Sitting of 3 July 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Heading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:—Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Bury Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Clacton Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill
  1590
  read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
  Newport Harbour Commissioners Bill Lords] (King's Consent signified). Bill read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
  Railway Clearing System (Superannuation Fund) Bill [Lords]; Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [Lords]; Manchester Churches Bill [Lords]; Newtownards Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Penllwyn Railway and Road Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Devon, etc.) Bill [Lords]; Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Kesteven, etc.) Bill [Lords]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London, No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Newport Corporation Bill [Lords]; reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  South Lincolnshire Water Bill; reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP I.)
  Mr. TOULMIN reported from the Committee on Group I. of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the Clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  Metropolitan Railway Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.

  HAMMERSMITH, CITY AND NORTH EAST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. EMMOTT,)moved that the promoters of the Hammersmith City and North-East London Bill should have leave to suspend the Bill and proceed with it next session. He explained that the reason for this long motion was that the promoters of rival schemes had differed as to the meaning of a letter sent to them by the Board of Trade, with the result that, while the Hammersmith and City Scheme had been brought forward this year, the other scheme had not. At a Conference with the Board of Trade, the Chairman of the Lords Committee and himself, it had been decided that the Bill should not be allowed to proceed this session, and the object of the Motion was simply to save the promoters the expense and trouble of bringing in new plans, petitions, etc.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Promoters of the Hammersmith, City, and North East London Railway Bill which has been introduced into this House in the present session of Parliament, shall have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the same Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than six o'clock on the day prior to the close of the present session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period be paid.
  "That the money deposited in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House in respect of such Bill may thereupon be returned to the depositors.
  "That the Promoters of such Bill may, on or before the 31st day of December next, deposit in the Private Bill Office an Estimate, signed by the person making the same, of the expense of the undertaking under the Bill, and, previously to the 15th day of January next, deposit a sum not less than five per centum on the amount of such Estimate with the Paymaster-General.
  "That such Bill shall be referred to the Examiners, who shall certify whether or not the Promoters have made such deposit with the Paymaster-General, and, upon the Examiners certifying that such deposit has been made, that the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro forma
  1592
  only in regard to all other stages through which the same shall have passed in the present session, and no new fees shall be charged in regard to such stages.
  "That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than six o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit in the next session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present session.
  "That if the money deposited in the present session, as required by Standing Order No. 57, in respect of such Bill has not been withdrawn as provided for by the preceding Resolutions, a certificate of that fact from the proper officer of the court in which such money was deposited shall accompany such declaration, and such Bill shall not be referred to the Examiners:
  "That such Bill, indorsed by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office as having been duly deposited with such declaration and such certificate, if any, annexed, be laid by one of the Clerks of that Office upon the Table of the House in the next session of Parliament:
  "That such Bill, so laid upon the Table, shall be deemed to have boon read a first time:
  "That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated, shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present session:
  "That all Petitions presented in the present session against such Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next session of Parliament, and that all Notices and grounds of objections to the right of Petitioners to be heard, given in the present session within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Referees relating to such Notices, shall be held applicable in the next session of Parliament:
  "That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on such Bill, unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited in the present session or in respect of which Standing Order No. 128 has been dispensed with in the present session, or unless their

  1593
  Petition shall be presented on or before the 12th day of February, 1907."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)said this was the strongest order he had ever known with regard to a Private Bill. It was a piece of special indulgence, and they ought to be told what precedents there were for it. They were asked to make a Standing Order for the benefit of private promoters.
  MR. EMMOTT: It will lapse at the end of the next session.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he was aware of that, but he felt bound to enter a protest, especially as in all his experience no similar indulgence had ever been granted to small tiny Irish Bills which could not afford to pay the tremendous fees imposed, and which had no influence to secure this special treatment.
  And, it being Three of the Clock, the Debate stood postponed until To-morrow, by the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

PETITIONS.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.
  Petition from Camberwell, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Bickershaw; Bishops Wood (two); Cottingham cum Middleton and Carlton; Hertfordshire; Measham; Newcastle-on-Tyne; Pudsey; and, Twyford; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Colchester, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Clapton Common; Pinchbeck (two); and, Sutton Bonington; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petition from Depwade, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC. (SCOTLAND BILL).
  Petition from Govan, against; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; from Black burn (two); Carnarvon; Kingston (Surrey); and, Leeds; to lie upon the Table."
  VAGRANT CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Depwade, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3662 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNTENANTED LANDS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered March 27th; Mr. Ginnell;] to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered May 2nd; Mr. Dillon]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. (No. 231.)
  PURCHASE INSPECTORS (IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered May 8th; Mr. Ginnell]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Company Law Amendment Committee, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of the Money Order Amendment (No. 1) Regulations, 1906, dated June 22nd, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS (REMUNERATION).
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the Remuneration of Agricultural Analysts in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend

  1595
  the Law with respect to the Sale of Agricultural Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow—(Mr. Whiteley.)

  CORPOREAL PUNISHMENT.
  Address for "Return of all sentences of Corporeal Punishment inflicted under 26 and 27 Victoria, c. 44, upon persons convicted of offences under Section 43 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and Section 21 of The Offences against the Person Act, 1861, in England and Wales from the 31st day of December, 1904, to the 31st day of December, 1905 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 189, of Session 1905.")—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
  OPIUM (BURMA.)
  Address for "Return (1) of the number of licences issued for the sale of opium, and of the revenue derived therefrom in each year since the War of 1885, (a) in Upper Burma, (b) in the rest of Burma; (2) of the quantity and value of the opium sold in each year during the above period (a) in Upper Burma, (b) in the rest of Burma; (3) of the population at each census since 1885, (a) of Upper Burma, (b) of the rest of Burma; (4) of the convictions for crimes (including misdemeanours) in each year since the war of 1885, (a) in Upper Burma, (b) in the rest of Burma."—(Mr. Annan Bryce.)
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing for the year ended the 31st day of March 1906 (1) the amount contributed by England, j Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the I Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 230 of Session 1905.")—(Mr. John O'Connor.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Distances from Galway.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
  1596
  if he will give the Admiralty correct distances, in knots, from Galway to each of the following places, viz. New York, U.S.A., Portland, U.S.A., Halifax, N.S., Gaspé Que, vá Cape Race, Gaspé Que, viá Straits of Bellisle, Blacksod Bay, Moville, Belfast, Dublin, Queenstown,, Limerick, Waterford, Glasgow, Barrow, Liverpool, Bristol, Plymouth, Southampton, London, Hull, Newcastle, Leith, and Aberdeen.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The distances in nautical miles, from Galway to the ports named (arranged for convenience alphabetically) are as follows:—

  Aberdeen

  590

  Blacksod Bay

  100

  Belfast

  310

  Barrow

  400

  Bristol

  420

  Dublin

  380

  Caspé, viá Bellisle

  2,090

  Caspé, viá Cape Race

  2,170

  Glasgow

  360

  Halifax

  2,185

  Hull

  805

  Liverpool

  430

  Limerick

  103

  London

  690

  Leith

  675

  Moville

  255

  Newcastle

  720

  New York

  2,735

  Plymouth

  390

  Queenstown

  230

  Southampton

  510

  Regulations for Motor Omnibuses.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any limit laid down to the weight and size of the motor omnibus; and whether in considering regulations for governing the future use of this class of vehicles, there will be taken into consideration the great vibration caused by them, especially when fully loaded and proceeding at a considerable pace over an uneven surface.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Limits as to the weight, length, height, and width of motor omnibuses have been laid down in a regulation which is now under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House of Commons,

  1597
  who will, no doubt, in their Report, deal with the vibration caused by these vehicles.

  Salaries of Macedonian Officials.
  MR. SILCOCK: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the salaries of officials in Macedonia have been paid to date and the deficit for the month of May been made good by the Porte as provided in the Réglement; and, if not, what steps will be taken by the Powers to insure such payment.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Answer to the first and second parts of this Question is in the negative. In regard to the third part, the representatives of the Powers are urging the Porte to lose no time in finding the requisite money to make good the deficit on the Macedonian budget.

  Chinese Customs Officials.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any further statement to the House in regard to the Imperial edict of the Chinese Government, appointing Chinese officials at the head of the Imperial Maritime Customs; and whether he can lay upon the Table the correspondence with the Chinese Government on this subject before the Foreign Office Vote is taken on Thursday next.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) As stated in Answer to a Question on June 12th, † His Majesty's Government regard the note of the Wai-wu-pu, respecting the Customs question, as satisfactory, and they are awaiting the issue of instructions to Sir E. Hart which, as I said yesterday in reply to a Question on the same subject, will, it is understood, be in accordance with the assurances given to His Majesty's Government. As soon as the text of the note referred to is received it will be presented to Parliament.

  Boring for Oil in Lagos.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for
  † See (4) Debates, clviii., 816.
  1598
  the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that oil has been found in the bitumen fields of Lagos on the West Coast of Africa; whether he has taken or will take steps to ensure that the local Colonial authorities are aware of the danger of allowing inexperienced persons to bore in oil-bearing strata, especially where water exists; and whether he can see his way to endeavour to secure the closest restrictions upon the method of boring, in order to avoid injury to the oil fields and consequent loss of revenue to the Colony.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The information which has reached the Colonial Office is to the effect that no actual discovery of oil has been made, although it is possible that it may be found. The attention of the local Government will be called to the danger referred to, and any necessary precautions will be taken.

  Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce's claim for Rent
  MR. SCOTT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the late Colonial Secretary wrote that Mendelssohn and Bruce's claim for rent, &c, amounting to £9,525, could not in any way be entertained, but that they were entitled to receive all the profits made, and that it was only after the discovery of profit made (July, 1905) that he subsequently wrote (October, 1905) that a proper course was to pay a reasonable rental for the premises; and will he state why, after writing that the claim for rent, &c, could not in any way be entertained he afterwards came to a contrary conclusion.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Mr. Lyttelton informed Sir J. Puleston, in March, 1905, that he considered that the claim of Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce for rent should not be admitted, but that they were entitled to receive a refund of profits, and in December, 1905, he informed the same gentleman that Lord Selborne had very carefully gone into the matter and had come to the conclusion that the proper course was to pay Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce a reasonable rental for their premises, as had been done in other cases. Mr. Lyttelton pointed out that Messrs. Mendelssohn

  1599
  and Bruce's original claim was for rent, and stated that Lord Selborne was convinced that the legislature of the Colony would unhesitatingly reject any proposal to pay on the basis of profits; the reasons for this conviction being that the profits appeared to be far in excess of what the firm, which has never been able to declare a dividend, could have earned had they had the free use of their premises, and that those profits appeared to exceed greatly the rental they could reasonably have expected to receive during the period that their premises were occupied by the administration.

  Post Office Savings Bank Accounts
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can give the number of Savings Bank depositors' accounts in Great Britain and Ireland respectively on which no transactions have taken place (beyond the recording of interest due), or deposit books forwarded for examination, for five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The information for which the hon. Member asks could not be given without the expenditure of a very large amount of labour, which I do not think would be justified.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Publication of list of Unclaimed Balance.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether a list of unclaimed balances to the credit of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank who have not forwarded their books for examination, or deposited or withdrawn money for a certain number of years, has ever been published; and, if not, whether, in view of the amount of Savings Bank money which, under the present system, can never be claimed, he will in future cause such list to be periodically published.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A list of the nature suggested has never been published. Its compilation would involve a very large amount of work and considerable expense. Its publication would be certain to give rise to a large number of erroneous and fictitious claims, and I am of opinion that it would not be found to be sufficiently useful to counterbalance these disadvantages.

  Post Office Savings Bank—Index of Depositors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the case of a savings bank depositor who loses his deposit book, and is unable to give particulars of the book or date of a recent transaction to the Savings Bank Department, such depositor cannot withdraw his money owing to the fact that no index of depositors' names is kept in the Savings Bank Department; and whether he will arrange to have such an index prepared.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the representative of a deceased person, supposed to have been a savings bank depositor, who is unable to give particulars of deceased's deposit book, cannot withdraw the money which may be legally due to him owing to the fact that no index of names is kept in the Savings Bank Department; and whether he can state how many such cases have occurred in Great Britain and Ireland respectively during the last five years, and in how many cases have inquirers been informed by the Savings Bank Department that, owing to the fact that no index of depositors' names is kept, no information can be given.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I may perhaps Answer these Questions together. The absence of an alphabetical list of depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank is not found to give rise to the difficulties which the hon. Member indicates, as depositors or their representatives are almost always able to furnish sufficient information to enable the department to trace accounts about which inquiry is made. The preparation of a general index would be an undertaking of great magnitude, as it would have to contain upwards of 10,000,000 entries; and its utility would not be sufficient to justify the expense that would be involved.

  Telegraphic Facilities in Rural Districts.
  MR. R. L. HARMS WORTH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of giving greater facilities for the despatch of telegrams in rural districts remote from telegraph offices by permitting them to be accepted at the nearest sub-post

  1601
  office, and to be taken from there to the most convenient telegraph office by the local post runners at the usual mileage rate.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A prepaid telegram may be handed to a rural postman on his way to a telegraph office, or may be posted anywhere, to be sent on by the next collection to the nearest convenient telegraph office. No mileage rate is charged for this service. I am afraid it would be impracticable to arrange that messengers should be available at a country sub-office at any time to carry telegrams at mileage rate to a telegraph office.

  Merchant Shipping Statutory Rules and Orders
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that many of the statutory rules and orders relating to merchant shipping are those made more than twelve years ago under Acts which have now been repealed and consolidated by The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894: and whether he will consider the advisability of having this subordinate legislation properly revised and co-ordinated under that Act before the close of the present year.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am aware of the fact that several statutory rules and orders relating to merchant shipping made before 1894 are still in force. These rules and orders were: expressly saved by Section 745 (1) (a) of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and continue as if they had been made under that Act. As the rules or orders become obsolete, or require amendment, they are replaced by new ones made under the Act of 1894. This process is continually going on, and if the hon. Member will inform me of any rules or orders that he thinks need revision, the question of revising them shall be considered.

  Compulsory Retirement of Civil Service Writers
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the old writers, not on the establishment of the Civil Service, are to be compulsorily retired in January next; what is the number of such writers, and
  1602
  in what Government offices they are serving; what is approximately their average age, and the average length of their service; and whether the total provision to be made for them in lieu of pensions is a gratuity of £100 to each.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am not in possession of the particulars asked for in the Question, and I could not obtain them without considerable trouble. I think it, however, sufficient to say that the Treasury circulars issued in December, 1904, on the final closing of the register of copyists, suggested that the remaining copyists then under sixty should be retired at sixty-five, subject to the discretion of heads of departments to continue them, if fully efficient, year by year up to the age of seventy, and that copyists then over sixty should be compulsorily retired at the age of seventy, subject, in the case of those over sixty-eight, to two years' notice. The gratuity referred to is not in lieu of pension; these copyists were never qualified for pension under the Superannuation Acts, and under the terms of their original engagement they had no right even to gratuity on retirement, which was first granted by the Treasury minute of December, 1886. I may add that since the Treasury minute referred to copyists have always been liable to be retired with a gratuity calculated as prescribed by that minute and not exceeding £100.

  Flogging for Breaches of Prison Discipline.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of cases in which prisoners have been flogged for breaches of prison discipline during each year from 1900 to 1905; will he state the prison where each sentence was carried out; and whether the medical officer in any instance interfered with the carrying out of the sentence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Corporeal punishment can only be imposed in prison for mutiny, incitement to mutiny, and gross personal violence to prison officers. The following statement shows the number of cases of corporeal punishment inflicted in local and convict prisons during each of the years ended

  1603
  March 31st, 1901 to 1905, and the number of instances in which the medical officer

  Year ended 31st March.

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  Local Prisons:

  Birmingham

  1

  3

  4

  2

  2

  Bristol

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cambridge

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Canterbury

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Chelmsford

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Devizes

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Durham

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Exeter

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Ipswich

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Knutsford

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  Leicester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lewes

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Maidstone

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Manchester

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Newcastle

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Northallerton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norwich

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Pentonville

  5

  2

  —

  1

  2

  Preston

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Reading

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Ruthin

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  St. Albans

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Shepton Mallett

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Stafford

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Wakefield

  1

  2

  3

  1

  —

  Wandsworth

  2

  3

  8

  1

  —

  Warwick

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Worcester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wormwood Scrubbs

  8

  1

  1

  —

  4

  Convict prisons:

  Borstal

  6

  —

  2

  2

  —

  Dartmoor

  3

  9

  11

  4

  7

  Portland

  10

  11

  5

  4

  1

  Parkhurst

  —

  1

  2

  5

  —

  Total

  42

  46

  47

  40

  23

  Part of the punishment was remitted by the medical officer in—

  1900–1 in two cases (one at Birmingham, one at Borstal).

  1901–2 in one case (Portland).

  1902–3 in one case (Birmingham).

  1903–4 in two cases (one at Parkhurst, one at St. Albans).

  1904–5 in two cases (one at Exeter, one at Portland).

  interfered with the carrying out of the sentence:—

  Voters at School Board Election—Areas without provided Schools.
  SIR E. BOYLE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will publish a Return showing the percentages of voters who recorded their votes at the last school board elections held in urban areas, with a population of 5,000 and upwards; and whether he will also publish a Return, naming the urban areas with a population of 5,000 and upwards, in which there are no provided schools, or less accommodation in provided schools than would suffice to meet the requirements of 20 per cent, of the school children in such places.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.)I have no information as to the matter referred to in the first paragraph of the Question. As regards the second paragraph, I will lay upon the Table at the end of the week a list of the areas referred to. I am unable to give any figures or facts as to the third paragraph of the Question, nor do I see that any trustworthy information could be obtained from any such figures, if they were available.

  Revised Programme for Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education stated on the introduction of the revised programme that the efficient instruction of six distinct standards by one teacher was, under the results system, not practicable; and, if so, whether, in the case of such teachers, otherwise eligible, service under these conditions will constitute any barrier to increments or promotion under the present system.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that upon the introduction of their revised programme in 1900 they stated that, as in most small schools the staff consists of a principal teacher only, or of a principal teacher and monitor, it is not practicable to teach separately, and at the same time efficiently, six or even fewer distinct standards. The Commissioners, therefore, announced
  1606
  that they would sanction in small schools the collective instruction in the same subject of two or more standards as one division. The Commissioners inform me that since that time they have issued special programmes suitable for collective instruction in small schools. It is not, therefore, the case that service under the conditions mentioned constitutes a bar to the granting of increments or promotion to teachers otherwise eligible.

