. That was a very difficult clause to get into the Bill at all. It went, we admit, to the utmost point, it wont somewhat dangerously near going outside the pledges we had given that there should be no tests for teachers; that I do not deny, but we justified it, and I shall still continue to justify it by saying it was intended to be an exception, and to deal with exceptional cases. What those excepted cases were have been repeated so often, I fear, to this House, that it is almost waste of time to reiterate them — homogeneous schools, schools where the overwhelming majority of the children attending them were the children of parents who wished them to receive definite, well-ascertained, clearly - defined, generally understood religious opinions. In these, circumstances, under certain stringent conditions as to the character of the school, to secure its homogeneous character, and as to their being in the immediate neighbourhood other public 'school accommodation where the minority of the children, if there were any such, could receive undenominational education, we thought, and we still think, that if it had been fairly treated in another place, that exception could have been allowed. That was the whole state of,
1594
our case with reference to that. What have the Lords done in these Amendments? First of all, they have destroyed the homogeneous character of the school, which was the very essence of Clause 4, but for which the clause never could have found its way into the Bill at all in face of the difficulties with which we had to contend. The Lords first destroyed it by a very bold Amendment, reducing our four-fifths to a bare majority. Then, on reflection, they thought that was asking, perhaps, a little too much, and they substituted two-thirds. They have not only, by this Amendment, destroyed the character of the school, but by a second Amendment they have got round the obligation for public school accommodation hard-by by saying that in what we used to call a four-fifths school—but i what, I suppose, they would call a two-thirds school —within the walls of that school the undenominational teaching, according to the Cowper-Temple clause, should be given. I say, and hon. Gentle- men opposite will surely have the candour to admit, that was to tear our Clause into tatters. It was to make it impossible; its argument impossible. Every argument that I ever used, or that my right hon. or hon. friends ever used in support of this clause—and I am grateful to them for the support they rendered at a critical time—every argument that we employed has been destroyed, and the whole ground taken away by the action of the House of Lords. Had we nothing but the Lords' Amendments to Clause 4 to go by, they would afford us clear and convincing proof that the House of Lords deliberately intended to change the whole character, scope, and purport of this Bill. I do not think I can do better than quote the admirable words of Lord Crewe when he said they had "turned rules into exceptions, and exceptions into rules."
In these circumstances, what is the course to be taken? Now, Mr. Speaker, His Majesty's Government desire to speak of the House of Lords with every courtesy of language. In my opinion, to be courteous is the first duty of a Minister of the Crown, and there is no occasion, and there can be no occasion, to use strong or violent language upon this subject. It is possible to be courteous and to be firm. If any Member of the House of Commons wishes to see an example of how, in circumstances not dissimilar

1595
to these, it is possible to be courteous and firm, I refer him to the speech made by Lord John Russell in this House, on the 9th June, 1836, when the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill was under consideration. It is to be found in Volume 34 of Hansard, in the third series. I think the greatest and strongest lover of the House of Commons will feel that on that occasion Lord John Russell, without ceasing for one moment to be courteous, put the rights and privileges of this House as highly and as well as anybody could ever wish them to be put. But the Government has made up its mind to ask the House to return the Lords' Amendments to them as a whole. Not because they are all bad—because some of them are our own Amendments and therefore as good as gold—but because as a whole we believe them to be destructive of the fabric and main intentions of the measure, and because these destructive Amendments—I am confining myself to these—are so numerous that to go through them clause by clause as they are found in Part I. of this Bill and pick them out one by one would be to impose upon this House, if it were to be done properly, all the labours of a Committee stage. I see no possible way out of it, but that. It has been calculated that at least eighty questions would have to be submitted and eighty divisions would be involved; and the debate arising out of that would necessarily be of so complicated and prolonged a character that it would be impossible, not only at this time of the year, but at any time of the year, for the Government to hope to see it through except under the familiar and painful conditions of the closure. We all know what the consequences of the closure would be. When we came to an allotted day, however much time we gave to this measure, very likely the most important of the Amendments, perhaps even Clause 4 itself, would never have been reached; and as we do not propose, as we do not feel ourselves at liberty, to accept any of the Lords' Amendments, I ask, what would be the good of that?
Another constitutional course is, of course, open to us, and that is to move that we consider the Lords' Amendments on this day three months. Well, that, of course, would be ourselves to wield "the abhorred shears
1596
to slit the thin-spun life of this much amended Bill. I do not want to do that. Whilst there is life there is hope, not, it may be, a sure and certain hope, but at all events, an eager and, I trust, not irrational hope that the life of this important Bill—which in my opinion is well worth preserving if it can be done —should be preserved. Of course, if the Lords insist on their Amendments in their present shape, or anything like their present shape, sacrificed the Bill must be. In its present shape, or anything like its present shape, we do not want it. And if we do not want it, hon. Gentlemen opposite will not pretend to want it. But if the Lords should feel themselves able to recognise this Parliamentary situation; if they were to feel themselves at liberty to withdraw their Amendments as a whole, as we propose to return them as a whole; if they could limit the scope, the purview, and the operation of their Amendments in any manner capable of coming within our scheme as to what this Bill ought to be, why then hope, I say, is still possible for us all. Supposing they were to suggest Amendments to us on Clause 4 intended to give that clause some security which they think at present—mistakenly, in my judgment—it does not possess, why, then, these are Amendments which the Government would most cordially invite this House to consider with a view to coming to a settlement upon this vexed question. If for their two-thirds they were prepared —and I make these remarks by way of suggestion—to substitute three-fourths; if they were to send back an Amendment which already is included among these with regard to the urban areas, why these are Amendments which I say the Government would invite this House to consider with a view to coming to a settlement. If they were to suggest modifications as to the position of the teacher in Clause 3 schools, these are Amendments to which we should certainly be bound to give the most careful consideration. Nor have we any rooted objection to parents' committees. Anybody who ever seeks to settle an education question will meet with difficulties on his own side as well as on the other. I am assuming that all these Amendments of the Lords which so trouble and harass us were out of the way, and that we were in a position to consider on the footing that they were

1597
out of the way what we can do in order to secure the passage into law of this Bill. I still say, therefore, speaking on behalf of the Government, that the Government have no rooted objection to a parents' committee, and would be perfectly willing to consider with regard to Clause 4 schools whether any arrangement can be made whereby that parents' committee should have a voice in the selection of a touchier. I am on perilous ground, I am on delicate ground, but I mention those things as evidence of good faith in my statement that I still entertain hopes of the passage into law of this Bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this Bill is sacrificed, what lies before us? I am certainly the last man to use any threats of any sort or kind. It is an anxious question for everybody. It is an anxious question for Nonconformists. It is an anxious question for Churchmen. It is an anxious question for Roman Catholics and for Protestants. It is an anxious question for municipal authorities; for all public authorities in town and country and it is an exceedingly anxious question for those who are real lovers of education and have the cause of the children at heart. There is not a man, I am certain, who has any knowledge of this question who does not feel the gravity of the present situation and the dangers that lie ahead of any Government and of any Party who remain administrators of the law as it is without an Education Bill of their own. How is that Education Bill to be obtained? That is the question. More money will have to be granted. The local authorities insist upon having more money. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be able long to resist their demand. We have inserted a money clause in this Bill. Money is wanted and for what purpose? To build more schools. In great centres of population, and in those huge suburbs I which surround our towns which present so many complications, being as they are sleeping places of people who work else where, the demand for schools is great and the rateable value of the property is small. These are problems that are certain to force themselves upon us for solution at a very early date. More money will be demanded, and more money will have to be granted for that purpose. More money will have to be granted for
1598
secondary education. More money will have to be granted to the local authorities to provide undenominational residential training colleges for teachers. All these things lie before any Government, I care not what its political complexion. All I would venture to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite is this. I speak with a short experience, I admit, but a very lively experience of a term of one year at the Board of Education. If either they or anybody else, either Church or Chapel, think they can for very long put themselves athwart the will of the municipalities or county councils of this country in their mode of providing education, primary and secondary, they are woefully mistaken. Any Party, any sect, who believes it can place themselves or itself in the way of those great authorities will find them-selves in the position of George Stephen son's cow—they will get the worst of it, in time they will be trampled to death. I think the present time is an opportune time, and I hope every body will so regard it, when it may be possible, even at this eleventh hour, to come to some arrangement whereby those Amendments, being recognised as not suitable for the occasion, should be withdrawn, and that other Amendments fewer in number, more confined in their operation, but perhaps even more important, should be placed on the Paper in another place. You can hardly expect us now to say precisely what we would accept. We have already put as much pressure on our own supporters as might perhaps be reasonably expected of us. Before you ask us to do anything more, before you ask them, as the price of saving this Bill, to go further than they have done, at least give them good evidence to believe that any further concession that is wrung from them will be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered, and not flung back contemptuously at their head. That would not be business. That is not the way in which a compromise of any kind in any matter, great or small, can possibly be effected. I think everybody will agree that I have gone quite as far as I have any right to go in the suggestions I have made. I have now come to the end of my observations. we propose to put down to-night the Resolution to be moved to-morrow by the Prime Minister. It will be something to this effect:—"That the Question of agreement or disagreement with the Lords' Amendments to the Education

1599
Bill be put with respect to those Amendments as a whole." That Resolution would have appeared on the Paper to-day, but for the fact that it would have been out of order, in as much as, according to the practice of this House, any such Resolution has to have precedence of all other business. It would, therefore, have had to be put before the Resolution which I an now moving, a state of things which would have been preposterous, or, to use a more homely illustration, it would have been putting the cart before the horse. It is the procedure of the House alone that has prevented us from putting that Resolution on the Paper to-day. But it will be moved by the Prime Minister the first thing after Questions to-morrow; and, when that is done, the House will be constitutionally in a position to deal with the Lords' Amendments in the manner which I have already suggested it is the intention of the Government to ask the House to deal with them. And now the only other thing I have to do is to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—(Mr. Birrell.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it will be admitted that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and the Resolution with which he concluded are in the sharpest and most startling contrast one with the other. The Motion is that the Lords' Amendments be now considered. The speech was that the Lords' Amendments be now rejected, and rejected without consideration. I hear the Prime Minister contradict me. His experience of this House is longer even than my own, and he must be aware better than any man I am addressing that by considering the Lords' Amendments is meant taking those Amendments one after another, dealing with them and accepting them or rejecting them. That is what the phrase means by the immemorial traditions of this House, and that kind of consideration is to be absolutely refused to the Lords' Amendments by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not know that this announcement of policy is very surprising from the Gentlemen from whom it comes. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us on Friday, what is the use of a new
1600
Parliament if it does not make new precedents? And undoubtedly this is a new precedent and a precedent exactly in conformity with the natural instincts of the Treasury Bench, because it is a policy absolutely destructive of all free discussion in this House of matters connected with this Bill. Never before has this House been denied the opportunity of considering the Lords' Amendments not merely in their total, general effect, but in detail. That opportunity the Government refuse, and they refuse it after having entirely destroyed our full discussion of the Bill upon the Committee and the Report stage. So that this House is, under the guidance of His Majesty's Government, entering into a controversy with the other House, while we, the Members of the House of Commons, are deprived of the natural right we enjoy of saying to the House of Lords:—"These matters have been fully discussed in this House; they have been thoroughly threshed out, and it is for you to consider whether you will accept or reject them." That is not what we are asked to do. What the Government are going to require us to do is to send up the terms of this Bill, unconsidered on the Committee stage of the Bill, unconsidered on the Report stage, and unconsidered when they come down from another place in the form in which they are on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman said a great deal at the conclusion of his speech about his anxiety for conciliations and about his desire, even at this last moment, that the Bill should, if possible, be saved; but evidently the Government want the Bill to be lost. I am not surprised, because I am not aware that any of their own friends like it and none of their opponents like it. I am not surprised that the Government are very anxious to see the rather chétive existence of this unhappy measure brought to a rapid and peaceful conclusion; but I think they might have gone about that object in a more decent manner, one more in accordance with precedent, one which was less deliberately insulting to the other branch of the Legislature, who, however, will, no doubt, bear with excellent philosophy the policy which the right hon. Gentleman means to thrust on them.
But I am not going to discuss more in detail at the present moment the Resolution which the Prime

1601
Minister is to move tomorrow'. When to-morrow comes we may have more to say on it. I confine myself now to following, not in full detail, but I hope adequately, the general line of argument which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. He tells us that this Bill has been so profoundly modified that, in effect, if it were pissed in the shape in which it has been sent back to us, it would be no great change in our existing system. That is quite inaccurate.
MR. BIRRELL: I did not say that there would be no change in the existing system. I said it would effect no change for the better.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has corrected mo. The changes it would make are, first, that it would throw the whole cost of denominational teaching on the denomination. I suppose that is a change. Does the right hon. Gentleman say it is not a change for the better?
MR. BIRRELL: By itself it would be a change for the better, but not accompanied by the other things.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said there would be no change for the better, and this is, as far as it goes, a change for the bettor. Then, he says, no addition to local control is given by the Bill as it comes down to us. The House will be perfectly aware that that contention is wholly without foundation. The Bill as amended by the Lords hands over to the local authority the appointment of teachers in all Clause 3 and Clause 4 schools, in Clause 3 schools without any control whatever from any other quarter. That is a change. Is it a change for the hotter? I should have thought the Government would have thought it was a change for the better, but I gather from the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a change for the better. There is a further instance in which there is a profound modification which I thoroughly sympathise with. It is that, while every denominationalist in the country has got to pay for the denominational teaching given to his children, every child in the country can get Cowper-Temple teaching at the cost of the rates. So that the Bill as
1602
it left the House of Lords profoundly modifies our existing system in these three particulars at least. (1) It makes denominations pay for their own teaching; (2) it gives the local authority control over the appointment of teachers in every school in the kingdom; and (3) it gives to every child in the kingdom the right to have Cowper-Temple teaching at the cost of those who do not like that teaching. How anybody can say that a Bill so modified is a Bill framed in the interests of denominationalists passes my comprehension.
Though I dare say the right hon. Gentleman will receive my statement with surprise, I do not approach this subject in the interest of denominational teaching. I approach it now, as I have always tried to approach it, from much broader and more general grounds. I think we ought if we can to consider that we have some kind of duty to be impartial, rather aloof from the religious question in this country, that this House should have the same relation as the Indian Government has to those alien religions with which we are brought into such close administrative control. Let us great all beliefs, all denominations, impartially. That is what we have got to aim at, and it is not from the point of view of a particular denomination; it is not as an Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Nonconformist; it is not in the interest of any special sect or form, or quality of belief or disbelief, that I address the House. I address it from an external and impartial standpoint. It is quite true that the Act of 1902, for which I was responsible, built on an old foundation. The main object of the Act was not to deal with the religious question at all, but with the pressing needs of the secular question. Its object was to put, and it did put for the first time in our history, the whole education of the country on a solid, logical, and coherent basis. That was the main object; and in doing that I admit we dealt as little as possible with those very difficult controversial subjects which could not be wholly avoided by any Bill which could be brought in. But one great departure was made from the old principle of the Act of 1870, which had hitherto regulated our proceedings, and that was in the clause which for the first time in our history permitted the parent's views to be heard with regard to

1603
the erection of new schools, and the provision of new places of education for his children if he were dissatisfied with the religious teaching in the places existing. The parent under the Act of 1870 was never considered at all; he did not come in, he did not count; he might withdraw his child, no doubt, from religious education, but apart from that privilege he was not regarded as a person who had anything to say with regard to the system of religious education pursued. The Act of 1902 made a great alteration in that, but I quite admit it did in the main build on the old foundation of 1870, and did not bring in in any complete or full measure the parental control. But if you are going to destroy the Act of 1870 and the Act of 1902, if you are going to abandon the traditional principles which have hitherto regulated our educational system, you are driven to consider upon what logical and fundamental basis you are going to raise your new superstructure; and I say there is but one such basis; there is one foundation and one only which will stand examination on which this House may feel that it is proceeding safely, and that is not local control, of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks, but parental control—parental authority. Local control is adequate, it is proper, it is the right machinery to use when you are dealing with those things on which there is really no difference of opinion between one sect and another, or one parent and another. Where all are agreed on general principles the local authority may very well decide questions of mathematics and geography, upon how much time is to be given to this subject of secular study or that. But by what authority are we going to make the local education authority the arbiter of the religious education of the children of this country? If you are really going to tear up the old foundation of 1870 and 1902, if you are going to say that where denominationalists have built a school, spent thousands of pounds upon it, and taught within its walls for generations, all that is to be swept away as meaningless and of no significance, then the only conceivable, logical, just, or tolerable method of dealing with the question is so to frame your system, as far as may be, as to allow every parent to decide what religion he would like given to his children, and, if you can, provide machinery for meeting it. That is the real basis, as I think, of,
1604
any new legislation; and that is the basis on which the House of Lords have worked, so far as I can see, in all the modifications they have introduced into this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman went through the Amendments of the Lords; I am not going to follow each one of his criticisms. I think the House would not wish me to go into all the points he raised; but I will take the more important ones. His first criticisms were directed against an Amendment introduced by the Lords on Clause 1. That Amendment simply says that there shall be a place in the time-table of every school m which religious education may be given. The right hon. Gentleman waxes very indignant over that because, he says, it is interference with the rights and liberties of the local authority. If it is interference with the local authority, it is in the interests of the parents of the children as regards religious education, it comes exactly within the category I have described, and follows out the only principle you can adopt if you reject the historic standpoint. The right hon. Gentleman tries to persuade the House that the Education Department cannot deal with such questions; but I am informed by my hon. friend near me that when he was at the Board of Education he refused to sanction a time-table, that he had controversies with the local authorities as regards by-laws dealing with this very subject, and those controversies were carried by my hon. friend to a successful issue without rousing any of those passions which I gather the right hon. Gentleman thinks will be roused in the breasts of the outraged municipal or county authority by any such tyrannical interference as that which is involved in asking for half an hour a day, or whatever it may be, to be put aside for religious instruction. The right hon. Gentleman made, if he will allow me to say so, the only lapse from fairness and good taste in the whole of his speech when dealing with that subject. He said he assumed the religion to be given in that half hour was the religion of hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite him, whatever that particular religion may be. I have no means of taking a census on the point, but I imagine there would be varieties of religion on this side of the House, as there are on that. The right hon.

1605
Gentleman had no justification for that sneer, he had no basis for it in the speeches made in the House of Lords, or the Amendments introduced there, and I am sorry he should for one moment have forgotten that perfect courtesy and good taste which is so characteristic of all he says in this House.
What was the next point? It was the Amendment introduced by Lord Salisbury in the other House dealing with provided schools, and the teaching to be given outside the Cowper-Temple clause in provided schools where those schools belong to what are known as single-school areas. I understood the light hon. Gentleman to say—I was amazed, but I do not think I misunderstood him—that this was an interference with the liberties of the local authority.
DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): Hear, hear.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was amazed that this was a violation of those fundamental principles of local independence so dear to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Pools not the light hon. Gentleman see that so far from being an interference with the local authority it is the reverse? The Cowper-Temple clause in itself is a violation of those liberties. The view of the Government is that it is wicked to interfere with a local education authority when it refuses to give the education; desired by the parent of the child, but: that you may interfere with it to prevent its giving that teaching? How can these advocates of the rights of local authorities have the face to get up and say they approve of the Cowper-Temple clause? I That argument has been often stated, has it ever been met? You not only say —I think you are wrong—that the local authority ought to have control over secular education, but you go much further and say it shall be the arbiter of the kind of religious education given to the children. I think your principle is wrong; but at all events carry it out consistently, and if the local authority be the proper guide, philosopher, and friend in all these matters connected with the children put under its charge, give it absolute freedom to meet, if it desires to meet, the wishes of the parents in that respect. What answer is there to that argument, what beginning of an answer?
1606
Does any hon. Gentleman think he has got an answer? I challenge him to produce it. There is no answer. Those who deafen us with those cries in favour of the liberty of the local authority, and at the same moment say that to allow the local authority to give any teaching except Cowper-Temple teaching is a thing they would never stand—I think the hon. Member for North Camberwell said it was an outrage they would never tolerate, the touching of sacred things, the Ark of the Covenant.
DR. MACNAMARA: I beg pardon. I said the light hon. Gentleman refused that himself in 1902.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is perfectly true that in 1902, except in the very important particular I described, I built on the old foundations, and left the Cowper-Temple clause untouched, and single school areas untouched; but I never came forward and said I did it because I thought we ought not to interfere with the liberty of the local authority. That is what they are talking of on that bench. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down did not adduce one argument against the Amendments of the House of Lords except that they interfered with the liberties which ought to be given, and which were given by the Bill in its original shape, to local authorities. Let him be consistent, let him carry out his own principles, and lot the right hon. Gentleman, who is, doubtless, going to answer me, not shirk this point, but explain with what face he can at the same time tell us that the religious teaching of the children is a matter, not for parents, but the local authority, and then say that the local authority is to be hampered in its selection of the teaching to be given to the children by this perfectly arbitrary and illogical clause. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not deal with it to his own satisfaction.
The next point was that the religious teaching should be within school hours, and the right hon. Gentleman said that that violated a principle very dear to himself. He mourned the departure of Clause 7, in which the opposite principle was embodied, and said he still maintained, though against some of his own colleagues, that the principle of Clause 7 was right. I am sure the right hon.

1607
Gentleman was perfectly sincere in that statement, but how he can really reconcile this view with the view which he expressed very eloquently on the Third Reading of the Bill, that the religious training of the younger generations of this country is of fundamental importance to the future of the race, I cannot understand. I cannot bring myself to see how you can both regard a subject as of primary importance for educational purposes and also hold that you may exclude it from the ordinary curriculum.
MR. BIREELL: The conscience clause would be put in force, or ought to be made capable of being put in force, by those persons who do not wish their children to receive a particular kind of religion at a particular kind of school, and those are the very people who are very careful to give their children religious education at home.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but is that very interesting observation really pertinent to the argument? What I was saying was that if you treat religion as of less importance than arithmetic and geography it will be considered as of less importance by the children and by the parents, and you cannot do a greater disservice to the religious education of the young than to say that by common consent, by the action of the Education Department, indeed, of the Legislature, it is to be put in a lower and less dignified position than those subjects of secular interest on which most of the day is spent. How anybody who believes in religious education can quarrel with the Lords because the Lords say that religion is of such importance that it ought to be treated with not less dignity, at least, than other subjects of study, I fail to understand. In the interests of the House I will not follow the next point dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, viz., the appeal to the Commission.
I now come to the question of teachers. The right hon. Gentleman says the Government have laid it down as a fundamental principle that there are to be no tests for teachers. But the right hon. Gentleman has never told us what tests for the teachers are. To my mind one of the reasons why he has never told us what he means by tests
1608
for teachers is that if he did tell us it would be found that he himself by his Bill has deliberately imposed tests on teachers. Are not tests on teachers involved in Clause 4? That is, if Clause 4 is anything more than a sham and a humbug. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman, all through the debates on the Education Bill, was in a position of great difficulty, and I have always felt for him. Speaking in this House with his friends behind him he has always laid great stress on the point that there were to be no tests for teachers. But when he was receiving deputations from bodies in whose interest Clause 4 was devised he was forced to say that by the nature of the case Clause 4 schools were to go on in the future as they had gone on in the past, that their teachers were to be selected in the future as they had been selected in the past, and that, therefore, there would be tests for teachers. If the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had violated the principle of no tests for teachers, but that he saw no other way of escape, and had made the violation as small as possible, I could understand his position. But the Government have always said they would have no tests for teachers. I say emphatically that unless Clause 4 has been a piece of hypocrisy from the beginning, it was intended to meet the interests of the denominations, and therefore from the beginning this Bill has contemplated tests for teachers. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman has put in a clause with regard to provisional schools in which he not only admits tests for teachers, but clearly indicates that the local authority is quite well qualified to look into the religious merits or demerits of teachers selected for certain schools. If tests for teachers are wrong, then this Bill is wrong. If tests for teachers are not wrong, then the Government and the House of Lords differ only in degree and not in kind.
What is the last great cause of quarrel which the Government have with the Lords? It relates partly to the proportion of children which may constitute a school—a fourth-clause school, and partly to the manner in which the unsectarian minority in such a school are to be treated. Again, we come to the old question—Were the Government sincere when they originally proposed

1609
Clause 4, that relief should be given to those who desired denominational teaching for their children? Directly we examine the clause we are forced to the conclusion that they never intended Clause 4 to work, because the presence of a single Nonconformist child in a Roman Catholic school prevents that school coming under Clause 4, or the presence of a single Roman Catholic in a Church of England school prevents that school obtaining the benefits of Clause 4. In a word, the majority must be an overwhelming majority. Everything was done to ensure that parents, however they desired it, were not to have the benefit which Clause 4 was ostensibly intended to give them. I appeal to the principle which must be our fundamental guide in the settlement of this education question, the principle of the wishes of the parents. The Government seem to think that the Lords have done a very bold or audacious thing in reducing the necessary majority of parents to carry the special facilities for religious instruction from four-fifths to two-thirds. In my opinion, if the action of the Lords is open to any criticism, it is open to the criticism that it does not go far enough. But the Government have taken the view that it is so wicked for parents to desire to settle the religious instruction their children are to receive that in order to settle it their majority must be overwhelming. The principle of the Government is that the local authority is to be the supreme controller not merely of secular, but of religious, education. The principle upon which the Lords have, in a hesitating and cautious manner, modified the Bill is that the parents are to be the judges of the religious education which is to be given to their children. I ask—which of these two contending principles is more in accordance, not only with natural justice, but with those professions of liberty of conscience which come so readily to the lips of Radical orators and are so seldom found in Radical legislation? Questions which Parliament is held to be not competent to touch, questions of individual conscience, and the relations between the seen and the unseen, are held to be matters that naturally come within the purview of every local authority in the country. I do not think we are qualified in this House to deal with matters of religion,
1610
but I absolutely deny that we are less qualified to deal with matters of religion than a board of aldermen and councillors. The action of the Government is a return to the discredited system of the Middle Ages, which was but slightly dissipated at the Reformation, the system which led to the persecution of Protestants by Roman Catholics, of Roman Catholics by Protestants, and of one sect of Protestants by another sees of Protestants; and is contrary to religious toleration, to freedom of conscience, and to liberal principles, as those things are now understood. That which you have taken away from the State you have transferred to the municipality. I say that the principle which makes it wrong for the State to interfere makes it wrong for the municipality to interfere The right which the parent has as against the State he equally has as against the municipality, and I absolutely repudiate the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that any sect or any minority which comes into collision with the local authority will find themselves crushed under its heel or destroyed like Stephenson's cow by the incoming rush of the local authority. I think history is against the right hon. Gentleman. I think the growth of opinion is in favour of that individual liberty which the right hon. Gentleman wants us to sacrifice on the municipal altar.
But at all events I thank the right hon. Gentleman for one thing. He has brought out perfectly clearly what is the point of difference between this House and the House of Lords. The nature of that difference is apt to be lost in the mass of Amendments which have come down to us, and the complication of clauses and subsections, until people fail to see the forest for the trees. The right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear that, according to the modern doctrine of Radicalism, the religion of our children is to be settled for us by county councils and municipalities. All the changes introduced by the House of Lords are in the direction of giving increased authority to the parent, and of saying that your machinery must be molded and modified in so far as practical difficulties will allow, so as to give the parent as great a right to settle the religion taught his children as he already has to teach it in the home,