  Irish Fish Curing Industry.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a brand for Irish cured fish similar to that existing in Scotland; whether he will increase the grants to enable the Irish fishing industry to be improved; and whether he will arrange that the breeding places shall be protected by utiltising gunboats and coastguards to prevent illegal trawling.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In reply to the first part of the Question, I beg to refer to my Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for South Kerry on June 27th. ߤ The hon. Member will see that the question of establishing a brand for Irish cured fish has been fully considered, and that it has not been thought desirable to adopt a brand. The question of an increased grant for the improvement of the fishing industry can be better considered after the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Working of the Department has been received, and it is possible that the fishing industry in some of its aspects may come within the purview of the inquiry into the problem of congestion which it is proposed to conduct. The breeding places of fish where illegal trawling would be likely to take place are effectively patrolled by the vessels"Helga" and"Granuaile," belonging to the Irish Government, and the coastguard give assistance by reporting cases of illegal fishing which come under their notice. I dealt with the matter of assistance by gunboats in my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for East Waterford on June 26th.‡
  † See Col. 949.
  ‡ See Col. 790.

  Attendance of Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald at Petty Session Courts.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, resident magistrate, Portarlington, is in such a low state of health as to be unable to attend regularly to his duties; can he say how many Petty Session Courts have been held during the past two years in Mountmellick, Rathangan, Clonbullogue, and Stradbally, respectively, and how many of those Mr. Fitzgerald attended; and what course he proposes taking to supply the public requirements of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The resident magistrate referred to reports that he is not in a low state of health, and the records show that during the past two years he has been absent from duty on account of indisposition on twelve days only. Petty sessions are held fortnightly at Mountmellick and Stradbally, and monthly at Rathangan and Clonbullogue. During the past two years the resident magistrate did not attend petty sessions at Mountmellick or Rathangan, but he attended at Clonbullogue on two, and at Stradbally on five occasions. Petty sessions at Mountmellick, Rathangan, and Clonbullogue fall on days fixed for other petty sessions in the district, at which the resident magistrate's attendance is more desirable. As regards Stradbally, the resident magistrate reports that, whenever he has not attended petty sessions at that place, there was no case for hearing, or the cases were of a trivial nature only. There is, I am informed, a good attendance of local justices at each of the four petty sessions named, and public requirements have not suffered.

  Sales on the Wilson Estate—Action of Mr. Patrick Duff.
  MR. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick Duff, a middleman on the Wilson estate in the parish of Drumraney, county Westmeath, bought out his land on which there was a large portion of cut away bog and a number of sub-tenants; that the
  1608
  agent of the estate entered into an arrangement with Mr. Duff, by which he divided five acres of the bog amongst the tenants, to be included in their holdings; and that then the agent and Mr. Duff fixed the terms of the purchase between them without any consultation with the tenants, leaving them solely at his mercy; and whether, seeing that Mr. Duff now refuses to sell to the tenants, and insists on the tenants paying the full amount of their rackrents without any abatement, he will bring this case before the Estates Commissioners in order that they may deal with it satisfactorily to the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the agreement for purchase signed by Patrick Duff shows that there are upon his holding four sub-tenants, two of whom hold at judicial rents. The Commissioners have no knowledge of the remaining facts stated in the Question. The estate, however, will shortly be inspected, and the Commissioners will direct the special attention of their inspector to the holding mentioned and the sub-tenancies thereon, and also to the question of turbary.

  Hours of Duty of Irish Prison Warders.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if, having regard to the physical and mental strain of warders in the Irish prisons service owing to the monotonous nature of their duties, he would consider the advisability of having the summer time table altered so as to lessen the number of hours' duty per day; and if he will inquire if there was general discontent among the warders in the Irish prisons service at the passing over of men of long service in connection with recent appointments and promotions; and if it is the custom that court and escort duty is given exclusively to one officer in the larger prisons in Ireland instead of being given to all equally qualified officers in turn.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the General Prisons Board that it would not be possible to lessen the number of hours of duty per day for prison warders, either in winter or summer, without a considerable increase of

  1609
  staff, There is, I am informed, no general discontent among the warders at the passing over of men of long service, although individuals are, no doubt, sometimes disappointed. It is not the custom that court and escort duty is given exclusively to one officer in the larger prisons in Ireland, nor, on the other hand, is such duty assigned to all equally qualified officers in turn. It is a question for the governor to decide in each instance who is the most suitable officer to send on such duty, which does not involve either relaxation or emolument.

  Sale of the Estates of the Commissioners of Endowed Schools.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have been able to identify the estate of the Commissioners of Endowed Schools, Ireland, situate at Cappaloughlin, Clonard, Mountrath, Queen's County; whether agreements have been signed by the tenants thereon for purchase of their holdings: whether he can say if a minority of the tenants have withdrawn from the sale; and will their complaints be inquired into before the sale is sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Education in Ireland that the majority of their tenants at Cappaloughlin have expressed their willingness to purchase on the terms offered by the Commissioners, but a minority have so far not agreed to the terms. No agreements for purchase have yet been signed, and consequently the matter has not come before the Estates Commissioners. If, however, proceedings for the sale of part only of the estate should come before the Estates Commissioners, they inform me that, before sanctioning the advances applied for, they will make inquiries as to the grounds upon which part of the estate is excluded from the sale.

  Raising of Wages at Waltham Abbey and Enfield Lock.
  COLONEL LOCK WOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet sufficiently considered the question of raising the wages of the labourers at Waltham Abbey
  1610
  and Enfield Lock from 21s. to 23s. 6d., so as to bring them into conformity with the rate existing elsewhere, and can he make a definite statement on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of raising the minimum wage at these factories from 21s. to 23s. a week (not 23s. 6d. as stated in the Question) has necessitated a somewhat detailed investigation, but it is hoped that it may be possible to announce the decision shortly.

  Free Postage for Members of Parliament.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the expediency of arranging that all correspondence sent from the House of Commons by Members who are in attendance shall be free; and whether he is aware that this privilege exists in the Colonies.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) At the beginning of the session I informed the hon. Member that I could not see my way to act upon his suggestion, and I have nothing to add to that statement.

  Free Railway Passes for Irish Members.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the expediency of arranging with the carrying companies concerned the arrangement of free travelling to and from the House of Commons to such Irish Members as may desire to do so; and whether he is aware that Members of the Legislature in the Colonies have free passes on all railways in their colony.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) No, Sir, I do not see my way to do what the hon. Member suggests. I hope, if ever the privilege should be granted, it will not be reserved exclusively for the benefit of Irish Members.

  Education Bill—Interval between Committee and Report Stages.
  MB. TALBOT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the important Amendments made in the Education Bill,

  1611
  at the instance of the Minister for Education himself, he will consider the advisability of giving a longer interval between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Bill, in order to give a longer opportunity for giving notice of Amendments upon the latter stage.
  (Answered by Sir II. Campbell-Banner-man.) Unless the Session is to be prolonged I do not see how the interval between the Committee stage and the Report stage can be extended. The interval of five days is the same as that accorded by the previous Government for the Education Bill of 1902.

  Government facilities for passing Local Authorities (Qualification of Women) Bill.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Bill now before the House, entitled Local Authorities (Qualification of Women) Bill, passed its Second Reading in the last Parliament by an almost unanimous vote, and has support from all parties in the present Parliament, he will by suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, or by arranging a Saturday sitting, or in some other way, afford facilities which will give the Bill an opportunity of passing through the present Session, so that women may be qualified to serve on county, borough, and metropolitan borough councils, before the triennial county council elections next March.
  (Answered by Sir II. Campbell-Banner -man.) The Government are very favourably disposed to this Bill, and if an opportunity offers of facilitating its progress they will gladly avail themselves of it.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Slavery in the Zanzibar Protectorate.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what steps have been taken to secure the abolition of the legal status of slavery on the mainland of the Zanzibar Protectorate.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on May 30th to a similar Question by the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset.†

    East African Timber Concession and Railway.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table of the House all information connected with a large timber concession in East Africa; also the terms on which the construction of a railway in connection with the said concession has been arranged, and the financial responsibility of the Government direct for the same.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The timber concession referred to by the hon. Member is no doubt the leases of forests at the Eldama Ravine to Messrs. Lingham and Grogan, particulars of which are given on page 18 of the Return of Grants of Land in the East Africa Protectorate Command Paper 2902 of 1906. The question of the construction of a railway in connection with this concession is under discussion, but no agreement has yet been arrived at on the subject.
    MR. CATHCART WASONasked if there would be any financial responsibility upon this country.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the railway would have to be made either from funds supplied from this country or by some private body in return for certain land concessions; but no decision had been arrived at.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: But have the Government undertaken any financial responsibility in connection with this railway?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the railway itself was in a much too nebulous condition for him to say anything more. He believed the railway would be a useful and paying branch of the Uganda Railway, but no
    † See (i) Debates clviii., 388.

    1613
    plan had yet been decided upon. No proposal had been made that the Government should construct the railway. Proposals had been made by private firms, but not decided upon.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: The concession is absolutely useless without the railway.
    MR. ASHLEY: Will not this concession and railway be very useful in opening up East Africa?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I think it is important for the development of East Africa, full of ripe possibilities, that the railway should be provided.

    African Forests and Rainfall.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if ho is aware of the limited quantity of timber in East Africa, and the effect that a material diminution of the same would have on the rainfall and the climate; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is fully aware of the importance of forest conservation in the East African Protectorate, and is arranging to send an expert to report on the question at an early date.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this timber is more wanted in East Africa itself than in South Africa?
    MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to say that as the timber would be carried over the Uganda Railway he did not see that it was the duty of the Government to object to its going to South Africa.

    Messrs. Mendelssohn and Brace's Claim against the Transvaal Government.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce's claim, rendered in December 1901, for the use
    1614
    of their printing plant and machinery (Johannesburg Standard and Diggers' News), at Rissik Street, and of their jobbing and printing plant, machinery and premises in Harrison Street, Johannesburg, amounted to the sum of £9,525, full details of every item being given, and that the Transvaal authorities reduced this claim to £4,895 as equitable compensation; and can he state how this reduction was arrived at, and what were the reasons given for so reducing it.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the account from which the hon. Member is quoting: the sum of £4,895 is set down in it as estimated equitable compensation. I am not in a position to state how the reduction was arrived at.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the equitable compensation of £4,895 credited to Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce by the Transvaal authorities in 1902 remains unpaid at the present time, and that, notwithstanding the delay and loss of interest for five years, the Colonial Office, acting on behalf of the Transvaal Government, now offers Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce a sum of £2,500 in full settlement of all demands; and can he inform the House why such an. offer was made as an act of grace.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The sum of £4,895 quoted in the hon. Member's question appears to have been set down in the account as an estimated amount. The sum of £2,500 which has been offered has been arrived at after careful examination locally, and the offer has been made as an act of grace because the Transvaal Government recognises no legal liability in the matter.
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he is aware that the Harrison Street premises and jobbing and printing works and plant, belonging to Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce, and seized by the I military authorities and used by them for a period of sixteen months, were let on lease to Messrs. Matthews and Walker of Johannesburg, for several years before and during the war, at a monthly rental of £250, and that since the war these

    1615
    premises have been unlet owing to the fact that the plant and machinery when handed over were in such bad condition as to render them practically useless, and that prior to the war the plant and machinery were valued at £18,000, and are now worth barely £2,000; and whether, when again bringing this matter to the notice of the Governor of the Transvaal, in order that Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce's reasoned protest may receive fair consideration, due emphasis will be given to the damage done to the plant and machinery during the time it was in possession of the military authorities, having regard to the fact that it was in excellent condition when taken possession of by them and is now practically useless.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is not prepared to admit the accuracy of the statements made in this Question, which are matters of controversy; but the points raised will be brought to the notice of the Governor.

    Ceylon Pearl Fisheries.
    MR. COWAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all material facts connected with the negotiations for the lease of the Ceylon pearl fisheries, and the actual terms thereof, can be made public, so that the fullest information may be at the disposal of the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know of any material facts which are not included in the Blue-book which has already been laid before the House.
    MR. RIDSDALE: May I ask if the prospectus of the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers was before the Colonial Office at the time it sanctioned the lease?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that.
    MR. SMEATON: Seeing that there is a good deal of con fidential correspondence in connection with this case, may I ask how it was that while the negotiations were proceeding, a group of South African financiers who held a large number of shares—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice should be given of the Question, as the facts could not be within the knowledge of the Under-Secretary, they having occurred before he was at the Colonial Office.
    SIR J. JARDINEasked whether the late Colonial Secretary was aware that during the progress of the negotiations the Gulf syndicate sold the concession to the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers at a profit of about £11,000.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was not aware, and he regretted that the rules of the House precluded the hon. Member from asking the late Colonial Secretary, who was wholly responsible for the arrangement.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): He is always absent when the Question comes on.
    SIR J. JARDINEasked if the Undersecretary was aware that the shares of the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers were now being sold at a premium of 1,000 per cent.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he believed it was the case.

    Indian Execution.
    MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has considered the explanation of the authorities of the execution of an Indian prisoner, who had appealed to the Governor-General, before there was time for the answer to the appeal to be received; and whether he proposes to take any action with regard to the conduct of the Lieu-tenant-Governor who was responsible for this incident.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I am in communication with the Government of India, and hope shortly to be in a position to make a detailed statement on this subject.
    SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.): Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the date when we may expect the statement?
    MR. MORLEY: No one knows better than the hon. Member that communications with the Government of India take time. No time, however, is being lost.

    Martial Law in Eastern Bengal.
    MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a form of martial law exists in the Mymensing district in the fact that in the business centre, or town of Muktagacha, a proclamation has been issued forbidding more than three persons to walk together in the streets without a licence; and what steps he intends taking to remove this infringement of the liberty of the people in the district named.
    MR. MORLEY: I have already stated, in answer to a Question on the 21st ult.,† that in Eastern Bengal the only restrictions now in force are those imposed by the ordinary law; and that the recent rioting may have rendered special precautions necessary, within the limits allowed by the law. As to the proclamation mentioned in the Question, I have no information; but I have telegraphed inquiry.
    SIR H. COTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rioting referred to took place fifty miles from Muktagacha?
    MR. MORLEY: I am not aware of it.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in the riot cases now being tried at Mymensing, the magistrates and the Lieutenant-Governor are allowing the police to conduct the cases and are refusing counsel, and that the aggrieved parties have telegraphed to the Viceroy, who declined to interfere; and whether, in view of the possibilty of an injustice
    † See Col. 349.
    1618
    being done arising out of this departure from legal practices and precedent, he will make a personal inquiry into the matter, and take steps to assure the people of the new province that His Majesty's Government intend to insist upon the right of fair trial.
    MR. MORLEY: I am not aware of the circumstances stated in the Question, but I have telegraphed for information on the subject.
    MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all this trouble is the work of a certain official, responsible for the government of the district, done on his own authority.
    MR. REES: Are there not regular courts original and appellate, is there not law and justice in Eastern Bengal, as in other Indian provinces?
    MR. WEIR: Is not the poor Indian ryot utterly unable to pay legal costs?
    MB. MORLEYrepeated that he was awaiting the Report.

    Alleged Turkish Outrages in Montenegro.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the recent outrages by Turks at Baritse and other villages on the Montenegrin frontier.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,: No such information has reached His Majesty's Government, but they have received a Report from His Majesty's Vice-Consul at Uskub, dated May 25th, to the effect that disturbances had broken out in the Kaza of Kalashin, on the Montenegrin frontier, caused by an attack on a body of Nizams and Albanians by Servians, and that energetic measures were being taken by the Turkish Government to restore order.

    Abyssinian Railway.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any agreements arrived at between Great Britain and other Powers, with reference to the Abyssinian Railway, he proposes to insure that there shall be equality of economic treatment for the goods of all nations carried by the railway, and that there shall be the same equal treatment at the port of Jibuti and on the frontier of Abyssinia.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of ensuring equality of treatment on the railway for the commerce of all nations.
    MR. ASHLEY: The right hon. Baronet has said nothing as to the last part of my Question.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Negotiations are still proceeding as to Jibuti and the Abyssinian frontier, and I can make no further statement now.

    Turco-Egyptian Frontier.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by the Joint Commission in the delimitation of the Turco-Egyptian frontier.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: We understand that satisfactory progress is being made on the spot with the delimitation of the Turco-Egyptian frontier, and it is hoped that the map of the frontier will be finished soon.

    Denshawi Trial.
    MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a public and full record exists of the evidence given during the recent trial at Denshawi; and, if so, where it may be consulted or whence a copy may be obtained.
    SIE EDWARD GREY: I have asked to be supplied with the evidence given before
    1620
    the Special Tribunal, but it will be necessary to have it translated before it can be laid before the House.

    Murder of Missionaries at Nan-Chang.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British claim against the Chinese Government, in connection with the murder of missionaries at Nan-chang, has been settled; and, if so, whether the terms are such as will tend to safeguard the lives and property of British missionaries in China in the future.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Terms of settlement have been arrived at as to the punishments of the responsible officials and rioters which are considered satisfactory, I and His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires has been authorised to inform the Chinese Government that the matter will be regarded as settled conditionally on the payment of an indemnity to the surviving child of Mr. and Mrs. Kingham, and for the property destroyed, and of rewards for Chinese officials who assisted British missionaries. It is hoped that the punishments given will be a safeguard against such catastrophes in future.

    Cretan Administration.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the International Commission, constituted in February last to examine the causes of the disturbances during last year in Crete, and to report on reforms to be introduced into the Cretan regime has formulated the results of its inquiries; and whether it may be expected that an announcement will be made shortly in regard to the future government of the island.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The International Commission made extensive recommendations as to administrative and economic reforms which are likely to receive the assent of the Powers concerned at an early date. When they are agreed on the steps to be taken the result will of course be made known.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these delays are likely to lead to further disturbances? Crete has been for a long time in a more or less disturbed state.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Government are quite aware of that, and the discussions are proceeding with a view to arriving at a decision as soon as possible.

    Local Commissioners of Taxes.
    MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the legal or other authority under which the Board of Inland Revenue controls the Local Commissioners of Taxes and their clerks, including also the parochial assessors and collectors which the commissioners have power to appoint; and what remedy the board have in case of neglect, delay, or disregard of instructions.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): The relations between the Board of Inland Revenue on the one hand, and the Local Commissioners of Taxes on the other, are governed generally by the Income Tax Act, 1842, and the Board's relations to the clerks and other officers of the Commissioners by the Taxes Management Act of 1880. Cases of neglect, delay, or disregard of instructions are not under the provisions of these Acts applicable to the particular circumstances of each case.

    Tax Collection.
    MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that assessment forms are issued to the public from the parochial assessor's office, notice of assessment from the office of the clerk to the local commissioners, and notice to pay from the office of the parochial collector; that the collector of Inland Revenue issues his pay notices from the Government office; that from the office of surveyor of taxes communications regularly pass between him and the public, and from the same office uncollected arrears left by the parochial collector are dealt with; will he consider
    1622
    whether it is necessary to have in the same city or town five distinct offices for dealing with taxpayers; and will he cause inquiries to be made of outside officials as to the confusion which results from this multiplication of offices.
    MR. ASQUITH: The facts are substantially as represented in the first eight lines of the Question. The Board of Inland Revenue consider that the present arrangements are the most convenient and appropriate for the proper discharge of the duties to be undertaken, and they are not themselves aware of any confusion that results from them.