1611
and if these be the two antagonisms upon which the two Houses are to quarrel, if the House of Lords are to stand committed to one principle and we in this House to another, how will it be when we go to the final judge that is to choose between us? I venture to say that when public opinion begins really to sift all these details and winnow out the great principles on one side and the other, it cannot fail to see what is becoming clearer every day, that the ingenuity of those who are responsible for our law-making ought to be devoted to increasing, as the Lords' Amendments have attempted, the rights of the parent over the education of his child. That form of communism which makes the child the child of the State and not the child of those who begot him certainly will not find favour with the general community. Whatever our views on general Socialism may be, more and more we are feeling that it is the inalienable right of the parent to do all that is practically possible to give his children those views on the greatest, the most difficult, the most important of all subjects, the relation of man to God and to the eternal verities in which he himself believes. The idea that parental duty is to be taken away from the parent and handed to the town council because, forsooth, any other course is an interference with local liberty, strikes me as bad statesmanship, and if I may say so, bad Liberalism. Whether good or bad Liberalism, it is at all events inconsistent with the increasing strength of those conditions which more and more, as I believe, are going to dominate the educational policy of the country. It is in this firm conviction that I look forward to the struggle, if struggle there is to be, either between the two Houses now or, in regard to the policy which this House represents, in the country hereafter. I do not wish to throw this Bill back in the face of the Government even if I had the power to do so; but much rather, far rather, would I see it perish absolutely amid general indifference and contempt than see it passed into law in the shape in which the right hon. Gentleman desires it to pass.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he must express his personal regret that the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government had proposed to take
1612
the course which he stated would be pursued the next day. He said that, because he took a very serious view of the whole situation not only religious but political. As one who voted against the Third Reading of the Bill it might seem paradoxical for him to say that he deeply regretted the lack of any compromise which would increase the chances of this measure being passed into law. The Minister for Education had said he hoped for a compromise, but he could not gather from the Leader of the Opposition that there was a chance that any such hope would be realised, and he must say that if the desire of the Government was to carry this Bill by making concessions he could not see that the course they were going to take the next day was a fortunate one. He could not look upon the future with anything like confidence or with anything but the deepest misgiving. If the Bill failed to pass it would be a very serious thing for the Government and for the Liberal Party, and looking at the matter from an educational point of view, he thought it would be a disastrous thing if they wore to have this controversy about religious education hanging over their heads from year to year. As one who was opposed to secularism he said that the loss of this Bill would be a most serious thing to those who wished to prevent the name of God from being banished from the schools of a Christian country. Speaking on behalf not only of those who represented Ireland, but of 2,000,000 Roman Catholics in this country, on the Third Reading he had felt it his duty to recapitulate the attitude which they took up. They voted against the Third Reading of the Bill, but, as he said, they did so with the utmost reluctance and regret, and they did so on the special grounds which they thought were suitable to the special case of those on whose behalf they were speaking. The general discussion on this Bill had been of a different character, but so far as Clause 4 was concerned the interests of those on behalf of whom he spoke were in opposition to those of hon. Members above the gangway. Ever since the Bill was introduced it had been admitted that the case of the Catholics and of the Jews was exceptional and demanded exceptional treatment, and all they had ever asked for wag that the exceptional treatment which was contained in the Bill should be made a reality. They

1613
never asked that those whom he represented should be divorced from the general national system of education in the country. All they asked for was that the promises of the right hon. Gentleman should be made good by Amendments to Clause 4. They never asked for anything which was inconsistent with the general principles of this Bill; they asked for nothing which was inconsistent with the real mandate which the Liberal Party got from the country at the last general election. Their demands were consistent with the broad question of popular control, and in regard to that subject he would like to remind hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches that they as a body voted with them, and against the Opposition, in favour of the clause which said that there should be no religious tests for teachers. How came it about that they found themselves; forced to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill? They wore forced to take that course because the moderate, but to them vital and essential Amendments, which they proposed to Clause 4 were rejected. They believed that half the Catholic; schools of this country would be excluded, as the Bill stood, from the operation of Clause 4. That meant that the Catholics wore in this exceptional position—that while other religious denominations if they happened to be excluded under the operation of Clause 4, could, without doing violence to their consciences, take advantage of the ordinary Cowper-Temple Clause, the Catholics could not. So that half their schools would be starved. Had they been met by the Government in a conciliatory spirit in the Amendments which they moved to Clause; 4, they would have been able to vote with the Government on the Third Reading of the Bill, and would have increased the majority by which it was carried from 192 to somewhere about 350. And though it might be, said that a majority of 192 was sufficient, no one who knew anything of the Parliamentary history of this country would deny that a Bill with a majority of 350 behind it would be in a far stronger position when it went to the House of Lords than the one which went the other day on its dangerous, and he feared disastrous journey through the Lobby. The Catholics stood just, where they did before. They did not know what the
1614
future had in store for them, but it appeared to him that the circumstances under which they reiterated their claims; had been changed. Either this Bill would 'become law and pass by means of a compromise or it would not. If it was to become law, manifestly a portion of the compromise must be something in the nature of the Amendments which they asked for in Clause 4. If the Bill was not going to pass and the result of the sending back of the Lords' Amendments en bloc was the dropping of the Bill, then surely it was advisable that the Government should have the Irish Party, representing as they did 2,000,000 of Catholics in this country at their back, if they could get their support without impairing the principles of this measure. He had listened with extreme pleasure to that portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which dealt with this part of the subject. Let him recapitulate the Amendments asked for. They declared that the two limits in Clause 4— the four-fifths and the urban area—would exclude by their operations half of their schools from the clause. That was denied and denied most vehemently, by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. But the further inquiries that had been made upon the subject since confirmed the statement that under the operations of these two limits at least 500 Catholic schools out of a total of little over 1,000 would have been excluded from the operation of Clause 4, and that meant the starvation of these schools. They asked therefore to omit the limitation of 5,000 population per urban area and asked for the modification of the four-fifths limitation. He had listened with the greatest pleasure, but, he confessed, with some regret to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that if the opportunity were now given to the Government to consider the basis of compromise on which to get the Bill through, they would turn a favourable ear to the claim the Nationalist's then made with regard to the population of the urban area, and that they would accept the very Amendment they moved, namely, to make the limitation three-fourths instead of four-fifths. Now these concessions, if he could call them concessions at this moment, in these circumstances wore of enormous importance to them. They would, they believed, extend the operations of Clause 4 not to all their

1615
schools, but to practically all their schools. They did not want the Government to do anything upon this Bill which would tend to perpetuate the Nonconformist grievance in the one school area. That they were willing absolutely to give up. He had made some inquiries, and he found it would mean a considerable improvement to their schools. About thirty would still be excluded from the operation of these facilities. But they were willing that that sacrifice should be made in order that they might show the people of this country clearly that they did not desire to retain anything which would tend to the maintenance of that one school area grievance of the Nonconformists. But putting that on one side these two concessions would include the bulk of their schools. Why under Heaven these concessions were not made to the Catholics in the Committee stage of the Bill he could not conceive. He was sure they were made honestly and sincerely. He would be the last man in the world to impute to the President of the Board of Education or to the Prime Minister and those responsible for the Bill that they were throwing out these concessions now when it was too late. But he sincerely trusted that the opportunity might not be lost for considering compromise upon these lines by the procedure they had adopted for to-morrow. On the question of four-fifths or two thirds they agreed in Committee to a ballot, but they insisted that the ballot should be an honest ballot, and that the people who did not vote should not be counted as against denominational teaching. They asked for a three-fourths majority upon a ballot of those who voted. Of course the ballot would be a dishonest device if every man who did not vote was taken as voting against the claim. On the question of the teachers what they asked was this they never asked for the imposition of religious tests. They voted in favour of the clause abolishing religious tests, but so far as Clause 4 was concerned, which was the exception to the general plan of the Bill, they took their stand upon the words of the Minister for Education himself, that it would be an absurdity—not only a gross injustice but an absurdity—to send into a Jewish school a man not qualified to teach Jewish doctrine or to send into a Catholic school a man who did not know or believe in the Catholic worship. It would be like sending a nun into a
1616
Protestant school to teach Protestant doctrine. The thing was so grotesque and ridiculous that it stood to reason that the intention of the Government was that that should not happen and the Minister for Education correctly interpreted the intention of the Bill. But that danger was not safeguarded against, and what they asked was that a parents' committee should be associated with the local authority in the selection of teachers so as to make sure that this gross absurdity would not take place. The right hon. Gentleman in his reference to this matter was somewhat vague, but he gathered from him that the Government on the basis of compromise and the passing of their Bill were willing that parents 'committees should be given a voice in the selection of teachers in the extended facilities schools. He did not wish to discuss words. He was only alluding to the substance, and if the words of the Minister for Education meant their ordinary and natural meaning then the right hon. Gentleman had conceded what they asked, because they asked only that a voice should be given to the parents' committee in the selection of teachers. If the Government had been really willing to concede that, the right hon. Gentleman might, by making this concession in Committee, without the slightest difficulty have obtained the vote of the Irish Party upon the Third Reading of the Bill. On the question of the school accommodation to be provided for minorities in these four-fifths schools, the House of Lords put in an Amendment which he candidly thought unreasonable. He did not agree with the words. They were unreasonable and went much further than the necessity of the case demanded. If all these schools wore homogeneous schools where the overwhelming bulk of the scholars were of one religion—and that was their grievance—would it not be a monstrous thing if out of a Catholic school of 400 or 500 scholars it was in the power of five or six Protestant children —let him say by way of reductio ad absurdum in the power of one child—to prevent the extended facilities being given to that school at all because there was not what was considered adequate school accommodation foe that child in the neighbourhood? The House of Lords passed an Amendment which went far beyond that. Lord Crewe, he noticed, proposed a compromise upon this point

1617
to the effect that the minority of children should be more than ten. He said nothing about the figure ten. Probably that was too low. But the fact that Lord Crewe made that proposal showed that the Government were not impervious to argument on the question and recognised the existence of a real grievance. And if they were to go on with the serious consideration of this Bill at all he would ask also that that concession be made. He passed by the question of "may" and "shall" and the question of the appeal to the Board of Education because, as far as he was concerned, he and his friends agreed that probably the appeal to the Board of Education was making the clause mandatory. There was nothing very remarkable in the Amendments they demanded on Clause 4, and he repeated that if on the Third Reading they had received promises of the insertion of the list of Amendments as now conceded at this stage they would have frankly supported the Bill. Their appeal and demand on these points were moderate, and he begged of the Government, if it were possible, even now at the eleventh hour, to introduce these Amendments into their Bill, and, if possible, pass their Bill into law. It would be, he supposed, hoping against hope that anything could come of to-day's proceedings except the loss of the Bill. But, speaking for those with whom he was associated, on the basis of getting these concessions, he was most anxious that the Bill should not be lost, and he would do everything in his power to prevent the wrecking of it. He hoped sincerely that out of all this strife and turmoil and confusion in the end a measure might emerge which, by showing a proper toleration of the religious views of all sections of the people, might postpone, he hoped, for ever what he would regard as the evil day when the name of God would be banished from the schools of this country.
MR. PERKSsaid he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that the great Nonconformist communities had as little desire as the great Catholic Church that the name of God should be banished from the elementary schools of this country. Speaking as a Methodist fully
1618
conversant with the views of that great Christian community, he would unhesitatingly say that there was not the faintest basis for the fear expressed by the Leader of the Opposition that they would ever stand side by side with any section of the people who desired secularism in the elementary schools of the country. The position that Wesleyan Methodists — the largest section of Methodists—had taken up, which position was formulated in the minutes of the Conference, was that they wanted popular control, abolition of tests for teachers, and Bible instruction given in the schools —not merely Bible reading, but Bible instruction given by the teachers. He thought that was an irrefutable answer to the fears and assertions which had been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. The question was, what was the position of this Bill at present, and what was going to happen? He was not quite clear as to whether the House was invited that day to attend a funeral or a resurrection. He was not at all surprised at the course taken by the House of Lords. He was not surprised, and he was bound to say personally that he could not express the same amount of regret as had been expressed in some quarters. He had not been enamoured of the Bill, and he did not believe it to be a popular Bill with Nonconfomists. He knew it was not with hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was impossible to say that among Nonconformists this was a popular Bill, because it had been growing more unpopular, even in the form in which it left this House, the more it become known. He was simply asserting a well-known fact. That unpopularity had appeared in the declarations of the governing bodies of nearly all Nonconformist churches in the country. They had submitted to the utmost limit of concession, and they begged the Government not to concede an inch more. They had great objection to Clause 4. Even the Wesleyan Church, the most Conservative of the lot, although becoming increasingly Liberal he was thankful to say, had again reiterated its objection to Clause 4. He was very anxious to meet the case of the Catholics, and he felt the necessity of dealing with the Catholic case. He did not believe it

1619
was just to make a Catholic boy go into an elementary school and submit to Cowper-Temple religious instruction. Why was that doctrine not applied to the Anglican Church? Because the Anglican Church was supposed to be a Protestant Church, and because he looked upon the Bible instruction as coming within the four corners of the Thirty-nine Articles, which assert that the Bible is the foundation of the faith of the Church of England. It was suggested to-day that certain further concessions —most moment concessions—were to be offered at all events. There was no doubt that the Bill had been completely transformed in the House of Lords. It contained, at first, the leaven of sectarianism. It was not surprising that that had grown into a huge lump. It was manifestly such a denominational and sectarian Bill as it had come down to this House that no Tory Party would ever have dared to submit it to the House of Commons. But he earnestly hoped that concessions in the most objectionable Clause 4 would not be granted. The limitation of that obnoxious clause to urban areas was its sole redeeming feature for the rural districts. Now it was suggested that the limitations should be thrust away, and that facilities should be conceded, possibly to sectarian authorities in rural districts, to capture the elementary school even in the one school area. [" No."] That was the construction he put upon that provision. But even if it were not limited, there wore scores of small towns where there were only two schools and where the abolition of this limit of 5,000 would plunge the Nonconformists into the hands of the clerical authorities. The concession of the parents' committee appeared to him to make confusion worse confounded. Already the district county council managed the local school, and under the provisions of this Bill there would be, in addition, a local committee. There were the teachers, and now on the top of that they were to have the parents' committee —a new authority super-imposed upon the other three. He earnestly trusted the Government would recognise—as indeed the Minister of Education had always recognised and had said over and over again—that the loyalty of Non- conformists to the Government had been strained to the utmost possible point by
1620
the concessions which had been given already, and that they would pay attention to the earnest hope that this Bill would not be further mutilated and marred by concessions which could only give it into a still more sectarian and denominational character, and which would make it even more objectionable than it was at the present moment to those struggling bodies of Nonconformists, particularly in the rural districts of England, who for so long had felt that they had upon their necks the heel of the priests.
MR. BELLOCremarked that everything said in the course of the next few days by anyone who took part in the debates on this Bill earlier in the year would necessarily be somewhat of a repetition. He would attempt to touch only upon the point which they would discuss when the Government Motion came before them. They were considering, as the Motion stood, not only generally the Lords' Amendments, but also two very important points. The first was how far the House would have a mandate, and how far they individually would have mandates, to support the Government in certain further concessions. Secondly, they were concerned, although indirectly, with the question of whether it were wise or not to follow the policy which the President of the Board of Education had declared to be the Government policy of to-morrow, namely, the sending back of all the Amendments of the House of Lords en bloc. As to the first of these points he could only reiterate what he said at an earlier part of the year, and what had been said with far more force than he could say it from the Irish Benches a moment ago. It was a very simple point, but the simplest of points apparently must be iterated and re-iterated in these debates. He thought the admission just made by the hon. Member for Louth sufficiently showed that reiteration did at least no harm and sometimes could convert. There was a body of some 2,000,000 or more Catholic fellow-citizens concerned in this Bill. It was a body which voted almost unanimously for the present Government. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Throughout South Lancashire more than 90 per cent. of the

1621
Catholic vote was recorded for the Radical and Labour candidates. IN political affairs they had not only to consider the volume, but also the potentiality of a popular vote. If hon. Members interrogated the average artisan in their constituentcies they would find they knew nothing and cared nothing about the Bill, but they would find that every Catholic voter had followed the measure all through with the keenest interest, and knew how he suffered by the form in which the Bill left the House. There was in this country a certain society, and those who were communicants of it accepted its authority and saw in it the salvation not only of themselves but the world in general other than that part of it which was Catholic. The preservation of that society for themselves and their children was infinitely more sacred to them than wealth, personal health, or anything which a man could claim. On the whole, even with the grievance which Catholics still felt in this matter, it was to their advantage, and it was only the fulfilment of the mandate they received at the last election that they should send back the Lords' Amendments en bloc. In the first place, this was the only logical course to adopt, because it must be clearly understood by the and Catholics that no consistent Radical could be dependent even for a good thing upon the non-elected Chamber. Who were the men who had inserted these Amendments? They could be easily defined. They included in the first place a small body of eminent men given a position in a sort of Senate for their services to the nation. Secondly, there was a larger body of men who sat in the Upper Chamber simply by hereditary right. And thirdly, there was a body of men who had openly purchased their places in that Assembly. Every man who had any sort of political standing would deny the right of the Lords to treat a measure in the way they had done in this instance. The Catholics of Great Britain would obtain the immunity and treatment they desired, but they would obtain it in other ways; they would not be defeated, because they were infused with something that was never defeated, and that was Irish blood. On the whole he considered that it was his duty to vote
1622
for the rejection of the Lords' Amendments en bloc, and he should do so with all the more pleasure because he knew how strong the feeling of the ordinary English voter was against the claim which the House of Lords were putting forward in regard to Liberal legislation. He would not be properly representing the views of his constituency if he recognised in anyway the claim of the House of Lords to veto measures passed by the House of Commons.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that in regard to what the hon. Member for South Salford had Said it should not be forgotten that the body for whom he had been speaking helped the Conservative Government to put the Education Bill of 1902 on the Statute-book, and that was the measure which had caused all the trouble. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said that Clause 4 would have the effect of keeping half the Roman Catholic schools of the country from enjoying the privileges which that provision offered. He did not dispute that argument only in the spirit. That might be true of half the schools, but he did not think it would affect half the scholars; in his opinion the percentage of Catholic scholars excluded would be far smaller than 50 per cent. Therefore he did not think that could be made a ground of serious complaint, because the percentage of Roman Catholic scholars which the clause would cover would be extremely large indeed. Personally he had not offered any vigorous opposition to Clause 4, although he disliked it very much at the time it was introduced, and he was unable in consequence to give his support to the Third Reading of the Bill. If the Government concessions had gone much further no doubt more hon. Members would have taken the same view as he did. The President of the Board of Education had spoken about making Clause 4 a reality. If it was retained in the Bill at all he agreed that it should be a reality and not a sham. Jewish schools should have Jewish teachers and Catholic schools Catholic teachers, but the test by which that arrangement was to be secured through the appointment of a parents' committee was a very different thing

1623
from brushing aside the limit as to places having 5,000 population, and the making of the four-fifths into a three-fourths majority of parents. While they admitted that Clause 4 must be in the Bill, that was no reason why it should be extended throughout the country in the rural as well as in the more populous urban districts where there could be an Alternative school within a reasonable distance. He was not at all sure that there would be an alternative school within a reasonable distance if they removed the 5,000 limit. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had put a correct interpretation on the suggestions of his right hon. friend, the alterations in Clause 4 which might be acceptable to others would not be the kind of alterations to which he could possibly give his support. His right hon friend had referred to possible concessions under Clause 3, but in his opinion it would be a very dangerous thing indeed to meddle with that clause, and to give anyone in the House of Lords the idea that there was in the mind of the Government a disposition to make concessions would be a very great mistake tactically and otherwise. The Bill as it left the Commons gave denominational interests far more privileges than anyone would have expected after the last general election, and the friends of denominational schools would make a great mistake if they thought the country would tolerate any extension of the privileges which had been offered under the Bill, an offer which was never likely to be repeated by any other Liberal Government.
SIR ALFRED THOMASsaid he was very glad his right hon. friend had stood up to the House of Lords so boldly. He never knew a Bill begun so well and end so badly as this Bill. He would have thought that the ingenuity of the House of Lords could not have made it weaker, but they had done so, and he would at once say that rather than accept the Bill in its present condition he would prefer to be tinder the 1902 Act. He found that in the House of Lords they made much of having a committee of parents. He very well remembered on the Bill of 1902 the best speech on that subject was made by
1624
the late Prime Minister, who spoke of the position of the parents and their desire for religious teaching. He agreed with his position then and he agreed with it now. He said that the parents were the only right teachers, and they had no right to force any other teachers on the children. They had no right to teach any doctrine which was repugnant to the parent or the scholar, and it seemed to him that his right hon. friend was attempting to do the impossible when he attempted to teach religious and secular education at the same time. An hon. Member of the Opposition once said to him, "Are you in favour of religious instruction in a school?" and when he replied, "I am afraid I am," he was told, "Then you are inconsistent." He began to consider his position and to ask himself the question, "What do you profess? What is your political creed?" The principal clause of his creed was the liberation of religion from State control, and how, therefore, could he agree to introduce religion into the State schools? His right hon. friend had produced a great measure. He hoped in another two years he would have an opportunity of voting for another great measure for the liberation of religion from State control. He was not speaking for all the Party with whom he was associated, but there were nine of them who agreed with him in the secular solution, because they believed there was no other method practicable in a national system of education. The Leader of the Irish Nationalist Party had said he was anxious to join a national system of education, but how could they have a national system with a dozen different creeds? There could be only one system and that must be a secular system. He was sorry to hear his right hon. friend say that that would be the means of banning the name of God from the schools. Did that mean that all our religious bodies would cease to exist? He thought they were quite able to keep up religion in the land without having it in the secular schools. It would be a sorry day for the country if they were reduced to the religious teaching in the secular schools. He believed that some concessions could be made by the other House. If not, he would rather there was no Bill.
MR. HOOPERexpressed the hope that hon. Members would show to him the courtesy and consideration which they always extended to one who addressed the House for the first time. The Amendments made in another place with regard to religious instruction, in so far as they related to the ordinary transferred schools, might, he thought, be fairly though roughly summarised, as follows:—(1) Instruction compulsory with conscience clause; (2) denominational instruction to be given; (3) permission for teacher to give such instruction at expense of denomination. Over and against that policy was the Government plan which might be summarised as follows:—(1) Religious instruction to be left to local authority; (2) if given it must be subject to limitation of Cowper-Temple clause; and (3) the teacher was not to give denominational religious instruction. On this issue he would like to speak as an ordinary and moderate layman of the Free Churches. Anyone who had read the speeches in this House on their unhappy religious differences must have been impressed with their earnestness and moderation, and the tone of reverence which characterised them all. He for one personally felt, putting aside the Roman Catholics and the Jews, and perhaps some extremists both in the Anglican and in the Free Churches, that there was so much common ground between the great Protestant communities that with the exercise of mutual good-will, trust, and confidence an acceptable basis ought to be found. He could not say how devoutly he wished that consummation. He was certain that their differences rested largely on their misunderstandings, want of confidence, and the difficulty they had in looking at the controversy from each other's standpoint. In reading the speeches of those who voiced the views of the Roman Catholic community, and also the views of both sections of the Anglican Church, he had tried honestly and earnestly to understand their point of view in this controversy, and to grasp their meaning of revealed truth, but he admitted that he found it extremely difficult. He recognised also how difficult it must be for the members of those historic churches to understand the posi-
1626
tion of the FREE Churches, or the truths for which those Churches stood as witnesses. That being so, he thought they ought to make allowances one for the other. What was the main charge against the Government and which had caused all these Amendments? The charge made by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that the Government were practically endowing a new form of religion, or as some said, the Nonconformist religion, because they permitted the teachers to teach the Cowper-Temple religion, but declined to permit them to teach any other, and it was held that that was unfair and unjust. The question was, What was meant by calling this the teaching of a new religion? Surely there was only one Christian religious faith. There might be many different organisations, many schools of thought, different forms and ceremonies, but behind all these there remained the fundamental truths of our common religious faith which remain and could not be shaken. Could not he as a Free Churchman say to his friends of the Roman Catholic Church, "We" believe in the same God the Father Almighty We trust to the same Saviour —the Divine Son of God—and we rely day by day upon the same Divine Spirit indwelling in our lives. When we put out to sea we shall all look "for the same pilot as we cross the bar?" There was no such thing as Cowper-Temple religion. The clause associated with that name enunciated a principle and said that the religious teaching to be given in the schools should be one of peace and not of religious strife, and it asked each denomination to consent to eliminate from the teaching in the public elementary schools those religious truths which differentiated one religious body from another. The Cowper-Temple clause did not prevent dogmatic religious teaching; it was essentially a peace suggestion. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken the trouble to read the reports of the controversy over the Bill of 1870; but if they had done so they would find that the Cowper-Temple clause was supported by Churchmen and Tories, the author himself both being a Churchman and a Tory. And the reason for its adoption was not, as some thought, to provide religious teaching acceptable

1627
to Nonconformists. No, the reason was that Parliament for the first time had created State schools, placed them under public control to be supported by public money, the teachers of which were not to be subject to any religious tests, and therefore by common consent denominational religious instruction could not be given therein—hence, the limitation imposed by the Cowper-Temple clause. Now it was admitted on all hands that the country had decided that the old voluntary or non-provided schools were to be State schools supported by public money, and that the teachers were not to be subject to any test. Consequently the Government proposed to apply to those new State schools the Cowper-Temple clause, just as in 1870 it was applied to the State schools then for the first time created. The question was whether that policy on the part of the Government violated religious equality or was unjust and unfair to the Church of England. He had no hesitation in saying that that was not the case, and for the following reasons. First of all, he was a denomination a list. The denomination to which he belonged— the Congregational Church—held distinctive truths for which their fathers had fought, were persecuted and suffered, for which their Church stood as a witness, and which they hold as precious as life itself. They said however, that they were so anxious that the religious atmosphere of these State schools should be one of peace and not sectarian strife, that they were willing to make sacrifices therefore, and agreed that their denominational truths should not be taught in the State schools by State teachers; but they would be content to teach them in their homes, in the Sunday schools, and in their churches. And so also with the Wesleyans, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and other Free Church communities. They had their distinctive truths for which their churches stood as witnesses before the world, but these Churches also for the same reason were willing not to press for their denominational truths to be taught in the State schools and by the State teachers. So that when it was said that
1628
Nonconformists were satisfied with the religious teaching given under the Cowper-Temple clause further explanation was necessary. They were content solely on the ground that they were anxious for peace, and not because undenominational religion satisfied their faith or was a complete exposition of the truth as they apprehended it. On the same grounds they asked the Church of England to agree to eliminate from the religious curriculum in the State schools her distinctive truths that clashed with the convictions of other Protestant communities He would give an instance. As he understood, the Church of England claimed with the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Church to an apostolic succession of the priesthood, and that they only were empowered to teach divine truth. Now Congregationalists believed with all conviction that when a man was born again and endowed by the Spirit of God he was not only competent but bound to teach within the limits of his knowledge. But was it necessary to impress upon the young child mind such conflicting conceptions of truth? They did not desire to force an alien faith on the Church of England, but only asked that all denominations should be placed on the same footing. The Church of England said, "It is true that you Free Churches are billing to make a sacrifice and consent to forego the teaching of your denominational truths in State schools, but if you ask us to make the same sacrifices that is unfair; it violates religious equality." Whether or no it was unfair was one of the issues that had to be decided by the House. At all events the Government showed their fairness by consenting that the Church of England should have the opportunity of imparting her denominational teaching on two mornings in the week. The principle underlying the Lords' Amendments was contained in a suggestion made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham on the Second Reading of the Bill. He should like to say at this point that he regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman on account of illness, and he hoped that though his recovery was slow it would be permanent. The right hon.

1629
Gentleman said they should separate the religious from the secular, let denominational religion be taught in school hours by the teacher at the expense of the denomination; and the right hon. Gentleman instanced a case, "Here is a school the teachers to which have been appointed without any test. Some are willing to give Church teaching, and some religious instruction according to the syllabus of the local authority. Why not let thorn do it," and there, he said, they had the solution of the difficulty. But the right hon. Gentleman made the mistake of lumping all the Free Churches together, and saying, "The local authority syllabus is good enough for you. If it should become part of the law of the land that any denomination might utilise a teacher to teach his own denominational leaching, he as a Congregation a list should make the same demand and insist that in every school in the land where there wore children whose parents were Congregationalists a teacher should be appointed capable of teaching the distinctive denominational truths of the Congregational Church. The other great Free Church communities would make a similar demand. This would mean, if not ostensibly, yet practically, imposing tests on teachers. They would become the sport of sectarian strife, as each denomination would try and secure the appointment of teachers capable of teaching their own faith. This would also be disastrous educationally, for the teacher would secure appointment for his sectarian zeal, and not for his educational qualifications. He honestly believed that if the Government proposals were accepted it would follow that when the denominations saw that they could not in State schools teach any formulary or distinctive Catechism the Churches generally would say one to the other, "Cannot we draw up some syllabus of instruction suitable to the child mind which may be dogmatic but not distinctive?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham once said that if he had to look at this question from the beginning he would still have hopes of bringing the Churches into line, and he himself still had hopes that that would be done. He hoped it would not go forth to the world that our Churches
1630
could not agree upon a Catechism or something which, apart from denominationalism, was suitable to every child. He had in his hands a Catechism which was in use in Jamaica and in Canada and which had been drawn up and agreed to by the Church of England and those who were called in this country Free Churches, and what he wished to ask hon. Members opposite was this. Was the Church of England in our Colonies part of the corporate whole of that Church, and, if so, and if was possible for them to come to such a conclusion in the Colonies, how was it impossible for some such agreement to be come to in the mother country? If the Churches could so agree, who doubted that the local authorities would accept such a syllabus, and peace and concord would reign in our schools? He thought the policy initiated by the Government was the only one which would be acceptable to the country.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYsaid he recognised the very difficult task which the right hon. Gentle-man had had to perform and the ability, courage, and candour with which he had discharged his duty. He and many hon. Members on both sides of the House hoped that some compromise might be arrived at. In the early part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that did not seem possible, but they gathered from the later part of it that the right hon. Gentleman himself as well as His Majesty's Government thought that, if a reasonable compromise could be arrived at, this Bill ought to be placed upon the Statute-book. He was one of those who Were very desirous that some compromise on this vexed and difficult question should be come to. He was sorry that in the first part of his reply the right hon. Gentleman gave so much attention to the machinery of the Bill apart from its general principles. He quite agreed, however, that to give the right of entry into the council schools would be unfair and unjust, and would receive in all parts of the country the strongest possible opposition. He took up that position for several reasons. He was connected, as chairman of a large educational authority, with the

1631
educational work of the country, and, so far as that particular Amendment went, he was not aware that in any part of the country at the last general election any appeal was made on that subject to the electors. Whatever mandate might have been received by the Government they certainly had not received any mandate to open the doors of the council schools to others than those whom the council had appointed to teach. Under no circumstances, therefore, could the Government accept such an Amendment, and he would rather that the Bill were of than that the peaceful conditions with regard to religious instruction which now prevailed in the council schools should be disturbed by any outside influence. During the last thirty years there had been growing up in the council schools a national system of religious education, and in the syllabuses published by the Board of Education used in those schools it would be found that the principles in which the Churches were agreed were embodied. There was no religious difficulty in the council schools, and if at that moment any Government proposed to introduce sectarian teaching into them they would have to face as great a difficulty as they were facing to-day. It was a privilege to him to express his frank opinion upon this subject, and to urge upon the Government that discord should not at this time be sown by anybody. He would venture to suggest two or three points upon which there might be some compromise. In Clause I of the Bill there were words added which indicated that the local education committee school of the future could only be considered one when some form of religious teaching was given. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman express some hesitation as to whether those words could be accepted or not, but if he could accept them and show that the House of Commons and the country did desire that some form of religious teaching should be given to the children it would set at rest a good many doubts. As to the Amendments to Clauses 2 and 3 he did not observe that the Amendments of the House of Lords affected any important principle; in his judgment they only strengthened the clauses. It was in Clause 4 that the
1632
difficulty, not merely of the Government, but of many other sections of Members was caused. What did the Government intend to do about it? The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about the question of whether the clause was to stand as it left this House or was to remain mandatory as it was made by the House of Lords. He observed that Clause 3 was to be made mandatory, it being provided that the local education authority "shall" give facilities under that section. He understood from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman that it was the intention of the Government to consider that question in regard to Clause 4. The most vital part of that clause was the question of removing the word "urban" and extending the special facilities provision to all the schools in England and Wales. He was bound to say that he objected very strongly to that. In villages where there was only one school the Government would create a much greater injustice by making it a special facility school.
MR. BIRRELL: It cannot be made one.
SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYwas glad to hear that, but would suggest that instead of the 5,000 area special facilities should be given to other districts. He had always sympathised with the Nonconformist feeling as to the injustice of the single-school area. He had never felt that there was any injustice in an area where there were three schools, because there a man could send his child to the school which he desired. In the first place, in the single-school areas Cowper-Temple teaching would be given on five days of the week and an opportunity for Church teaching would be given on two of those days, so that in single school areas the religious people of the district would have given to their children that religious instruction in which they believed. The Bill as it left the House of Lords had secured that there should be no religious tests for teachers, but there seemed to be some hesitation on the part of the Government to allow the teachers to give religious

1633
instruction in the schools. As he understood the matter the Nonconformist grievance at the present time was that there were 12,000 schools in which Nonconformists could not secure the position of head teacher. But the fact that the appointment was in the gift of the local authority, and that there was no religious test surely got over that difficulty. The only sect against which Clause 3 was aimed was the Church of England, because under Clause 4 the teacher might give, under the special facilities, religious teaching, and in all local education authority schools Cowper-Temple teaching was to be given to the children at the expense of the State. The only school in which the, teacher was prohibited from giving religious instruction was the Clause 3 school. If the Government could concede the right of the teacher to give Cowper-Temple teaching and religious teaching under Clause 4, he did not think it was asking too much when they asked them to allow special teaching to be given in Clause 3 schools. He himself would much rather that the teacher should give the religious instruction than that the clergyman should be allowed to go into the school to give it because the religious instruction, as given by the teacher, would in the first place be more in harmony with the secular education given in the school, and the local authority would therefore have a better control over that secular education. If the Government could see their way to make a concession on the points he had mentioned, and if there was a little give; and take on the other Amendments, it seemed to him that there ought not to be any serious difficulty in coming to a final settlement, which if it brought peace into the schools, would be worth all the time the right hon. Gentleman had given to it.
MR. MADDISONexpressed this gratification at the action the Government had taken with regard to the Lords' Amendments. The hon. Member for Grimsby had said there should be some give and take, but upon looking at the words of the Bill there appeared to be not much give. It was all take. When the Bill left this House the Government supporters were agreed with regard to
1634
most of its details. His right hon. friend only spoke truth when he said that in order to get the Bill through he had placed a great strain upon the Government's supporters. The Bill then was moderation itself. The right hon. Gentleman had cultivated the art of concession to such an extent that it was all in favour of hon. Members opposite. Far more concessions had been made in the direction of recognising sectarianism than in building up a truly general system of national education. No one could say, having regard to the strong demand made by the Nonconformists throughout the country, that the Government had brought in a Bill that was at all extravagant. How had the Lords met the Bill? Wherever there had been a concession they had enlarged it until the Bill had become in some respects more reactionary than the Act it sought to amend. The Lords' Amendments represented aristocratic contempt for democracy. The Leader of the Opposition had treated the House to a very elaborate argument to show that as this country had given up the consideration of religion in matters of State, so the Government should not now seek to vest in local authorities the power it had given up in regard to affairs of State. That argument, which upon the slightest examination was shown to be utterly hollow, was based upon parental responsibility, a fine sentiment in its proper place, but an impossible sentiment in this connection. How could each individual parent get the religious education that he desired for his child in a particular school? It was impossible. There was as much difference between high, low, and broad churchmen as between the various sects of Nonconformity. The result of this freedom was nothing but the basest tyranny, because, while the large sects might get the religious instruction they required for their children, the small sects would not. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, impossible. There was, however, some force in what the right hon. Gentleman said when he put to the Government the difficulty of the local authority being a competent body to select a particular form of religion to be taught in the school. He had always felt that there

1635
was a difficulty in a local authority selecting something which had been called by the hon. Member for Dudley the common denominator. It was not easy to get a common denominator. If, therefore, there was any argument in that point of the right hon. Gentleman it was an argument for secular teaching alone. Because, as the State had given up the consideration of religion in matters of State, it would be wise to apply the same principle to local authorities. It was not, however, for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to complain of and attack the Government when they would not help them to take the course which he believed would ultimately work for the good of education in this country and set up a genuine system of education. Whatever might be the outcome of these discussions, there was a general and growing feeling throughout the country that months and years were being wasted in wrangling upon the great and solemn subject of religion, which in the first instance was a matter for the individual and the home; and that the great issue of education, which ought to be the sole issue before the House, was being obstructed. The progress of education was being delayed and the onward march that we ought to be making in order to bring the education of the country abreast of some of the other nations of the world was being retarded. The religious question had been the reason for this. The peoples of Europe were feeling more and more the spectre of clericalism which was hovering round the schools, find where it had not been able to poison the wells of knowledge it had destroyed them. His Majesty's Government would have been better advised if they had made at least an effort towards the secular solution. They had an example in the common schools of America, where the children, whether their parents looked to Rome, to Canterbury, or to Geneva, learnt the same common things. What was the result? Had that had a bad effect upon the churches of the United States? Were the Sunday schools of the United States inferior to our own? On the contrary, they were vigorous and growing, because religion, like knowledge, was best when it leaned on itself and did not look for artificial and external aids.
MR. EVELYN CECILdeeply regretted the course which the Government had announced they would take to-morrow. The Government professed that they desired a compromise, but he did not think the course proposed made for a compromise. If they really desired a compromise it would have been much wiser to have taken the Amendments seriatim, and pointed out specifically in the debates which Amendments they were disposed to accept. As it was he feared that they had put the Bill in jeopardy. The hon. Member who had just sat down spoke of Government concessions. He had sat through all the debates on the previous stages of this Bill, and he was utterly at a loss to know what concessions were made during those debates at any time what-ever. There were no concessions. It was one of the complaints from the Opposition point of view that there was no attempt whatever in the earlier stages of the Bill to meet the Opposition at all.
MR. MADDISON: The 3rd and 4th Clauses are concessions.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid those concessions were not made during the debates in this House. Now, at the last moment, after contemptuously throwing back the Lords' Amendments at their heads, the Government indicated that they were prepared possibly to consider some few of their Amendments. But that was not a course at all calculated to produce a compromise. He did not say it was past hope. He thought the Bill was a thoroughly bad Bill, but for the sake of peace and of getting this question out of the way he thought there might be something said for a compromise if it could be obtained. If the Bill did not pass the blame would, in consequence of to-day's proceedings, lie at the door of the Government, and not at the door of the House of Lords.. The President of the Board of Education had complained that the House of Lords had ignored the principle of popular control, and apparently the right hon. Gentleman considered that this was the case in many of the Amendments that they had made. He endeavoured to follow the right hon. Gentleman, but failed. In Clause I the

1637
Lords had added a provision that some portion of the school hours should be devoted to religious instruction. In what respect did that infringe upon the principle of popular control? Was it claimed by right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite that popular control excluded religious instruction? He did not suppose that that was so, but in that case why could they not say in the Bill that it did not? Why could not they agree to the Lords' Amendment? If the Government had any doubt whether popular control included or did not include religious instruction let them appeal to the country. Why did they not appeal to the country? Various Cabinet Ministers, particularly the President of the Board of Trade, in one of those characteristic speeches full of the usual extravagance which had to be so largely discounted, had said that the reason was that the Ministry dissolved a year ago. But supposing this same Bill was before the House at the end of this Parliament, would they dissolve upon it then? They knew perfectly well that if they did dissolve on it they would be soundly beaten. [MINISTERIAL Cries of "No."] Then the sooner they tried the better. They would unquestionably be beaten, and they dared not go to the country now, for they knew that the country would not endorse the Bill. The Lords also knew it, and that was exactly the strength of their position. Coming to closer quarters, he would like to know exactly what was meant by full popular control. Did the Radical Party want popular control through Parliament? If so, they had it already. If they meant popular control in the details of local educational administration they were very far from it at present. Did they really suppose that the local education authority had complete popular control? Was it not perfectly well known that it was regulated by the Board of Education, limited by Acts of Parliament, and curtailed by the Code.? In that sense there was anything but complete popular control, and it was mere clap - trap and imposture to go to the country and talk about popular control as the one aim and object of the Radical Party when they did not make a serious effort in this Bill to bring about that popular con-
1638
trol of the local education authority, who, in spite of the claim of the President of the Board of Education, was not its own master in its own affairs at all. It was controlled by the Board of Education and by Parliament, and it had to obey the Code. He was therefore at a loss to understand upon what grounds this claim of supreme control by the local education authority was made. The Radical Party seemed to have great faith in local education authorities, but their policy in this respect was very different from what it was when in opposition. On 16th October, 1903, the Prime Minister, in criticising the Education Act of 1902 at Bolton, said—
"I can quite understand that in good selected instances the Act may be made to work by intelligent and large-minded people in a fair way, but these county councils are not all of that character; what we want is not to be protected from the good, but protected from the evil."
That was exactly what the Opposition wanted now. That was a perfectly fair and sensible policy, but it seemed to be one which the Prime Minister in his admiration and trust of local education authorities was now prepared to ignore and condemn. The President of the Board of Education had vaguely foreshadowed that the Government were prepared in some respects to admit a few of the Lords' Amendments. He gathered that Amendments to Clause 3 were not in the main at any rate, if at all, to be considered; but the Church of England and other denominations were perfectly justified in claiming the right to impart such teaching, whether the local education authority liked it or not, as was proposed in Clause 3. The real quarrel between the House of Lords and the Government was this: The Government admitted that a few children should be allowed to receive the religious instruction which their parents desired and the House of Lords wished that more children should receive it. They desired to make the concessions in Clauses 3 and 4 real and not illusory. They had not altered the principle, but they had simply introduced certain words to secure that those concessions should not be a sham, and it was this to which the Government objected. Surely action of that kind on the part of the Upper Chamber ought not to be regarded as ground for a quarrel.

1639
The object of the Lords' Amendments was to make the Bill a reality, and he trusted that the Government would consider the Amendments carefully if the House of Lords decided to send this measure back again to this House. He did not propose to deal at any length with the Lords' Amendments. As to the proposal to de- crease the proportion from four-fifths to a two-thirds majority he failed to see why the Government should refuse to accept the smaller fraction, which would not involve any difficulty whatever in the working of the school. The President of the Board of Education had laid it down that minorities and not majorities must suffer, but if the Bill as it left this House was carried into effect the majority would suffer. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that to abolish tests for teachers was an impracticable policy to carry out wholesale. Clause 4 deliberately created a test for teachers, and Clause 3 imposed upon them the test that they should be incompetent to teach religious instruction. If the introduction of outside teachers was injurious to school discipline, as the President of the Board of Education had maintained, why under this Bill was the introduction of outside teachers of religion insisted upon under Clause 3? If the Bill were lost it would be entirely in consequence of the announcement made: to-day. Ministers scouted the ideas, impressed on the Bill by the Lords, of parental control and responsibility, and of equal justice to all denominations. They preferred to foist on those who did not desire it the State-aided Cowper-Temple religion. Such a Bill, even if passed, could not be a final settlement. After the shifts the Government had made and the dissatisfaction they had created in the country by not applying equal justice all round it was impossible for this Bill to effect a final settlement. The Bill contained some clauses which would be useful, but it was so overweighted with injustice to denominations and disregard of parental wishes that it would not be the last Education Bill within even a short period which would be placed upon the Statute-book.
SIR JOHN KENNAWAY (Devonshire, Honiton)said he had heard with great regret the determination of
1640
the Government to send this Bill back to the Lords without any consideration of the Amendments which they, after careful and reasonable discussion, had introduced into the Bill; and he believed that that disappointment would be shared by the country generally. He believed there was in the country a very genuine wish that this question should be settled, and that the interests of the children should be regarded first and not be made the sport of different Parties in the State. There was a wish which had found ready acceptance in regard to the two main principles of the Bill, viz., popular control, and the abolition of tests for teachers, and that was carried out by the absolute control given to the local authority as to the appointment of teachers and also freeing the teachers from tests. He thought the Government ought to be willing to recognise that it was not possible to deal with the matter on cast-iron principles, and there should be reasonable elasticity and reasonable regard to consciences other than those of Nonconformists. Many Members would have been ready, as he would himself, to have gone a long way to obtain a fair and reasonable settlement of the question. But the Government had taken the line of throwing back the Bill to the Lords with the contemptuous suggestion that they should come with bated breath and ask humbly to put before the Government their view of the principles which at the last moment the President of the Board of Education admitted they might be willing possibly to consider. He felt that the way in which this had been done would be taken by the country as showing that there was no real desire for a settlement, and that the hon. Member for Louth and Dr Clifford, who were the real masters of the situation, had laid down the lines on which alone the Government must proceed. The Lords had made an Amendment to the Bill providing that a school should not be recognised as a public elementary school unless some part of the time were set apart for religious instruction. He attached very great importance to the existence of that provision in the Bill. No attempt had been made to indicate to the local authorities what the religious instruction was to be. What the

1641
House could very well do was to lay down the principle that there could be no education worth having without religion being included. He believed that wherever religion was excluded from the schools in other countries public morals had suffered. If, as might be the result of all this conflict, there arose a system of secular education he and his friends had clear consciences in the matter, because they had always maintained that religion must be part of the ordinary curriculum of the school. It was for that the Roman Catholics especially had made great sacrifices in the past, and were making sacrifices now. The children of the denominationalists were to be sacrificed, their education was to be hindered, and this strife was to be continued because the Government had Members behind them to whom they paid so much deference that they were willing that those, things should happen rather than allow denominational teaching to be given. Germany. Holland, and other countries had been able successfully to maintain a system of denominational teaching alongside of thorough educational efficiency in the schools. He and his friends believed that a system of that sort commended itself to the people of this country, and they would maintain the struggle for it as long as they could. The question was a serious and complicated one, and he would not give up hope that a fair and reasonable arrangement might yet be come to. He confessed, however, that after the declaration made on behalf of the Government that night his hopes were faint, and that there was little likelihood of their being realised.
MR. REESsaid he had received copies of many resolutions couched very much in the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Louth, whose attitude was very much that of his own Free Church constituents. Like his hon. friend, he sympathised with the Catholic attitude, and was well aware they could not accept the Cowper-Temple teaching, to which, personally, he had no objection. The traditional attitude of Catholics towards education made it impossible for them to accept Cowper-Temple teaching which every other sect of Christians might adopt, except themselves, as suitable to the occasion, and as representing as much
1642
of the essentials of Christianity as the small minds and brains of children could carry away. It might be asked, Why ought not the same measure to be meted out to the Church of En gland as to the Roman Catholic Church? In his own constituency the Church of England and the Free Churches were about equally divided, and he had no mandate from churchmen. His belief was that the Church was making a serious mistake in taking up such a strong attitude against the Bill. He regretted it, and dreaded the reinforcement of strength to the ranks of secularists that would result if this Bill were lost. Moderate men were now inclined to despair of a fair settlement. He understood the President of the Board of Education to say that the door was still ajar, and he hoped the House of Lords would take into account the strong feeling in the country and would walk through that open door. The Protestant wing, or rather main body of the Church of England, might well make an effort to agree with the Free Churches, with which historically and doctrinally, it should be in sympathy. The Roman Catholic attitude was exactly the reverse of the Free Church attitude. The former Church held by authority, by the authority of an infalliable Church, and would have from first to last no other atmosphere. The Free Churches held an exactly contrary position and thought the essentials of Christianity might be taught at the public expense, but that dogma was a matter of private or home tuition. He believed that if the West Riding judgment were reversed the loss of the Bill would be severely felt, and he hoped some suitable arrangement might yet be made.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the hon. Member for the Montgomery Boroughs had warned the Church of England that if they was not prepared to accept the Bill, they would have to accept a stiffer and stronger measure. He thought he could safely say that the Church of England would not be afraid of any stiffer or stronger Bill, but would stand by their principles, and they were not going to be intimidated by any suggestion of that kind. It was obvious that the system proposed would not satisfy the great majority of churchmen, and that they

1643
must have something supplemental to Cowper-Temple teaching. What he really wished to ask the Government was whether the House was to believe that they were sincere in the statement they had made that they still wished to save the Bill. A statement had appeared in one of the newspapers that morning which attributed to the Government a secret compromise with their extreme supporters, so that they might make a show in the House and give a false impression throughout the country of being in favour of a compromise, and thus throw the onus of destroying the Bill on the House of Lords. Were the Government sincere, or were they simply sending the Bill like a lamb to be slaughtered in the most opprobrious manner? If the Government really meant to do their best for the Bill, were they adopting the right method? Were they going the most likely way to obtain concessions from the House of Lords when they said, "If you are good children and behave nicely, we will hear what you have to say?" The President of the Board of Education might have told the House certain things that would be accepted, but he merely said that certain Amendments would be considered. Was that merely an attempt to blind the country in order to show that the Government were in a reasonable spirit of compromise, though all the while they did not mean to give way? The hon. Member for Burnley had referred to concessions made by the Government while the Bill was passing through this House, but when challenged he could not name them.
MR. MADDISONsaid he had been quite consistent. He stated that there were substantial concessions in connection with Clauses 3 and 4.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he did not complain of the hon. Member's consistency; he only complained that he had not answered the question. What considerable concessions did the Government make on Clauses 3 and 4 when the Bill was passing through the House?
MR. MADDISONsaid he was perhaps wrong in saying that they were made while the Bill was passing through the
1644
House, but he was certainly right about the Bill as introduced. That was sufficient for his point.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid he was perfectly satisfied that his own point was made, All that he wanted to prove was that the Government made no concession whatever during the passing of the Bill. The hon. Member had also alluded to the un-desirability of clericalism in connection with education in the public elementary schools. They had become accustomed to that bogey being trotted out in this House. It was first referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, who told the House that clericalism was the enemy. If it was the object of the Bill to destroy clericalism, a clear light was thrown on the question whether the Government were, really sincere in their desire to obtain concessions from the other House. He would like to know whether that was a consistent method of treating the Lords' Amendments? Why should the Government after all the work that had been spent on this Bill now propose to throw it on the dust heap? Personally he thought that the concessions made by the Lords had gone quite far enough, and he doubted whether the Lords would make any further concessions unless they had reason to believe that if made they would be treated with proper and due respect.
MR. HART-DAVIESsaid that anyone must have been convinced that this sort of deadlock was certain to arise. He was one of those who went into the Lobby in favour of secular education, and they were accused of driving the Bible out of the schools. But what they said was, that the State as a State had no connection with religion; but if the State was to pay for any form of religious education it should pay for all. He believed that the ultimate solution of the question must be secular education, with liberty of entry. He thought they had had quite enough of wrangles over the question of religious education; and he had never been able to see that there was any difficulty in the way of liberty of entry. The State should be responsible for the secular education of the children, leaving the churches to

1645
do their own work in the way of religious instruction.
Question, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That further proceedings on the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
LORD BALCARRESthought the action of the Government had put the House of Commons into a somewhat ridiculous position. They had passed part of the Parliamentary day solemnly coming to the conclusion that the Lords' Amendments be now considered. That having been accepted by the House, the Home Secretary had as solemnly moved that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be adjourned until to-morrow. That might be good tactics towards the House of Lords, but it was most disrespectful towards the House of Commons. And tomorrow, as he gathered from the speech of the President of the Board of Education, a guillotine Motion was going to be introduced by which the consideration of the Lords' Amendments was to be taken en bloc, and by which they were to be thrown out in their entirety. [MINISTERIAL Cheers]. Of course, very naturally that procedure commended itself to hon. Members opposite. He had listened with proper attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and like the hon. Member for Louth he was much puzzled, and was unable to understand whether they were assisting at the funeral or the resuscitation of the Bill. He doubted if the right hon. Gentleman knew himself. He said without fear of contradiction that one portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech differed entirely from another. At one moment he talked gaily of compromise, and at another moment he laid it down, no doubt for the benefit of a particular section of the House, that he did not mean to give way on any particular or important Amendment. That was no compromise, and they understood quite clearly that the right hon. Gentleman was going to guillotine the whole of the Lords' Amendments, including two or
1646
three which had been inserted by Lord Crewe himself. He thought there was something behind this.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that the action of the Government deserved a protest from every independent Member of the House. The very idea that they were not to discuss this Bill, except when the Government permitted was not only an exhibition of cowardice, but strong evidence that they did not dare to leave the House of Commons to discuss the Lords' Amendments freely. The hon. Member for Hackney had dealt with the question of secular education. He would not go over the points raised by the hon. Member, but he wished to say that in his constituency there were a large number of Roman Catholics who had an intense feeling with regard to the Bill, and who would resent the manner in which the Government were trying to deal with the Amendments introduced by the Upper House, and he believed that the action of His Majesty's advisers would be received throughout the country with contempt.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he only intervened for one moment because the noble Lord had used the word "guillotine," but the Resolution to be moved to-morrow was not correctly described by that term. The Resolution was to the effect that the question of agreement or disagreement with the Lords Amendments to this Bill should be discussed as a whole. He was not aware that that involved the guillotine. It was merely a matter of method. The Government did not propose to accept the Lords' Amendments, but they proposed to return them to them as a whole. They did not propose to present them to the House of Commons for the purpose of asking the House to discuss them one by one. He would not repeat the arguments which he had used on this subject, and merely said that the Question to be put to the House was that the Lords Amendments should be dealt with as a whole, and that involved nothing in the nature of the proceedings known as the guillotine.
Question put, and agreed to. Lords Amendments to be further considered to-morrow.