    Fictitious Brandy.
    MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what precautions the Customs take to enforce the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act as regards brandy; what check there is against the use of false trade descriptions; if any test is applied, and what is it, to ascertain whether spirit entered as brandy is derived from the grape or from materials other than the grape; how many gallons of spirit imported from Hamburg were admitted to entry last year as brandy; was such spirit the distillate of the grape; how many seizures were made last year of brandy to which a false trade description was applied under the Merchandise Marks Act; what was the quantity of brandy as per Customs entries from Norway, Holland, and Denmark for the last ten years; and is it the case that at London Docks any spirit, whatever its origin, shipped as brandy is so entered by Customs and dock officials.
    MR. ASQUITH: The means taken by the officers of Customs to prevent imported spirits being falsely described as brandy, in contravention of the Merchandise Marks Acts, are to examine all spirits entered as brandy, and, if such do not appear to be the brandy of commerce, to submit samples to the departmental analyst. No test is applied to ascertain whether spirit entered as brandy is derived from the grape or from other materials, but tests are applied to ascertain whether such spirits contain those constituents other than spirit which

    1623
    characterise the brandy of commerce. If such constituents are not present the spirit is not allowed to be entered as brandy. Particulars of the quantity of brandy imported from Hamburg are not available, the records of imports being shown under countries only. During the year 1905

    Years.

    Norway.

    Netherlands.

    Denmark.

    Proof Gallons

    Proof Gallons

    Proof Gallons

    1896

    3,032

    34,012

    9,481

    1897

    66

    35,756

    26,442

    1898

    2

    22,066

    11,142

    1899

    641

    24,330

    23,053

    1900

    6,363

    22,446

    2,824

    1901

    3,342

    17,410

    1,186

    1902

    3,164

    14,521

    1,688

    1903

    4,599

    8,276

    32

    1904

    Imported

    294

    Imported

    7,033

    Imported

    32

    Consigned

    292

    Consigned

    3,564

    Consigned

    32

    1905

    Imported

    1,928

    Imported

    5,947

    Imported

    61

    Consigned

    1,928

    Consigned

    2,320

    Consigned

    61

    As will be seen form what is stated above, it is not the case that at the London Docks or elsewhere any spirit, whatever its origin, shipped as brandy is allowed by the Customs Department to be entered as brandy. The Board have no official knowledge as to the action of the dock officials with regard to such spirits.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Why allow brandy to be imported from countries in which notoriously no grapes are grown?
    MR. ASQUITH: It may be in course of transit from elsewhere.

    Motor 'Bus Accidents in London Streets.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY (Paddington, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the death of Mr. William Tongue and the injury of the Reverend Alfred Littlehales through a collision between two motor omnibuses in the Edgware Road on Wednesday, June 20th; if he is aware that these vehicles are constantly causing injury to the persons and property of the public; and if he can see his way to revise all existing licences in respect of these vehicles to insure that they are properly constructed and driven by competent and experienced men, who are not paid by the journey.
    two consignments of spirits described as brandy were seized under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, for having a false trade description applied. The quantity of brandy imported into the United Kingdom from Norway, Holland, and Denmark during the last ten years was as follows:—
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): My attention has been called to the unfortunate occurrence referred to. The verdict at the inquest on Mr. Tongue was"accidental death." Every precaution within the powers of the police is taken to secure that motor omnibuses are properly constructed and that they are driven by competent men. In the event of a motor 'bus becoming unfit for use, or of an offence being committed by the driver, the licences come under consideration, and I see no reason for a general revision, even if it were within my power to require it. The police have no authority to prescribe the terms of employment of the drivers.
    MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.): Is the-right hon. Gentleman aware that there are four or five competing companies on that road, who are always"nursing" and racing, and will he instruct" the police to put a stop to it?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The police have general instructions as to this.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)asked if the Home Secretary was aware that the danger from this traffic was on the increase.
    MR. GLADSTONEreplied that no doubt every Member of the House had

    1625
    observed the undue speed of these cars, but the question was under the consideration of the Select Committee and the Royal Commission, and until these two bodies reported they would not have full information on the subject.
    MR. FLYNN: Can the Home Office do nothing until a Cabinet Minister has been killed?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure we can do anything even then.

    The Charlottenburg Exhibition.
    ME. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the fact that the German Government has established and maintains at Charlottenburg a permanent exhibition of appliances designed to prevent accidents and to safeguard the welfare of workmen; that similar institutions exist at Munich, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Zurich; and whether, under the circumstances, he will consider the advisability of establishing or assisting in the formation of a similar institution in England.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware that several institutions of the kind mentioned in the Question are in existence on the Continent. The question of establishing a similar institution in this country has been several times discussed, but there are considerable practical difficulties to be overcome. I may say that a good deal of useful work has been done in this country in another way to spread information as to the best methods of fencing and the like, that is, by the publication of special reports on particular classes of machinery —the reports on Cotton Cloth Machinery and Hoists and Teagles may be specially mentioned. I am now making further inquiries and I will communicate with my hon. friend.

    Steel Trade Rings.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the details of the agreements which have been arrived at by British steel manufacturers with reference to steel plates and steel rails respectively; if he is aware of the rise in price of these materials which has taken place since the agreements were arrived at; that a third combination to raise prices has just been
    1626
    formed in the steel angle trade; and if he can promise to introduce legislation on the subject at an early date.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am unable to give the details of the agreement to which the hon. Member refers, but I have heard it stated that they include an obligation on the part of Scottish and North of England makers of steel plates not to sell certain classes of goods in each others' markets. A provisional agreement of a similar nature is believed to have been entered into with regard to angles, but I am not aware whether it has been ratified yet. As regards steel rails, there has for a long time been an agreement among the principal British makers, who are also understood to be parties to an arrangement arrived at by an international rail syndicate for the division of the world's markets. I am aware of the rise in price which has occurred, but I am advised that this is partly due to other causes affecting the steel market generally. Arrangements for maintaining prices exist in a number of other trades in the United Kingdom, and the introduction of legislative measures for dealing with the matter would obviously require very careful consideration.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give special attention to the bearing of this matter upon international trade, in view of the fact that these international agreements were in restraint of competition.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly. My attention has already been called to the international aspect of the matter, more especially with regard to South American rails.

    New York Mutual Reserve Company.
    MR. BOLAND (Kerry, S.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company, of New York, have given up their offices at 79, Cannon Street, London; can he state what sum was lodged by this company with the Board of Trade as security for the policy-holders; whether any, and, if

    1627
    so, what part of this sum has been withdrawn; and on what grounds was such withdrawal allowed by the Board of Trade; and can he say what security, if any, has been left for policy holders.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am informed that the Company in question have given up their London office. The sum of,£20,000, as required by the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, was deposited with the Court of Chancery by the company when commencing their business in this country in 1886, but the amount was withdrawn by order of the Court in January last in accordance with the Act which provides for the repayment of the deposit as soon as a company has accumulated out of premiums the sum of £40,000. The Board of Trade are not aware of the nature of the security for policy-holders in this or any other insurance companies.
    MR. FLYNN: Were the Inspectors of the Board of Trade aware that this company's system was actuarially unsound from the very beginning, and did the Board of Trade take any steps with regard to it?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Lest the public should be under any delusion on the subject, I may say that the Board of Trade is not responsible in connection with the soundness of a company. We do not audit their accounts. The whole question is now being considered by a Committee of the House of Lords.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the Board of Trade get notice of the withdrawal of the money from the Court of Chancery?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will inquire.
    MR. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the particulars of this case are laid before the House of Lords' Committee?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes; if my right hon. friend will bring the facts to my notice I will certainly see that the House of Lords' Committee has the information.

    London Improvements—House Demolition.
    SIR CHAELES DILKE: I beg to ask the
    1628
    President of the Local Government Board whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to a notice, advertised in daily and other newspapers circulated in London, of an application to the justices in quarter sessions, to be heard on Tuesday next, for an order to stop sixteen streets so far as some 4,800 feet of such streets are unnecessary by reason of certain building schemes; whether he is aware that it is elsewhere alleged that by such schemes there will afterwards be opened other streets which will more than compensate the public; whether the Local Government Board have any means of forming an opinion as to the nature of the working population likely to be displaced, and as to the possibility of housing such population in the neighbourhood; whether during the two years which is estimated as likely to pass before the houses on six acres of the property in question are pulled down, the President of the Local Government Board would offer the good offices of himself or his department with a view of conferring with those interested in order to make some provision for re-housing the population affected.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I have made inquiry on this subject, and I understand the facts to be as stated. I have no definite information as to the nature of the working population displaced, but I should anticipate that there would be difficulty in housing now the population in the neighbourhood. I find that the Chelsea Borough Council have for some time been in communication with the promoters of the scheme with regard to the persons of the working class who will be displaced, and that they have obtained some concessions, but not altogether what they desired. They have not, however, succeeded in inducing the promoters to undertake to provide housing accommodation for the persons displaced, but they have obtained some extension of the period of displacement. I do not think I could expect to be more successful if I acted on the suggestion made in the last part of the Question, but I will consider what can be done.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government have

    1629
    considered the possibility of legislation to restrict the destruction of more than a certain area of town property below a certain average rateable value without the submission of schemes showing possible provision for the accommodation of those rendered houseless in extension of the legislation which imposes such obligations on those asking for Parliamentary powers.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Proposals of this kind have from time to time been considered by the Local Government Board, but they have not seen their way to proposing legislation on the subject. I will, however, take notice of the suggestion of my right hon. friend.

    Education Bill—Extended Facilities.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether schools which shall be given extended facilities, and the owners of which are to receive no rent, will be maintained and kept in repair by the Education Department; and, if so, what the term"other payment" refers to in the Amendment which was carried in regard to the question of rent.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The responsibility will rest with the local education authority, not with the Board. The term"other payment" is inserted to cover the possible case of extended facilities being afforded in respect of a schoolhouse which is purchased by a local education authority and is in consequence the schoolhouse of a transferred voluntary school as defined by Clause 13 of the Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a widespread feeling of the injustice of this proposal to pay no rent for these schools, and whether on report he would reconsider this question.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am afraid I cannot go back on the decision of the Committee.

    State-Aided Schools.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if the State-
    1630
    aided schools, established by Clause 4 of the Education Bill, will be regarded as public elementary schools.
    MR. BIRRELL: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on Thursday last to the Member for Chorley, † to which I have nothing to add.
    LORD BALCARRES: The effect of that Answer was that the right hon. Gentleman had not made up his mind.
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not think they are public elementary schools.

    House of Commons' Letter-Boxes.
    MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W.R., Skipton): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the absence of contrivances on the fixed letter-boxes in the precincts of this House to indicate the time of the next collection of the missives deposited therein; and whether he will take steps to remedy this deficiency.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): My attention has been drawn to this matter, and I am having indicators brought into use.

    Collection of Crown Rents—Messrs. Clutton's Fees.
    MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury on what terms Messrs. Clutton are employed by the Woods and Forests Commissioners, and what was their total remuneration in 1903, 1904, and 1905 respectively, from every source in connection with the properties, premises, etc., under the control of the Commissioners.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): Messrs. Clutton are appointed receivers of the Crown rents and profits arising within the Southern and Midland Counties of England (other than London and Middlesex), and are entitled to retain a poundage of 3 per cent, in the case of some estates and 4 per cent, in the case of others on the amount of rents, etc., collected by them, except on receipts from farms in hand,
    † See Col. 1117.

    1631
    for the superintendence of which fixed fees agreed with the Treasury are allowed in lieu of commission. Out of this commission and fees they have to provide their own offices and necessary staff, and pay their own travelling and other expenses. They are also usually employed by the Commissioners of Woods as surveyors in matters arising within the districts for which they are receivers, and in which the services of surveyors are required. For these services they are paid charges and expenses in accordance with a scale sanctioned by the Treasury.
    Their total remuneration for the years 1903,1904, and 1905, is as follows, viz.:—

    Year.

    £

    s.

    d.

    1903

    4,680

    12

    9

    1904

    5,109

    5

    3

    1905

    4,672

    7

    9

    Scottish Education System.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can meet the requests made to him on the Education Estimates, to print and circulate a Bill to meet the requirements of the Scottish educational system before the rising of Parliament.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): My hon. friend's suggestion has been carefully considered, and I regret to say that it cannot be followed. It seems the duty of the Government in the first place to endeavour to dispose of the Bills referring to Scotland which are already before the House, or have been promised.

    Sutherland Deer Forests.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that within the last twelve months three homesteads have been broken up near Kinbrace, Sutherland, comprising over 1,000 acres, the houses on two of them blown up by dynamite; and the farms, nearly one-third of which was arable land, turned into a deer forest; and whether the Government intend to take steps to prevent such clearances in future.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The information the hon. Member has received appears to be incorrect. I am informed the facts are
    1632
    as follows: Lochside Farm, to which the Question presumably refers, extends to an area of 4,890 acres or thereby, only 320 of which are arable, or at one time meant to be arable. These 320 acres formed part of what is known as the late Duke of Sutherland's"Kinbrace Reclamations," and the cost of reclaiming that portion alone was about £20,000. It was intended to be divided into three farms with hill pasture common to the three, and concrete houses and offices were erected. But tenants for the three holdings could not be got, and the land was then let as one holding. The arable proved ruinous to the tenant who took it. The nature of the land, situation, and climate were unsuitable to profitable cultivation. The arable land was all put down to grass. In 1886 another attempt was made to let the place in three holdings, but tenants were not forthcoming. The farm was then let on lease for nineteen years as a small sheep farm. The tenant to whom it was let retained it till Whitsunday, 1897, when he was allowed to assign the lease to a tenant occupying two other farms on the estate. The lease expired at Whitsunday, 1905, and it was not considered desirable to re let it to the same tenant, and it was let on long lease to the gentleman who, for a number of years, occupied the shooting over that and adjoining farms. Only one of the houses which had been erected has been occupied for many years and that by a shepherd, the two others being wrecks, their construction proving unsuitable for the district. They were unfit for habitation and were taken down. The shepherd remained in the other house till he obtained another situation. This particular case seems to have been an unsuccessful effort to reclaim land for cultivation, and not a clearance. In regard to legislation, I am unable to make any further statement until the Government Bill to amend the Crofters' Act has been introduced.
    MR. MORTON: Is it the fact that the houses were blown up with dynamite?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I will furnish the hon. Member with a full statement of the facts given to me.
    MR. MORTON: But is it correct that the houses were blown up with dynamite?
    MR. SINCLAIR: The houses were not occupied.
    MR. MORTON: Then they were blown up with dynamite?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I have no information as to that occurrence.
    ME. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Were they blown down by dynamite?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Scottish Medical Officers' Holdings.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the Scottish Local Government Board reported recently that it would be to the advantage of the public service that parish councils should grant an adequate holiday to their medical officers, defraying at the same time the cost of a substitute to act for the doctor during his absence; if the Local Government Board have circularised parish councils to that effect; and whether, in view of the poverty of certain districts and burden of local rates rising to over 20s. in the pound, he will take all the circumstances into his earnest consideration.
    MR. SINCLAIR: On July 25th, 1900, the Local Government Board issued a circular on this subject generally favourable to the arrangement indicated. The whole question of rating is engaging my earnest consideration.

    Glasnevin Model Farm.
    MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): On behalf of the hon. Member for North Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that recently the public have been excluded from the right of walking through the grounds of the model farm, Glasnevin, county Dublin, through which they have been accustomed to go since the opening of the farm many years ago without let or hindrance and without complaint on the part of the authorities in charge;"whether the exclusion of the public has followed closely upon the erection on the farm of some private residences for some officials; and whether, if no injury has in I
    1634
    the past ensued as a consequence of the admission of the public to the grounds, the recent order will be revoked.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Department of Agriculture have recently had the public excluded from the grounds of the Albert Agricultural College and Model Farm on Sundays. On week days these grounds have been open as heretofore, but it is intended soon to issue regulations with regard to the admission of the public during the week. The Department's action has no connection whatever with the extensions which have recently been carried out in the buildings, which include a residence for one of the officials. The decision to regulate the admission of the public has been arrived at in view of the fact that it is incompatible with the proper arrangement of the studies and discipline of such an institution if these premises and grounds were to be accessible to the public without any restriction.

    Chicago Tinned Meat.
    MR. HALPIN (Clare, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a suppressed Report of one of the Chicago yard inspectors, on which President Roosevelt acted, declared that of one lot of 500 cattle, slaughtered and exported in tins, 300 were tuberculous; and whether seeing that scientific experts have declared that boiling does not destroy the germs of consumption in tuberculous meat, the Government will prohibit the import of tinned meat till it is an established fact that no tuberculous beast will be allowed into the packing yards of Chicago and the other centres from which tinned meat is exported.
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information upon the subject of the Question, but I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board to a Question put by the hon. Member for the Newark Division on June 18th,† from which the hon. Member will see that the Government are considering the necessity of obtaining further powers for dealing with foods imported from abroad.
    † See (4) Debates, clviii., 1371.

    Constabulary Fund.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the total sum standing to the credit of the Constabulary Force Fund on March 31st last was £386,220; and whether he will recommend that the damages, £100, obtained by Edward Carroll, Rosenallis, Queen's County, in the High Courts a year ago, against constables Masterson and Cryan, Royal Irish Constabulary, for assault, shall be paid out of the said fund, as the constables have so far evaded payment.
    MR. BRYCE: The amount of stock and cash to the credit of the benefit branch of the Constabulary Force Fund is as stated. The fund is, under Statute and Treasury regulation, applicable only to payments to the widows and families of deceased members of the force who were subscribers to the fund; and it could not, therefore, be legally applied to the purpose suggested in the Question.

    Galway Evicted Tenant.
    MR. JOHN ROCHE (Galway E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an evicted tenant named William O'Neill was promised £100 to stock a farm which he got at New Inn, county Galway; whether he can state the amount he received; and will he direct that the balance will be paid him without further delay.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they sanctioned free grants of £130 for building and £45 for stock to William O'Neill, an evicted tenant, to whom they allotted a parcel of land. Up to the end of last month the entire grant for stock had been issued, and all but £20 of the grant for building. The inspector, under whose supervision the building grant is being expended, has now been directed to make such further payments as the work done justifies.

    Commission on Drainage.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any interim Report has been made, or will be called for, from the Commission on
    1636
    Drainage; and, if so, when it may be expected.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners do not propose to present an interim Report, but they anticipate that they will be able to furnish their complete Report by the close of the present year. It does not appear that the object for which the I Commission was appointed would be furthered in any way by the presentation of an interim Report.