STREET BETTING BILL [LORDS.]
As amended, considered.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,)THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange) moved to insert the following clause: "(4) In Ireland where in pursuance of this Act an order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction for a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, without the option of a fine, the party against whom the order is made shall be entitled to appeal in like manner as if the term of imprisonment exceeded one month." The right hon. Gentleman said that in Ireland, as hon. Members were aware, no appeal lay against any term of imprisonment which did not exceed one month. The Government thought however, that, as the offences under this Bill were not criminal acts in the ordinary sense of the word, and would be extended to people of better standing than the ordinary criminal—people to whom any sentence of imprisonment, however short, would be a great degradation, where the penalty of imprisonment was imposed under this measure the right of appeal should be given to quarter sessions.
New Clause—
"(4) In Ireland where in pursuance of this Act an order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction for a term of imprisonment not exceeding one month, without the option of a fine, the party against whom the order is made shall be entitled to appeal in like manner as if the term of imprisonment exceeded one month.'" — (The Attorney-General for Ireland.)—
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. CLAUDE HAYopposed the clause, which he said was only introduced at the eleventh hour, and was quite inconsistent with the general conduct of the Bill by the Government. They had never heard a word either from the Government or from Irish Members, that this Bill was needed in Ireland, and the Amendment would strike at the root of the principle of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read the second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAY*MR. CLAUDE HAY moved in Clause 1, after the words "any person," to insert "being a bookmaker or habitual bettor." He said this Amendment raised the vital point in this Bill, because they had always understood that the purpose of the measure was to penalise the bookmaker rather than the innocent person who might be led astray by his wiles. As the Bill stood without the Amendment the innocent person became subject to the penalties imposed by the Bill, and the Amendment would relieve him of those penalites. The first of those penalties was the hateful one of being subject to arrest without warrant and standing in the eye of the law as being guilty until the accused party could prove himself to be innocent. He might instance the case of a man who had never betted in his life, but who was personally acquainted with a bookmaker who did not conduct his business in the town in which the man resided. The bookmaker might however visit the town where the man lived, and, being on friendly terms, they might be seen in the street in conversation two or three times in the course of the day. Under the Bill without his Amendment the bookmaker and this innocent person might be liable to arrest without warrant. They might be taken to the police station and searched, and if papers relating to betting were found upon the bookmaker the innocent person who had never made a bet in his life would be prejudiced, and even if acquitted might get a reprimand from the magistrate for having been seen in such company. The real fact was, that while men of all schools of opinion were convinced that betting was a great evil, the Government had not had the pluck to bring in a Bill to prohibit it altogether. Unless the words he proposed were accepted, any member of the public, if he happened innocently to ask the way once or twice of a bookmaker who was standing in the street, would be exposed to the risk of prosecution and the possibility of long imprisonment. He submitted also that the word "frequenting" exposed innocent men to the very gravest danger, and

1649
the views of the Judges in regard to what was "frequenting" did not always agree. There was nothing laid down as to how often a man must be seen in a particular place before he could be arrested on the charge of "frequenting" a place for a particular purpose, and unless the Bill was made clear in that respect it might render it impossible for a man to go about his lawful business. It would expose a man who like himself did not bet to the risk of being arrested, and it was because he believed that they would not stay the evil of betting by this proposal without the words he suggested that he begged to move.
MR. BOTTOMLEY, in seconding, said the Amendment was not only one that was received with favour by the whole House, but one that the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to accept. Its object was to make it quite clear that the person aimed at by this Act was the man who carried on business as a bookmaker and who betted in the public streets. It was to prevent an innocent man who asked his way, or if they liked, made a bet, being arrested. The object of the Bill was not to lock up the silly workman who put his shilling on a horse, but the professional bookmaker who afforded the opportunity and the temptation to do so in the public street. A few weeks ago a letter, of which he possessed no copy, was written to the Home Secretary upon this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman replied through his secretary as follows:—
"I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that your society appear to have misapprehended the object of the Bill, which is not directed against the working man who may
make a bet, but to suppress the practice of the bookmakers plying their trade in the streets."
That was the declaration of the Minister in charge of the Bill. If that was the only object of the Bill, this Amendment gave expression to it. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'being a bookmaker or habitual bettor.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. Member was not quite correct in saying he had pledged himself to accept this Amendment, but the hon. Gentleman had read his letter quite fairly. It was true the desire was to clear the streets of bookmakers, but this Amendment would really weaken the existing law. The actual bookmaker was so well known to the police that it was easy to stop him from carrying on his trade. The object of the Bill was to get at the bookmakers through their touts, the men whom they employed. That being so, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The Bill followed in the main the existing law, and at, present in London, Birmingham, and Manchester men could be arrested for betting in the streets. Thousands of these cases occurred in London every year, and there was no evidence whatever to show that the innocent man suffered under the existing law. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 5; Noes. 285. (Division List No. 482.)

AYES.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

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

Barnard, E. B.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Armitage, R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Agnew, George William

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Barker, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Astbury, John Meir

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Alden, Percy

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

Beale, W. P.

Fell, Arthur

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

Beauchamp, E.

Fenwick, Charles

Maclean, Donald

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm

Ferens, T. R.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Beck, A. Cecil

Ffrench, Peter

Macpherson, J. T.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Bell, Richard

Findlay, Alexander

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Arthur, William

Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Callum, John M.

Bennett, E. N.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Crae, George

Berridge, T. H. D.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Kean, John

Bertram, Julius

Ginnell, L.

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

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Glover, Thomas

Maddison, Frederick

Billson, Alfred

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mallet, Charles E.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

Gooch, George Peabody

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Boland, John

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marnham, F. J.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Meagher, Michael

Brace, William

Gulland, John W.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Micklem, Nathaniel

Branch, James

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Montagu, E. S.

Bright, J. A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mooney, J. J.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morse, L. L.

Brodie, H. C.

Harrington, Timothy

Murnaghan, George

Brooke, Stopford

Hart-Davies, T.

Murphy, John

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Murray, James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Napier, T. B.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Hayden, John Patrick

Nicholls, George

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Healy, Timothy Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Byles, William Pollard

Hedges, A. Paget

Norman, Sir Henry

Cairns, Thomas

Helme, Norval Waton

Nuttall, Harry

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hemmerde, Edward George

O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

O'Doherty, Philip

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Em'ds

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth

Clancy, John Joseph

Higham, John Sharp

O'Hare, Patrick

Cleland, J. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Kelly, James (Roscomm'n, N

Clough, William

Hogan, Michael

O'Malley, William

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Mara, James

Cogan, Denis J.

Hooper, A. G.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. P'ncr's, W)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hudson, Walter

Pollard, Dr.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cory, Clifford John

Hyde, Clarendon

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Priestley, W. E. B. (Br'df'd, E.)

Cowan, W. H.

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

Cox, Harold

Jenkins, J.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Crean, Eugene

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cremer, William Randal

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Crooks, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Reddy, M.

Crossley, William J.

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Delany, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Kelley, George D.

Rees, J. D.

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

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Rendall, Athelstan

Dillon, John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Laidlaw, Robert

Richardson, A.

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Donelan, Captain A.

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Du Cros, Harvey

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accr'gton

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

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley

Lehmann, R. C.

Robinson, S.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Levy, Maurice

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Erskine, David C.

Lough, Thomas

Rowlands, J.

Essex, R. W.

Lundon, W.

Russell, T. W.

Everett, R. Lacey

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lynch, H. B.

Sears, J. E.

1652

1653

Seaverns, J. H.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, Patrick (Heath, North)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Whitehead, Rowland

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

Toulmin, George

Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ure, Alexander

Wiles, Thomas

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Vivian, Henry

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Walters, John Tudor

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpt'n

Winfrey, R.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wardie, George J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Stanger, H. Y.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Yoxall, James Henry

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Steadman, W. C.

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Watt, H. Anderson

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

White, George (Norfolk)

Sullivan, Donal

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

MR. CLAUDE HAY MR. CLAUDE HAY moved an Amendment which raised the question of how far the transmission of telegraphic communications should be brought within the purview of the Bill. He hoped the Postmaster-General would inform the House as to the amount of revenue derived by the Post Office from correspondence over the telegraphic system connected with racing and betting. An immense staff, paid out of public funds, was engaged in transmitting these telegrams, and the State had laid out a large amount of capital on the necessary instruments in order that these communications might pass. If street betting were an evil, still more so was betting which was protected by a Government Department, and out of which the State made a profit. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to state that he was not quite certain whether a post office was a public place which came within the meaning of the Bill.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order. That is a Question which cannot be raised upon this Amendment.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid the words were "any street or public place." The point was that a post office was a public place.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Amendment before the House is one which deals only with persons frequenting a public place for the purpose of transmitting bets or wagers, and it does not deal With the post office.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid his Amendment dealt with a person who might be in a street transmitting a telegram relating to racing. His point was that they were proposing to punish a man, who might be an innocent party, because he had received an envelope addressed to him in which there might be matter relating to a wager.
MR. BARRIEformally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 9, after the word 'wager' to insert the words 'or transmitting bets or wagers.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
Mr. GLADSTONEhoped the Amendment would not be accepted. The Bill had come down from the Lords, and he understood the Lords would take only a limited amount of it. Therefore any Amendment extending the scope of the Bill would at this period of the session greatly endanger its passage into law. This point was debated at considerable length in Committee, and the arguments for and against were thoroughly well-known. As to whether the post office was a place within the meaning of the Act he did not think it mattered very much for the purposes of this Bill. The proposal of the hon. Member was quite impracticable, and he hoped the House would reject it.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the Home Secretary had stated that the other place would not

1655
stand more than a certain amount. Personally, he had had no experience of administering anything to the other place, and he did not know what the House of Lords would stand. The Home Secretary, however, had had some experience in that direction, and so he would accept his statement and act accordingly. He would have great pleasure in voting with the Government on this occasion if the Amendment was pressed to a division He was opposed to the Bill because it interfered with the rights of grown men to do what they liked provided they injured no one else, and therefore he was opposed to an Amendment which would extend its scope.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked permission to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BOTTOMLEY MR. BOTTOMLEY moved to amend the clause by raising from sixteen years to eighteen years the age of a person with whom a betting transaction rendered the bookmaker liable to a fine of £50 or imprisonment for six months. He wished to prevent any bookmaker from inducing anyone under the age of eighteen to take part in any betting transaction. Most of the betting done by young persons was by boys between sixteen and nineteen years of age, and that was why he wished to raise the age limit.
MR. O'HAREseconded.

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beck, A. Cecil

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F

Bell, Richard

Byles, William Pollard

Agnew, George William

Bellairs, Carlyon

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Benn, Sir J. Williams (D'v'np'rt

Carr-Goman, H. W.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bertram, Julius

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Armitage, R.

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

Clancy, John Joseph

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Billson, Alfred

Cleland, J. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

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

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

Boland, John

Cory, Clifford John

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Bramsdon, T. A

Cox, Harold

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Branch, James

Crean, Eugene

Barker, John

Brigg, John

Cremer, William Randal

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Crombie, John William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brodie, H. C.

Crooks, William

Beale, W. P.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Crossley, William J.

Beauchamp, E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Delany, William

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'x'm

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.

Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 18, to leave out the word 'sixteen,' and insert the word 'eighteen.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'sixteen' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept this Amendment. Section 1(1) (c) imposed severe penalties in regard to betting with persons under the age of sixteen. It was clear that there ought to be a distinct limit of the age to which these penalties were applicable. The usual age limit for what was known as a young person was sixteen.
MR. RAWLINSONasked the Government to reconsider this point. If there was an evil to be got rid in connection with betting on the part of young people, it was surely desirable that the age of eighteen should be substituted for sixteen in the sub-section. It was a farce to make the limit sixteen, for the evil aimed at prevailed among young people employed as servants, waiters, and in other ways, and the sub-section as it appeared in the Bill would be inapplicable in the case of many of the persons who required attention.
Question put.
The House divided:— Aye?, 237; Noes, 87. (Division List No. 483.)

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

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lough, Thomas

Robinson, S.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lundon, W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Elibank, Master of

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Erskine, David C.

Lynch, H. B.

Rowlands, J.

Everett, R. Lacey

Macdonald J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Russell, T. W.

Farrell, James Patrick

Maclean, Donald

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Ferens, T. R.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ffrench, Peter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Findlay, Alexander

Macpherson, J. T.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Arthur, William

Seaverns, J. H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Callum, John M.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Crae, George

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

Ginnell, L.

M'Kean, John

Sherwell, Arthur James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Micking, Major G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Maddison, Frederick

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Marnham, F. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrin., S.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Massie, J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Micklem, Nathaniel

Stanger, H. Y.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Ches.)

Harrington, Timothy

Montagu, E. S.

Steadman, W. C.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mooney, J. J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Haworth, Arthur A.

Morse, L. L.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murnaghan, George

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Healy, Timothy Michael

Murphy, John

Sullivan, Donal

Hedges, A. Paget

Murray, James

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Helme, Norval Watson

Napier, T. B.

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

Hemmerde, Edward George

Nicholls, George

Thompson, W. H. (Somerset, E

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Nolan, Joseph

Toulmin, George

Henry, Charles S.

Norman, Sir Henry

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ure, Alexander

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Verney, F. W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

Vivian, Henry

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Walters, John Tudor

Hogan, Michael

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Doherty, Philip

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Whitbread, Howard

Hyde, Clarendon

Paulton, James Mellor

White, George (Norfolk)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Pollard, Dr.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Whitehead, Rowland

Joyce, Michael

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Wiles, Thomas

Kelley, George D.

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, Hon. C. H. W. (Hull, W.

Kincaid-Smith, Capt.

Reddy, M.

Wilson, J. W. (Worc'stersh., N.)

Laidlaw, Robert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Winfrey, R.

Lambert, George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Lamont, Norman

Rees, J. D.

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

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accringt'n

Renton, Major Leslie

Lehmann, R. C.

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'h

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Richardson, A.

Levy, Maurice

Rickett, J. Compton

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Barnard, E. B.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Alden, Percy

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Carlile, E. Hildred

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cave, George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bennett, E. N.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cheetham, John Frederick

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Brace, William

Clough, William

Balcarres, Lord

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Cogan, Denis J.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Bright, J. A.

Cooper, G. J.

1658

1659

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Courthope, G. Loyd

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Jowett, F. W.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

Du Cros, Harvey

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Starkey, John R.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Keswick, William

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

Fell, Arthur

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Fenwick, Charles

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

Walsh, Stephen

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Meagher, Michael

Watt, H. Anderson

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Morpeth, Viscount

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Glover, Thomas

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Hare, Patrick

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Gulland, John W.

O'Malley William

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Mara, James

Younger, George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Helmsley, Viscount

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Rawlinson.

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'ds

Remnant, James Farquharson

Hills, J. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Jenkins, J.

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

MR. BOTTOMLEY MR. BOTTOMLEY moved an Amendment making it an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment for any bookmaker to bet in any public place with any female. With some practical experience on the subject of betting he could assert that a large amount of betting took place every day between bookmakers and the wives and daughters of working men. He expressed astonishment that the right hon. Gentleman had not noted this omission in the Bill.
MR. O'HAREhoped the Home Secretary would accept this Amendment. If street betting was looked upon as an evil, every opportunity should be taken to eradicate it. At the present time he believed that a number of bookmakers were women, and women and girls were used as intermediaries between the men who wanted to make bets and the bookmakers. That was bad enough for the men, but worse for the women. Street betting seemed to be infectious, and was spreading rapidly, particularly among women, because it was believed that the women could carry out the transactions with the bookmakers with less danger than the men.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'years,' to insert the words' or with an female.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not see any reason for discriminating between females and men in this matter. As far as his experience went, he believed that women were better able to take care of themselves, and did take better care of themselves, in respect to betting than the men.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. BOTTOMLEY MR. BOTTOMLEY moved an Amendment providing that when a bookmaker was arrested he should be liable to have all the books found in his possession impounded. It was an open secret that since this Bill had been before the public, bookmakers on certain occasions had refused to pay their obligations, because they said that all their books and papers had been seized by the police, and that therefore they could not say how much they owed their clients.
The Amendment was not seconded.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.) moved to insert in Clause 1, after "other" the word "similar." He thought that amongst the articles which bookmakers should not forfeit was money.
Amendment moved to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 2 after the word 'other' to insert the word 'similar.'"—(Mr. Mitchell-Thomson.)
Question proposed '"That that word be there inserted in the Bill."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said the word was quite unnecessary. Money was not a "similar" article.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. F. E. SMITH*MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton) moved on behalf of the hon. Member for Blackpool the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 1, which provided that any constable might take into custody without warrant a person loitering or besetting the streets either on behalf of himself or others for the purpose of betting or paying or receiving money in respect of bets. The issue raised by the Amendment was a clear one, and one which was receiving great attention at the present moment as a Commission was sitting to inquire into the relations which existed between the police and various other sections of the community. The question which the Committee should ask themselves was whether they were prepared to give an extension of power to the police to arrest any person who was loitering in the street for the purpose of bookmaking. What did that mean? They gave the police constable using his own unassisted intelligence —and the evidence before the Commission showed some startling results as to what that unassisted intelligence might lead to—it gave him power to arrest a man, not because he had committed an offence, but because he was frequenting the street and a conviction-hunting constable inferred that he was there for the purpose of making bets. This was, it was true, not the first Bill which gave a constable the power of arrest without a warrant, and there was a power under the Common Law. It was familiar law that a constable was entitled to arrest a man if there was a felony or a breach of the peace actually committed. In those cases and only in those cases had the constable a right to arrest a person, but in the case of mere suspicion that a man was loitering for the purpose of making a bet such a power was novel and menacing to the liberty of the subject. He sympathised with the legitimate object which the Government had in view, but he was not in favour
1662
of the means by which they desired to carry it out. Having regard to cases which had arisen and to the abuse of duty which had been committed by the force, this power was a very dangerous one to give them. He was not speaking on a subject of which he had no experience, because on one occasion he had been arrested by the police without a warrant, although by the indulgence of a charitable tribunal he was afterwards acquitted of the charge which was made against him. He thought the Government would spoil a reasonable measure by grafting upon it an unreasonable power.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 4, to leave out sub-section (2) of Clause 1."—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'any constable may take into custody' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsympathised very much with the hon. Member in the experience he had had when arrested by the police, but was glad to see that it had done him no harm physically or morally. He could, however, readily understand that it was the warmth of his feelings which had led him to make this protest. In the three great towns of Manchester, Birmingham, and London, the police had exercised their powers of arrest for obstruction by means of street betting, and in London there were something like 3,000 cases of arrest in the year. If this sub-section was knocked out of the Bill he was afraid it would weaken it considerably. As he had heard no protests up to the present time against these arrests he had no reason to think that the widening of the powers so as to extend them to other parts of the country would have any evil effects.
MR. RAWLINSONsupported the Amendment on broader grounds than those mentioned by the Home Secretary. Surely it was not necessary to put into this Bill anything which would make it unnecessarily unpopular. Arrests without warrant could only be justified by one consideration, and that was that if the police had no power to make them they could not bring the

1663
offender to justice. He could conceive of no class of case where that contention was less justified than in a Bill directed against bookmakers and their touts. The policemen would see a bookmaker and ask for his name and address. If the man gave the correct address he could be summoned, and if he did not he could be traced at once. If he gave a false name and address the summons could not be served by the police, and one of two things would happen. Either he would be arrested by the police or he would bolt altogether, and if he took the latter course the neighbourhood would be the better for his bolting, and the Government would gain their end in that way. All those who knew police courts, however, would tell the Government that to take the remedy of bringing a man up by summons was sufficient. A bookmaker would be known in a district and was not likely to leave it because a police constable spoke to him once. In 99 cases out of 100 they would be able to secure his attendance upon a summons and without arresting him. He did not agree with the provision, although the Home Secretary had stated that in certain towns where it had been exercised he had no knowledge of any abuse of it. This was a very dangerous power to place in the hands of the police. The power to arrest without warrant gave the police power to arrest a man who had committed no offence, and take him through the streets, and it would give rise to the objectionable state of affairs, which was necessary in the case of crime but not in such a case as this, of deciding whether he should be held to bail. There had been cases in London where this power had been abused by the police, and there was grave suspicion that they had in many cases taken sums of money from bookmakers as a bribe not to arrest them. He submitted that it was not necessary, that it would make the Bill unpopular, and that to put this power in the hands of the police was dangerous nor only to the police themselves, but to the public at large.
MR. J. W. WILSONsaid these two lines in the sub-section were the most important lines in the Bill, if it was going to be operative. The hon.
1664
Member for the Cambridge University had passed over the difficulty of the policeman seeing a man making a bet. The police were compelled to put their new recruits on to this job to try and detect when a bet was being made, and how could they be certain that a bet had been taken, unless they could look at the piece of paper which had gone into the bookmaker's pocket? The power of search therefore was the whole essence of the Bill. In the country districts this power was being sought, and where it had been given it had had a beneficial result. The form in which it was generally given was that the officer in charge at the police station had the power of search and retaining any articles found. It was not given to the policeman who made the arrest. It was a most valuable power if it was desired to make the the Bill repressive. The argument that policemen were liable to make mistakes would apply in every case where it was suggested that power should be given to them. He appealed to the House to retain this clause and not to be led away by a fear that in some isolated instance injustice might be done.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid it was well known that policemen were not immaculate, and if ever there was a clause which offered temptation to the police to take bribes, it was the one under discussion. The Government had recently appointed one of their many Commissions to inquire into the question of the police. There had been brought before that Commission many cases of wrongful arrest, through mistakes made by the police. Yet in spite of all that, apparently owing to the pressure put upon them, the Government put a clause into this Bill giving to the police powers far beyond anything they were entitled to exorcise, and which went perilously near infringing the rights of the subject. Under this clause an active and intelligent constable might see two gentlemen walking down a street, and he might overhear them making a bet between themselves. He then had power to arrest them without warrant. Surely that was not a thing that should be allowed. He would also like to know what exactly was meant by frequenting.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the fears which had been expressed with regard to this clause might have come with some force if the House was now passing a measure of this kind for the first time; but they were acting upon extensive and remarkable experience in this matter. A Commission had been appointed to inquire into every case of abuse of power by the police in London. Though there had been so many cases of arrest there had not been a single allegation made before the Commission of the arrest of an innocent man. There had been charges of abuse by the police, but not against innocent men. So far as the betting man was concerned, there had been no case where an innocent man had been arrested in place of the betting man. Hon Members were afraid of arrest on suspicion. They forgot that behind the intelligent police-constable there was the intelligent magistrate. The case had been supposed of two gentlemen walking along the street being overheard by a constable to make a bet and being taken by him before the magistrate. What would be the position of the constable when the magistrate heard the facts? It would not add to his chance of promotion. He asked the House to consider the practical side of the question. Policemen were by no means in a hurry to drag before a tribunal cases which they were not able to substantiate. In the majority of instances the policeman would take the name and address of the bookmaker, and it would be only in exceptional cases that he would need to make an arrest. The provision was valuable, because it was most difficult ever to bring home a charge of this kind. It could be brought home in a case of frequenting, but the policeman must know his man, and be able to say, "I saw him to-day, and I saw him yesterday, and I have seen him again and again; he makes it his place of business." That had to be backed up by other evidence. Frequenting was always difficult to prove, especially when so much corroborative evidence had to be brought forward, and if the charge were altered to one of loitering the constable had only changed his difficulties. If he were able to produce documentary evidence which was satisfactory to the magistrate, and be was given the power of arrest without
1666
warrant, the rights of justice would more often be ensured.
Mr. CLAUDEHAYasked whether it was not a fact that the only two towns where there was the power to arrest without warrant any person suspected of betting were Halifax and Accrington, and all other towns which had powers for dealing with street betting exercised those powers under a by-law. Certainly it was the case as regarded London, for under a London County Council by-law of 1898 it was laid down that—
"No person shall frequent and use any street or other public place on behalf of himself or any-other person for the purpose of book-making or betting, or wagering, or agreeing to bet or wager with any person."
The Solicitor-General had not quite fairly stated the case when he endeavoured to show that there was nothing novel in conferring the power of arrest without warrant.
MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he could not reconcile it with what the poverty of the English language compelled him to call his conscience to give a silent vote on this clause. He had been more confirmed than ever in his view that this was a wrong clause by the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for North Worcestershire and the speech of the Solicitor-General in support of it. For generations the recognised principle of law had been that the power of arrest without warrant should be limited to cases which could obviously be proved or were seen by a constable. The argument of the hon. Member for North Worcestershire, which the Solicitor - General confirmed, that this was a difficult offence to find out and prove, had been the one argument of every learned Judge, such as Mr. Justice Hawkins and other great criminal lawyers, against giving the police power of arrest without warrant under such circumstances. Inasmuch as it was difficult to ascertain whether in offence was being committed or was about to be committed, was the policeman, of all people in the world, to be able to put his hand on anyone's shoulder and say, "I think you are going to commit this offence?" For in this case it was not necessary even that the act should be committed. If in the opinion of the

1667
constable a man was loitering with the intention of committing this horrible crime of wagering, the constable would be able to run him in. It was said "Do not forget this Bill has to go back to the House of Lords." That argument had lost its terror. He believed that that House would look with a lenient eye upon any measure coming from this House except one, and that this Bill would not be the exception. In any case, he understood the House of Lords was going to be abolished, and that argument, therefore, did not count.
MR. BOWLESsaid he regarded this section as a very serious matter. It was no light thing to give a constable power under any circumstances whatever to arrest people without a warrant, and the House ought very carefully to consider the proposal before assenting to it. He did not see in the Bill any justification for the enormous departure which was being made. The Solicitor-General had stated that the real mischief against which the Bill was aimed was not so much betting, as the offence of frequenting, and that was the reason put forward for giving this enormous power to a constable. If a man was a known frequenter what difficulty was there in dealing with him under the operation of the ordinary law? Powers of this nature ought to be given very sparingly, and only in cases where without such special powers the law would be certain to fail. The case was exactly the reverse of this where a man frequented a place for the purpose of betting. Such a power as was now proposed to be given to a constable had been shown to be capable of serious abuse, and there was absolutely no reason why it should be given in this instance. There was a good deal to be said for the objects of the Bill. Personally, he had never made a bet, and consequently he had only a detached interest in the matter. No case had been made out for this proposal, and if a division were taken he felt bound to support the rejection of this sub-section.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid it had been stated that if a constable arrested a person on insufficient grounds he would have very little chance of promotion. Upon a matter of this kind they were not
1668
concerned with the promotion of constables, but with the protection of the public from unjust arrests. If the Solicitor-General happened to be arrested, and was confined in a cell all night on suspicion of frequenting, it would be no consolation to him next morning to be told that the constable who arrested him had forfeited all chance of promotion. The police hardly ever abused their power. On the whole the evidence before the Commission at present sitting showed that that was so. Of course, there were exceptions where a policeman exceeded his duty. If they passed this clause they would be putting quite unnecessarily great temptations before police constables. There had been instances, as they knew, in which betting men had bribed the police. That had been proved so far as anything could be proved. If this clause were passed a policeman who suspected a man of loitering about the street for the purpose of betting might jump to a conclusion, and arrest him, although the man was not there for that purpose. That would be inflicting very great hardship on the community as a whole, and exposing the police to great temptation. The Bill would only be injured in one way by the omission of the clause, and that was in the case of a man who gave a false address. If a man frequented a certain street, the fact that he gave a false address would be prima facie evidence that he had some reason for not wishing to appear before a magistrate. It would be perfectly easy for the policeman to give word to the constable on the neighbouring beat, and the man could be arrested. If the police had power to summon betting people, it appeared to him that that was all that was necessary in the circumstances. Betting was not a crime.
MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he did not object to the hon. Member betting, but he disagreed with the system of allowing "bookies" in the streets.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that was an extremely important admission on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite. In the opinion of the hon. Gentleman it was the poor working man who must not bet. [Cries of dissent.]