    Louth Evicted Tenant.
    MR. NOLAN (Louth, S.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent eviction of Michael Duffy, of Roodstown, Ardee Union, county Louth, by the Earl of Dartrey, for non-payment of a rack-rent: whether he is aware that the tenant was unable to enter the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed, owing to arrears of rent of twenty-five years' standing, with subsequent law costs; that the eviction has been condemned by resolution by the Ardree Board of Guardians; and whether he can hold out any hope of a speedy restoration of Mr. Duffy to his holding.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the matters of fact alleged in the Question, and that Michael Duffy has not lodged with them an application for reinstatement. Should such application be made to the Commissioners they will have it duly enquired into and dealt with.

    Sweating.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that in the East End of London there are approximately 5,000 employers, employing approximately 90,000 workpeople, who can be classed as sweaters and sweated, and that the-same condition of things applies relatively to all the large centres of industry, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the sweating evils, with the view of recommending legislation that will remedy the matter.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASUEY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,):

    1637
    I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not at present propose to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the sweating system. He must not think that we are indifferent or unsympathetic in regard to the evils of this system, which we recognise as fully as he does. I may tell him that all the steps that can be taken within the existing law to protect the workers from the bad economic and sanitary conditions that beset them are being taken: and the Central Departments which are concerned with the admistration of the Factory and Sanitary Acts are collecting, informating, and putting pressure upon the local authorities to carry out their duties.
    MR. O'GRADYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that, after all, the greatest pressure came from wages as well as from sanitation, that the law could not interfere with that matter, and that, therefore, it did require a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter of wages as well as of sanitation.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to reply that the time might come when it might be necessary to make an inquiry, but that the Government did not think it had arisen yet. They had many inquiries already on hand.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether, in view of the importance of the wages side of this question, the right hon. Gentleman could facilitate the Wages Bill now before the House, or bring forward a similar measure as a Government measure.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: That is asking me for special facilities for a particular Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question at a later date.

    Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Bill.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a whip or letter of solicitation, issued last week by an officer of the Board of Agriculture, and dated from the offices of the Board of Agriculture, to Members of this House sitting on the Grand Committee on Law, begging support for a Bill of that Depart-
    1638
    ment called the Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Bill, in which it was stated that this official was acting on the orders of Lord Carrington and expressing his wishes; whether it is in accordance with custom for officials in the public State Departments to issue whips to Members of this House; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a Minute directing public officials not to bring pressure to bear on Members of the House of Commons.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see that there is anything coercive or that any undue interference or pressure has been exercised in the letter referred to, a copy of which I have seen. A Minister is entitled, whether by letter or by speech, to urge the importance of a departmental measure for which he is responsible. And, on the other hand, I have no doubt that those engaged in the trade of fertilisers and feeding stuffs will take such means as they think suitable for furthering their views.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it makes no difference if the Minister is a Member of the House of Lords and the members of the Committee are Members of the House of Commons?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: He does not address the Members of the House of Commons directly. He does it through his Department or through the hon. Member who represents him in this House as a rule.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, without commenting on the propriety of the step, whether it is not a. very unusual step, and whether the ordinary conditions of traditional practice are not far better and far safer for Ministers to follow?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not how what the right hon. Gentleman refers to as the traditional practice. I should think that a Minister might very well use such means as he has for bringing before the Members of the Committee the importance of the subject.
    MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I

    1639
    shall be in order if I address members of a Committee of the House of Lords?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perfectly, I should say—for what it is worth.

    The Education Bill.
    MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)asked the President of the Board of Education whether he would arrange to have the Education Bill reprinted so that they might have Clause 4 before them in its present shape, and, also, how he proposed to ascertain the wishes of the House in respect of the new Clause 3 before they reached Clause 8?
    MR. BIRRELLthought it would be very convenient to have a reprint of the Bill, and he would issue orders accordingly. He quite agreed that the new clause stood in a somewhat difficult position. Clause 8 would come on, in ordinary course, to-morrow, and he apprehended that it must be discussed as it stood now upon the Paper. The new clause was introduced because he held the view, perhaps mistakenly, that he was under some obligation, in consequence of what took place in the House, to give a choice in the matter. It was in consequence of the feeling expressed on the other side.
    MAJOR SEELY: This side.
    MR. BIRRELL: Then on both sides if you will. I repeat that it was not the Government proposal. Their proposals were as stated in the Bill. A proposal was made by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford that there should be an obligation imposed upon every local education authority to take over every structurally fit school that proposed itself to be taken over. He said that, in his opinion, that ought to be a bi-lateral obligation, and that there should be an obligation on the part of private owners and also of trustees, even although their trusts were what were called of a loose character—trusts which permitted their premises to be applied to non-educational purposes—that they should be taken over too. That proposal was certainly not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and if he had had the experience he now had of the
    1640
    conduct of measures he would probably have thought it the wiser thing to let the matter drop. But, being anxious to afford facilities for that discussion, he said he would introduce a clause. He did not think it would be fair, however, that he should use the Government majority to compel private owners compulsorily to part with their schools unless it was generally felt that that was a desirable course. Therefore, unless he got some sort of indication—it was very difficult to know to whom he was to look for it—that the clause received some measure of general support, he did not think the Government would persist with it. Although he could not put compulsion on anybody, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were fully entitled to stand on their dignity and say the Government must take its own course, he did think it would be convenient to know what was the view taken of this clause, which was introduced to meet a point by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If it was accepted, Clause 8 would have to be debated in a modified form, but in the absence of any assurance they must go on with Clause 8 as it stood.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the point which the right hon. Gentleman said the clause was introduced to meet was a pledge given by the Government on the introduction of the Bill that facilities should be given in schools under Clause 3, and whether that was a point which could be ignored by the Government.
    MR. BIRRELLsaid he disputed that altogether. He had read over again the speech he made on that occasion, and he said most unhesitatingly that there was no obligation, expressed or implied, in any part of that speech, on the local authority to take over those schools. He thought he made that perfectly clear as to Clause 3. He invariably used the hypothetical expression"if" the school was transferred, and"if so" again and again. He was not there to defend the precision of his language, and it might very well be that ingenious minds might put another construction upon certain passages. He could not for one moment admit that there was a single word fairly read in his speech, taking the context altogether, which expressed the faintest intention on the part of the Government

    1641
    to impose on every local authority in the country the obligation of taking over voluntary schools, whether they were wanted or not.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was correctly reported to have said:—" Thus far the facilities or opportunities I have spoken of have been of a compulsory character"— speaking of Clause 3."When demanded and when required, the authorities must grant them."
    MR. BIRRELLsaid that was the one passage in the whole speech which was ambiguous in its terms. He fully expected to hear it quoted. There were other passages which made it perfectly plain that he contemplated no obligation, and that very likely the schools would not be transferred under that clause.
    MR. DILLONsaid that on the strength of the Government pledge an Amendment moved from the Liberal benches was withdrawn.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he moved the Amendment in question, and after his right hon. friend had given the pledge in very specific terms, he withdrew the Amendment on the advice of the hon. Member for Waterford and against the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The account given by his right hon. friend seemed to him totally at variance with the facts.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked whether there was any Question before the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: We are still at Question time; perhaps the right hon."Gentleman will remember that.
    MR. BIRRELLapologised for having exceeded the limits of an Answer to a Question. He was quite willing that the new clause should come on for discussion on the Report stage, if it was wanted. But he still thought he was fairly entitled to ascertain whether the clause was wanted by the House, and he must proceed with Clause 8 on the assumption that the new clause was not wanted.
    MR. DILLONasked whether it was not the custom, when the Government gave a pledge to introduce a clause, that they should introduce it in accordance with the pledge.
    [No reply was given.]
    MR. PAULhoped his right hon. friend would do nothing to interfere with the burning desire of the Church of England schools for confiscation.

  MESSAGE TO THE LORDS.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to Sir Henry Graham, K.C.B., Clerk of the Parliaments, to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Committee of Public Accounts.—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

  BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order [June 15th] that the Bills of Exchange Act (1882) Amendment Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc., read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.—(Mr. Attorney-General.)

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
MR. HICKS BEACHin moving to omit Subsection (1), said he believed he was echoing the sentiments of all people who valued religious denominational instruction when he said that the facilities for instruction on two days in the week given under Clause 3 would be only a sham, unless the religious instruction was allowed to be given by teachers who believed in that particular denominational instruction which the owners of the schools and the parents

1643
of children attending the schools wished o have taught there. He would be told that the teacher was not the person to give it, but that it was the duty of the ministers of the various denominations. He frankly admitted that some ministers were perfectly qualified to give the instuction, but all teachers were not born ministers of religion, and all ministers of religion were not born teachers. It was generally admitted that to impart secular instruction a teacher had to undergo a careful course of training and to possess the ability to impart instruction and to control children. If those qualities were necessary in order to give secular instruction, he thought they must admit that persons who had to give denominational instruction should also possess them. He anticipated that he should have the support of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, for hon. Members would remember his exceedingly eloquent and telling speech of May 22nd on the Amendment, the object of which was to drive all religious instruction from the day school, when he said that the national teachers were becoming more skilled every day, and knew the way to a child's mind better than anyone else, and asked what the child would have to look to if the teacher did not help it. Prom that he (Mr. Hicks Beach) thought he might infer that, if the teacher were to be allowed to give undenominational teaching, he ought surely to be allowed to give denominational teaching as well. He believed he should also have the support of the Government, because by their Bill, as it at present stood, they admitted the principle that the teacher was a person who ought to give religious instruction, whether of an undenominational character, or whether of that particular kind which was allowed in schools of urban areas in five days in the week. The Minister for Education, in reply to a deputation of representatives of the Jewish schools, went so far as to announce his intention with reference to Clause 4, that the schools should be carried on just as they were now, and that it was certainly the intention of the clause that the teachers should remain the same as they were. If chil-
1644
dren in schools in urban areas were to be allowed the privilege of being taught by the teachers in religious subjects on five days of the week, was it not rather a. slur on the children in rural schools that-they were not also to be allowed that privilege? The Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Education also asked the Committee to look at this subject, not from the standpoint of the House of Commons but from the standpoint of the child; and said the child would find there was something wanting if the teacher was not allowed to give him religious as well as secular instruction. He believed there would also be something wanting if the teacher was allowed to give the child undenominational teaching for three days a week and was not allowed to give him denominational teaching on two days a week. Naturally a child would ask why was it that his teacher was allowed to teach him certain things three days a week and not to give him instruction on the other days? He would ask whether his teacher really believed in the doctrines which he was not allowed to impart to him. The teacher would have to reply that he believed in them, but that owing to-the extreme foresight of the great Liberal Party, who had always boasted about religious equality, he was not permitted to afford the religious instruction desired. He did not know what the child would think upon receiving that answer, but he could only hope that one result would be to make an impression upon the child's mind which would lead him when he grew up to never vote for any Liberal candidate. He believed that the teachers valued the privilege of giving this religious instruction as much as any part of their duties, and were by no means anxious to give it up. No doubt he should be told that the Government had received a mandate to abolish tests for teachers, and that under the existing system Nonconformist teachers; were cut off from appointments in Church schools; but he would have more respect for that cry if it were not a fact that the best paid pests were to be found in the provided schools, and if he did not believe that there were not sufficient Nonconformist teachers to fill up the-posts of head teacher in the provided

1645
schools, without saying anything of those posts in the non-provided schools. He believed, moreover, that this Clause 7 was nothing more nor less than another flank attack upon the Church of England. The President of the Board of Education had said that the minority must suffer, but he believed that the result of this clause would be that the majority would suffer and the minority would benefit. He believed that this was an attack upon the Church of England, because under Clause 4 100 per cent, of the Jewish schools would be enabled to give their own religious instruction through the teachers, and 77 per cent, of the Roman Catholic schools would be in the same position, while only 25 per cent, of the Church of England schools would be saved for the purposes designed by their founders. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
Question proposed,"That the words 'a teacher employed in a public elementary school 'stand part of the clause."
MR. ACLANDsaid this was one of the most important points of the Bill. The Committee would doubtless be told that what was desired by the Amendment was simply freedom to teach, and that it was illiberal to refuse freedom of any kind. But he thought the sub-section as it stood made for a more important freedom, the freedom to be really free. If it was omitted they must say good-bye altogether to the idea that they were getting rid of tests for teachers. In the county, part of which he represented, they had, as it happened, as chairman of the committee charged with the appointment of teachers an archdeacon of the Church of England, a most fair-minded man, who would do his duty in selecting teachers to the best of his ability; but it would, in his opinion, only be that man's duty to see to it, if the Amendment were carried, that there were sent to Church schools only such teachers as would be willing to give Church of England instruction. That would be
1646
so m a large number of counties, and if it were not done by the education authority it would be the duty of the clergyman of the parish concerned to do everything he could to see that the same action was taken. He would get to see the records of all the candidates for the post of teacher, he would find out which of them would give the denominational teaching, and he would make it quite clear that one of these must be appointed, if peace and quietness in the village were desired. They had gone a very long way in meeting particular cases with regard to denominational teachers. The Catholic case was a very special and peculiar one, demanding special treatment. But they were not willing to go one inch further than they had gone already in the direction of letting religious questions interfere with the appointment of teachers. Let them consider what would happen in the case of a teacher who had hitherto given religious instruction and was willing to continue it after the passing of the Act. He would of course receive a special salary, and would naturally desire that all children should receive the instruction, because it would be impossible in a small school to give both denominational and Cowper-Temple instruction at the same time. He would succeed in making all the parents apply for the special teaching, and on two days of the week the other teaching would disappear. A man might then come to the village wishing for the Cowper-Temple instruction, which he had a perfect right to demand for his children. The teacher who had settled down to give denominational instruction would find that he was put to a great deal of inconvenience and financial loss, and would find the presence of the newcomer very inconvenient, and would make his life or that of his children difficult. Then there was the case of a teacher who had been appointed without inquiry beforehand as to his religion, and who was not willing to give denominational teaching. It would be a very hard thing for such a teacher, who would find him or herself opposed to the predominant power in the village, and it would be very difficult to settle down happily there. The only possible course was to say that the

1647
teacher must serve one master only. Hi might do exactly what he liked out o school hours in regard to instruction, but during the school hours he was the servant of the education authority only and not of any sect or denomination People charged the Bill with doing nothing for education, but there were really plenty of places where it made for educational progress—though it was true you had to look for them The sub-section as it stood ought to make for educational improvement. The condition of things in the scattered schools in the rural counties hitherto had made for stagnation. There was too much stagnation in the schools, and that was not right. A good secretary of the education authority under this Bill, with power for the first time to review and make all appointments and promotions, would be able to organise the teaching in the villages and put it on a much better footing. He would be able to take a promising assistant teacher in a large school and give him the position of head teacher in a small village school, with a promise that if he succeeded there as a head teacher he would promote him to a larger school. Putting good teachers into these small village schools was the best way of keeping the schools up to the mark. But all this would be made much more difficult if the Amendment was adopted. He thought all the educational development for which they hoped would be effected by making the educational question the only question to be considered in making these appointments. It would be a very bad thing for a teacher to be labelled as a persona grata or a persona ingrata in High Church schools, because such a thing was likely to interfere with the educational requirements of the staffing of the schools. He also put it on the ground of religion. He thought very strongly that it was in the true interest of religion that the Church of England and other Churches should realise from the first that they were going to be put in a different position, in some ways at any rate, by this Bill; that they should organise their teachers and make their arrangements from the first, the time most suitable for so doing. They would soon have offered to them certain rents for the use of buildings, and that would
1648
be one use for them. The great Churches could organise a splendid system of visiting and resident teachers to give proper denominational teaching if they began when these rents were first paid, and did not allow them to be absorbed for some other purpose. They ought also to consider the recent offer of 75 per cent, of building grants to all public training colleges. If that meant anything it meant that many teachers' training colleges would be built, and many teachers turned out from those training colleges who-would have no guarantee of any special fitness to give denominational instruction. The proportion of trained teachers in the English Church schools must therefore decrease. Any authority which had to staff these schools would be bound more and more to staff them with teachers who were unable or unwilling to give denominational teaching. Was it not better that the Church should face the state of things and organise a proper system of teachers for denominational instruction with the funds available for that purpose? It was amazing to see the lightness of heart with which any teacher trained in any Church Training College was entrusted with the special and delicate task of giving denominational teaching. If such teaching was given it should be given by a man who had had a great deal more special training than was afforded by two years residence in a training college, the whole of which time was occupied in studying for the examinations in secular subjects by which he passed out of the college. Then there was one final argument; they were told the teachers desired to give this special religious instruction. He admitted that a great many of them did, for two very considerable reasons. In the first place, there was the well-known hatred of any outside interference, which they very much disliked, and which they brutally described as"the parson in their school." They were disturbed by what they thought would be the introduction of an outside element in their school, and naturally they desired to keep their school to themselves. That was the first reason why they were anxious to give this teaching in the future. The second was that they would get extra salary for so doing. They

1649
were, therefore, a class who would agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, if any class would, that his Amendment ought to be adopted. But what was the opinion which they found expressed by a majority of seven or eight in a meeting of fifty or so of the Executive Committee of the National Union of Teachers? They passed a resolution approving of Sub-section (1) as it stood, and hoped that it would be made law. That was a strong argument in favour of the sub-section. The fact that the one class which had any real temptation to wish that no alteration should be made in the law had, through their most responsible representatives, declared in favour of the proposal of the Government was a very strong fact. He thought on the whole those who sat on the Liberal side of the House appreciated the importance of this proposal of the Government, but in his view it would be better if this Amendment was now disposed of rapidly in order that the Committee might get on to other matters of great importance which it was hoped would be discussed to-day.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he must commence his observations by saying how much he admired the eloquence and spirit with which the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire had dealt with the question. He said that all the more strongly because he was unable in any way to accept the conclusions at which the hon. Member had arrived. He spoke to the Committee as one who represented a larger number of teachers, he believed, than any Member of the House. In the constituency he represented there were 1,200 teachers, and 300 or 400 of those were employed in schools in England. He was sure he was voicing their views, quite as strongly as a small majority at a meeting of fifty members of the Union of Teachers, in saying that they resented, as much as they would resent any test that could be imposed upon them, this embargo on the most sacred part of their teaching. One of the practical difficulties of this matter was this: Where were they going to get teachers to come in for forty minutes in the morning and to leave their work thereafter? In a school of 800 children they required twenty or twenty-
1650
one teachers of secular education, and they could not have only one teacher for religious instruction any more than they could have one teacher for secular instruction. How could they bring in twenty or twenty-one teachers for forty minutes and then turn them adrift? But a greater difficulty was with regard to the discipline of the schools. Did not hon. Gentlemen think that that would be interfered with by a man coming in to take up the task of religious instruction in which the regular teachers were forbidden to take part, or to perform what they on that side believed was the most important duty which teachers could perform? But he would not dwell upon the technical or mechanical difficulties, although everyone acquainted with the inside of a school knew how serious they were. What he wished, to speak of was the intellectual work of the school. They grappled with difficulties in their educational advance; they made experiments and they made mistakes; but if there was one thing which in recent years they had advanced towards more than another, by a comparison of all the views of those most interested in the subject and a comparison with the methods indifferent countries, it was that education was not the gathering; of a few elements of information, but that it was a whole, a whole in which one part was dovetailed into another. If they lost sight of that the work became mere mechanical drudgery. Were they to give up the training of character and the formation of moral conduct in the schools? The teacher might teach truth, duty towards one's neighbour and so on; but if he went into questions of the higher sanction that would be entering on forbidden ground. Would hon. Members who sent their children to the higher schools of the country be content that the headmaster should be cut off from the most sacred part of the instruction of the young? Lock at the reformatories. How long would those schools perform their work if the teacher was debarred from touching upon religion? It was argued by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division that the teacher must serve one master only, but was it not the case that there had been hitherto two authorities in the elementary schools? He had often