1669
He was not surprised that hon. Members howled at him. They did not want the real object of this Bill exposed. It was not betting altogether which was to be stopped, but only betting on the part of a certain number of people who frequented the streets.
MR. RADFORDsaid he had not the extensive and peculiar knowledge of this subject which was possessed by the hon. Member for South Hackney, but he knew something about it, and had taken part in the preparation of the London County Council by-laws in 1898 on the subject of street betting. He felt a strong inclination to vote for the Amendment. He was not moved by the argument of the Home Secretary that because certain powers existed in London they should be extended to the whole country, nor was he altogether convinced by the official optimism of the Solicitor-General, who had told them that there had been 3,000 arrests in London under the existing law, and no complaints made. Did the horn, and learned Gentleman expect these poor devils who had been arrested and perhaps imprisoned to come before him or some other great legal authority with a complaint? A considerable number of innocent men were now, he believed, serving imprisonment because they had been convicted wrongly of street betting upon the evidence of police constables, and in the inevitable hurry of criminal administration stipendiary magistrates lea led too much on the evidence of the police. There were in the police force men whose presence was a public danger, and it was for that reason that he was unwilling to give the extensive powers contained in the clause. If one innocent man were to be convicted out of every thousand arrested, he should be sorry to see the clause passed, even if in other directions the Bill were to promote the good administration of the law.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he had invariably supported the Government on this Bill since it was brought forward, believing that it was drawn on lines calculated to meet the great scandal which existed in the streets day by day. But after looking into the Bill and listening to this discussion,
1670
he felt that the point now before the House was a serious matter. It was proposed to give to the police a power which would be capable of very great abuse. He was against the arrest of any person without a warrant. He had read that the use made in the eighteenth century of general warrants for the arrest of persons for offences was resisted almost to the point of revolution. They all knew the abuse made of general warrants in past days, and their use had been dropped since the time of Wilkes. Coercion Acts had been passed by Parliament during the last twenty years, but never for a single moment had the most tyrannical of Governments proposed to introduce into Ireland a law whereby a policeman would be allowed to arrest a man without a warrant. He had been a constant supporter of this measure up to the present time, but he was now strongly of opinion that they were going on the wrong track. He was surprised that this proposal should have been allowed to pass without a protest, not only from Nationalists but from Ministerialists, who had been regarded as the guardians of the rights of English subjects.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,)said that the hon. Member for North Kildare had said that they were introducing new and revolutionary legislation, but, instead of these powers being new and revolutionary, they were now enforced in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Accrington, and other large towns. Under this Bill there could be no arrest and no imprisonment except in very rare cases, and he was sure that the hon. Member's fear was unwarranted.
MR. RADFORDsaid that he knew of a case where a perfectly innocent man was arrested and searched, but no betting slips were found upon him.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if a man was subject to a fine, and he was unable to pay that fine;, he must go to prison. That would be the case with respect to penal legislation of any kind. The hon. Gentleman had stated that there ought not to be an arrest for this particular offence without a warrant; but the

1671
Home Office were informed that there had been no complaints before the Royal Commission on the Metropolitan Police of wrongful arrests for street betting, He would point out further, that the Committee of the House of Lords had recommended that this power to arrest without warrant should be given, and without it the Bill would be almost worthless.
MR. MITCHELL - THOMSONasked whether there would be no imprisonment except in cases of a third offence?
MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Except in very exceptional circumstances.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that what he wanted to know was what these exceptional circumstances were? Was it a case of a person betting with a youth who appeared to be under sixteen years of age?
MR. MORTONsaid that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had told the House that there would be no imprisonment, except after the third offence, but if a man was fined £10 and could not pay it, he was imprisoned. What, then, was the difference? All Governments seemed bent on attempting to take away the liberties of the people, and it was the business especially of the independent Members of Parliament to look after the interests, not of one class of the community, but of all classes, and to prevent the introduction here of Russian methods of administering the law. They were only doing their duty in calling attention to such an important matter as this, and he thought that it should not be left to the police to make an arrest without a warrant. After reading the papers recently, they had not too much confidence in the police. He did not think it was desirable that we should make this sort of laws, which put the policemen in the way of receiving bribes, and he could conceive that some poor wretched person who had been found betting in the streets might be prepared to pay something, as they had heard people of this class had done in the past, to prevent themselves being arrested. He was always loth to vote against a Liberal Government, but the Under-Secretary had given as one of the reasons
1672
for supporting this proposal that it had been recommended by a Committee of what he called the House of Lords, but which they usually knew as "another place." He had never heard that a Liberal Government placed very much confidence in that other place, and he did not place any confidence in it at all. But this ought not to be a Party or a political matter. They all wished to put an end to betting, especially among a class who robbed their employers to find money to bet with. It was not necessary, however, to violate the Constitution in order to do that, and it was better that two guilty men should escape punishment than that one innocent man should be convicted. He hoped that the Government would do something to limit the discretion of policemen.
CAPTAIN FABERsaid he should not like it to go down to posterity that the hon. Member for South Hackney was the only Member with a conscience, and when he looked at his conscience he had to confess that probably he knew more about betting than many Members in this House. He would be sorry to see the poor man convicted of betting while he made his bets in Tattersall's ring without anybody complaining. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman opposite would think twice, nay several times, before he proceeded with this provision.
MR. HILLSdid not know that the police in London had the power to arrest people without a warrant on suspicion of betting under the County Council by-laws. If a warrant had not been issued they could summon them. It was true that under the Police Act if two or three men assembled for the purpose of betting they could be arrested for obstruction, but the polite had no power to arrest a person on suspicion of betting.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELpointed out that nobody had ever said that a man could be arrested under the County Council by-laws, but men were arrested without warrant every day in London for street betting. The power was given by the Metropolitan Streets Acts. In 1905 over 4,900 persons were in the Metropolitan Police district convicted of

1673
street betting, and of that number 3,958 were arrested without a warrant.
MR. F. E. SMITH,who was received with loud cries of "Order," asked whether the courtesy was refused to him which had just been shown by his friends to the hon. Gentleman on the other side. He wished to point out that under the section which had been cited there was only power of arrest in a case where three
or four men were actually engaged in betting. The only objection taken here was that the Government would arm the police constable with the power of arrest if he thought people were in the street for the purpose of betting.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes 98. (Division List No. 484.)

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

White, George (Norfolk)

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

Toulmin, George

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

Ure, Alexander

Whitehead, Rowland

Winfrey, R.

Verney, F. W.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Williamson, A.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Malley, William

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir. H.

Ginnell, L.

O'Mara, James

Balcarres, Lord

Glover, Thomas

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Power, Patrick Joseph

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George R.

Radford, G. H.

Barker, John

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rawlinson, John Federick Peel

Barnard, E. B.

Harrington, Timothy

Reddy, M.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Redmond, William (Clare)

Boland, John

Hayden, John Patrick

Remnant, James Farquharson

Bottomley, Horatio

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

Richardson, A.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hills, J. W.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hogan, Michael

Roberts, S. (Sheflield, Ecclesall)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Rose, Charles Day

Bylas, William Pollard

Hudson, Walter

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cave, George

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lupton, Arnold

Starkey, John R.

Cheetham, John Frederick

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Macpherson, J. T.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Cogan, Denis J.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Sullivan, Donal

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meehan, Patrick A.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Crean, Eugene

Mooney, J. J.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Delany, William

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Walrond, Hon. Lione

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Murphy, John

Walsh, Stephen

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Watt, H. Anderson

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

Nolan, Joseph

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Doherty, Philip

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. F. E. Smith and Mr. John O'Connor.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid the object of his next Amendment was to ensure that there should be a nominal prosecutor in the same way as a nominal prosecutor had been introduced into the Musical Copyright Act. The clause just passed gave a constable power to arrest and take anybody into Court without warrant; his suggestion was that, the constable should only take a man into custody on complaint being made. He suggested these words to the House, with the submission that it was the very least qualification that they could adopt.
MR. LUPTONrose to second the Amendment. He was understood to say it was a very good Amendment indeed. Power to arrest any-
1676
body they liked and to accuse him of making a bet was a very great power and one which ought not to be given to the police. Experience showed that it was desirable in these cases for the constable to act only upon some kind of charge. If complaint was made by anyone that a man was betting in the street the police, if they took that man up, were provided with a nominal prosecutor in the shape of the person who called attention to the grievance, who might himself, if he made an unfounded charge, be subjected to a trial on the charge of false imprisonment. He thought the person accused of betting in the street should stand in the same position as the person accused of selling pirated music. Betting was a perfectly

1677
moral and proper thing to do at the proper place and at the proper time. Betting was only disapproved of when done possibly in the right place but at the wrong time, or the wrong place at the right time, or the wrong place at the wrong time. Then it became an offence punishable with six months imprisonment, but it was wrong that the policeman should have the power of arresting a man without complaint being made, because in that case he became prosecutor and witness at the same time, and nobody could tell what his motive might be for arresting the man. He thought they should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission on the action of the police before this Bill was passed. It would go a long way to reconcile everyone to the Bill if they knew that there was to be an independent prosecutor in each case. It was for these reasons that he seconded this very moderate Amendment which he hoped the Government would accept.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words 'without warrant,' and insert the words 'upon complaint made.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'without warrant' stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had only recently come into the House and therefore had not had the advantage of listening to the debate which took place on the last Amendment, and occupied over an hour and a half. Had the hon. Member been present during that discussion he would have known that the whole of this matter was then threshed out; therefore he would not now go into the question at greater length. He could not accept the Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that, as the Member responsible for initiating the previous discussion, he might be allowed to say that this Amendment was covered by the decision the House had already arrived at, and therefore he hoped it would not be pressed.
Amendment negatived.
MR. BOTTOMLEYhoped the Amendment he now moved would in the Government's opinion be worthy of consideration. Its object was to give to a person charged under this Act the same opportunities of defence as those given to a prisoner charged with an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. There were such things, as everyone knew, as police traps and it was not an uncommon thing for the police to resort to the theatrical device of disguising persons for entrapping a bookmaker. He saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was prepared to accept this Amendment, and therefore it was not necessary to trouble the House further.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 9, after the word 'proved.' to insert the words 'or unless the person charged shall satisfy the Court that he had reasonable ground for believing otherwise.'"—(Mr. Bottomley.)
Question "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.
MR. CLAUDE HAY*MR. CLAUDE HAY moved an Amendment to prevent betting by means of the Government telegraphs. He said that not only was a large staff held specially in reserve, if not actually engaged, day by day transmitting telegrams relating to betting, but there was a large and expensive apparatus at various post offices in London and elsewhere which had been erected for the sole purpose of treating the business connected with the transmission of telegrams entirely confined to betting transactions. If they wanted to check the evils connected with street betting they must prevent all telegraphic communications coming into the hands of those who used the streets as a medium for what the Government regarded as a nefarious business. Those who opposed this Bill were animated by the desire, not merely to whittle down its provisions, but to purify the whole of our social organisation by removing temptations from great masses of the people. One salient fact in connection with the transmission of betting arrangements by telegraph was that every facility was given to the well-to-door rich person to indulge in the practice, whilst the workman who betted for so small a sum that it

1679
was not worth his while, if he could afford it, to use the telegraph was punished. They ought not by any section of this Bill to tolerate any sort of arrangement which made one law for the rich and another for the poor. On that ground he moved this Amendment, believing that if it were not carried they would be stultifying themselves by allowing the rich man to bet, but punishing the poor man for betting.
MR. F. E. SMITHseconded the Amendment, which, he said, raised the question of whether this House was determined to use its influence to prevent a far wider source of corruption than street betting, namely, that which was rendered possible by means of the telegraph. There were reformers on the other side of the House who thought there was no more fruitful source of corruption than betting, and if they held that view how could they consistently regard this Amendment as a subject of humour. Whilst hon. Members were prepared to allow a constable to arrest poor men in the streets without warrants, they were content to permit people in the class of life from which they themselves were drawn to send telegrams, well knowing that when any of our great national sporting events occurred bets were made wholesale and the State was profiting by them. Was this a consistent, or a complete method of dealing with a moral outrage? It was said that it would be difficult to detect a betting telegram because ciphers might be used, but if Parliament decided that it should be unlawful to send a telegram which dealt with a bet they would be able to strike off at once 75 per cent. of the betting telegrams. The men who sent these telegrams were not going to expose themselves to the risk of setting the criminal law in motion. He would press the point, which was not a Party one, upon hon. Members who honestly wished to deal with the national love of gambling to deal with it as practised not by poor men at street corners, but by influential men at their clubs and on race courses. It was nothing but organised hypocrisy to interfere only with poor people who betted.
Amendment proposed to the Bill —
"In page 2, line 13, after the word 'any,' to insert 'post or telegraph office.'"—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said that if he could see his way to diminish the evils of betting by post or telegraph he would certainly do something in that direction, but the Amendment appeared to him to be perfectly impracticable from the administrative point of view. It would really create an offence without any adequate power of meting out punishment. It was no use creating a crime by Act of Parliament if it were certain they could not carry out the law. To make it an illegal act to send a betting telegram or a bet by post put. the responsibility on the various officials of the Post Office to stop these messages. He thought the hon. Member would see the administrative difficulty in connection with the matter. It would mean that every telegram must be read and supervised by someone responsible in every office throughout the kingdom. He did not think the hon. Member could really have any experience of the method by which telegrams were dealt with.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid telegrams containing obscene messages were now stopped.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONregretted to say that even there great difficulty was often experienced, and that telegrams were often sent which, by right, should be stopped. But that was a different matter. The definition of an obscene telegram was obvious to the ordinary operator, but the question of what was or was not a betting telegram would have to be decided by a person of some responsibility in the office, and not be left to the ordinary operator, who at present was the only person who handled the telegram. The delay that would be incurred would greatly affect the convenience of the general public, and in

1681
addition he did not think they could put the responsibility upon the 20,000 postmasters and sub-postmasters of saying what was or was not a betting telegram. The practical difficulties of the proposal were absolutely overwhelming, and although he could assure the hon. Gentleman he would be very glad indeed if he could see his way to take some step in this direction, he was afraid that in regard to offensive circulars he had already strained his legal powers in order to prevent them so far as he could. He was not dealing with the matter in any way from the point of view of the revenue of the Post Office, but on account of, in the first place, the absolute impossibility of defining these telegrams, and, in the second place, the great delay and inconvenience that would be occasioned to the public.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the subject very candidly. He had admitted the principle of the Amendment, and that was a considerable step. The whole difficulty was administrative. Of course the telegrams would have to be inspected, but if the telegraphic operator made a mistake he would have the whole force of the Department behind him. Mistakes would occur, no doubt, very rarely. Then the right hon. Gentleman said a betting telegram would have to be defined, but a telegram dealing with | horse-racing required very little definition. It was perfectly obvious that if anything were put on a horse it must be for racing. It was purely an administrative difficulty. The further administrative difficulty was that it would be an inconvenience to the public; but the inconvenience of the betting public was not considered by this Bill. He would remind' the right hon. Gentleman that there were certain telegraph offices in this country which were founded exclusively for betting purposes, and were used for nothing else. Many of them were closed every day in the year except race days. If the right hon. Gentleman really wished to deal with this matter it would be perfectly easy to make a start with some of these offices. A complete record was made of every telegram sent, and even though mistakes were made by the operator as to what
1682
were betting telegrams, when they were dealing with a great evil these small risks had to be taken. He considered that as the Postmaster-General had conceded the principle without reservation, and had only based his opposition purely on administrative grounds, his hon. friend who moved the Amendment might consider whether he should not withdraw it, although he would express a hope that during the next session the right hon. Gentleman might see if the administrative difficulties could be overcome.
MR. BOWLEShoped hon. Gentlemen who were as strongly in favour of the principle of the Amendment as was the Postmaster-General, would not be misled by the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because it was abundantly clear that he had missed the point of the Amendment. Betting was not made an offence by this Bill, and sending a betting telegram would not be an offence under the Amendment. The offence his hon. friend aimed at was the frequenting or loitering at a post office for the purpose of betting by telegram or otherwise. There was not the slightest difficulty in dealing with a man under this Act who frequented or loitered in a post office or telegraph office for the purpose of carrying on betting transactions, and that being so there was not the slightest reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. There was no reason why it should be more difficult to deal with loiterers and frequenters in a post office than in the streets. For his part he deprecated all interference of this kind. He thought it brought the law into contempt, and to say that it could only be enforced by taking enormous powers, such as arresting without warrant, was a condemnation of the whole scheme. If hon. Members were sincere in their desire to stamp out this evil, they should interfere with the rich as well as the poor. He was convinced that they would fail, but if they meant to try let them at least be fair all round.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not pretend in any way to be an authority on this question, and he did not doubt that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the hon.

1683
and learned Gentleman who seconded it were quite sincere in their declarations that they did not indulge in the habit of betting.
MR. F. E. SMITH: May I state that I never said so.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he rather thought he would get that declaration.
MR. CLAUDE HAY: The hon. Member included me in his remarks. Personally I never bet. I do not think I have had a bet on a race for more than twenty-five years.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought the Postmaster-General had pointed out very properly that it would be absolutely impossible to refuse telegrams on the subject of betting. Most of these telegrams were sent in cypher, and even the Postmaster-General himself would be unable to decide on some of these telegrams. A person might want to put £5, say, on a race horse called "Scots Grey," and he might use the code "Rosebery Sulking." How was the right hon. Gentle-man to know that that referred to a particular horse? He would probably say it was a piece of ordinary political intelligence. The Amendment would not at all meet the case. As to loitering within the precincts of a post office being made a crime, hon. Members would be afraid to go to the post office in the Lobby for fear that if they waited for their letters more than a minute they might be arrested by Inspector Scantlebury on the charge of loitering for the purpose of sending betting telegrams. Everybody knew that as it approached three o'clock on the day of a big race, it was merely by coincidence, and nothing else, that half the Members went down to the cloak room to get their umbrellas. I f this question was to be dealt with, there ought undoubtedly to be one law all round. Everybody knew that the greatest people in the country, men of the

AYES.

Balcarres, Lord

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Paul, Herbert

Cooper, G. J.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

most exacted stations, were patrons of sport. They all knew that betting took place. The House ought not to make one law for the poor, while entirely excluding the rich, and he asked them not to interfere with telegrams which nobody except those who were "in the know" could understand.
MR. LUPTONsaid he was delighted to find himself in agreement with the Government. The Bill was aimed at persons who carried on betting in the streets, and it was to relieve working men and women from the temptation to that particular form of gambling that the measure had been brought forward. It was never intended to prevent people from betting at a racecourse. It was, therefore, unjust to say that the Government were making one law for the rich and another for the poor.
MR. PIKE PEASEasked whether the Postmaster had not made a mistake in his reply. The Amendment was to prevent loitering for betting in any "post or telegraph office." That had nothing to do with the transmission of telegrams.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONreplied, but the answer was inaudible in the Press gallery.
MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had replied to his hon. friend on a wrong assumption. He thought the House was entitled to a further answer.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Post Office already had power to deal with persons loitering in or frequenting post offices for the purposes of betting, either as trespassers or under the Post Office Protection Act of 1884.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 14; Noes 205. (Division List No. 485.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Haddock, George R.

O'Mara, James

Acland, Francis Dyke

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Paulton, James Mellor

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Agnew, George William

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pollard, Dr.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

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

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)

Armitage, R.

Hayden, John Patrick

Radford, G. H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hedges, A. Paget

Reddy, M.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Helme, Norval Watson

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Barnard, E B.

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

Redmond, William (Clare)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Henry, Charles S.

Renton, Major Leslie

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Higham, John Sharp

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th.)

Beale, W. P.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Richardson, A.

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hex'm

Hogan, Michael

Roborts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

Beck, A. Cecil

Hooper, A. G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Robinson, S.

Bennett, E. N.

Hudson, Walter

Runciman, Walter

Bertram, Julius

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Russell, T. W.

Boland, John

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Bottomley, Horatio

Jowett, F. W.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brace, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Kelley, George D.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bridgsman, W. Clive

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brodie, H. C.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Laidlaw, Robert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Lambert, George

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Byles, William Pollard

Lamont, Norman

Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Soares, Ernest J.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Lehmann, R. C.

Stanger, H. Y.

Cave, George

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chosh.)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Levy, Maurice

Starkey, John R.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Lough, Thomas

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Clough, William

Lupton, Arnold

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Sullivan, Donal

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Maclean, Donald

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Cory, Clifford John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Crean, Eugene

Macpherson, J. T.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Toulmin, George

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Delany, William

M'Arthur, William

Ure, Alexander

Dolan, Charles Joseph

M'Crae, George

Verney, F. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

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

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Maddison, Frederick

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Meagher, Michael

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Watt, H. Anderson

Elibank, Master of

Micklem, Nathaniel

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Essex, R. W.

Mooney, J. J.

Whitbread, Howard

Evans, Samuel T.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

White, George (Norfolk)

Everett, R. Lacey

Morse, L. L.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Farrell, James Patrick

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fenwick, Charles

Murnaghan, George

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Ferens, T. R.

Murphy, John

Whitehead, Rowland

Ffrench, Peter

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Nicholls, George

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Findlay, Alexander

Nolan, Joseph

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Williamson, A.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Nuttall, Harry

Wilson, Hn. C. H. W. (Hull, W.

Fullerton, Hugh

O'Brion, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

Ginnell, L.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Glover, Thomas

O'Doherty, Philip

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

Gulland, John W.

O'Haro, Patrick

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Malley, William

MR. CLOUGH MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W. R., Skipton) moved the omission of Clause 2, which exempted racecourses from the operation of the Act. He thought that that was class legislation of a very invidious kind. It attempted to deal with an evil affecting the working and industrial classes—for which many Members were grateful—but it specially reserved the racecourse for the indulgence of the drones and butterflies of society. In dealing with this evil in the streets they were only dealing with effects; they ought to remove the causes, and the racecourse was the fount and source of the mischief, the seat of the cancer and canker. It was doubtful, even if this clause were left out, whether or not racecourses would he exempted. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this Parliament ought to set new precedents, but they should be good and wholesome, and not bad and reactionary precedents, such as this special exemption of racecourses. He objected to this Racecourse (Removal of Doubts) Clause. This Bill had come from another place where they were adepts at construing the real minds of the authors of proposed measures. But he was perfectly certain that Clause 2 was not in the Bill as introduced in another place, and at any rate it had never been in the mind of Lord Davey, the original author of the Bill. Therefore they should reconstitute it in this respect. What were the objections to the omission of the clause? It had been said that this was not a racecourse Bill, but a street betting Bill; but if they looked at the measure they would find that it was a Bill for the suppression of betting in streets and in other public places, and there-fore he did not see why race courses should be exempted from its operation when the Bill became law. Besides, their well-beloved Prime Minister had said, "a rose by any other name will to the same thing," and this Bill by any other name would be the same Bill. He did not think that if this clause was struck out they would lose the Bill altogether; and he hoped that the Government would not "tell" against the Amendment. In another place they had struck out clauses from measures sent up to them, and under Mr. Speaker's direction the House of Commons had struck out clauses in measures sent to
1688
them, and they had not lost those Bills has yet. He and those who agreed with him liked the Bill; they thought it a good Bill; but they believed it would be improved by the omission of Clause 2.
MR. LUTTRELL (Devonshire, Tavistock)seconded the Amendment. He could not see why a man was to be prevented from betting in the street and yet allowed to bet on a racecourse.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 22, to leave out Clause 2."—(Mr. Clough.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or,' in line 23, stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that he proprosed that this should be left an open question. So far as the merits of the Bill were concerned, it would make no difference whether the Amendment was carried or not. Personally he should vote with a clear mind for the clause as it stood. It had been said that the Bill was aimed against the poor man and was in favour of the rich man; but the poorer classes went to race meetings and betted with wandering bookmakers. If the clause were omitted he thought a good deal would be done to organise betting in rings.
MR. HICKS BEACHhoped the clause would be retained in the Bill, the object of which was to prevent betting in the streets. Betting in a racecourse and betting at street corners were totally different things. Frequenters of racecourses wont there knowing that they would see horses race and that they would also be tempted to bet. To say that a man should not be allowed to make a bet, whether of sixpence, half a crown, or £500 or more, under those conditions, would be grandmotherly legislation of the worst description, and went far beyond the scope of the Bill, which was only intended to put a stop to the temptations of betting at street corners. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this clause talked about the Bill in its present form as being class legislation of the most invidious type, and mentioned some words which dealt with a

1689
society of drones and butterflies. He did not know what that had to do with those who attended racecourses, but he would remind the hon. Member that frequenters of racecourses in the neighbourhood of large towns were drawn far more largely from the working class than from that class which he described as consisting of drones and butterflies. It was essential for the protection of the racecourse that this clause should be kept in, and he hoped hon. Members would consider very seriously before they supported the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MR. J. W. WILSONhoped that hon. Members would not vote against Clause 2 as he felt it would endanger the passing of the Bill; it would not prevent rich folk from betting, and it would leave street betting in the position in which it was before. It was quite a different thing to deal with betting on racecourses and to deal with it in the streets. If there was one thing for which they had a mandate it was to put down the nuisance which existed outside large works, when the men with their wages in their pockets were tempted to bet. It was quite a different thing when the same set of people put on their best clothes and went to a racecourse, and it was idle to suppose that even this Radical Parliament was resolved to put a stop to betting on racecourses. They were, in attempting to do it, running their heads against a brick wall, and aiding and abetting those who wished to see this Bill defeated.
LORD BALCARRESasked whether the words "adjacent thereto," as applied to a racecourse meant a hundred yards or a quarter of a mile away. There might be factories or workshops within a few yards of a racecourse, and a man might still, in spite of the Bill, be tempted to bet at a street corner. It was not right to leave such slovenly, general, indiscriminate, and ill-defined words in an Act of Parliament if it was meant to be effective. He thought this clause was the first recogni-

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Agnew, George William

Armitage, R.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

tion of betting contained in an Act of Parliament dealing with criminal matters.
MR. BYLESthanked the Government warmly for allowing them to vote as they liked on this question, without the pressure of the Government Whips. For once they were not putting them in the dilemma, which some of them were so often put into, of having either to vote against the Government or against their consciences. The Home Secretary would remember very well that in Committee they had a very close division about this matter, and he was not so sure that if the House had been as full as when the Minister for Education made his statement that afternoon, this House would not strike the clause out of the Bill. The Bill was directed to preventing people from waiting and loitering in streets in order to make bets, but then this clause was dropped in so that a rich man could go to Newmarket, and there was nothing to prevent his making bets. That meant that while certain aristocratic gentlemen wanted to be protected themselves, they were perfectly willing to prevent poor men betting in the streets, so long as they were enabled to do what the poor man could not. He intended to vote against the clause.
MR. EUGENE WASONsaid the hon. Member was thankful for small mercies. He had not been on a race-course for twenty-five years, and knew nothing about them. He did not bet on horse-races or any thing else, not because he thought it wrong, but because his vices did not lie in that direction. He should vote for the retention of the clause on the ground, that the Bill was intended to stop street betting, and that if they attempted to strike out the clause, it would imperil the passage of the measure, which they would all deplore.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes 40. (Division List No. 486.)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hills, J. W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Beale, W. P.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Renton, Major Leslie

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexh'm

Hogan, Michael

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Bennett, E. N.

Hooper, A. G.

Richardson, A.

Bertram, Julius

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Boland, John

Hunt, Rowland

Robinson, S.

Bottomley, Horatio

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bowerman, C. W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Kelley, George D.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Brace, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brodie, H. C.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Sherwell, Arthur James

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Levy Maurice

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Lewis, John Herbert

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Lough, Thomas

Soares, Ernest J.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lupton, Arnold

Stanger, H. Y.

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

Lyen, Charles Henry

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Maclean, Donald

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffs'h.)

Cory, Clifford John

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Courthope, G. Loyd

M'Arthur, William

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Crean, Eugene

M'Crae, George

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

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

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Maddison, Frederick

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Delany, William

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Toulmin, George

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Meagher, Michael

Verney, F. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Meehan, Patrick A.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Micklem, Nathaniel

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

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Mooney, J. J.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southamptn

Farrell, James Patrick

Murnaghan, George

Watt, H. Anderson

Fenwick, Charles

Nicholls, George

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Ffrench, Peter

Nolan, Joseph

White, George (Norfolk)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nuttall, Harry

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Whitehead, Rowland

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Fullerton, Hugh

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Ginnell, L.

O'Hare, Patrick

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Wilson, Hn. C. H.W. (Hull, W.)

Glover, Thomas

O'Malley, William

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

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Paulton, James Mellor

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Haddock, George R.

Pease J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. J. W. Wilson and Mr. Eugene Wason.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pollard, Dr.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Radford, G. H.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Reddy, M.

Hayden, John Patrick

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

NOES.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Paul, Herbert

Barnard, E. B.

Hedges, A. Paget

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Russell, T. W.

Cooper, G. J.

Laidlaw, Robert

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lehmann, B. C.

Smyth, Thos. F. (Leitrim, S.)

Essex, R. W.

Macpherson, J. T.

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

Evans, Samuel T.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Everett, R. Lacey

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Ferens, T. R.

Murphy, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Clough and Mr. Luttrell.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Gulland, John W.

O'Doherty, Philip

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Bill read the third time, and passed with Amendments.

REMOVAL OF OFFENSIVE MATTER BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.
RECORDERS, STIPENDIARY MAGIS-TRATES, AND CLERKS OF THE PEACE BILL.
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
IRISH EDUCATION (AFFLICTED CHILDREN) BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
INFECTIOUS DISEASE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
DUBLIN POLICE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
LOCAL REGISTRATION OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (CONSOLIDATION BILL.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
JUDICATURE BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
EDUCATION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) (APPLICATION OF PENALTIES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [LORDS].
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

LICENSING (REMOVAL OF DOUBTS) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes after One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Ure Elder Fund Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order relating to the Ure Elder Fund—Was presented by the Earl Beauchamp (for the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell); read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Section 7) deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee. (No. 227.)
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition for Amendment of; of inhabitants of parish of Ross; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition against; of inhabitants of parish of Nailstone; read, and ordered to lie on the Table
  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of employers of labour in Aberdeen and district (signing); employers of labour in Yorkshire (signing); and Birmingham Chamber of Commerce; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No 512. Southern Nigeria (Report for 1905).

  TRANSVAAL.
  Transvaal Constitution, 1906. Letters Patent and Instructions relating to the Transvaal and Swaziland Order in Council.
  Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance, No. 29, of 1906.

  INDIA (TRADE).
  Review of the trade of India in 1905–6. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LUNACY.
  Report to the Lord Chancellor of the number of visits made, the number of patients seen, and the number of miles travelled by the visitor's of lunatics, pursuant to the Lunacy Act, 1890, between 1st April and 30th September, 1906.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (HEBDEN BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT).
  Order made by the council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain shops within the district.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE MILITIA.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSrose to call attention to "the altering of the terms of service in the Militia by rendering them liable to be sent abroad at the will of the Government of the day, a change hurtful alike to the Militia and the nation, as it would lesson the chances of recruiting a force, ever from 20,000 to 30,000 short of its established strength, though containing a very large number of boys under twenty years of age, while the exercise of the existing power of compulsory Militia Home Service would be rendered impossible."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have, in the first place, to apologise for the delay there has been on my part in bringing on this Notice, but I postponed it, by request, because it was wished that nothing should come between the House and the late discussion on the Education Bill. As regards Army reform, we are not in a position to know exactly what Mr. Haldane intends. We are not to know that until the spring. Probably we shall hear it on 1st April. But we can gather enough from his "thinking aloud" to know what the general tendancy of the measure will be. The intention of His Majesty's Government and of Mr. Haldane is that we should have what they call a "national Army." Now, that national Army is illustrated by Mr. Haldane by a cone. The base of the cone, the principal part of it, is to be pure Volunteers; the centre part of the cone is made up of Militia;

  1471
  the sharp point is the Regular troops, and that sharp point has been reduced by something like 20,000 men, and my unhappy country of Scotland, which would be, perhaps, the first to be invaded, is not to have any cavalary regiments at all.
  But the main thing is that, according to Mr. Haldane, this Army is to be "on purely British principles." I want to know what those purely British principles are. I imagine that in Mr. Haldane's view they mean purely volunteering and nothing in the shape of compulsion. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War gives no sign either of approval or disapproval. I assume, therefore, that purely British principles mean purely voluntary principles. I traverse that statement absolutely. I say that purely British principles are the reverse, that purely British principles are compulsion in the Militia for Home defence. It is true that this power of compulsion has been long in abeyance, but it exists, and every year Parliament passes a Bill to suspend the action of the Militia ballot. Therefore, I am justified in assorting that Mr. Haldane is inaccurate in saying that this scheme rests on purely British principles. On the other hand, his Army Reform scheme rests on absolutely un-British principles. There is no denial.
  Now I come to my Motion. My Motion is in two parts. The first refers to the alteration of the terms of service in the Militia. Service in the Militia at present is voluntary, but militiamen may be sent anywhere throughout the world if they volunteer. By the change which is proposed the terms of service are to be altered, and militiamen are to be rendered liable to be sent abroad at the will of the Government of the day. That is a great upheaval of the traditions on which our military system rests. Why is this change made? I contend that without any change such as this you can get all you want. You have only to ask the Militia. If the Government said, "We want a certain number of regiments, we ask you to volunteer," what would be the result? Every regiment would volunteer. That is a certainty, and then you would have to select from the whole the number that you required. Therefore, why, in God's name, upset the foundation of our military system when there is no necessity
  1472
  for it? This appears to me to be the common sense of the thing.
  Take the history of the Militia. Have they ever failed you when you wanted them? Did they fail you in the Peninsula? Did they fail you at Waterloo? Did they fail you in the Indian Mutiny? It is true that they did not go to India, but they went to the Mediterranean. And did they fail you in the Crimea? No. At the time of the Crimea they garrisoned Malta and Gibraltar. On any occasion, whether it be Spain, Waterloo, the Crimea, India, or, lastly, South Africa, have they ever failed you? No. Have they ever objected in any way or refused to respond to your invitation? They have not. Therefore I say you are, without any possible justification, breaking up the foundations of our military system, which rests upon a Militia raised compulsorily for Home defence according to the old constitutional power. The power of forcing men to serve in the Militia for Home defence only is a power that it seems to me something like madness willingly to throw away; but, if the terms of service are altered in the way proposed, you practically throw it away, because you cannot establish the principle of compulsion to send men to Egypt, to West Africa, to Timbuctoo, or anywhere else. Therefore, my Lords, a great power will be done away with if this change is made.
  I go further. You will put the British-born man in a more abject position with regard to compulsion than either a Frenchman or a German. In the French army, which is recruited absolutely by compulsion, you cannot send a man to Algiers, to Madagascar, or anywhere else abroad against his will and consent. The same thing obtains as regards' Germany. In Germany also, they have to obtain the consent of the men, although they are recruited by compulsion, before sending them to German possessions abroad. That does away with the argument that it is unfair that men should be asked to volunteer. As regards that point, in your division of the Militia those who do not wish to go abroad would remain in the Home Department. Therefore, all these arguments fall to the ground, and we come to this, that the only

  1473
  sure basis on which you can build a military system is by compulsion for Home defence. Unless England adopts this, it had better do what I heard the other day was done in the case of the Bishop of Osnaburg. That Bishop was one of those potentates who had a little army before the union of the German States, and that army bore on its helmets the words "Give us peace, O Lord!" Now, my Lords, we know the changes in uniform to which our soldiers are subject, and I would suggest that as our army organisation now is, our soldiers should get another new cap in the shape of Mr. Haldane's cone with the Osnaburg prayer upon it.
  Now, in expressing the views which I have laid before your Lordships as regards compulsory Home Service I have not been stating my own opinion only. Who, then, are the authorities who looked upon the enforcement of our constitutional annually suspended law of compulsory service in the Militia as the only sure solution of our present difficulties? I wrote in the autumn four letters to the Scotsman, in one of which I pointed out that the authorities numbered ten, and were— (1) Lord Sidmouth (Militia Transfer Bill), 1807; (2) Sir James Grahame's Committee on Army Organisation, 1860; (3) Recruiting Commission, 1867; (4) Lord Dalhousie, 1867; (5) Lord Longford, 1867; (6) Sir James Scarlet, 1870; (7) Colonel Anson, 1870; (8) Sir W. Mansfield (Lord Sandhurst) 1871; (9) Lord Wolseley, 1903; (10) County and urban authorities, 1903. I will not trouble your Lordships with what those authorities said, but they all, as strongly as possible, insisted that if you are to have an Army at all, it must be built on a sure foundation, and the only sure foundation is compulsory service under the existing law.
  From this list there was one omission, and I did not know of it until a few days ago. I refer to the views of Mr. Herbert, who was Minister for War in 1854. I happened to turn to his life, a most interesting book, which is written by Lord Stanmore, to see if anything was stud, about the Militia, and I found the following passage, which, coming from the Minister for War of the day, ought to have a material
  1474
  bearing. Mr. Herbert, in a circular letter to the Cabinet, speaking of Militia recruiting, said—
  "I have slowly and most unwillingly arrived at the conclusion that here again our true policy is to return to the old traditional system, and to the practical execution of the law as it now stands."
  That was the law as it stood then, and as it stands now, i.e., the ballot.
  "With our jealousy of a standing Army we have never permitted conscription for the Queen's Forces), but time out of mind we have ruled that all males capable of bearing arms are liable to be called upon for the defence of their country. The ballot is now the law of the land. By merely abstaining from an exceptional proceeding with a view to its suspension, the ballot comes into operation."
  And his biographer, at page 396, says—
  "Disappointed though he was in his hopes of establishing the Militia on what he thought a proper footing, Mr. Herbert never abandoned the intention of ultimately effecting what he desired, and never ceased to insist on the importance of recognising the Militia as the great reserve force of the nation, second only in importance to the Regular Army, though to be used for home service and home service only."
  Coming from such a man as Mr. Herbert this is very valuable testimony. These are the opinions of the past. Have I none as regards the present? I wrote to Lord Wolseley, that distinguished soldier, asking him to come and give me a hand in this matter, and I received this letter in reply. Upon its receipt I wrote to Lord Wolseley, asking him if he had any objection to my making use of it in your Lordships' House, and he replied that he had no objection whatever. I will, therefore, read what Lord Wolseley says. He wrote—
  "I feel much flattered by your note and the request it contains, but I am not equal to the attempt. England can never have an efficient Arm)', during peace, and she must, therefore, accept the rebuffs and calamities which are always in store for the nation that is content to follow the breed of cowards who usually direct her great affairs. The day will inevitably come when she will violently and suddenly lose her former fighting renown to such an unmistakeable extent that the plucky fishwives will march upon Downing Street, and, if they can catch its usual inmates, will rend them. One Party is as bad as the other, and I hope and pray that when the national misfortune of a great defeat at sea overtakes us followed by the invasion of England or Ireland—very possibly the latter— that John Bull will turn and rend the jawers and talkers who prevent us from being prepared to meet invasion. It is not Mr. Haldane I find

  1475
  fault with. He acts more suo, or I should rather say, after the manner of alt of our War Ministers. It is the British people who are to blame, who prefer the politicians, who pretend to scoff at the possibility of invasion, and refuse, in their stuck-up folly, to regard the warnings which the great Duke left this nation as a legacy. Mr. Tobias Jones, M.P., and the Smiths and Robinsons, all busy to make money, profess to laugh at danger, and ignorant John Gull makes haste to admire their wisdom. However, he would not listen to our great lighting Duke, so poor fry like me must content ourselves with the silly, selfish prayer of 'Not in our time, oh Lord.' The mob who now rule England are taught by their leaders to regard men like you and me who would warn them of their danger as male Cassandras; at any rate, they won't believe us. The people prefer those who assure them of 'Peace, perfect peace!' The invasion of England has been at all times a favourite military problem with me. I have studied it in all its phases since the day, when, as a boy, I cut from the newspaper the warning contained in the Duke of Wellington's letter to Sir John Burgoyne on this serious subject. However, the Navy, always afraid their building programme for the year may be cut down, keep assuring John Bull that England is quite secure as long as her Navy is powerful. I should like to see our Navy half again as strong as it is, but still, to be quite secure against invasion, we require a strong defensive Army also. Our great Duke said that England was now joined to France by an' Isthmus of steam.'"
  The other letters that I have received are more or less in the same strain, but the opinion I have just read is one of the best opinions you could have at the present time, on the necessity of our Army for home defence.
  Lord Wolseley referred to the Navy. That leads me to say a word about that line of defence. Mr. Haldane has plunged head over heels into the blue water. He followed Mr. Balfour's example, and he is flouting about in it now, and boasts of it. Last week there was a discussion at the United Service Institution on the question of the efficiency of the Navy, and Mr. Bellairs, a naval man and a Member of Parliament, read a paper thereon. Admiral Harris was in the chair, and among those present were Admiral Free-mantle and a great many soldiers and civilians. Here is an account which a gentleman who was present has given me of this meeting—
  "During a two days debate last week, not only the lecturer but also every speaker, naval, military, legal, and lay, most definitely asserted that we were courting future naval disaster, and that Tweedmouth's Navy would prove as broken a reed as Haldane's Army. Not one attempt to justify our present trust in Provi-
  1476
  dence or in Party was made during those two days."
  Besides these opinions and the opinion of Lord Wolseley, we know that Lord Roberts is strongly of opinion that you must have compulsion for home defence. Then there is the Duke of Norfolk's Commission. What was that Commission appointed for? It was appointed to look into the efficiency of the Auxiliary Services, the Militia and the Volunteers, and what did the Commissioners report? They reported that these services, as at present constituted, are not to be trusted. And yet Mr. Haldane takes the Volunteers as the base of his cone.
  As against the authorities I have ventured to quote, what is there to be said? Nothing. The Party politician knows as well as possible that every word I have read to the House is true; that every opinion given by generals and other experts, that you cannot have a sound system unless it is on a sound basis, with compulsion for home defence, is true. That is known full well. As regards Mr. Haldane, I hope I have said nothing to give him offence. Certainly nothing would be further from my wish than to do so. The best proof I can give of that is that I have in my hand a letter which I wrote to Mr. Haldane on the 1st of January last, the substance of which was that all his predecessors had failed. Why? For want of courage to ask for those compulsory powers which the Government have and ought to exercise. That was the tone of the letter I wrote to him. I said they talked about the problem of the Army, but there was no problem. The problem is simply this; There is my hat; I want to cover my head. I have only to stretch out my hand and put it on. You have this Militia power. You have only to use it and your problem is absolutely solved. But there is not the courage to do it. I hope the Government will think very seriously before they touch the foundation of our military system; that they will think seriously before, they alter the terms of service in the Militia, because, if they do alter it, they will lose for ever the power of compulsion for Home defence, however much we may need it in the future.
  This House last year passed a very sensible and wise Resolution. It passed

  1477
  it unanimously, so that my noble friend and all those noble Lords who sit on the front Ministerial bench are as responsible for that Resolution as anyone who sits on these benches. What did that Resolution say? It said that you must not trust to the Navy alone for Home defence, and that this nation should always be in such a state of Home defence on land that no foreign nation would, at any time or in any form, attempt a hostile landing on our shores. What I should like would be that this House and the country should test the Army scheme by this Resolution. I hope, if this Bill ever comes into your Lordships' House, that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition will defend our existing military system, which, as I have said, rests upon compulsory service for Home defence. I hope he will defend it to the death, and that your Lordships will back him up to the full extent. And if he takes that line the noble Marquess will be simply defending a power with which, as he stated in this House when he was Minister for War, he would not readily part with.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wemyss has again reverted to a subject which, in his hands, always seems to borrow an air of eternal freshness and youth, but which is not a novel one in this House—the subject of the Militia ballot. I gathered from the speech of my noble friend that he is as strongly in favour of the Militia ballot now as he has ever been.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: And as you are at heart.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I must respectfully differ from my noble friend on that point. I do not think it is necessary this afternoon to enter at any length into the history of the Militia ballot. It is quite clear in your Lordships' recollection that the Government of Mr. Balfour introduced a Bill of that kind, and then dropped it; and in dropping that Bill they announced to your Lordships that they were going to appoint a Commission to inquire into the efficiency of the Militia and the Volunteer forces. That Commission
  1478
  was presided over by the Duke of Nor- folk, and I noticed that my noble friend referred to the Commission in terms of confidence and approbation. I should like to remind your Lordships what the Norfolk Commission said respecting the Militia ballot. They said—
  "We have paid close attention to the evidence laid before us dealing with this subject, and have formed the opinion that the Militia ballot is unsuited to the modern conditions of the country and that its irregular and unequal incidence would be felt as an injustice."
  They went much further than that. They realised the fact, which I think was hardly sufficiently strong in the mind of my noble friend, that, supposing this country could be successfully invaded by a Continental army, the reasonable presumption would be that the troops sent here for that purpose would be the best troops that could be obtained on the Continent. The Norfolk Commission realised that, and they went on to say that the Militia could not be relied upon to defeat an invader without substantial help from the Regular Army, and they expressed the opinion that to enable the Militia to confront with any degree of success the well-trained forces of a Continental army it would be necessary that the Militia should be trained for a period of continuous service with the colours on the model of Continental conscript armies, and the period they suggested for that purpose was in no case to be less than a year. With all deference to my noble friend, I maintain that, so far as practical politics are concerned, conscription is out of the question.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: You mean conscription for the Army?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I say that conscription for the Army is out of the question.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: Hear, hear.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: As the noble Earl stated, the Militia have always served abroad in time of war. They served with distinction in the Peninsula; and I do not think it is fair to the Militia that it should be implied that the fact of making them liable to serve abroad

  1479
  would materially affect recruiting for the Militia. As regards the Peninsular War, to which my noble friend has made some reference, what did Lord Castlereagh say in 1813? He said—
  "We could not have kept possession of Portugal or have sent forces to co-operate in the deliverance of the Peninsula at large, and taken up that menacing position on the frontiers of France which our Army now occupies; we should have been shut up within the bounds of our insular policy, and could not have borne our share in the general exertions which have been made for the deliverance of Europe, were it not for the Militia. We should bear in mind that it is to the Militia we owe the character we at present enjoy in military Europe, that without the Militia we could not have shown that face which we have done in the Peninsula."
  Then, again, what happened in the Crimea? Fifty regiments of Militia volunteered for service abroad and ten regiments were sent to Mediterranean stations. Then I come to more recent times. In the face of what happened during the South African War, can my noble friend say that if the Militia were made liable for service abroad such a liability would interfere with recruiting for the Militia? Most interesting evidence was given before Lord Elgin's Commission on the War. General Borrett, Inspector-General of Recruiting and Auxiliary forces, said, in his evidence before that Commission:—
  "Very strict orders were given to Generals to the effect that in every district where a Militia regiment was going abroad the General should personally see it on parade and ask the men whether they quite understood the terms— that there was no compulsion, that everything was quite voluntary, and that if any man did not wish to go no questions would be asked."
  Why, then, does my noble friend imply that making the Militia liable for service abroad would interfere with recruiting for the Militia?
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: You cannot have compulsion if you make them liable for foreign service. That is my point.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: What happened in regard to South Africa? At the outbreak of the Boer War the actual strength of the Militia was 98,000, and during the war, which lasted three and a half years, altogether 98,000
  1480
  Militiamen served, of whom 14,000 were Militia Reservists, who were liable in any case to go abroad, and who were part of the ordinary reserve of the Regular Army. But the remaining 84,000 served voluntarily, and they were made up as follows— 40,000 volunteered and were drafted as individuals into the Regular Army, and 44,000 went out in their own regiments. As a matter of fact, my Lords, there is no evidence to show that liability for foreign service weighs very much one way or the other with the Militia recruit. I am inclined to think that the power of the Government which now exists to embody the Militia goes a very long way, and is in many cases equivalent to the power to order them abroad—for this reason, that a Militia battalion when embodied would naturally prefer to go to the front than to be ordered for nine or twelve months to be placed in some garrison town away from their homes and their work.
  Then, again, I think the evidence goes to show that Militiamen join for pay, food, and clothes, and do not study minutely the terms of enlistment. As an evidence of this it is a very remarkable fact that from 10,000 to 12,000 Militiamen pass annually from the Militia into the Regular Army. As another evidence of that, we have the very interesting results of an experiment which has been recently made—the experiment of extended training for six months instead of the old training for six weeks. I have had the figures looked into, and I find them very striking and eloquent. In the thirteen battalions in English Commands, taking the two principal months of the year for recruiting, September and October, and comparing them with 1905, I find that 364 recruits have drilled on enlistment in September, 1906, as compared with 209 in September, 1905, and 534 recruits in October, 1906, as compared with 366 in October, 1905. It. shows, therefore, that there is a very strong inducement for the men to adopt the extended training, which certainly must make better soldiers of them than if they were drilled for six weeks only. I should also like to allude to the fact, which has a bearing upon the larger question, that the employment of these men for six months has in many cases a

  1481
  very useful and valuable effect on the local labour markets.
  It is perfectly true, as my noble friend has stated, that when I learned that he was going to curtail his enjoyment of Scotland to come up to your Lordships' House and make a speech on this subject, I informed him that I was afraid that, as the position of the Militia in Army reorganisation was still under consideration, I should not be in a position at the present moment to make any definite statement to the House. But in any scheme of Army reorganisation—and I hope my noble friend will not think I am speaking with any want of courtesy to him—I am afraid the functions of the Militia as implied in the speech of my noble friend are certainly obsolete. And for this reason, that we do rely upon our Naval supremacy for defence against over-sea invasion, and we rely upon our Volunteers against raids.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I should like to ask the noble Earl, what is a raid?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: A raid would be a landing of a force of, say, 10,000 men.
  LORD LOVAT: How many raids constitute an invasion?
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I take it that by an invasion one means the pouring into a country, as we did into South Africa, unchallenged and unopposed, a steady stream of troops. The idea of a raid is something sudden, which would do a great deal of harm if the raiders attacked and destroyed any of our great arsenals, but it would not be in that case an invasion. We do rely upon our naval supremacy for defence against over-sea invasion. Otherwise our naval expenditure, which has grown from over £17,000,000 in 1894–5, when it was less than the cost of the Army, to, in 1904, nearly £37,000,000, which is borne by British taxpayers, cannot be justified.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: What is the cost in the case of Germany.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In 1904 the cost of the German Navy was £7,500,000. The total cost of the German Army and Navy amounted in that year to £36,287,000. The total cost of our Army and Navy was £65,720,000. These figures show very eloquently that there is a strong case why the taxpayers should insist upon some reasonable economy in regard to the whole of this question of military defence. If we cannot rely upon the Navy, then the expenditure which is incurred is an unjustifiable burden. It must be remembered, as I have said, that this expenditure incurred in the defence of the Empire falls, not upon all parts of the Empire, but upon the taxpayers of this country.
  In any scheme of Army organisation the Militia must, speaking generally, either become practically part of the volunteer forces or develop into a support to the Regular Army, and to the striking force of 150,000 men; and if the Militia is to become a support to the Regular Army, those who are interested in, and have the confidence of the Militia, must be prepared to make some concessions as to their going out in their units. War developes a number of possibilities which the most acute forecast of military and naval experience, insight, and knowledge cannot possibly cover. And, therefore, if we are to be able to make use of the Militia as a support to the Regular Army we must not be tied down by any rule that we can never use it, unless we send it out in battalions. My noble friend, in the course of his speech, used the phrase "the constitutional force." I have never known exactly what the meaning of that phrase was. When the Militia was supported by the rates the localities had a special claim on it for local defence, but ever since 1874 the charge of the Militia has fallen upon Imperial taxation, and, that being the case, it is surely only reasonable that the Militia must be used in accordance with the requirements, not of local, but of Imperial, defence.
  THE-EARL OF WEMYSS: I do not object to that.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I differ entirely from my noble friend, and believe that the making of the Militia liable for foreign service would in no way act as a deterrent to recruiting. It is said that as the Militia served abroad voluntarily, why do we want compulsion? If Militiamen are made liable for service abroad it is only in order that the War Office should be able, in drawing up any plan, to know what force it can absolutely rely upon. My belief is that the Militia as a body desire to become part of a practical scheme of Imperial defence, and if, as I believe, that is the case, I trust they will assist us in arriving at some reasonable arrangement and compromise on the drafting question which may be acceptable to the reasonable claims of the Militia as a county force with a strong local sentiment, and to the imperial, and, I hope I may say without offence, the imperious necessities of the War Office in times of national emergency.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I will not occupy the time of the House for more than a minute or two, but I do not think we ought to let some of the statements of the noble Earl go unchallenged.
  The noble Earl has given us a strategic forecast of the possibilities of invasion. There is nothing relating to that in the notice on the Paper, but still the noble Earl has volunteered a statement on that subject. He has clearly indicated that our policy of defence is in a complete state of chaos, for he intimated that the position of the Militia in the scheme of defence had not yet been assigned. This, perhaps, was no news to many of us. But the noble Earl went on to say that all we need fear are raids, and that raids must necessarily be confined to 10,000 men and would only be made on strong places.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I said that a raid would be of no value to the enemy, as it could do very little dam-age to us unless it were to destroy a great arsenal.
  LORD LOVAT: Why are three or four raids of 10,000 men each on, say, the broad coast of Norfolk or the south coast
  1484
  of Scotland impossible? If 10,000 men in one body may raid us, why should not four bodies of 10,000 men each land at distances of ten miles apart. It must be remembered that there are 182,000 tons of shipping in German ports at any day in the year, and that the Hamburg liners can carry 7,000 men apiece. I really must protest against the theory that all we need fear is one raid, and that it would necessarily be made on one of our fortified places.
  THE DUKE OF BEDFORD: My Lords, I cannot agree with the Motion of the noble Earl. It seems to me that the defence of our vast continental Empire demands that some portion of the Auxiliary Forces should be enlisted for the purpose for which they must be used —namely, Imperial defence. If that is the case, then the Auxiliary Forces must in future be divided into two parts. One division would consist of troops who enlist for foreign service, and upon whom a considerable expenditure would be justified. The other division would be composed of bodies of men who enrol themselves for home service only, and upon whom a large expenditure could not be recommended.
  The question is, in which division ought the Militia to be placed? If, as the noble Earl desires, the Militia is retained for home service, then it must be combined with the Volunteers in the home service division of the Auxiliary Forces. Statements have recently appeared in the public Press advocating the amalgamation of the Militia and the Volunteers. It seems to me impossible successfully to combine an unpaid civilian force not serving under the Army Act, like the Volunteers, with a paid military force, serving under the Army Act, like the Militia. If the combination were effected it means that the Militia must approximate as closely as possible to the existing conditions of the Volunteer service; that is, be levelled down and become a purely civilian force.
  My objection to this plan is that if once the Militia is changed into a purely civilian force, that form of military service which has so long been known as the Militia will be gone, and for ever. A most valuable asset of military service,

  1485
  capable of being employed for Imperial defence, and one which is essential for the maintenance of the Regular Army, would be sacrificed. But His Majesty's Government have announced a Bill for enlisting the Militia for foreign service, a measure which would place the Militia in the foreign service division of the Auxiliary Forces. The Militia would remain closely linked to the Regular Army. A definite function would be assigned to the Militia, and the whole status of the Militia force would at once be raised; and, above all, that expenditure which is necessary to make the force efficient would be justified, because the Militia would render an adequate return in the form of Imperial service. I sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government will proceed with the Bill for enlisting the Militia for foreign service at an early date.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I know that a very important Bill awaits the consideration of your Lordships, and I will promise not to detain you for more than three or four minutes. I am sure your Lordships would desire this discussion to close. As regards the notice standing on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, I cannot help remarking that it is not a Motion, although it has been several times referred to as such. It is merely a notice to call attention to this matter. As regards the first two points raised by the noble Earl, my views are embodied in what has been said by the noble Duke behind me. I sincerely hope His Majesty's Government intend to go on with the policy they have announced of making the Militia an Imperial force liable to take its share in the defence of the Empire.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: How about compulsion if you do that?
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The noble Earl has taken the words out of my mouth. I was astounded to hear his question as to what a raid was. I may have been taught history the wrong way, but my elementary history books taught me that the foundation of all great families who live in a certain part of Scotland was laid by continual raids on the cattle and property of their
  1486
  neighbours, and I should have thought the noble Earl, coming from that part of Scotland, could have informed us from his hereditary knowledge better than anyone else what a raid is. I wish to protest most strongly against the assumption that because you make the Militia liable for service abroad you are thereby tying your hands and rendering it absolutely impossible in the future to put the ballot in force. If ever the Government of this country came to the conclusion, as I sincerely hope they never will, to put the present Ballot Act into force, they could perfectly easily do it by raising a Militia for service at home by ballot, without in any way interfering with the Militia made liable for service abroad. I hope that we shall never live to see the necessity of raising a Militia by ballot. Ballot is by far the most objectionable form of compulsory service. It has been described by the present Prime Minister as a combination of the press gang and the roulette table, and though, perhaps, that was rather a picturesque description, it has nevertheless some truth at the bottom of it. The feeling held by the Prime Minister does not exaggerate the objection I have to the Militia ballot, and I sincerely hope we may never see the necessity for its use in this country.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I desire to thank my noble friend Lord Portsmouth for having supported my argument. He said that the Militia were ready to go anywhere. That is what I say. Then why niter its constitution? My noble friend Lord Donoughmore wants to alter it because he thinks it is not suited to the time; but, if you get all you want under the present arrangement, why change it?. In the words of Lord Melbourne, "D — it, why can't you leave it alone?" Then, as regards the Norfolk Commission, they advocate universal service, which I should resist to the death. It is not wanted. You have a perfect system in the ballot for the Militia. As to the point about raids, the Resolution which your Lordships passed last year declared that it is unwise to trust the Navy alone for home defence, and that this nation should always be on land in such a state of permanent defence that no Power would ever

  1487
  attempt in any form a hostile landing on our shores. Having given our assent to that Resolution, that is the standpoint from which we should regard any revolutionary measures.