1651
noticed during these debates how much that fact was neglected. There was the authority of the State and the authority of the local controlling power. The State was purely secular. Never had the Board of Education as representing the State any right to interfere with religious instruction, even to ask whether it existed in the school or not. The State paid nothing for it, and all that it did was to see that there was not too much religion and that it was taught under certain restrictions. The Religion was attended to by the local authority, but the teacher served both authorities. The hon. Member for North Camberwell yesterday quoted certain words of ethical doctrine from the Code. The very fact that they appeared in the Code excluded the possibility of their being religious, because under the Education Act of 1870 the Code was forbidden to touch any religious question at all. He contended, therefore, that the teachers heretofore had satisfactorily carried on their work in obedience to these two authorities, the one having the supervision of religious education and the other of the purely secular. Why should not the teacher carry on the higher and most important part of religious teaching? He wished to treat the matter also in the interests of the teachers themselves. Were they going to deprive the teacher of what he had hitherto felt to be a great part of his work, namely, the building up of the character of the pupil? He would appeal especially to his fellow Members from Scotland. What were they proudest of in the elementary education of Scotland? Was it not the parish schoolmaster of old days whom they were proud to recognise as one of the best specimens of his race? What would the old parish schoolmaster have thought if religion had been excluded from his sphere of education? Would his school have held the place it had in the history of Scotland, or built up Scottish citizens for the great work they had done for the Empire? Were they going so far to forget these traditions, to be false to them, to underrate the great work they had done, by telling the teachers that they might teach their pupils secular subjects, that they might cram them with elementary knowledge, that they might, if they were so disposed, give them a few
1652
precepts of more or less ethical force, but that when the pupils' enthusiasm was awakened to more sacred things they must curb their desires in that direction?
THE PRESIDENT OP THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)expressed admiration of the manner in which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment made his points so clear, and also complimented the hon. Member behind him for the admirable reply he had given. Both these hon. Gentlemen bore ancient Parliamentary names, and he thought there was no doubt that they would maintain the reputation of those names in time to come. It was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. It would, in homely vernacular,"knock the bottom out of their own Bill," and it would make it difficult to answer the question which would be put to them from many quarters,"What are we going to get for our million of money?" The privilege of paying rent was not one which commended itself to the inhabitants of this country. They would naturally expect that if they did that there should be some difference in the mode in which the schools were conducted, and something to indicate the recognition of the right of the public in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had spoken of this Bill the other day in a manner which attracted his attention. It was not a complimentary manner. The right hon. Gentleman was no doubt a master of compliments, but he had not happened to be within earshot of any of them. He said the Bill was a bad Bill, but it was a Bill very difficult to mend. There was truth in the statement, not that the Bill was bad—that he admitted to be controversial—but that this was not a Bill of which they could at any moment take up a clause and amend it so as to turn it inside out. It was an undenominational Bill, and its object was to establish, at all events in the rural districts, an undenominational kind of religious teaching, to enable the existing councils when they thought fit— as most of them had thought fit in the past, and would in the time to come, he hoped, think fit—to arrange for a form of religious teaching which he would go

1653
to the grave convinced met the desires and wants of the great masses of the country. The hon. Member who had just sat down had made a speech from which it might be supposed that the unhappy teacher under this Bill would never have any opportunity of enforcing on his pupils the divine sanctions of religion, or in any way of getting at their hearts and imaginations through that great and holy channel. That was not so. All teachers would tell him that it was not only through the catechisms and formularies of a Church that they were able to give religious teaching in its most effective form. Although he did not ask them to be satisfied, if they were not so minded, with the kind of teaching which it was the Government's object to establish in all the schools except in those frankly denominational schools contemplated by Clause 4, he did protest against announcements that there was to be no religion in those schools at all, and no opportunities given to the teachers to use religious examples and exercise religious influence. That was not the Government view. Yet the hon. Member drew a picture of a teacher in one of these schools cut off rudely from all opportunities of doing good in the way that he wished to, as if a great barrier were to be erected between him and his pupils which he could not cross, simply because he could not use the formularies and catechisms of the Church. The reason why the clause was necessary was that in the greater part of the schools the ordinary teacher would be giving undenominational teaching as part of his duty. In the large majority of cases that would be so There might be exceptions, and although what he had laid down was applicable to nine-tenths of the whole situation it might not be perfectly applicable to the remaining one-tenth. They contemplated that this Cowper-Temple instruction was to be given by the ordinary teachers because it was to be the school instruction and ought to be given by the teachers. The mover of the Amendment had laid stress on a teacher's believing in the definite instruction he was giving, and there was no means of securing that an ordinary elementary teacher believed in special dogmatic teaching. They could not dive into the depths of a
1654
man's mind, or tell how far a bishop of any church believed in the doctrine he was preaching; and from both Church of England and Nonconformist preachers he had heard discourses which led him to doubt if the preacher believed the doctrine he was expounding in the sense in which ordinary plain people believed it. They could not absolutely secure that; and that being so, they could not do better than leave it to voluntary effort. In that there was some security that the pupil would get the definite precise teaching. Even then there would be no absolute guarantee of belief, for no church had yet succeeded in accomplishing that, but there would be more chance of sincere belief by voluntary effort than by any other method. He had got into trouble when he had spoken of the canonical duty of the clergy; but surely it was recognised as part of the duty of the clergy to instruct the young in their own creed! There was no need to remind the clergy that it was a duty which they, in the first instance, should undertake. At any rate he thought he was justified in reminding the clergy of the Church of England that this was not a duty that they could impose upon State aid. He was amazed to hear the hon. Member who had just sat down say it was impossible to get such teaching in large schools. He was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of Yorkshire that the new duties would call forth new energies, which would enable the Church of England, never slow in discharging its educational duties, to provide religious instruction to the children whose parents desired it—they would continue to give that instruction and in a more organised form. He was afraid it was too often true of ministers of all religions that they too readily assumed that the school children were receiving the most satisfactory form of religious instruction. Nothing was more easy than to assume that all was going well if one did not inquire. Let one keep away from schools, reformatories, workhouses, prisons and he might become optimistic and believe that all was going on well. But let him go into a Church school, listen to the teaching given, watch the intelligence of the children, see how far they understand, and it would be admitted that religion was shockingly badly taught in the majority of schools. If this clause was bad it was

1655
bad with the badness of the Bill, which proceeded on an undenominational, but religious basis. He believed the children would continue to receive the religious instruction called for by the country, and that it would be good teaching according to the qualifications of the teacher. He emphatically denied that they were cutting off religious teaching when cutting oft' denominational teaching to be given by the ordinary teacher. In the case of schools provided for by Clause 4, the teaching would be given by the teacher of the school, for the reason that the denominational character of the schools was recognised. Of course if they believed that undenominational teaching was repugnant to a Protestant community the Bill would be an impossibility; but basing themselves on experience of the past, and knowing the wishes of parents, the Government felt themselves on firm ground, and could not consent to the Amendment.
MR. A. J. BALFOTJRsaid the right hon. Gentleman had followed his usual formula when he said the Bill must necessarily be a j bad Bill from the point of view of the Opposition, but in the attempt to defend the Bill on its merits and by reason he sometimes got into trouble. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they could not gauge the qualifications of a teacher to teach children the highest truths of religion. That might or might not be true, but if true it was as true of Cowper Temple teaching I as of denominational teaching. The right hon. Gentleman had also told the Committee that ho was prepared to go to hi-j grave with the firm unalterable conviction that the Cowper-Temple teaching was the form of religious teaching the mass of parents among his fellow countrymen desired.
MR. BIRRELL: In schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was not a very easy proposition to resolve, and one of the difficulties was that of naming any form, from the literary and moral instruction of Dr. Clifford to the dogmatic Christian instruction in the Catechism. Which of these two things, which differed as far as north and south, and as far as two sets of opinions on this great subject could differ, was the right hon. Gentleman
1656
going to his grave in the belief that the parents of this country desired for their children? He wished the right hon. Gentleman would tell them which form of this municipal religion the parents of the children really wanted. Until they knew, they were utterly at sea as to what this religion really meant. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he admired Cowper-Temple teaching, he certainly did not mean merely literature and morality, as Dr. Clifford did.
MR, BIRRELL: He is not a syllabus.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid Dr. Clifford was not a syllabus, but he was a force. He was the admitted leader of a particular school of religious thought who held with vehement conviction not merely that denominational teaching ought not to be admitted, or encouraged, or paid for in our elementary schools, but also that there was no logical resting-place between denominational teaching and something which was not religious teaching, but literary teaching. It was perplexing that they should have sitting in the front Bench opposite two gentlemen who both told them that the people of this country, at all events in the country districts, only required one kind of religious teaching, and when they were asked what kind of religious teaching, one indicated that he meant literature and morality, and the other that he meant what everybody would describe as dogmatic, though not denominational, Christian teaching. He would like a little more agreement among Members of the Government on this important point. The inconsistency of the right hon. Gentleman did not stop there. He had told them that, although they could not judge whether a teacher was or was not fit to teach denominational religion, they could judge whether he was fit to teach Christian religion. What a strange distinction; what an amazing paradox! The defence of this clause made by the hon. Member for the Richmond Division was much clearer and more forcible than that made by the Minister for Education. It was quite clear that the hon. Member regarded this clause as an attack upon the Church of England. He said it was quite true they had duties to the Church of Rome, which they had attempted honestly to carry out in Clause 4, but they had no duty to the Church of England, except to destroy her present

1657
position. The hon. Member, following the example of many who held that opinion, had told them that by destroying the present position of the Church of England they would do that Church a great deal of good; that there would be developed a great body of trained denominational teachers, who would go from voluntary school to voluntary school, and do all the denominational work that was required of them. He did not know whether that was a practical scheme or not, but if the hon. Gentleman was so anxious to aid the Church of England in becoming a more effectual educational machine, why did he not apply the same health-giving process to the Church of Rome? He thought that what the hon. Gentleman really wanted was to turn the Church of England out of all the schools from which it was possible to exclude her. He could not do it in the urban areas without also injuring the Church of Rome. But in the country districts the Government and the hon. Gentleman avowedly meant to do all they could so to modify our education laws that the Church of England would be excluded from her own schools, and the method of teaching which she had adopted would be allowed no longer. He did not think he was exaggerating the animus observable among a large number of gentlemen opposite. They had attempted to supplement a rather crude and ungenerous policy by something which seemed to him to be absolutely rotten from the beginning, and which their own speeches showed to be rotten. Let them take the example that occurred in the speech of the hon. Member for the Richmond division. The hon. Member said it would be unfair to the teachers to require them to teach Church of England dogmas. A teacher might go to a village where the teachers had been in the habit of giving Church of England teaching, and if he was unwilling to give that teaching he might be subjected to social pressure, and his life made very uncomfortable. The hon. Gentleman's argument, if it was worth anything, was as valid against sub-section (1) as it stood, as it would be against the Bill if this sub-section were excluded, because a teacher who went to a village where Cowper-Temple teaching had been given, and was unwilling to teach undenominational religion, would be subjected to the same pressure and the same social ostracism. The hon. Member had described
1658
the Amendment as an interference with freedom. If it was a step in the direction of freedom to prevent teachers from giving denominational teaching, which they were willing and anxious to give, the hon. Member should go a step further towards perfect freedom, and say the teacher who was willing and anxious to teach undenominational religion should be forbidden to teach it He thought that in the speeches of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and of the hon. Member for the Richmond division, there was no allusion to the interests of the children themselves. There was one admission in the speech of the hon. Member for the Richmond division. It was unfair, he said, to the teachers to make appointments in village schools of teachers who were qualified to teach the kind of religion which the parents desired. Unfair to whom? He seemed to think the teachers existed only to give secular instruction; that religion was an"extra" and ought not to be considered in the qualifications of the teacher. To ask a teacher whether he was able to deal with reading, writing, and arithmetic, and secular instruction generally, was right, but to ask whether he was also qualified to teach religion, denominational or undenominational, was unfair to the teacher. He was utterly unable to put himself in the frame of mind of those who deliberately constructed their Bill for the avowed purpose of preventing people who were ready to teach something which they believed from teaching that something to those who were anxious to be taught.
MR. ACLAND: It could be taught in the Sunday schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether freedom was to exist on only one of the seven days of the week? What he was | really unable to understand was how hon. Gentlemen could, from the mere dislike of the Church of England [MINI- STERIAL cries of"Oh."]—
MR. ACLAND: I deny that I have any dislike of the Church.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was quite unable to understand why those who desired to exclude the Church of England from her present position as a teaching body in elementary schools should be so over-mastered by that desire

1659
that they would, without seeing how paradoxical was their position, really prevent those who desired to teach from teaching those who desired to learn. That was an utterly indefensible scheme, and if anybody told him that that, or anything like it, was the view of the country when this Bill was discussed on the platform, he replied that they did not really understand what the view of the country was. He believed them to be under the wildest delusions on that point. The Minister for Education had said they could not accept the Amendment because, if they did, what should they answer when the question was put to them,"What are you spending your million on?" Had it really come to this—that the Government came down to this House and suggested that out of their not too flourishing finances a million should be expended with the avowed object of preventing those teaching what they were qualified to teach to those who were desirous of learning it? They posed as the advocates of ecomony, they claimed to be the real guardians of the money of the taxpayers, and then they came and proposed to spend that money in order to destroy the position of the Church they disliked, although at the same time they prevented the children of the country getting the education the parents desired for their children. That was what they were doing under this sub-section.
THE SOLICITOR-GENEEAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said he hoped that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the grant of money would be repeated when the question came to be discussed as to how this money should be allocated. The precise scope of this sub-section, which the Amendment proposed to omit, was to prohibit the teacher who, receiving his salary from the State, had become a State officer, from devoting his time and services to the interests of a particular denomination by no means co-extensive with the State whose employee ho was. He did not see how that was an attack upon the Church of England which simply reduced the Church of England to the same position as other religious bodies of having to provide for its own propaganda among its own children and other people's children. The Church demanded that this State officer should teach doctrines at the expense of the State, including Noncon-
1660
formists, to whom those doctrines were in some cases abhorrent, and in many cases dangerous from the point of view of their own faith. That, according to the Leader of the Opposition, was the right of the Church, and, if they attacked that right, the right to perpetrate that gross inequality and injustice, they were attacking the Church, they were manifesting a dislike of the Church. The Nonconformist bodies had expanded and prospered upon the voluntary system. They had heard a good deal about the sacrifices which the Church of England had made; but they did not hear of the vitalising sacrifices which the Nonconformists had made. They did not regret them nor did they put their hands into the pockets of their fellow-citizens in order to repay them for those sacrifices. They had pushed their creed into the lowest slums of our great cities, and not content with that, they had carried their energies into the uttermost parts of the earth. They had done that on the voluntary principle. They had not asked for State aid; on the contrary they had spurned State aid; and they had thereby intensified the spirituality of their work. It was possible for those who did not avail themselves of the ministrations of the Church of England to believe that that Church would gain by the application of those principles; but why should they be charged with having a dislike to the Church of England? He wondered how the right hon. Gentleman would like it if he were charged with a dislike of Nonconformity? He was not going to make any charge against him. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had so far examined his feelings towards Nonconformity as to know whether he liked it or not, but, judging simply by his policy,, he seemed to regard Nonconformity as a very objectionable form of faith, and to consider that the needs of Nonconformity, from the point of view of its propaganda,, were sufficiently met by school teaching which did not concern itself with the special doctrines of Nonconformity at all. The right hon. Gentleman desired to maintain the grievance against which the country so emphatically pronounced at the last election, and to continue the system under which the Church of England should be able to draw taxes, tithes, and rates from non-assenting members of the community and

1661
so save itself from the cost of conducting the propaganda and the spread of its own particular doctrines. In these schools, the property of the State, it was to be unjust, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the teacher should serve the State rather than some particular denomination. Having taken over the schools as their own property, paying rent for them, they were to leave them substantially under the control of the Church, because, of course, they were to teach their own doctrines and they were to have teachers who understood their doctrines. They knew what was the very essence of Church teaching. It did not consist in the hymn or the prayer or the Bible. He had heard the Bible referred to throughout the debate by hon. Gentleman opposite as a sort of Nonconformist volume. [OPPOSITION cries of"Oh" and"Withdraw."]
THE CHAIRMANsaid he must request hon. Gentlemen not to keep on calling" Withdraw."
LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.): I trust, Mr. Chairman, you will use your influence with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General to induce him not to make use of unnecessarily provocative language.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid they had had Bible teaching referred to as if it were a Nonconformist function, satisfactory to the Nonconformists but repulsive in many cases, if standing alone, to those of other denominations. Why should they be told by one of the Bishops that Cowper-Temple teaching, simple Bible teaching, was a dread alternative, and by another that it was the thing they wanted to avoid. If they said these things they laid themselves open to the charge that they regarded Bible teaching as a Nonconformist and not a Church of England mode of teaching, and they were treating it as a Nonconformist creed of faith which was not to be treated as a Church of England creed of faith. The grievance of hon. Members opposite appeared to be that they were not allowed to have in schools which were transferred to the State and for which the State had to pay—that they were not to be allowed to have those schools and those teachers devoted to the propagation of a particular creed of their own.
1662
Originally the Party opposite put forward a plea for some kind of equality to be afforded by all-round facilities, but the moment all-round facilities came to be dealt with in this debate they were told that they were impracticable. The contention of hon. Members opposite was grossly unjust to other religious denominations and represented a policy which had been condemned by the country and he hoped would be condemned by the House.
MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Solicitor-General had provoked many who sat upon the Opposition side of the House, and it was not the first time that he had used provocative language. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman's interventions in these debates passed his comprehension. He did not know whether the learned Solicitor-General felt it necessary after the events of last night to fan the fires of religious hatred, for his speech amounted to an expression of hatred towards those who differed from him in religious matters. That sort of speech did not move him to anger. On the contrary he preferred it to much that they had heard on the other side. He should like to have a verbatim report of it distributed as a leaflet at every meeting which they, on that side, addressed. It revealed the real motive behind this Bill and its ultimate objective, and made it plain that the Bill was an attack upon the Church of England. Such attacks were part of the traditional apparatus of the Party to which the hon. and learned Gentleman belonged. They helped the Party when in political difficulties and raised the spirits of those amongst their supporters who believed that the doctrines of the Church of England were false and that the doctrines that they themselves held were true. For men who indulged in persecution on that ground he had some respect, because they thought they were doing good to their fellow countrymen and at any rate they had the courage of their convictions. Theirs was an intelligible position, although old fashioned, but still it was entitled to respect. What he did not think was entitled to any respect was the newer mode of explaining this Bill and clause as really a blessing in disguise to the Church of England, and the designs of the Government as much