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill for the abolition of plural voting. Your Lordships may remember that this is one of the Bills which were promised in the Speech from the Throne, and it is introduced in accordance with that promise. I am afraid that the idea of a mandate is not a very popular one in your Lordships' House, but I think it is only right to point out that this is a measure which was largely discussed in the country before the last general election, that it was mentioned in nearly every election address issued by Liberal candidates, and not only was it mentioned in a great many election addresses, but without exception it was mentioned in the course of every campaign and in most of the speeches which were made by the successful Liberal candidates.
  It is a Measure upon which the Liberal Party speaks with no uncertain voice, and the Bill itself has passed both its Second and Third Readings in another place by very large majorities. It is not a Bill with which this House really has direct interest, because none of your Lordships are or ever possibly can become plural voters; nor does it in any way concern the constitution of your Lordships' House. The Bill itself is a perfectly simple one. There is the one principle, and a good deal of machinery to carry out that single principle. Of that machinery I think I ought to say this on behalf of the Minister who had charge of the Bill in another place, that he met every possible objection which was made by the friends of noble Lords opposite, and that a great deal of the complication in the machinery of the Bill as now presented to your Lordships is due to his anxiety to meet
  1488
  the various points raised by his opponents. I think I may say that His Majesty's Government were very tender indeed to every objection which was taken, and were only too anxious to meet in every possible way any hard case which might occur under the Bill; and I am sure the attitude of His Majesty's Government would be the same in this House as in another place.
  Your Lordships will see that the first clause lays it down that no voter should vote in the course of twelve months in more than one constituency. The idea of imposing that disqualification is that it is, in the opinion of the Government, very desirable that the voter should make up his mind beforehand, so that in the event of a general election following after a by-election it should not be possible for a large number of persons to transfer their votes without giving due notice. The penalty imposed is that to which anyone is liable who has been guilty of personation, but instead of imprisonment, which is at present the punishment for personation, power is given to impose a fine not exceeding £500. Then I think I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, throughout, the words "knowingly and with the intention of evading the provisions of this Act" are put in; so that no person who votes in the old way under some misapprehension could be in any possible circumstances punished. The punishment will only apply in the case of those people who do it knowingly and with intent to defraud. Then there is the further possibility that the voter shall choose his own constituency, and either select once a year or once for a lifetime in which constituency he shall vote
  Upon the principle of the Bill I think I should say this, that it is an attempt to adapt to Parliamentary elections the principle which is already in use in county council elections. Therefore it is in no sense an innovation in our law. Further, I may say there is not one of our Colonies in which these anomalies prevail at the present time. As the Amendment of the noble Viscount points out, there are a number of anomalies in our electoral system. There are, I think, no less than seventeen franchises. This Bill does not propose to abolish

  1489
  or to add any franchise. It is in the direction rather of the removal of one of these anomalies. Nothing could be more illogical than the present system, for it is not purely a property qualification. It happens to depend upon whether an individual has all his property within a ring fence or not. If he has all his property in one constituency, he has only a single vote; but if he has the misfortune to have his property scattered all over the place in different parts of the country, then it is that he has a number of votes. It so happens that very often those people who have many votes have less property than those who have only one vote. That, I think, is quite clearly an anomaly, and it will be acknowledged even by those of your Lordships who would support a property qualification.
  I come to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, and I hope I may say how glad I am that it is not to be moved by a Member of the late Government who was concerned in the redistribution proposals which were introduced last year. Those redistribution proposals were merely in the direction of making confusion worse confounded, and would have introduced still another difficulty in an already difficult electoral system. The noble Viscount, however, was in no way concerned with those proposals. He has put on the Paper an Amendment showing that he considers that in the Bill now before your Lordships there are certain sins of omission as well as of commission. He invites your Lordships to declare that you are willing to consider a complete scheme for reforming the franchise, and also to secure the fair representation of the people; and he ends by saying that this Bill does nothing to remove the most glaring inequalities in the present distribution of electoral power. This is the position. His Majesty's Government offer to your Lordships a Bill which does introduce one single reform. The proverb has it that half a loaf is better than no bread; but that is not the position of the noble Viscount. He says he will have four loaves or none at all.
  I should like to congratulate noble Lords opposite upon their sudden passion for reform, were it not that I feel that it is not a passion which is likely to live
  1490
  very long, but that as soon as it has served its purpose and the debate is finished we shall hear no more about it, and the question will return to that condition of neglect in which it was left for so many years by noble Lords opposite. The Amendment to be moved by the noble Viscount without doubt offers us a vision of an electoral Utopia with which many noble Lords on this side of the House will have considerable sympathy. I am glad to think we have a special expert in Lord Courtney, who, I hope, will address your Lordships on this subject, because he is particularly well able to tell your Lordships something of the subject of electoral reform. We also have our ideas with regard to that matter. We would wish to see the suffrage based rather upon citizenship, and that an individual who has a stake in the welfare of the country, whose happiness and welfare are bound up in the prosperity of the country, should have an equal opportunity with everybody else of giving a vote on the great questions of the day.
  What I wish specially to point out to the noble Viscount is that this Bill is a practical step in the direction which he invites your Lordships to go. It is only one, while the noble Viscount demands four. But let me put it to him purely as a practical question. Supposing the usual custom is adopted, and towards the end of the present Parliament a redistribution proposal is introduced and Commissioners are invited to make a scheme for a redistribution of the various constituencies; supposing, also, which I think is probable, that the abolition of plural voting is arranged for at the same time; will it not, as a matter of practical convenience to the Commissioners, be very much to their advantage that they should know where it is that these voters propose to exercise their power of voting? If this is all done at the same time, the Commissioners will not know where it is that these plural voters intend to vote, and, therefore, it would be very much more difficult for them to distribute the voting power equally between the different constituencies.
  The average number of electors for every Member in the House of Commons is 10,845, and a Redistribution Bill would

  1491
  probably place the average at not less than 11,000. If the figure is to be 11,000, let me take an average county division, that of the Harborough Division of Leicestershire. There are 17,227 people registered to vote in that division. If the average number is to be 11,000, that looks as if the Harborough Division would have to part with 6,000 of its voters. But, as a matter of fact, 3,452 of those electors reside and have votes in other constituencies, and in the event of this Bill being passed it is not unlikely that they would prefer to vote in another constituency; so that the electorate of the division would be reduced to just under 14,000, and it would be only necessary for the Commission to deprive the constituency of some 3,000 electors. It is most difficult to construct a Redistribution Bill which would not aggravate the present anomalies, until the effect of the Plural Voting Bill has been ascertained. That is, of course, provided that you still intend to give the plural voter the privilege of choosing where he will vote. There will always be the danger that it will be impossible to continue that privilege to him if you insist on postponing this reform until the last moment.
  In the Pudsey Division of Yorkshire there are 2,674 more Parliamentary electors than there were inhabited houses according to the census of 1901. In that division there are 6,577 ownership electors, because the freeholders of Leeds vote in that division. Any Redistribution Bill which was drafted at the same time as the passage of a Plural Voting Bill would probably arrange to take 4,000 voters away from the Pudsey Division; but when the Plural Voting Bill comes into operation it might need to have some additions made to it. One division of Lancashire has 24,326 electors—2,000 more than the average for two divisions, but there are nearly 7,000 ownership electors, a majority of whom would not be unlikely to wish to vote elsewhere. Those are two or three characteristic instances which I hope will show the noble Viscount opposite how difficult it would be to carry out the proposal to bring all these matters into a single Bill.
  There is only one other matter in the noble Viscount's Amendment to which
  1492
  I wish to call your Lordships' attention, and that is the condemnation of this Bill as indirectly destroying ancient and important constituencies. I do not think that was in any sense the intention of His Majesty's Government. I suppose the noble Viscount chiefly refers to the University Members. I do not think the argument for University representation has ever depended upon mere numbers. I think it has rather been the quality of the electors than the quantity which has persuaded people to support the representation of the Universities in Parliament and, therefore, I can assure the noble Viscount that, so far as this Bill goes, I do not think it will in any way destroy the argument for the representation of the Universities. I cannot help hoping that the noble Viscount will see his way to withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to pass. This Bill is, after all, only a moderate measure of reform, and it is one step in the direction of that larger scheme which the noble Viscount has himself outlined in the Amendment.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(Earl Beauchamp.)
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN,who had given notice, on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill, to move—
  "That this House, while willing to consider a complete scheme for reforming the Parliamentary franchise and securing the fair representation of the people, declines to take into consideration a measure which, while professing to remove an anomaly in our electoral system, imposes penalties on persons registered as voters for exercising the franchise with which they are entrusted by law, indirectly destroys ancient and important constituencies, and does nothing to remove the most glaring inequalities in the present distribution of electoral power,"
  said: My Lords, I think there is a good deal to be said by anyone who has watched the working of the seventeen complicated franchises which, as the noble Earl has stated, have been established with regard to Parliamentary voting in this country by the numerous Reform Acts, and who has also noticed the trend of popular opinion, in favour of a great simplification of our Parliamentary franchises; and I should not for a moment deny that in considering any such simplification it would be

  1493
  necessary also to consider the question of the continuance of plural voting. Nor am I at all prepared to quarrel with what the noble Earl has said as to the extent to which the principle of one man one vote has been adopted by the Party which is represented in this House by noble Lords opposite, or has been accepted by a large majority of those returned to the House of Commons as representing that Party at the last general election. But I do venture to demur to the inference which the noble Earl draws from those premises, that His Majesty's Government have any mandate for dealing with this subject alone in this Bill or for the mode in which it is sought to deal with the question of plural voting.
  It is quite true that the Bill was passed by large majorities in the House of Commons, but it was passed, I am sorry to be obliged to remind the noble Earl, by one of those exercises of forcible suppression of debate with which we are, unhappily, now becoming too familiar. He has reminded your Lordships that this is a matter which affects primarily the constitution of the other House. That is quite true, and I can quite conceive that in the present, as in the past, your Lordships might be disposed to pay great deference to the decisions of the House of Commons with regard to the details of the Parliamentary franchise. But, my Lords, there is one great principle which this House has maintained. I believe, ever since the passing of the great Reform Act of 1832 with regard to Parliamentary reform, and it is this, that when the time comes to reconsider the Parliamentary franchise the question of Parliamentary reform should be dealt with as a whole.
  That principle was last established when in the years 1884–5 the latest Reform Act was passed by the Legislature. Many of your Lordships can remember the occurrences of those years, and it will be only necessary for me very briefly to recall them to your recollection. There was in the year 1884 a County Franchise Bill, instituting household franchise in the counties, introduced by the Government of the day. That question had been for many years previously discussed in the country. It was at the time the chief plank of the Liberal plat-
  1494
  form, and the principle of it was objected to by very few persons during the discussion of the Bill in either House of Parliament. The Bill that your Lordships have now before you is a petty measure of disfranchisement; that was a great measure of enfranchisement. This House was told that there were 2,000,000 of capable citizens whose wants and wishes had not been sufficiently considered by Parliament in the past because they were not represented in the House of Commons, appealing to be admitted to the privileges of the Constitution, and it was warned that if it even delayed compliance with that appeal terrible results would ensue. I shall venture to quote to your Lordships some remarkable words that were used on that occasion by no less a person than the noble Earl who generally sits on the cross benches, and who has since that time been Prime Minister of the Queen. Lord Rosebery argued that if the House of Lords delayed compliance with the request of those 2,000,000 of would-be electors, there would be an agitation in the country of a violent and terrible kind which would attack the foundations of this House; that a conflagration would be stirred up of which no one could pretend to see the limits; that this House was Standing by a precipice if not hurrying to it, and he implored the Lords to pause before they passed a Resolution against the Bill which might strike a fatal blow at their existence.
  Those were the lurid prophecies of that time. They were reinforced by more solemn warnings from the older statesmen of the Party. What happened? This House set aside that Bill, important as it was, by adopting an Amendment very similar in its effect to that which I am about to submit to your Lordships. What happened then? Nothing at all. The same Bill was introduced in the following year, and then at last the Government of the day, headed by Mr. Gladstone, listened to counsels of wisdom and moderation. Both sides conferred upon the matter, the question of Parliamentary reform was settled in a complete measure with general consent, and that settlement has lasted to the present day. I think it possible that the events of those two years, if carefully considered, may not be

  1495
  without some lesson to all of us at the present juncture. But, however that may be, so far as regards the question of Parliamentary reform, it is absolutely certain that your Lordships on that occasion successfully established at a very critical moment the great principle that the question of the Parliamentary franchise and the redistribution of seats, when dealt with, must be dealt with as a whole.
  The noble Earl has congratulated me upon not having been responsible for the Redistribution scheme of last session. I am bound to confess that in my opinion that scheme did offend against the principle which I have just quoted. It came to nothing. This Bill will also come to nothing, and I think it will deserve its fate. When the noble Earl talked about what might happen in the future if your Lordships were to give your assent to this Bill, I noticed that he very carefully avoided any promise on the part of His Majesty's Government that a Redistribution Bill would be introduced at any time in either House of Parliament. He said that "supposing" such a Bill were introduced, then this Bill, if passed, would afford a useful basis for Commissioners to allocate the proper Parliamentary representation of the country, because until it had become law and been in operation a little time, it would be impossible to tell how many electors there would be in any particular constituency. The noble Earl entirely forgot that all our Redistribution Acts have been based, not upon electors, but upon population, and I believe that whenever the question of redistribution is taken up by Parliament, the allocation of seats will be dealt with as before, on population and not on electors.
  Now, what is the proposition which it is sought to establish? It is not merely that His Majesty's Government desire to abolish the abuses of the faggot voting system. The faggot voting system received a deadly blow when constituencies were largely increased by the Act of 1885, and that Act also contains some valuable provisions for preventing the most glaring abuses in the manufacture of that franchise. Faggot voting might
  1496
  be absolutely put an end to if the Legislature would make a reform which would be useful for many another reason— namely, if it would shorten the duration of a general election from one month to a week or ten days. But that is not what His Majesty's Government have in their minds. They have—I do not really quite know why—adopted, this as an eternal principle of justice, that, in the choice of the House of Commons at a general election, no elector ought to give more than one vote. I can only say that it is a principle absolutely alien to the constitution of our Parliament. From the very beginning of our Parliamentary institutions it has always been the rule that the depositories of political power have not been the electors at large, but the electors grouped into particular constituencies, and it is impossible to secure the complete representation of all the interests in any particular constituency if you are going to eliminate from that constituency not a few, I daresay in many cases, of the principal owners of property, employers of workmen, residents, and other persons interested who may be voters elsewhere, and may choose to exercise their franchise elsewhere if this Bill becomes law. If plural voting is put an end to, it seems to me that a blow will be struck at the very root of our system of choosing the House of Commons through particular constituencies.
  I see the noble Lord, Lord Courtney, opposite. Would he not find, in such an event, a strong argument in favour of his view that you ought to endeavour to secure that the House of Commons should be a more complete mirror of the opinion of the nation by some one or other of those systems of proportional representation to which he has given so much time and attention? I do not myself believe that the country will ever depart from the system of particular constituencies in favour of the system which the noble Lord has so much at heart. But if it does not, what then? If you are going to adopt the principle of one man one vote, you must go on with your theories of equality to the principle of one vote one value. The existing system presents infinitely greater anomalies, looked at from that point of view, than

  1497
  any that would be touched by this Bill. How is it possible to defend a system under which, to take a single instance, 2,600 electors in the city of Durham have as much voice in returning the House of Commons as 45,000 electors in South Essex, or under which five English counties, exceeding in population fifteen Irish constituencies, return only five Members to the House of Commons when the Irish constituencies return sixteen? If it was necessary, I could place before your Lordships any number of statistics to show that the great anomaly in our present representation system is not the existence of plural voting, but the extent to which the lapse of time and the changes of population, and other reasons, have made the grossest inequalities between the existing constituencies of the United Kingdom.
  But, my Lords, let me turn from the proposition which is the principle of this Bill, the principle of one man one vote, to the manner in which the Bill proposes to carry out that principle. The noble Earl passed very lightly over the machinery of the Bill, and it has hardly been attempted to be defended in the House of Commons except by its author. A Member of the House of Commons, Sir Charles Dilke, who is, perhaps, the greatest authority there on questions of electoral law, and a very strong advocate of the principle of one man one vote, denounced the machinery of the Bill from every point of view, and argued, as it seemed to me quite fairly, that for everybody's sake, if Parliament were to adopt the principle of one man one vote it ought to carry it out, not in the manner proposed in this Bill, but by abolishing all our existing seventeen Parliamentary franchises and substituting a simple residential franchise with a penalty on a man voting twice at a general election. What does the Bill do instead of that? The Bill retains, as the noble Earl has told us, all these existing Parliamentary franchises. The law ensures that every person qualified, whether he likes it or not, whether he knows it or not, shall be placed upon the register perhaps of a dozen constituencies in different parts of the United Kingdom. Having done that at no inconsiderable trouble to the officials of various sorts, possibly even at some
  1498
  trouble to the voter himself, what does this Bill proceed to do? It proceeds to tell the voter that of all the votes he possesses he must exercise only one, and then it puts him to infinite trouble by notices of selection, notices of withdrawal and other action detailed in the Bill, to settle which vote he shall exercise when the time comes; and if, unhappily, after all he acts contrary to the law as laid down in this Bill and gives a vote where the law forbids him to give a vote, he is liable, as the noble Earl said, to imprisonment or to a fine of £500. And for what offence? For an offence, the definition of which really must have been borrowed from some comic opera—for the offence of personating himself.
  Knowing the cynical humour of the author of this Bill, the First Commissioner of Works, I cannot help thinking that he must have desired, in arranging to send this extraordinary measure to your Lordships' House just at this time, to give us some glimmer of amusement in the interval between our tedious debates on the Education Bill. These are the remarkable provisions by which it is attempted to carry out the simple principle of one man one vote. No wonder it has been found necessary, in the passage of this Bill in another place, to introduce pages of qualifications, so that the unfortunate voter who does not know, as I believe five voters out of six often do not know, whether he is on a register or not, shall not fall into the meshes of the draconic law which is embodied in this Bill. That is the manner in which the Bill proposes to deal with individuals, who are so unlucky as to have property or residence in more than one place. It not only deprives them of all but one vote, it places them in a position so much worse than that of the voter who is only qualified in one place, that it would be almost kinder to disfranchise them altogether.
  I now turn to its general effect. The first point is one of what I may call an electoral nature. It is now the law in large cities which are divided into several Parliamentary constituencies that, although an elector may be registered in every one of those several divisions, he can only vote in one of such constituencies when a general election comes. Now, what is the result

  1499
  of that? In those cities it has become an established practice for astute election agents and registration agents to consider the necessities of their Party in the several constituencies in which the city is divided. If that Party is unnecessarily strong in one of those constituencies, voters are taken off from that constituency and put into another where the forces of both sides are comparatively equal, and there are all kinds of what I may call gerrymandering of this sort, which, if this Bill passed, would, I venture to say, be extended to the whole country; and as in that kind of action the Party always has the advantage which has the longest purse, I submit to your Lordships whether the abolition of plural voting would really be quite so satisfactory to what is called the popular side as noble Lords opposite seem to imagine.
  That is not all. The noble Earl referred to the representation of the Universities. He was quite right in thinking that a sentence in the Amendment which I shall propose to your Lordships referred to that matter. University representation is an old established part of our Parliamentary system. It has been extended by Parliament within comparatively recent times to the London and Scottish Universities. I think it would be a very good thing if it was found capable of further extension to the younger English Universities, and to another University in Ireland. I venture to say that the principle has worked well. I do not mean that University representation is necessary to enable eminent men to be elected to the House of Commons. Certainly not. But it has introduced to the House of Commons, to the great advantage of the country, men who would certainly never have sought election from any other constituency. I need only mention the names of Lecky, Stokes, Jebb, and Foster to explain to your Lordships what I mean, and further, University representation, as it at present exists, enables the voices of certain classes to be hoard in the House of Commons which would hardly be heard there but for that system. The clergy of the Church of England, the different branches of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the members of the medical profession, all have their views represented, as I think they could only be represented, by
  1500
  University representation. There is, last, but not least, one case which I think never should be forgotten. There is a large and intelligent class of the Irish population which would, in present circumstances, have no voice whatever in the House of Commons but for the existence of Trinity College, Dublin, as a Parliamentary constituency. Therefore, I think, on its merits, University representation should not be abolished. But the noble Earl says, "We do not touch it." No, you do not. If you had the courage to propose to abolish it you would have to do so under a Redistribution of Seats Bill, and if you did propose that, then would arise the question whether what is now sought to be secured by University representation, ought not, if University representation is to be abolished, to be secured in some other way. What is done by this Bill with regard to University representation is to bleed the University constituencies to death. They are to be deprived of all those voters who from property, or residence, or other reasons, might find it necessary to select some other qualification than their University qualification, with the result that the University constituencies would, I think, practically be reduced to the residents and teachers in the Universities themselves, and to a few clergymen or members of the medical profession who might think that in that way they would still retain the special representation to which they attach value, and would, therefore, prefer to select their University vote. The noble Earl said that University representation did not depend upon numbers. I wonder whether he spoke for His Majesty's Government. I wonder how long University representation would continue if the University constituencies were bled to death in that way.
  I hope I have said something to convince your Lordships that, in the first place, this proposal to abolish plural voting is in itself but a small part of a very great question; that if dealt with, you must also consider other questions on which it bears which are infinitely; more urgent and more important in their nature, and that the machinery by which His Majesty's Government propose to carry out their intentions is about as bad as any machinery could be. I hope that it may be your will to set aside this

  1501
  Bill this evening. The noble Earl seemed to suggest that I was not sincere in my desire that Parliamentary reform, if attempted at all, should be attempted as a complete scheme. Well, that taunt was pressed in 1884 in every speech from that side of the House against the Amendment which was then moved by Lord Cairns. It was shown to be absolutely unfounded by the result, for in the very next year, when their desire for a complete scheme was fulfilled, the House of Lords passed the extension of the franchise together with the redistribution of seats. I believe the same thing would happen now.
  I am sure that your Lordships will never resist the real desire of the people and of the House of Commons for Parliamentary reform. But this I feel with regard to this Bill, that it is not worth the name of Parliamentary reform. It is a moan and petty scheme for disfranchising voters, the majority of whom are supposed, for all I know quite erroneously, to be opposed to those at present in power. If it is destroyed to-night, its loss will be regretted by few beyond the circle of wire-pullers and Party agents who hope to find in it a means of preserving to their Party some more seats than those to which it would be otherwise entitled at the next general election. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "That this House, while willing to consider a complete scheme for reforming the Parliamentary franchise and securing the fair representation of the people, declines to take into consideration a measure which, while professing to remove an anomaly in our electoral system, imposes penalties on persons registered as voters for exercising the franchise with which they are entrusted by law, indirectly destroys ancient and important constituencies, and does nothing to remove the most glaring inequalities in the present distribution of electoral power."—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just addressed the House has adduced many reasons for the rejection of this Bill, the force of many of which I readily recognise and with the merits of some of which I completely concur. I suppose the noble Viscount will be successful in securing the rejection of this Bill. Speaking with
  1502
  that anticipation, I may, perhaps, be permitted to deal with the subject of the Bill with more freedom than might be allowable if we were really fighting a doubtful issue. I have said that I assent to much that the noble Viscount has said, but I dissent from his conclusion. His premises are of great force, some of which I would not attempt to controvert, but his conclusion is not one of prudence or of wisdom.
  It is trite, as the noble Viscount said, that the Bill deals with a comparatively small matter in comparison with many of the important issues to which the noble Viscount adverted; but since it is a small Bill it might be assented to without great inconvenience. I submit to your Lordships that it is especially incumbent upon you to consider whether in the interests of this House it would not be advisable to let the Bill pass. What is the principle on which the Bill is founded? The underlying idea of the Bill is equality of voting power on the part of all entitled to take part in Parliamentary elections. It is the antipathy to privilege which makes such a strong case in favour of this Bill, which has caused its principle to be taken up by every Liberal candidate, and to be adopted and embodied in the representative systems of all our self-governing Colonies. Seeing that it is really a question of antipathy to privilege, seeing that it is conceded that the privilege concerned is of comparatively small value, and seeing that it is apart from all other questions of electoral reform, I strongly urge your Lordships to consider whether the possession of real and valuable privileges may not be endangered by adhering tenaciously to small privileges which are of no account and the existence of which excites popular feeling.
  Although I admit that the Bill is a small affair, and that its machinery appears to deserve much of the noble Viscount's condemnation, and although I recognise, as he has done, that Sir Charles Dilke, a man of greater authority and with a larger knowledge of the political machinery of our time than any other, has condemned the Bill from top to bottom—admitting all that, would it not be better to read the Bill a second time and then attempt to amend the machinery, so that your Lordships would have shown yourselves ready to abandon privilege and to be concerned only for the