1663
wiser and better than those of the pastors of the Church, who understood her true interests and how her children might be brought up to be true and believing members of that great and ancient institution. The Solicitor-General had told them that the Nonconformists had done a great work in the slums, but he did not refer to the work which the Church of England had done in those places, although everybody knew that the Church of England had made enormous sacrifices in regard to them. The Solicitor-General had taunted them with regarding the Bible as a Nonconformist volume. He should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to make that statement before some of their meetings in the country. He would find that the interruptions in this House were as nothing to the kind of interruption he would encounter there, in consequence of the stormy passions which such a statement would arouse. How could the hon. and learned Gentleman ask them to believe that this clause was not of an invidious character? It was admitted that Clause 4 would help the Roman Catholic Church more than the Church of England, and that the Church of England must look to Clause 3 for any facilities they might enjoy under this Act. It was admitted that the Free Church Catechism, from the first syllable to the last, would be taught by teachers if this Bill were passed in its present shape, because it was included under Cowper-Templeism. [The SOLICITOR-GENERAL dissented.] It had been subscribed to by four Nonconformist Denominations, Baptist, Congregationalist, Wesleyan and another. This was an invidious clause in an invidious Bill aimed directly at the Church of England. By this prohibition which was laid upon teachers they were returning to methods long since abandoned of naked religious persecution. This disability was put on a large number of men simply because their religious beliefs were not those held by the majority who supported His Majesty's Government. The chief objection to the"all-round" facilities which were to be afforded was that they would bring persons into the school other than the teacher, and that the teacher's place would be taken by somebody else. This, moreover, was only to happen in the case of the Church of England, whose whole system of education
1664
was to be uprooted, and the standard of whose religious education was to be impaired, because the Government insisted that in the case of the Church of England,, and only in the case of the Church of England, the teacher was not to be permitted to give the religious instruction which he had given in the past and which he desired to give in the future.
MR. BUTCHERsaid it was remarkable that, while in other respects the freedom of the teacher was most jealously safeguarded, suddenly in this clause they came upon a harsh compulsion, which was exercised only in the case of a teacher in a transferred voluntary school. The teacher on the regular staff was forbidden to give the teaching of the denomination to which he belonged even in the hours set apart for that distinctive form of religious, instruction. Surely it was as much an infringement of liberty to forbid a man to teach religion, if he wished to do so, as to compel him to teach it, if he did not so wish. On what grounds could that compulsion be justified? Why must an outsider be introduced when there was a competent teacher on the spot? The Minister for Education rightly set aside one ground that had been put forward in the early part of the debate, that it was in the interest of educational efficiency. His reason was quite different. He said that this was an undenominational Bill, and that if this sub-section was bad, it was"bad with the badness of the Bill itself." If that was so he would put this question to the right hon. Gentleman: Why give facilities at all? And still more, why say, as he had repeatedly declared, that the facilities under Clause 3 were intended to be a reality and not a sham? This sub-section could not have been better framed if it had been specially designed to make the facilities under Clause 3 nugatory. Everybody knew that there were very few persons, especially in country districts, besides the teacher who, between the hours of 9 and 9.40 in the morning, were free to give others religious instruction. The only other persons were the clergyman and perhaps a retired teacher; but of these, again, only a few were qualified to teach effectively. It was a most difficult thing

1665
to give a simple Bible lesson to children. How many in that House could do it? He personally had been teaching during a great portion of his life, but he would feel serious doubts as to his own power. The children needed the best teaching that could be got, and it was a wanton wrong to deprive them of the services of the skilled teacher whoso heart was in the work. What would be the impression left on the minds of the children when they saw the teacher silenced whom they most respected? They must conclude that the religion of their parents was a mere adjunct, a thing tacked on loosely to secular education, outside the teacher's duties, outside of school hours, something which could not matter much so far as their daily life was concerned. This prohibition affecting the teachers was, in his view, one of the most important features of the Bill."Who is the teacher?" was a more important question than"What is the syllabus?" Above all, in elementary teaching the first essential was to have a trained teacher. He asked the Committee to contrast the requirements for secular and for religious teaching respectively. The idea of secular education had been deepened and vitalised. New and great demands were made on the teachers. They were not content to accept the leavings of other professions. They looked for men who were trained to their difficult task, trained to patience, tact, and sympathy; men who were enlightened by knowledge, inspired by enthusiasm, whose spirit was quickened by daily contact with the fresh minds of the children; men whose simplicity and sincerity went straight to the heart of the young; who spoke out of a full heart and a full mind and did not serve up fragments of knowledge, old and cold. When, however, they came to examine the Bill they found that in religious instruction it ignored the need of knowledge, of trained sympathy, and of intelligent control. In no part of the Bill was there any direction that the man who taught religion, Cowper-Temple or any other, should possess any knowledge of this subject. And this particular clause silenced by direct enactment the trained teacher who often prized as his highest privilege the right of teaching what to him were living and
1666
breathing truths. The clause lowered the place and dignity of religious instruction and would in its working inflict a grave injury on both religion and education.
MR. DILLON (Mayo, B.)said that if anything could have induced him to support a this sub-section it would have been the speech of the hon. Member for the Richmond division of Yorkshire, for whom he prophesied a brilliant career in this House. But he differed entirely from the conclusions to which the hon. Gentleman had come. The hon. Member said the chief merit of the sub-section was that by means of coercion it provided a way for teachers being free. He did not deny that there were cases where coercion was needed in order to obtain freedom, as in the case of great industries. But if people sought freedom in that way they must be extremely guarded in the way they proceed. The teachers were denied the right, when they volunteered to do so, to teach the religion in which they believed. He readily accepted the provision of the following sub-section to exempt teachers from religious tests and give them liberty to refuse the duty of teaching a religion they did not feel called upon to teach; but he wished to know on what principle of logic they said that a teacher should not be allowed to teach the religion of the Church of England if he was willing to teach it, and believed in it, while he was allowed to teach Cowper-Temple religion. Was that their idea of freedom? There were many people in this country who did not believe in Cowper-Temple religion, and there were a growing number who did not believe in Christianity in any shape. If a teacher said he could not teach any religion he ought to be allowed liberty to refuse to teach it. But why did they give the teacher liberty to teach Cowper-Temple religion and refuse him liberty to teach Church of England religion? He could not see that at all. The hon. Member had said that if a teacher came to a village school and said he could not teach religion, pressure might be brought to bear on him. But the principle of the Government was this: because Cowper-Temple religion was acceptable to the Nonconformists and a large section of the Church of England,

1667
the teacher might teach it, but they would not extend to him liberty to teach Church of England or any other religion. The liberty of the teachers, therefore, was liberty for those who agreed with the Government and not for those who did not. That was not his idea of liberty, and it was not consistent with the traditions of the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for the Richmond division of Yorkshire had said that the rights of Catholics were safeguarded under Clause 4, but that was not true. Clause 4 provided that" where extended facilities are so afforded, the local education authority may also, if they think fit, permit the teachers employed in the school to give the instruction desired." That permission would not be required but for the first sub-section of Clause 7, and that was why they were opposed to it. The sub-section was coercive and interfered with the liberty of the teacher.
MR. SCARESsaid he was lost in wonder at the attitude of hon. Members on the Opposition side with regard to this clause. They had constantly been saying that the Bill was an insult to the Church of England, but the attitude which they were now taking up was an insult to the Church of England parson. What were they asking for? They were asking that the religious denominational teaching in transferred voluntary schools should be given by the trained teachers and not by the clergymen of the Church of England. What was their object? Did they allege that the clergyman was unwilling to perform that duty? The Minister for Education had said that it was the canonical duty of the clergyman to teach the young, and in the country districts they had plenty of time to perform that duty. The clergymen in the country districts ware both underpaid and underworked as a rule, and a little more work in this direction would not do them the slightest harm. Did hon. Members say that the Church of England clergymen were incompetent to perform this duty? The late Patronage Secretary had said they were going to put religious teaching in the hands of those who were least qualified to give it, meaning of course the parsons. Surely if the parson was qualified to teach adults he was qualified to teach the
1668
children. Did they not hold children's services and did they not consider themselves competent to hold them? It was the clergyman's business to teach the young, and surely hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side were not prepared to say that clergyman of the Church of England were incompetent to do that. A clergyman who was genuinely interested in his work and wanted to take the utmost advantage of his office would be only too pleased to have the young people under his care at the most plastic period of their life, because they would afterwards come to him with their religious difficulties as they got older. Having regard to all the circumstances, he was at a loss to understand how hon. Members could desire the omission of this clause.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that the hon. Member had misinterpreted the position of the Opposition. He had stated that they desired to substitute entirely trained teachers for the clergymen, but that was not so. What they wanted was the alternative of getting the best possible teacher to give specific instruction, and that was the object of this Amendment. If they could get a clergyman, why not allow him to go in? They did not want to abolish the possibility of having a trained teacher, because if that teacher volunteered, and if, in the opinion of the parents, he was a satisfactory teacher, surely he was the best possible person to undertake the teaching for the discipline of the school. Why should he be excluded by this clause? Hon. Members had twitted the Opposition with taking up an inconsistent position, but they had failed entirely to realise that their own position was very inconsistent with their former views on this question. They used to hear a good deal about sacerdotalism, and there were perpetual accusations in the last Parliament that the policy of the late Government was nothing else but sacerdotalism. This clause was going to prevent a teacher from teaching this very thing, and it introduced the clergyman or the priest. Was that sacerdotalism?
MR. SOARES: Why are you fighting it?
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he had already explained that the Opposition were fighting or alternatives, and the hon. Member's own position was one of sacerdotalism. He could not congratulate the Ministerial Front Bench upon their defence of this sub-section, for he had expected some argument which would appeal to an impartial mind. What had the President' of the Board of Education said? He had merely observed that the Bill was difficult to amend; surely that was a very feeble argument. If they thought an injustice was being done, they were within their rights in making some effort to remove it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the teacher might be able during the time of secular instruction incidentally to bring in a little religious instruction. It seemed to him that it was poor consolation and a poor defence of this subsection to hold that out as an inducement. There was no guarantee that there would even be this incidental: religious instruction. The Solicitor-General had made some remarks which caused some irritation, and had said that the policy of the Opposition was grossly unequal. When they considered the provisions of Clause 4, surely everyone of those criticisms could be directed against the Solicitor-General himself. Why was Clause 3 to be excluded in this matter when Clause 4 was included? The teachers who were to teach ordinary facilities under Clause 3 were not to be allowed to teach those ordinary facilities but they might teach extended facilities under Clause 4. He could not see the reason for that distinction, and it was not fair, because it was giving a privilege to the schools under Clause 4 which was not given to the schools working under Clause 3. He could not see any reason for this difference being made except that Clause 4 most specially applied to Roman Catholic schools and was a bid for the Irish vote, and Clause 3 only applied to them in a much less degree. The hon. Member for the Richmond division of Yorkshire had spoken of this provision as a charter of freedom for the village teachers. It was a charter to them to teach what the hon. Member desired, but it was not a charter of absolute freedom. Then, again, this was only a
1670
charter of freedom to urban schools and not to rural schools. He did not see any reason why trained teachers should not be allowed to give specific teaching if they were competent, if they volunteered, and if the parents desired it. It would be grossly unfair if this sub-section was adopted.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)did not see how the hon. Member opposite could made out that this subsection was a fair provision. Under it the teacher might be allowed to teach Cowper-Temple religion, but why should he not be allowed to teach any other form of religion? Why should the teacher be allowed to teach only that form of religion, namely, the Cowper-Temple teaching, which satisfied hon. Members opposite? It simply was not fair, and it could not possibly recommend itself to those who did not believe in Cowper-Temple religion. The more one looked into this scheme the more one came to the conclusion that, taken as a whole, the object of the Bill was to endow one form of religion at the expense of other forms. Church of England people, Catholics, and other denominations had to pay their share of the rates, yet in the vast majority of the schools this new form of religion was to be taught and practically none other. That was a one-sided arrangement. It would be much fairer, if they were going to put this disability upon the teacher, to say that he should not be allowed to teach any form of religion at all. There would then be, at any rate, some semblance of fairness. The facilities under Clause 4 might or might not be given. The local authority might or might not allow the teacher to teach any particular religion. They were entirely at the mercy of the local authority, and they were at the mercy of whoever might happen for the time being to be the head of the Education Department. Under these circumstances he really did not see how they could expect that those who did not believe in the Cowper-Temple form of religion should be satisfied with this. He confessed that the whole discussion was fraught with a good deal of embarrassment and pain. There was not the slightest desire on his part or on the part of any Catholic Member

1671
intentionally to say anything which would be in the slightest degree offensive to the opinions of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They did not in the slightest degree find fault with those who were satisfied with simple Bible teaching. They were entitled to their opinion, and it had their respect, but they did claim that those who could not accept that particular form of religion should have their opinions respected also, and that there should not be a hard and fast rule laid down that under this Bill, which was supposed to deal with the people of the country generally, making it impossible for any teacher to teach any religion but the Cowper-Temple form. They were going to be called upon to pay their fair share of the rates. They did not complain on that account; all they asked was that as they were going to pay man for man the same proportion as Nonconformists and members of other denominations, they should at least get the same fair play which was to be given all through this Bill to those who were satisfied with Cowper-Temple teaching. It was far better for everyone concerned that there should be a policy of give and take so that there might be the hope of the Bill attaining success instead of being passed in a shape which would leave many denominations dissatisfied, and give rise to fresh agitation and disturbance in the country, and so necessitate the whole matter being re-discussed in the House at an early date.
MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.)said the speech of the Solicitor-General had given very great pain on the Opposition side of the House and they felt that they had been very much misrepresented and something very much like slandered. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of their having a feeling of repulsion to Bible teaching. That was exactly the opposite to what was really the case. They founded themselves on Bible teaching. The Prayer Book was founded on Bible teaching, and so was the Catechism, and they only claimed the right of teaching and interpreting the Bible in their own way. What they claimed for themselves they conceded to every Dissenter in the country. This clause seemed to be the climax of a
1672
long series of confiscations of religious freedom and the rights of con science. Church teaching was to be confiscated in favour of that approved by Dissenters. The rights of Church parents were to be confiscated by and to give place to the rights of Dissenting parents. The freedom of the local authority in acting for the parents of the children was to be curtailed. The children's rights and interests were utterly forgotten and ignored. And now it was the teacher's turn. He was to be straight-waistcoated and to have his liberty abridged. Why should not the teacher have the liberty of teaching what he sincerely believed in to those who were anxious to learn? It was the only thing he could teach well—that in which he believed. If he were allowed to teach it they would double his influence; if they prevented him from teaching it, they would half his influence. Why should they introduce this interloping outsider?
AN HON. MEMBER: Does the hon. Gentleman refer to the clergy?
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he was not specially referring to the clergy. Undoubtedly the clergy would not be able to get in to give this teaching, as they would not have the time. The first thing they would get would be a disorderly class, for the influence of the teacher would be weakened. If they tried to introduce this clause into Scotland it would be rejected with scorn. If they tried to introduce it into Ireland it would be met with rebellion. He believed it would be only possible to maintain it in England if faith failed them, and they were willing to adopt moral teaching without the sanction of worship and of religion.
MR. BIRRELLsaid there were many Amendments to be considered this evin-ing and he hoped the Committee would come to a decision on this one.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid that unless there were good reasons it was a strong measure to prohibit a man from teaching what he wanted to teach. One reason given was that the teacher was the servant of the State. A postman was also a servant of the State,

1673
and no one would debar him from giving religious instruction in a school. Another reason was that in villages if they allowed the teacher to teach the Catechism they would create a special demand for those who were willing to teach the Catechism and exclude others, and that this would be unfair to the teachers, or some of them. What he suggested was that there would be no disadvantage to the community in having teachers who were willing to teach the Catechism so long as they had other teachers who were willing to give Cowper-Temple teaching. He urged that the clause should be confined to schools where there was only one teacher.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid there had been an extreme paucity of arguments from the Government side of the House in support of the clause. There was no argument in the speech of the Solicitor-General. It was simply a denunciation of the Church of England. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that Churchmen were complaining because they were asked to provide for their own propaganda he failed to remember what the position hitherto had been. All that they asked was that they should be allowed to employ and pay for teachers who were willing to teach. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Nonconformists schools had thriven without the aid of the State he should remember that the very form of teaching favoured by Nonconformists had been provided at the expense of the rates. Under these circumstances a reference to a manual giving the history of elementary education in this country might assist the Solicitor-General. The hon. Member for Barnstaple had dwelt on the duty of the clergyman to teach in the rural school, but he had said nothing of the similar duty that might fall to the clergyman in the urban schools. The hon. Member had said that no hardship could possibly arise from the exclusion of the ordinary teacher of the school from the giving of religious instruction, because the clergyman would come in and teach, but he should bear in mind that there was an appreciable number of rural villages where the clergyman had left the giving of religious instruction with perfect confidence to the teacher
1674
who was willing to give the instruction,, while he looked in from time to time and occasionally took part in the teaching. There were other cases in which the clergyman could not teach. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman. had himself tried his hand at teaching. If he had he might have found that everyone had not the capacity for it. It was not everybody who could approach the mind of a child in a rural elementary school. This clause had been called a charter of freedom for the teachers. So far from being a. charter of freedom, it appeared to him to impose a definite disability on the teachers. They were told also that it was a boon to the villages. He really wondered what picture of a rural village was present to the mind of the hon. Member who talked in that way. The squire was not always walking up and down the village streets scowling at the Nonconformists. The clergy were not always preaching against the wickedness of the Nonconformity. Nonconformist children were not always skulking about the streets cowed and abashed in the presence of Church of England children. The great bulk of the rural villages in educational matters were working very smoothly, and they would go on doing so until this Bill was brought into operation, if it was ever brought into operation. Then he thought hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly those who represented rural constituencies, would find the change not so much for the better as they supposed.
MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)said that an hon. Gentleman who addressed the Committee this afternoon had charged hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House with inconsistency in the arguments they had brought forward. It seemed to him that there was a great measure of inconsistency in some of the arguments of hon. Members on the other side. The demand made on the other side was that a teacher, if he was to give religious instruction, should have the qualification for the task. That would make it absolutely certain that there must be tests. They could not know whether a teacher was fit to give special religious instruction unless they had tests. There were few Members of the

1675
Committee who would not admit that the two prominent things which this Bill was brought in to meet were, first of all, the existing tests in regard to teachers; and secondly, the question of local control. If this sub-section were cut out of the Bill the tests would be maintained, and that would be a gross injustice to many thousands of teachers throughout the Kingdom. It would entirely prevent their having equal chances of promotion. Unless hon. Members oppossite were prepared to maintain that the tests for teachers should still continue he did not see how they could ask to have the sub-section excised. He had no doubt the Committee would by an overwhelming majority reject the Amendment, and by so doing they would get the thanks of the great body of teachers throughout the Kingdom. In a letter in the Schoolmaster the writer, who signed himself"High Churchman," said that he loved the Church, but loved freedom more, and he would rather that a hundred were prevented from teaching than that one should be forced against his inclination to give dogmatic teaching.
MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk had stated that in the division on this Amendment they would settle the question of religious tests for teachers. He wished to point out that under the Bill there were to be different classes of schools. There would be tests for the teachers in some of these schools. It was very clear, therefore, that in regard to the State-aided schools they would still have a test. The"four-fifths" schools would, under this clause, remain in exactly the same position as at present and they would have exactly the same tests. Turning to the provided schools, the teachers would have to prove to the local education authority that they were able to give undenominational teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Therefore, again, the local authority must have some test. He insisted that that was a distinct endowment of one particular form of teaching as against others. Therefore, they found that in every class of school a test would still remain.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 318: Noes, 191. (Division List No. 181.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Alden, Percy

Brace, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Armitage, R.

Branch, James

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brigg, John

Cory, Clifford John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Bright, J. A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Astbury, John Meir

Brocklehnrst, W. D.

Cremer, William Randal

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brooke, Stopford

Crombie, John William

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

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

Crooks, William

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

Crosfield, A. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Crossley, William J.

Barker, John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Dalziel, James Henry

Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Barnard, E. B.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Barnes, G. N.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Beale, W. P.

Byles, William Pollard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Cairns, Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Bell, Richard

Cameron. Robert

Dobson, Thomas W.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Dodd, W. H.

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt)

Cawley, Frederick

Duckworth, James

Bennett, E. N.

Channing, Francis Allston

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Bertram, Julius

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Cleland, J. W.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Billson, Alfred

Clough, W.

Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Clynes, J. R.

Erskine, David C.

Essex, R. W.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Roe, Sir Thomas

Evans, Samuel T.

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Rose, Charles Day

Faber G. H. (Boston)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rowlands. J.

Fenwick, Charles

Lyell, Charles Henry

Russell. T. W.

Ferens, T. R.

Lynch, H. B.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Maclean, Donald

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Arthur, William

Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Callum, John M.

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Furness, Sir Christopher

M'Kenna, Reginald

Sears, J. E.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Gill, A. H.

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

Shackleton, David James

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Micking, Major G.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Glendinning, R. G.

Maddison, Frederick

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

Glover, Thomas

Mallet, Charles E.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Grant, Corrie

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Snowden, P.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Menzies, Walter

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Grove, Archibald

Micklem, Nathaniel

Soares, Ernest J.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Molteno, Percy Alport

Spicer, Albert

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mond, A.

Stanger, H. Y.

Hall, Frederick

Money, L, G. Chiozza

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)t

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Montgomery, H. H.

Steadman, W. C.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hart-Davies, T.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Haslam, James (Debyshire)

Morse, L. L.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Murray, James

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Myer, Horatio

Summerbell, T.

Hedges, A. Paget

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Sutherland, J. E.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholls, George

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)

Norman, Henry

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Higham, John Sharp

Nuttall, Harry

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Paul, Herbert

Thomasson, Franklin

Holland, Sir William Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Hooper, A. G.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Thorne, William

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Tomkinson, James

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Perks, Robert William

Torrance, A. M.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton

Toulmin, George

Hyde, Clarendon

Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Illingworth, Percy H.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Verney, F. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Vivian, Henry

Jackson, R. S.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Pollard. Dr.

Wallace, Robert

Jenkins, J.

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

Walsh, Stephen

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Walters, John Tudor

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Kearley, Hudson E.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wardle, George J.

Kekewich, Sir George

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Rees, J. D.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Kitson, Sir James

Renton, Major Leslie

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Laidlaw, Robert

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

Waterlow, D. S.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

Watt, H. Anderson

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Richardson, A.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Weir, James Galloway

Lamont, Norman

Ridsdale, E. A.

Whitbread, Howard

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) '

White, George (Norfolk)

Lea. HughCecil (St. Pancras, E.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Whitehead, Rowland

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral) Levy, Maurice

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Robinson, S.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Levy, Maurice

Robinson S.

Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

1678

1679

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

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

Wood, T. M' Kinnon

Pease.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, 8.)

Yoxall, James Henry

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ambrose, Robert

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fardell, Sir T. George

Meagher, Michael

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Farrell, James Patrick

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ashley, W. W.

Ffrench, Peter

Mooney, J, J.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Field, William

Morpeth, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Baldwin Alfred

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murphy, John

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Flynn, James Christopher

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster. Henry William

Nolan, Joseph

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary, Mid

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Gilhooly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Ginnell, L.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gordon, J (Londonderry, S.)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

Gordon. Sir W. Evans-(T'rHam.)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Haddock, George R.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Halpin, J.

O'Doherty, Philip

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hambro, Charles Eric

O'Hare, Patrick

Blake, Edward

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Boland, John

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon N.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

O'Malley, William.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Harwood, George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brodie, H. C,

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bull, Sir William James

Hayden, John Patrick

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hazleton, Richard

Partington, Oswald

Burke, E. Haviland-

Healy, Timothy Michael

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlingtn)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury SE dm'ds)

Percy, Earl

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Henry Staveley(Staff'sh)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hogan, Michael

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Cave, George

Hunt, Rowland

Reddy, M.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Chance, Frederick William

Keswick, William

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Kilbride, Denis

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Condon, Thomas Joseph

King. Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Seely, Major J. B.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Sheehan Daniel Daniel

Courthope, G. Loyd

Law. Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Smth, Abel H. (Hertford East)

Cowan, W. H.

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants., Fareham

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Cox, Harold

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Starkey, John R.

Crean, Eugene

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cross, Alexander

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Lundon, W.

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Delany, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thornton, Percy M.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Macpherson, J. T.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dillon, John

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Turnour, Viscount

Dolan, Charles Joseph

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Vincent Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Doughty, Sir George

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Kean, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duncan, Robert(LanarkGovan

M'Killop, W.

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

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

1680

1681

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

.TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

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

Young, Samuel

Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

Younger, George

Viscount Valentia.

MR. ASHLEYsaid that the Amendment he now moved was that a teacher employed in a public elementary school should be allowed to be present during the time allotted for special religious instruction for the purpose of maintaining discipline. This Amendment was, perhaps, not so important as others which had been discussed, but it was still substantial. In regard to the schools under clause 4 and the old board schools, no difficulty would arise, because the teacher in that case would give the instruction; but there would be a difficulty in the case of schools under Clause 3 where denominational instruction was to be given on two days in the week. Unless the teacher were allowed to be present during the time that religious education was given the discipline of the school would suffer. Therefore he thought the teacher ought to be present to maintain that discipline. The religious instruction would be given by the vicar, the Nonconformist minister, the curate, the parish worker, or perhaps by a perfect stranger, and although they all must agree that in many cases these people would be able to maintain discipline, yet there would be many cases in which they could not do so. Under Clause 3, two forms of religious teaching were to be allowed and the danger of that state of things was obvious. The Committee ought to have some enlightenment as to whether the inspector of the Board could or could not come into a school where religious instruction was being given. If the inspector could come in why could not the teacher also be present. He begged to move his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 13, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'may be present during the time allotted for special religious instruction for the purpose of maintaining discipline, hut.'"—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed,"That those words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid that the Amendment provided that the temporal power should be present during the time that religious instruction was being imparted; in other words, that the man with the stick should be there. There was nothing in the clause which prohibited the teacher from being present while religious instruction was going on, and he did not think that it was necessary to insert in the Bill an obligation upon the school teacher to be present. He might be engaged in giving another kind of religious instruction elsewhere.
LORD R. CECIL: Then he may be there?
MR. BIRRELLreplied that of course he might be there. It was entirely a matter of arrangement and not one for statutory declaration. He had no doubt the teacher who had to look after the character of his own school would see that he was occasionally present, until such time as these young and unruly persons could be brought to bear religious instruction at the hands of their pastors and masters. He did not think there was any necessity for the insertion of the words. He did not think moreover that the inspectors of the Board of Education had anything to do with this religious instruction. He thought that religious intruction was a very important thing in connection with these schools, and he would be glad if their inspectors were able to give them reports as to the way in which the religious education was conducted. He thought the teachers would be better for the criticisms of the inspector, but the latter had no locus standi to visit the schools when religious instruction was being given.
MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)inquired how, if the inspector might not be present, the clause was going to be carried out.
MR. BIRRELLdid not think the presence of the inspector during the hour

1683
of religious instruction was in any way necessary to secure full effect being given to the clause. If a teacher gave the religious instruction of a special character which the clause prohibited him from giving, he would be doing an illegal act, and the local education authority could deal with the matter. The inspectors of the Board of Education had never had devolved upon them the duty of inspecting religious education in the schools.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid it appeared that the ordinary teacher must not even strike the tuning fork for the purpose of religious instruction, and what he wanted to know was whether there ought not to be some Archbishop of Cowper-Templeism who would decide whether the unfortunate religious teacher was doing right or wrong. He wanted to put a particular case. Supposing a perfectly conscientious teacher was giving instruction which he thought carried out the provisions of Cowper-Templeism, and the local authority said that it was not the Cowper-Temple form of religion. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the inspector was never going to be present and that it was not his duty to be present. The teacher might be an atheist, and who was to judge between the local authority and him? If there would not be any judge he wanted to know what was the value of this clause. He put that question to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite who thought that they were getting relief from the terrible Church of England. This was really an attempt to blindfold the devil in the dark. The teacher might teach what he liked, and if there was any dispute between the teacher and the local authority and there was nobody to judge, he thought that the last state would be worse than the first.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not know how the hon. Gentleman was going to end his speech or he would have intervened sooner. They wore not dealing with the question of Cowper-Templeism nor even of the supervision of the Church of England. They were dealing with the question of whether teachers should or should not give instruction of a special character, and the Amendment proposed that the teacher should be present at the
1684
religious instruction for the purposes keeping orders only.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid his point was that if the ordinary teacher might not be present and the superior authority was not to be represented what was the value of this clause? It was entirely new to-him that the State was not going to supervise the carrying out of the provisions of the clause.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that religious instruction was no new thing. It had gone on since 1870, and the inspectors of the Board of Education had never had devolved upon them inspection of the religious instruction in the schools. They had never said anything about it and had never criticised it in any way, and under that system Cowper-Templeism had gone on pretty satisfactorily and was likely so to go on.
THE CHAIRMANsaid they were not talking about Cowper-Templeism at all, They were dealing with religious training of a special character.
LORD R. CECILsupported the Amendment, which he thought would prevent a hostile education authority from forbidding the attendance of the teacher during the hour of religious instruction and so adding further weight to the burden which denominational religion would have to bear under this Bill. They wished to take care by the Amendment that the religious instruction accorded by the religious teacher should not be regarded with dislike and disapproval by the parents of the children to whom it was given. The teaching of religion might he handed over to someone who might injure the school, and their contention was that the teacher should be allowed to be present to keep order and to show by his presence that he did not disapprove of this teaching. He attached great importance to the Amendment, though he had given up all hope that any justice or generosity would come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He had entered upon this discussion with some hope that justice would be done, but he had been disappointed. The local education authority might do their best to keep the teacher out, so that the lesson would probably be given under

1685
circumstances which would render it of no importance or effect.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 105; Noes, 375. (Division List No. 182.(

AYES.

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Anstruther, Gray-Major

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, Esat)

Nolan, Joseph

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Ginnell, L.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.

Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

Baldwin, Alfred

Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

Haddock, George R.

Percy, Earl

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Hambro, Charles Eric

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hammond, John

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Remnant, James Farqhuarson

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Healy, Timothy Michael

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staffs'h)

Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Starkey, John R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cave, George

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf' dUniv.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

King. Sir Henrv Seymour(Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

Valentia, Viscount

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

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter Dublin, S.

Verney, F. W.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lowe, Sir Fancis William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cross, Alexander

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Dalrymple, Viscount

M'Calmont, Col. James

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

Doughty, Sir George

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'gh,W.)

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

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

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Middlemore, John Throgmorto n

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Mr.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Ashley and Mr. George Faber.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Bertram, Julius

Cawley, Frederick

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Chance Frederick William

Alden, Percy

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Channing, Francis Allston

Allen, Charles P, (Stroud)

Billson, Alfred

Cheetham, John Frederick

Armitage, R.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Black Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Blake, Edward

Clarke, C. Goddard

Astbury, John Meir

Boland, John

Cleland, J. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)

Clough, W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Brace, William

Clynes, J. R.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Branch, James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Barker, John

Brigg, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S.P ancras, W

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brodie, H. C.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Barnard, E. B.

Brooke, Stopford

Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Barnes, G. N.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Beale, W. P.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Cowan, W. H.

Beauchamp, E.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Crean, Eugene

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Cremer, William Randal

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Crombie, John William

Ball, Richard

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crosfield, A. H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, William J.

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Cullinan, J.

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

Byles, William Pollard

Dalziel, James Henry

Bennett, E. N.

Cairns, Thomas

Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hogan, Michael

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)-

Delany, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

Hooper, A. G.

Morrell, Philip

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

Morse, L. L.

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Murray, James

Dillon, John

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Myer, Horatio

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Napier, T. B.

Dodd, W. H.

Hyde, Clarendon

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nicholls, George

Donelan, Captain A.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Duckworth, James

Jackson, R. S.

Norman, Henry

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jenkins, J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nuttall, Harry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W)

Ellis, Rt, Hon. John Edward

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

Erskine, David C.

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, T P (Liverpool)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Doherty, Philip

Essex, R. W.

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Hare, Patrick

Evans, Samuel T.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kilbride, Denis

O'Malley, William

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Laidlaw, Robert

Parker, James (Halifax)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Partington, Oswald

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert, George

Paulton, James Mellor

Ferens, T. R.,

Lamont, Norman

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Ffrench, Peter

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Field, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Perks, Robert William,

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras. E.

Philipps, Col Ivor(S'thampton)

Findlay, Alexander

Leese, Sir Josoph F.(Accrington

Philipps, J Wynford(Pembroke

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Fuller, John Michael F.

Levy, Maurice

Pirie, Duncan V.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lewis, John Herbert

Pollard, Dr.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Power, Patrick Joseph

Gilhooly, James

Lough, Thomas

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

Gladstone. Rt Hn. Herbert John

Lundon, W.

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Gill, A. H.

Lupton, Arnold

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

Glendinning, R. G

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Radford, G. H.

Glover, Thomas

Lyell, Charles Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lynch, H. B.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Grant, Corrie

Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Reddy, M.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Redmond, John E (Waterford)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Redmond, William (Clare)

Grove, Archibald

Maopherson, J. T.

Rees, J. D.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

Renton, Major Leslie

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal,E.)

Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Callum, John M.

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

Hall, Frederick

M'Crae, George

Richardson, A.

Halpin, J.

M'Kean. John

Rickett. J. Compton

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Ridsdale, E. A.

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Killop, W.

Roberts, Charles H.(Lincoln)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Harwood, George

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

Roberts, John H (Denbighs)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robertson, Rt, Hn. E. (Dundee

Haslam, Lewis (Honmouth)

Maddison, Frederick

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Haworth, Arthur A.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Robinson, S.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marks, G Croydon(Launceston)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Hedges, A. Paget

Marnham, F. J.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Helme, Norval Watson

Meagher, Michael

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

Menzies, Walter

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Henry, Charles S.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Rose. Charles Day

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S,)

Molteno, Percy Alvort

Rowlands, J.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Mond, A

Russell, T. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rutherford, V. H-(Brentford)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Montgomery, H. H.

Samuel, Herbert L(Cleveland)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Mooney, J. J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

1688

1689

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Sullivan, Donal

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Summerbell, T.

Weir, James Galloway

Sehwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Sutherland, J. E.

White, George (Norfolk)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Sears, J. E.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Seddon, J.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Whitehead, Rowland

Seely, Major J. B.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Shackleton, David James

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,!?.)

Whittaker, Sir Thoma3 Palmer

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Wilkie, Alexander

Shipman, Dr. John G-

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Thorne, William

Wills, Arthur Walters

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Tomkinson, James

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

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Torrance, A. M.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Snowden, P.

Toulmin, George

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

Soames. Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Spicer, Albert

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Winfrey, R.

Stanger, H. Y.

Walsh, Stephen

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Walters, John Tudor

Young, Samuel

Steadman, W. C.

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wardle, George J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Pease.