  1503
  efficiency of electoral reform. Though the subject of the Bill is separated from other measures of electoral reform, its passage would not prevent the consideration of the larger questions; indeed, I think it would perhaps accelerate their consideration by tending to remove a temper of prejudice and hostility and to substitute a more open mind and a larger spirit.
  I have said that this is a very small matter, and my feeling is that in the rejection of the measure there is some compensation that the interval before the reappearance of the Bill, which we all recognise must ultimately be passed, may be employed so as to lead the mind of the nation to consider the larger questions with which it is not essentially but mechanically connected, and lead to a a better understanding of what ought to be aimed at in that general Bill. The real failure of this Bill lies in its stopping short of the principle of one vote one value, and in not realising that what the promoters of it have at heart, what those electors outside who are keen about it emphatically desire, is the equality of voting power—that each man who is a voter shall have just the same influence and power as his fellow man in bringing about the election of the Representative Chamber. That is what is underlying the great demand for the legislation in this Bill.
  But those who believe that this Bill will produce anything like an equality of voting power, even if accompanied by the reforms to which the noble Viscount referred, entirely err in their appreciation of the working of our electoral machinery, and make a great mistake in their anticipations of the future. The equality of voting power which is desired is not principally affected by the disproportionate size of the constituencies. Even with constituencies of the same size from end to end of the Kingdom you would still find that the voting power of those entitled to vote would vary indefinitely and be dependent on chances which that equality of constituencies would entirely fail to remove.
  Let me illustrate the general argument by reference to a fact which is within your Lordships' knowledge. At the general election Wales did not return a single Member opposed to His Majesty's Government. It is true that the
  1504
  constituencies of Wales vary somewhat. Cardiff is overgrown; it may be that divisions of Monmouth are larger than some of the more agricultural counties of Wales; but that monotony of representation of Wales did not depend on the inequality in the size of the constituencies in Wales. You have this fact, that the 57,000 voters in Wales who all went to the poll in opposition to the candidates supporting His Majesty's Government did not secure a single Member. Where is the equality of power in the case of those 57,000 voters? It is clear that the electoral power of the minority was nothing. Equality of constituency in Wales would have produced no appreciably different result. One man one vote might be secured; you might abolish plurality of votes; you might equalise the size of constituencies; but the aim which those who are keenest in supporting this Bill have at heart— namely, the securing of equality of power, would not be realised thereby. You must go to something else.
  I take another example of the recent general election—an example worth considering. Manchester and Salford returned, as your Lordships may be aware, another monotony of candidates all supporting His Majesty's Government; but 34,000 electors in Manchester and Salford voted for the Opposition candidates. Where is the equality of value in respect of those 34,000 votes? At the previous election Manchester and Salford returned eight Conservative Members and one Liberal; now these constituencies have returned nine Liberals. There was just the same error in regard to the power of the votes on the Liberal side last time as there is on the Conservative side this time. Look, again, at Birmingham. What is the value of the Liberal vote in Birmingham just now? The value of the Liberal vote in Birmingham is a strange thing that has come to pass of late years. The change may be duo in some respect to the influence of the distinguished man whose illness we all deplore, but the value of the Liberal vote there is about as imaginary in quantity as the value of the Liberal vote is to a Liberal Irish peer. Your Lordships know exactly what that is.
  You will not get the principle of one value at all realised by simply adopting the principle of one man one vote. The monotony

  1505
  of representation to which I have referred does not depend upon the plurality vote. There is another large area which at the last general election departed from its usual normal course. The last general election produced a great tidal wave of resentment—I am not sure that I should not be justified in using the word disgust—which overwhelmed the supporters of the late Government. Whether justifiable or not, that was the feeling which produced the great change which then took place. These tidal waves cannot always be relied upon, and it may be that certain districts in England will in the near future return to their more normal course. I invite your Lordships to consider what has happened at more than one general election in the south of England. The value of a Liberal vote in many of these areas is next to nothing. There was a complete absence of Liberal Members in previous elections in the southern counties of England although there were a large number of Liberal voters there. Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire, and Dorset, showed an absolute monotony of Conservative Members in borough and county divisions. It was only when one got to the neighbourhood of the Celtic fringe in Devon and Cornwall that one found a small Liberal representation. Yet though the Liberal representation in that area of the country was small, there were many Liberal voters in it. Owing to the present machinery, the Liberal voter had no voice and got no representation in those areas.
  It may be said that the inequality of one area is balanced by the inequality in another area, but a little examination of the figures shows that this idea is wrong. The last election showed the utter failure of the distribution which now prevails to redress the inequality of the value of votes in different parts of the country. At the late election 428 Liberals were returned to the House of Commons, as against 155 supporters of the Opposition. If, however, you add together the number of voters supporting the 428 Liberals and the number of voters who supported the 155 Unionists it will be found that the number of voters ought to have secured 327 seats to the Liberals, and the number on the other side ought to have been 256 instead of 155 seats.
  1506
  A still more striking illustration of the extraordinary failure to reproduce in our representative assembly a true picture of the voting desires of the electorate was afforded by the election of 1895. In that election 481 seats were contested between Unionists and Liberals. The Unionist voters were 1,775,000 and the Liberals voters 1,800,000 — very nearly alike. One would, therefore, be disposed to say that the representation ought to have been nearly divided between the two Parties; but the fact was that out of the 481 seats the Unionists got 279 seats and the Liberals, though receiving the larger number of votes, got 202 seats. This shows the utter failure of the haphazard system of dividing up our political areas in order to secure what we want to produce—namely, a true comparison of the electoral forces of the country.
  The noble Viscount opposite spoke of his absolute disbelief that the country would ever depart from our old system of local representatives and local areas. It is not necessary that you should depart from it. It is only necessary to revert to the local areas which were recently our units for Parliamentary elections. If you were to revert to the old system of electoral areas and have a multiplicity of candidates in them you would then be able to secure approximately, if not absolutely, a true correspondence between the electoral power in the country and at Westminster, and the representation of that intellectual, moral, and political power which the noble Viscount holds has been realised in some measure and in relation to some classes in the representation of the Universities. The noble Viscount thinks that the suggestion is one which the people of this country would never adopt; but it has been adopted in other countries in different forms, and in one at least of our own Colonies—in Tasmania; and I think it is extremely rash, in view of the great changes that must be anticipated, and which must make all reflecting people anxious about the future, to attempt to say to what changes the mind of the country may not be drawn, especially if persons of experience will turn their minds to the projected changes and inquire whether they might not be adopted with advantage here.
  This Bill is founded on the principle of equality of voting power. When I

  1507
  have addressed electors as a candidate, in answer to the suggestion of one man, one vote, it has always been said, "Yes; you mean not merely that, but one man, one vote, one value." This Bill would not realise that desire. It would only go a very little way. It would remove a prejudice, and in my judgment it would be wise for your Lordships to do your best to remove that prejudice, seeing that the Bill would not materially interfere with the greater changes which you know to be imminent. The Bill cannot be accepted as a solution of the electoral question. It is confused in its machinery, it is complex, and it is in the last degree vexatious and irritating. I confess I have never been able to see why we should not be content with a simple Act making it penal for a person to vote more than once at a general election, leaving it to him to choose his constituency. That would be the simplest way of dealing with this question.
  I end what I have to say by expressing the opinion that it would be wise to accept this Bill, but if it is to receive the coup de grace, it will not surprise your Lordships that I shall accept that result with a not unbecoming serenity, thinking that in the end not much mischief will be done by delay, and that the interval may be well used in attempting further to direct the mind of the nation to the true solution of the whole question.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, although I am not a recognised adherent of either of the two great Parties in this House, perhaps I may be permitted to make a few observations on the Amendment of the noble Viscount. I was very pleased that the noble Viscount's Amendment contained the statement that this House was willing to consider a complete scheme for reforming the Parliamentary franchise and securing the fair representation of the people. Without the insertion of those words I should not have found myself able to support the noble Viscount. I must say I think those words make it quite clear that your Lordships are in no way opposed to any Amendment of the franchise law which may be for the interest of the people.
  I do not propose to enter into any discussion of the merits or the demerits
  1508
  of plural voting. My opposition to the Bill is that it is a disfranchising Bill. I am no opponent of the extension of the franchise or of electoral reform as long as that reform does not disfranchise any portion of the population which in the past has exorcised the vote. But this Bill, to my mind, distinctly disfranchises certain classes of his Majesty's subjects, and I think it might very well be described as a Bill for the encouragement amongst voters of a disinclination to exercise the Parliamentary vote. The one complaint which we have heard of recent years has been that there is the greatest possible apathy amongst voters, and we have heard over and over again that this is a real danger to the country. Here is a Bill which, to my mind, is going to disfranchise several classes, and amongst them perhaps some of the most public-spirited men to be found in Great Britain.
  The noble Viscount has told your Lordships that this Bill is calculated to disfranchise large numbers of the University voters. I will not, therefore, dilate upon that class. But in addition there are three other classes which will be disfranchised by this Bill. The first is those law-abiding citizens who are cursed with very sensitive consciences, and who dread more than anything the possibility of its being said that they have done anything, however innocently, to break the law. The second is a very numerous class, I regret to say, citizens of property who take life easily, and who would rather suffer disfranchisement than be bored by having to give notice of the selection of a constituency to any official whatever. The third class is composed of those timid persons who are so opposed to the idea of publicity that they would rather suffer disfranchisement than be accused, even without the least chance of its being true, of having done something which would bring them before public notice.
  The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill stated that imprisonment was done away with. But in reading the Bill I see that the direction to the Court is not that it "shall" not imprison but that it "may" not imprison. A timid person would say he would rather run any risk than incur the chance of being imprisoned, and the amount of the fine—£500—would be absolute ruin

  1509
  to many individuals. There are large classes who will be disfranchised by this Bill, and I, for one, say that I will have no part or lot whatever in voting for a disfranchising Bill. If the noble Lord brings in a Bill which shall place the Constitution on a wider and more steady basis I will support him, but I will have absolutely nothing to say to a Bill which disfranchises a large number of His Majesty's subjects, and only gives security to voters who possess all their property in one constituency, or who are possessed of so little property that they only have one vote.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friend behind me has so skilfully and so effectually exposed the unsoundness of this measure that I need not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments with the observations I am about to offer. The Bill has been recommended to us upon one ground, and one ground only—namely, that it is a Bill intended to remove what noble Lords opposite are pleased to call an anomaly in our electoral system. Now I am not prepared to admit so readily as noble Lords opposite that the system of plural voting is necessarily an anomalous system. But whether it be an anomaly or not, it is certainly not the only anomaly to be found within our electoral system. And our complaint of His Majesty's Government is that they have singled out this one anomaly, and have turned their blind eve towards the other anomalies with which our electoral system bristles. That system is not, and does not pretend to be, a symmetrical or scientific system, and the passing of this Bill certainly will not make it a scientific or symmetrical system.
  My noble friend referred to some of the anomalies which this Bill would leave in existence. He spoke of the Irish anomaly. If you object to one man having two votes, why do you look with so much equanimity upon an arrangement which gives to the Irish voter a vote worth ten times as much as the vote enjoyed by voters in other parts of the United Kingdom? And is not the argument greatly strengthened when you consider the proportion to which illiteracy prevails in Ireland? The Irish voter, with a vote that counts ten times as much as that of his fellow voter in this country, belongs
  1510
  to a part of the United Kingdom in which illiterate voters are as one in ten, whereas in Scotland they are as one in 300. Then, my Lords, there is the Welsh anomaly, and I think I caught from the noble Lord on the back benches a reference to the case of Wales. My Lords, in the last election there were seventeen contests in Wales. The Unionist candidates polled 52,000 votes; the Liberal candidates polled 91,000; and yet the Unionists are without a single Member. Is not a system which admits of such a condition of things an anomalous system? Again, in this country is it not the case that a single Liberal Member of Parliament represents something like 7,000 voters, whereas a single Unionist Member of Parliament represents something like 17,000? The Liberal votes were, I believe, as five to four; the Liberal Members returned were as three to one. Then there are the seventeen varieties of franchise which you find in this country. There are the infinite differences to be found in our local and municipal franchises, and the arbitrary rules as to residential qualifications in counties and in boroughs. Within the last few days His Majesty's Government have tried a new little experiment of their own in the direction of plural voting. Let me remind them that under the Education Bill three parents with ten children apiece will be entitled to as many votes as ten parents with three children apiece. What is the ostensible ground upon which this particular anomaly is to pass under the dissecting knife of His Majesty's Government? We are told that a voter votes as a man, and not as a resident. I should be slow to accept that doctrine. I am under the impression that a voter enjoys a vote not because he breathes the air of the British islands, but because he resides in a particular part of those islands, because he has a local stake in that part of the islands, and he is therefore accorded the privilege of assisting to select a Member of Parliament who shall be the spokesman for that part of the country in which he lives. That seems to me to be a reasonable and common-sense view of the case. And it is for that reason that I am not greatly perturbed by the illustration advanced by the noble Earl who introduced this Bill, when he told us it was quite conceivable that the owner of a large estate in a ring fence would have only

  1511
  one vote, whereas the owner of a number of small patches of property aggregating altogether much less than the estate of the larger proprietor would be entitled to a number of votes. The man with the scattered property has more than one vote because he has a local interest in the parts of the country where those sporadic pieces of property are to be found. You are now going to say to that individual that he is to be deprived of one or more of his votes, not because he has done anything wrong, but because he has the misfortune of being entitled to vote in some other part of the country. What is the real origin of this proposal? It is a matter of notoriety that it is made because His Majesty's Ministers and their supporters believe that by attacking this particular franchise they will do something to diminish the strength, not too great at this moment, of those who are in opposition to them. It is for that reason that they are ready to do that which Mr. Gladstone refused to do in 1884, and that which was not contemplated by their own registration proposals in 1893.
  My Lords, I regard this proposal with alarm, because, it seems to me to involve a still further step in a direction in which I fear His Majesty's Government are too fond of travelling— I moan in the direction of separating representation and taxation. It means the transfer of power from those who are liable to ever-increasing direct taxation to those who are immune from direct taxation and liable to indirect taxation only. I also object to this Bill on account of the penal character of some of its provisions. Under the Bill a man with two votes is actually worse off than a man with a single vote, because he is liable to the heavy penalties which this Bill contemplates. It is disfranchisement carried out in a most invidious manner; I say that particularly on account of the manner in which the Bill disfranchises the University constituencies. We also dislike this Bill on account of the extreme complexity of its provisions. It seems to me to have a characteristic which is noticeable in a great many of the Bills proposed by noble Lords opposite and their friends—I mean that it will lead to a great deal of litigation and expense. The noble Lord told us that the
  1512
  voter would choose his constituency. I do not believe it. I believe the person who will choose his constituency for him will be the agent, and that there will be an infinite amount of what we usually speak of as gerrymandering under the provisions of this Bill. The noble Lord on the back bench, I think, let fall an observation that your Lordships might amend the machinery of the Bill. How are we to amend it without substituting for the seventeen various franchises with which this country is familiar a single, simple, and uniform suffrage? That surely is not a task which this House could be expected light-heartedly to undertake.
  The noble Earl suggested to us that this was a Bill we should hesitate to touch, because he said your Lordships' House had no direct interest in the measure. No direct interest in the measure? My Lords, if your Lordships are to have the right of rejecting any measures, surely you have the right to reject a measure which touches the machinery by which all legislation is produced in this country, the machinery which lies at the very fountain head of our legislation. I therefore raise my protest against the doctrine that because this Bill touches the House of Commons franchise, we are for that reason in any way precluded from dealing with it as we think proper. That right of dealing with the Bill seems to me strengthened when we come to consider the moment at which this proposal is made to us. Noble Lords opposite have chosen a moment when they are already in a position of overwhelming strength in the House of Commons. Are they so insecure in their position that it is necessary for them to bolster it up by this petty attempt still further to increase the weakness of their adversaries? My Lords, the scales may be rough and imperfect, but I think we have a right to raise our voices against this attempt to tamper with them. I hope your Lordships will stick to the old principle—which has been affirmed by members of His Majesty's Government— that when you deal with the suffrage you deal also with seats. I hope your Lordships will refuse a Second Reading to the Bill. If I wanted to write its epitaph I should do so in the words used a few moments ago by the noble Lord who

  1513
  said that this Bill was a Bill confused in its machinery, perplexing and irritating, and in the last degree vexatious. A Bill which can be so described is not, I venture to think, one to which your Lordships should give a Second Reading.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords I have listened with the utmost attention to the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. He addresses the House upon this question from a somewhat different position from that of the noble Viscount opposite. In several respects the noble Lord cannot place himself in the position which the noble Viscount is entitled to take up. In the first place, my Lords, this Bill has been objected to because it has been argued that if you wish to deal with the great question of Parliamentary representation you ought to deal with it as a whole. I do not agree to that principle if it be carried to an extreme. The noble Viscount was perfectly entitled to use that argument, and he used it with his accustomed skill. But, my noble friend opposite is not, I humbly think, entitled to use it, because if my memory serves me rightly, in the course of the last session the then Government brought in a Bill, or rather, made certain propositions—for they never got as far as a Bill—with respect to redistribution. Redistribution is only one part of the question of Parliamentary reform. Redistribution is a part of the question intimately connected with the further question of what is to be the franchise. And yet last year there was no hesitation on the part of the then Government in proposing to deal with the question. They found it impossible to do so, and perhaps it is from a kind feeling to His Majesty's present Government that they are induced to point out that they are attempting to take a line in which the Opposition themselves failed. The question proposed to be dealt with separately last year was a very large question indeed. This question, I quite admit, is a small one. My noble friend who has just sat down says it is only one of many anomalies. I quite agree with him. There are a great many anomalies in our present electoral system. I shall be very glad indeed to see those anomalies removed, and I confess I am rather comforted by one part of the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount.
  1514
  I do not know why noble Lords opposite have proceeded by this process of Resolution, because obviously from the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down it is not any part really of the Bill itself to which you object—it is the whole principle of the measure which you desire to reject, and which you might have rejected just as well by means of a simple Motion to read the Bill this day six months. You are very much mistaken if you think that the people of this country will not be able to see through the thin veil of this Resolution, and be able to understand perfectly well why you voted against this Bill. I was a little surprised by one remark of my noble friend. He said, and said quite frankly and openly, that this proposal of ours was simply intended for the purpose of putting an end to a system which we found told to our disadvantage at a general election. My Lords, as the noble Lord took that line, I will venture to tell the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite that their opposition to this Bill arises from their fear that if it be passed it will do them an injury at the next general election. I am quite entitled to make that remark, although I do not think I should have made it but for what fell from my noble friend.
  Now, my Lords, this is a single question, standing by itself, and capable of being dealt with by itself, and it is just the sort of question which my noble friend opposite the other day, in rather startling words, laid down as a question with which your Lordships had better not deal. My noble friend was then speaking upon the Trade Disputes Bill—a Bill, it will be remembered, which was denounced in language almost stronger than even the strongest language of the noble and learned Earl (who does not mince his opinions when he gives them to your Lordships House), and of which my noble friend Lord Lansdowne also expressed considerable abhorence. But you were to pass that Bill. It was bad, it was unjust, it was an infringement of liberty, and I really do not know what else; but you were to pass that Bill, because you considered that the principle of it had been accepted by the country at the general election. That argument applies quite as much—I venture to think that it applies much more—to this Bill as it did to the Trade Disputes Bill. I

  1515
  accept it for the Trade Disputes Bill. I hope to see your Lordships acting upon it when that Bill comes into Committee, but I say that if ever there was a question upon which the opinion of the Liberal Party has been freely expressed, it is this question of what is called "one man one vote." This Bill has passed the other House of Parliament by overwhelming majorities; it was discussed at the last general election in every part of the country. My noble friend behind me, in the admirable speech with which he introduced this Bill, said, with perfect truth, that he did not believe there was a Liberal candidate at the last general election who did not pledge himself in support of the principle of "one man one vote." Therefore, if you are going to act upon the principle—a wise and discreet principle I quite admit —that what has been accepted by the country by an overwhelming majority at a general election ought to be accepted also by your Lordships, at least in its main principles, then I say that you ought distinctly and without hesitation to pass this Bill. I know my noble friend used some ominous words on that occasion. He said that it was desirable that when your Lordships were dealing with Bills which came up from another place you ought to take care that in joining issue upon them you should, as far as you are able, be sure that you were doing so upon grounds as favourable as possible to yourselves. That is a rather remarkable statement. It may show what is the reason of the difference between the mode in which you are treating this Bill and the mode in which you are proposing to treat the Trade Disputes Bill, because in a certain sense—not in an open sense, not in a Parliamentary sense, not in the sense of the public interest, but in another sense— in a party sense—no doubt it may be quite true that this Bill does affect the interests of the Party opposite.
  My Lords, it is not necessary for me to keep your Lordships much longer at this moment by arguments upon the Bill itself. The details of the matter were dealt with so skilfully by my noble friend behind me that it dispenses me from detaining your Lordships long, but one remark I would make. The present law in regard to this matter of one man one vote is, as your Lordships know, inconsistent with the principles
  1516
  which govern the franchise in other cases. In borough elections, as was stated by the noble Viscount opposite, and in county council elections, persons are not allowed to vote in two wards, or in two districts, of the county or borough with which they are connected. What does that mean? What is the principle involved in that? That, mind you, was the principle adopted by the Conservative Government in the Local Government Bill, 1888. What is the meaning of that principle? Surely it is this, that a man is not to vote twice in regard to the election of a body which is to deal with a particular area. He is not to vote twice in a county council election; he is not to vote twice in a borough election; and therefore, the same principle—the general principle upon which you act in these cases—the principle which you yourselves adopted in 1888, when applied to Parliament means this, that a man is not, at a Parliamentary election, to give a vote in two places. The present system does confer a privilege upon one man above another. It does establish a difference between the voting power of one man as compared with another, and generally it is in favour of the rich rather than of the poor. It is a system which has created considerable dislike on the part of those who now represent at all events the great majority of the people of this country. It is a principle which, as far as I can see, is not to be defended. The measure by which we propose to get rid of this anomoly is one which stands by itself, one which can be dealt with by a single Bill, and one which, as was pointed out by my noble friend behind me, can clear away difficulties which might beset you when you come to deal generally with this question, and under those circumstances I think it will be greatly to be regretted if this Bill is rejected to-night. Your Lordships have claimed—and I do not contest it—your right to reject this Bill. No doubt you have that right. Whether it is wise of you to exercise it I do not say. I think that every argument which was used by my noble friend opposite in reference to the Trade Disputes Bill applies equally to this measure, and I should very much regret, upon general public grounds, if it should be your Lordships' pleasure now to throw it out.

  1517
  A great deal has been said about the machinery adopted in this Bill for carrying out its object. It really is no use discussing the question at this moment, because, when I look round me, I know of course what is going to happen to this Bill. It will never get into Committee. You do not mean it to get into Committee. You really care but little about its details. But this I do say, that, if the Bill be complicated, it is due to the concessions made to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House of Commons in consequence of objections which they urged. And, after all, it does not appear to me to be of that complicated nature which has been charged against it,
  but rather to be as simple as it could be made having regard to the nature of the measure. Therefore, my Lords, although it is useless to argue questions relating to the details of a Bill that you intend to reject, I repeat my earnest regret—a regret far wider than for the mere loss of this measure—that you should think it fit upon the Second Reading of this Bill, to reject a measure affecting the election of Members of the other House of Parliament.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion," their Lordshiss divided:— Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 143.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Boston, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Brassey, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Colebrooke, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Reay, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Emly, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Craven, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Durham, E.

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

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Weardale, L.

  Temple, E.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Welby, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Solby, V.

  Lyveden, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Derby, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Bedford, D.

  Devon, E.

  Halifax, V

  Devonshire, D.

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

  Hill, V.

  Leeds, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Newcastle, D.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Ridley, V.

  Rutland, D.

  Lindsey, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Sutherland, D.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Wellington, D.

  Lytton, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Addirgton, I.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Alington, L.

  Bath, M.

  Mayo, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Camden, M.

  Mount Edgeumbe, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Northbrook, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Onslow, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Plymouth, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Romney, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Scarborough, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Basing, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Blythswood, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Bolton, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Poltimore, L.

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

  Kelvin, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Braye, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Rathmore, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore).

  Redesdale, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Dawney, L. (V. Downe.)

  Lovat, L.

  Robertson, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Massy, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Sinclair, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Michelham, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Ellenborough, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Estcourt, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Stalbridge, L.

  Forester, L.

  Moncrieff, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Glenesk, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Newlands, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Harris, L.

  Newton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Hastings, L

  North, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Heneage, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Proposed Resolution agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I beg leave to state that in the present state of business I propose to ask your Lordships to sit on Friday next from twelve o'clock to three, in order to take some of the Bills that remain to be dealt with. The Merchant Shipping Bill stands as the second order for to-morrow. I hope it may be then finished, but if not, I propose to take the remainder of the Committee stage of that Bill on Friday. If that is not necessary, I should propose to put down the Report stage of the Trade Disputes Bill for that day and the Report stage of the Land Tenure Bill in that order. Of course I cannot put them formally down on the Paper because they have not passed Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think we ought to have time to consider the statement which the noble Marquess has just made. I should be disposed to say at once that while we who sit here would be glad to facilitate the transaction of business by a special sitting on Friday, our feeling with regard to proposals of that kind must depend a good deal upon the prospects of getting through, before the Christmas holidays, the great mass of business which His Majesty's Government have brought forward in this House. If there is no prospect of getting through
  1520
  it before the Christmas holidays, then there would seem to be not much object in a special sitting.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I shall make that motion on Thursday— or earlier if noble Lords prefer that I should do so—and then your Lordships will be able to say what your feelings are concerning it.

  BURIALS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 228.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.