Strauss, E -A. (Abingdon)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Stuart, James) Sunderland)

Watt, H. Anderson

MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the Amendment he now moved was intended to extend to the teachers the same religious liberty on week days that sub-section (2) extended to them on Sundays. They had heard a great deal about freedom, and abolition of tests, and mandates for the abolition of tests, but his Amendment would give the teachers liberty to do as they liked, and not as the Government liked. The way in which the Government were carrying out their mandate reminded him of the American who said,"We have absolute liberty; everyone does as he likes, and if he won't do it we make him." The right hon. Gentleman said the local authority would be entitled to ascertain whether the teachers were or were not unfitted to give Cowper-Temple teaching, so that the freedom given here was very one-sided. They were not to be free from tests such as Nonconformists desired, but only in such cases where the tests could possibly be of any advantage to the Church of England. There was a good deal of apprehension in the House as to the attitude of voluntary school teachers on the point. He believed that the large majority of school teachers did not wish to be prevented from giving special religious teaching. The Liverpool and District Voluntary School Teachers' Association, which represented over 600 certificated teachers,
1690
had, after very careful deliberation, passed a resolution to the effect that in transferred schools the ordinary teacher should not be precluded from giving religious teaching of a special character. He thought that represented the opinion of voluntary school teachers all over the country. He claimed for the teachers the right to give, or to abstain from giving, religious teaching of a distinctive character. He did not suggest that there should be any compulsion in the matter. He wanted to give the freedom to refuse or to agree to give religious teaching which they thought themselves most capable of giving. He thought that many teachers would find it difficult to adhere to the Cowper-Temple form of teaching. Therefore they ought to be free not only to refuse Cowper-Temple teaching but to give special religious teaching with which they had been familiar for years. It was perfectly absurd to say that by giving to Church schools Church teachers they were interfering with educational progress. If there were more teachers than schools, then they might fail to select the best; but there were not enough certificated teachers to go round, and so this proposal could not interfere with educational progress. It was quite possible that the whole of the children in a school under this Bill might wish the same trained teacher to teach

1691
them who had been giving them this instruction before. But they could not have that teacher unless they put in some Amendment such as he had suggested. Anyone familiar with village life for any considerable period must have observed that there were devoted and earnest school teachers who, although fully qualified by secular qualifications to take a post where they might have got higher remuneration than in a Church school, had consented to forego such an appointment because of their devotion to their own religion. They should consider the effect that such an example would have upon village life, and then they would be able to realise that by depriving hundreds of villagers of advantages like that they would be doing a vast amount of harm and no good whatever. He earnestly begged the President of the Board of Education to seriously consider the amount of harm this clause would do as it stood, and the amount of good that could be done by accepting the Amendment. He begged to move.
I Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 14, to leave out the word 'give,' and insert the words 'be required as a condition of his or her employment to give or to abstain from giving.'"—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
Question proposed,"That the word 'give' stand part of the Clause."
MR. BIRRELLsaid the hon. Member's speech seemed to say over again what they believed to be a misapprehension of the consequences of adopting this Bill. He wished to point out that there was no strict interpretation by law of Cowper-Temple instruction. He thought the hon. Member's dread of local education authorities came with rather an ill grace from him, because he knew perfectly well that so far from desiring to take this view, the difficulty was to get them to take any interest at all in the matter. There was no reason whatever to suppose that they would spend their time going about trying to find out the precise flavour and quality of the religious teaching which was being given by a, really good teacher; all they were anxious about was to see that the school was kept in good order, and that there
1692
was a large average attendance. He would suggest to the hon. Member, who was most fair-minded, that there was no ground for his fear lest the devoted and earnest teacher, who was such an advantage to the village, would be prevented from giving precisely the same religious teaching which he or she had been in the habit of giving, except so far as that teaching was purely catechetical. They did not think they were interfering with the teacher giving sound religious teaching in accordance with his or her convictions. One of the merits of the syllabus of instruction was that in no way did it put any restraint upon the conscience or upon the utility of the teacher, who was able to give without any restriction whatever, that teaching which his or her good feeling would lead him or her to adopt. This Amendment was really bringing up the same facts as the one already disposed of. The Committee had come to a conclusion upon the question of excluding the regular teacher from the task of giving this facility teaching, and they could not consent to an Amendment which would have the effect of throwing open the door to conditions which they could not admit.
MR. CAVEsaid the fact that this clause if passed would silence the teacher was a matter within the knowledge of them all. Devoted men and women had for years past given denominational teaching. This section proposed that they should no longer be allowed to give that form of religious instruction even if they were anxious to give it, and the local education authority desired that they should do so. He did not believe that the majority of the teachers were in favour of this clause. He knew that the Church of England teachers and the teachers of other denominations objected to it. At a meeting of London teachers, at which more than 1,500 of the teachers in London voluntary schools were present, a resolution was passed unanimously strongly protesting against the proposal to forbid the teachers to give denominational instruction and claiming on behalf of every elementary school teacher absolute freedom to give or refrain, from giving any religious instruction whatever, denominational or

1693
undenominational. That resolution showed that 1,500 London school teachers objected to be shackled in this way. Surely there was no harm in allowing them to continue teaching what they had taught before? Again, how were they going to enforce this provision? He did not envy the position of the Board of Education if the Board was called upon to punish a teacher who ventured to give teaching of this kind. They were claiming freedom for the local education authority to prescribe that their teachers; should or should not teach. Clause 3 teaching was to be a legal form of instruction, and all they were asking for was freedom to give what had already been sanctioned by Parliament. They were asking for this for the sake of the children. Surely it was admitted that whatever teaching was sanctioned by law ought to be efficiently given. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had told them that teaching given by outsiders would not be so good as the teaching hitherto given by the teachers in voluntary schools. The teacher had influence over the school, and loomed large in the eyes of the children; he was most likely to succeed in getting a hold over their minds and in instilling into them the principles of religion. Therefore, if they wanted effective religious teaching it should be given by the teachers in the schools. They wanted this matter left in the hands of the local authority, who would make terms with the teacher for giving secular teaching, and might at the same time agree to the terms under which, if willing to do so, he should give religious teaching. Nobody was asking that the State should pay for this religious teaching, and he thought that some such provision as was contained in this Amendment was necessary.
MR. YOXALL (Nottingham, W.)said that in the village schools a pro-
vision like that contained in the Amendment might affect the appointment of teachers. A teacher might be qualified to give secular instruction but he might not be appointed unless he was able to satisfy the local authority that he was qualified to give dogmatic instruction as well. At the back of all this there was also the position of the teacher declining to give any religious instruction at all, but such cases were so few that he thought they might very well dismiss them altogether out of their consideration. His hon. friend desired that religious teaching in the schools should go on. With regard to the single school in the villages the teaching would be the same in the future as it had been in the past.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member seems to be discussing the question which was discussed this afternoon. I understand that the Amendment deals only with a requirement or obligation laid down in the terms of appointment. We must not again enter upon a subject in regard to which a long discussion has already taken place this afternoon.
MR. YOXALLsaid it had been stated that the teachers in voluntary schools as a rule desired to have full liberty with regard to this religious teaching. He wished to point out on the other hand that there were also a great number of people who did not desire that this liberty should be given, and they felt that to give it would interfere with the liberty of a good many other teachers. He could assure the Committee that the teachers generally did not desire this particular Amendment to pass.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 128. (Division List No. 183.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Alden, Percy

Barker, John

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

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

Bertram, Julius

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Armitage, E.

Barnes, G. N.

Billson, Alfred

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Beauchamp, E.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Astbury, John Meir

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Baker Sir John (Portsmouth)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N. E.)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bell, Richard

Brace, William

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Branch, James

Hedges, A. Paget

Partington, Oswald

Brigg. John

Helme, Norval Watson

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Brooklehurst, W. D.

Henry, Charles S.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Brooke, Stopford

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Perks, Robert William

Brunner, J. F. L-(Lanes., Leigh)

Higham, John Sharp

Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Pollard, Dr.

Buokmaster, Stanley 0.

Hooper, A. G.

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset N

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Horniman, Emslie John

i Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Radford, G. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Raphael, Herbert H.

Cairns, Thomas

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Illingworth. Percy H.

Rees, J. D.

Cawley, Frederick

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Renton, Major Leslie

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jackson, R. S.

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Jacoby, James Alfred

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

Clarke, C. Goddard

Jenkins, J.

Richardson, A.

Cleland, J. W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rickett, J. Compton

Clough, W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clynes, J. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett. F. W.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

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

Kekewich. Sir George

I Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

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

King, Alfred John(Knutsford)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Robinson, S.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Cremer, William Randal

Lambert, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Crosfield, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Rowlands, J.

Dalziel, James Henry

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Runciman, Walter

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Lea. Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Schwann., C. Duncan (Hyde)

Dewar. Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

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

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral).

Sears, J. E.

Dodd, W. H.

Levy, Maurice

Seddon, J.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lewis, John Herbert

Shackleton. David James

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lough, Thomas

Silcock. Thomas Ball

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lupton, Arnold

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Snowden, P.

Essex, R. W.

Lynch, H. B.

Soares, Ernest J.

Evans, Samuel T.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Spicer, Albert

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Macdonald, JM.(FalkirkB'ghs

Stanger, H. Y.

Everett, R. Lacey

M'Callum, John M.

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

M'Crae, George

Steadman. W. C.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Kenna, Reginald

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendall

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Findlay, Alexander

M'Micking, Major G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Maddison, Frederick

Strauss, K, A. (Abingdon)

Fullerton, Hugh

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stuart. James (Sunderland)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Summerbell, J.

Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.) j

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Sutherland, J. E.

Gill, A. H-

Marnham, F. J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Menzies, Walter

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

Glendinning, R. G.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Tennant, Sir Edward Salisbury

Glover, Thomas

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, David Alfred Merthyr

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Grant, Corrie

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Thorne, William

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)!

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Torrance, A. M.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hall, Frederick

Murray, James

Verney, F. W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Myer, Horatio

Vivian, Henry

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Napier, T. B.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nicholls, George

Walsh, Stephen

Hart-Davies, T.

Nicholson. Charles N.(Doncast r

Walters, John Tudor

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wardle, George J.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nuttall, Harry

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Watt, H. Anderson

1696

1697

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wiles, Thomas

Winfrey, R.

Weir, James Galloway

Wilkie, Alexander

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

White, George (Norfolk)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Yoxall, James Henry

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Wills, Arthur Walters

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Whiteley and Mr J. A.

Whitley. J.H. (Halifax)

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

Pease.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

NOES.

Abraham, William(Cork, N.E.)

Ffrench, Peter

Nield, Herbert

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

Field, William

Nolan, Joseph

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Balcarres, Lord

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Baldwin, Alfred

Fletcher, J. S.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.

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

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

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

Forster, Henry William

O'Doherty, Philip

Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

O'Dowd, John

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Hare, Patrick

Blake, Edward

Gilhooly, James

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Boland, John

Ginnell, L.

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Haddock, George R.

O'Malley, William

Brodie, H. C.

Halpin, J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Bull, Sir William James

Hammond, John

Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)'

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Burke, E. Haviland-

Healy, Timothy Michael

Percy, Earl

Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hogan, Michael

Power, Patrick Joseph

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Reddy, M.

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Joyce, Michael

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Keswick. William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Chance, Frederick William

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cox, Harold

Lundon, W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Craig Captain James(Down, E.)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal

Craik, Sir Henry

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUni v.

Crean, Eugene

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cross, Alexander

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Cullinan, J.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Valentia, Viscount

Dalrymple, Viscount

M'Hugh. Patrick A.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Delany, William

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Gal way

M'Kean, John

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

Dolan, Charles Joseph

M'Killop, W.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Donelan, Captain A.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Wyndham, Rt Hon. George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Meagher, Michael

Young, Samuel

Duffy, William J.

Meysey-Thompson. E. C.

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Middlemore, Jn. (Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Farrell, James Patrick'

Mooney, J. J.

Bridgeman and Mr. Cave.

Fell, Arthur

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

LORD R. CECILmoved an Amendment, the effect of which, he said, would be to forbid a teacher from giving undenominational as well as denominational instruction. It would put the teacher in the position of not giving any religious instruction at all except under Clause 3. He had listened with attention to the debate with reference to this matter, and had endeavoured to ascertain the objections to the employment of the teacher to give the special
1698
religious instruction under Clause 3. In the first place it was said that if once a teacher was allowed to give denominational instruction they would introduce tests by a side wind. Were they not introducing tests if they allowed a teacher to give undenominational instruction? He did not believe that any hon. Gentleman, except perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, had really made himself acquainted with what undenominational instruction

1699
meant. He would take for illustration the syllabus of the county of Cornwall. It was a very elaborate and highly dogmatic form of religion, and it might be shortly described as the Free Church Catechism put in the form of a syllabus. He did not wish to throw any scorn on the Free Church Catechism, but anyone who had read that document would agree with him that it was highly dogmatic. He found in the syllabus a provision that at a certain stage in the curriculum the scholars were to repeat with suitable explanations the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, and other things. Then he found this note—
"The teacher shall explain the Holy Catholic Church to mean the whole body of Christian people dispersed throughout the world, and the words 'He descended into hell,' to mean that he descended into the unseen world.'"
He would not discuss here whether that was or was not the right interpretation of the words, but it was an interpretation which a considerable number of Christians in this country would not accept, and certainly it would not be accepted without explanation. He did not think hon. Members from Ireland would dispute that proposition. He was not competent to say what all the Members of the Church of England would say, but it was quite plain that the Roman Catholics would not accept the meaning given in the note. Suppose a Roman Catholic applying for a teachership were to say:"I see your syllabus. Am I expected to teach that?""Oh, yes." said the local authority"You are expected, but you may refuse." What was to happen? Was that a test or not? Were they to inquire whether a teacher could or could not teach that doctrine, or were they to accept him without inquiry? In the case of an agnostic or an atheist, how were the to ascertain whether such a person applying for a post held opinions which would prevent him from giving effectively and conscientiously dogmatic teaching such, as was contained in the Cornwall syllabus without submitting the teacher to a test? It appeared to him that under this clause they could not allow a teacher to give Church of England teaching, even though willing, because it would inevitably involve look-
1700
ing about for a teacher who could give that instruction conscientiously. Precisely the same reasoning applied to undenominational teaching. He could not conceive any reason which could come from the Ministerial side of the House which should prompt teachers to give undenominational teaching if they thought it wrong to do so. The argument was brought forward by the Solicitor-General that because teachers would henceforth be State officers they must have nothing to do with denominational religion. Why should they have more to do with undenominational than with denominational religion? It had been argued that to allow teachers to give denominational instruction would be a-hardship on the minority. He had never been able quite to understand why it was a hardship on the minority to allow teachers to give the teaching which they believed to children whose parents desired that the teaching should be given. He presumed it was because it put the children in a better position to receive the instruction they desired than the minority children who did not desire that instruction. There were many who would reject and disapprove of the undenominational teaching. He took for the sake of example the Cornwall syllabus, though there were others much more offensive from the Church of England point of view. Unless they accepted, his Amendment, they were going to say that the children might be taught that syllabus, and in that sense the teaching was endowed by the State Were the Government going to say that it was a. hardship upon the minority to allow the majority to receive from the State paid teacher the particular religious instruction which the majority preferred? If they did, he submitted that as a mere matter of logic and justice, that position was absolutely indefensible. If they insisted upon forbidding the teachers in the Church of England schools to give teaching which they believed in and in which the children believed, the Government were bound also to forbid teachers-to give undenominational teaching. Otherwise, they would be endowing a. particular form of religion with State funds, and the people of England would understand what the Government were doing. [MINISTERIAL dissent.] He did

1701
not expect to convince hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he did expect to make some of them uncomfortable. He had had the advantage of discussing this matter with some of the voluntary school teachers, and many of them told him that they were anxious to teach the religion in which they devotedly believed, and which the children were anxious to receive; and these teachers also informed him that the religious instruction which the children received was the only barrier between them and sin and crime. He demanded justice and equal treatment for all religions. If they forbade the teachers to give denominational instruction, then they were bound equally to deny the same privilege to the undenominational teachers.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out in Sub-section 1 all the words after 'instruction' in line 14 to the words 'under this Act' in line 17.'"
Question proposed,"That the words proposed be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the arguments in favour of sub-section (1) which had been put forward that afternoon had not been believed in by those who put them forward. Amongst others the speech of the Solicitor-General appeared to him to be equally lacking in logic and in taste. It was as offensive as it could be to those who happened to differ from the Government. It showed clearly that hon. Gentlemen opposite objected not to dogma, but to the Church of England. It was an I outrage both to the teachers and to the parents of the children that the teachers should be prevented from teaching that which they were prepared to teach and which the children were prepared to receive. The measure of liberty left by the Bill was not sufficient. It was utterly inadequate; but it was a measure of liberty so far as it went. According to the speech of the Minister for Education it permitted full Church of I England teaching to be given provided the schoolmaster abstained from mentioning the Church Cathechism. If the right hon. Gentleman was right in his interpretation,
1702
that was a considerable measure of liberty and he did not wish it to be restricted, but he objected to the way in which, it was put. It would sometimes lead to evasion on the part of the teachers if they were to be allowed to teach the most orthodox doctrine of every denomination provided they refrained from using the formularies of that denomination. He did not wish to restrict what liberty was given and, therefore, while agreeing with much that had been said by his noble friend, he was not able to support the Amendment.
MR. STUARTsaid he very much doubted whether this Amendment was in order, because the Committee had, at an early period of the discussion on this Bill, decided against secular education. If the Committee would look for one moment they would see that the result of carrying this Amendment would be that in all provided schools there would be no religious teaching at all, because it was not possible to give religious undenominational teaching except through the master of; the schools. The only schools in which religious teaching would be given would be those which had facilities under Clauses 3 and 4.
LQRD R. CECIL: Why would it be impossible to give religious teaching in the provided schools?
MR. STUART: Because there was only an arrangement under Clauses 3 and 4 for giving the denominational religious teaching which had existed before. He very much doubted whether this was strictly in order, and it was only on account of the Deputy-Chairman allowing it to proceed that he felt it must be in order. He wished to point out, however, that the Committee had decided at an early period of the discussion on this Bill against secular education.
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that he had spent a day in looking through, the syllabuses of the different education authorities, and he should like to know what was the religion of the Dowager Lady Tweedmouth. The point was of immense importance to Bath, because that lady was to distribute the prizes for religious knowledge to the Bath children.

1703
All these syllabuses involved some form of dogmatic teaching, and the teacher who observed them must have passed some form of religious test. There were some extraordinary things in these syllabuses of a most controversial kind. In a syllabus for the North Riding of Yorkshire amongst the orders to the teachers was one which said—
"It is sometimes said that in a, council school no religious teaching corresponding to such an ideal can be given."
What was the ideal? The same syllabus went on to say—
"It is historically true that the plain and practical Bible teaching which can be given and often is given in such schools is a powerful factor in the formation of the character of the people. History shows that in the days when our nation has been greatest the Bible has been an inspiring force as a record of God's dealing with man, as a revelation of what God is to man, and what man is to God."
He should like to ask any hon. member present whether he could deny that that involved some form of dogmatic teaching. He was dealing with this matter with a profound feeling of respect, and his object was to show that this was dogmatic teaching, and the very reason why it inspired him with respect was that it was dogmatic. Under the Barrow-in-Furness Council there was a long list of things to be taught and most admirable they were; in fact they constituted a much more complete religious education than ever he got himself in a Catholic school. He agreed that everything depended upon the spirit in which the religious teaching was given. He would like to ask how they were going to get their religious teachers without tests of some kind? In the Barrow-in-Furness syllabus it was provided—
"In the Old Testament lesson the lives of persons who are considered to be types of Christians and prophetic allusions to the coming of our Lord should be carefully explained and impressed upon the children."
How could any man who was not a believer in some form of religion explain the Bible to the children with regard to the coming of our Lord. How was it to be done? And yet the Committee was told that in Barrow-in-Furness they did not need any tests for teachers. What did it all mean? He perused the syllabuses with the greatest respect for the men who drew them up. He thought
1704
they did such men infinite credit, but he said that they necessarily led to dogmatic teaching. He admitted that the Government had a difficult problem in trying to reconcile the various divisions of the Protestant Church into agreeing to have some elementary instruction in Christianity combined with secular teaching, and he ventured to assert that this clause in most cases would turn out to be an absolutely dead letter. There was nothing to prevent the teacher teaching what he liked, as all through the day he could make his views about Christianity felt. He would not support the noble Lord's Amendment in the division lobby, because he thought it was better that the children of Great Britain should get Cowper-Temple teaching than no religious teaching at all, and that if this instruction was given reverently it was a great deal better than that no form of religious views should be expressed. But to state that Cowper Temple doctrine did not involve dogma was to state an absurdity. Instead of attacking the State Church the Government were setting up another State Church. He did not see why the Nonconformists were not entitled to do that. It was like a concurrent endowment, provided that they did not interfere with the Roman Catholics and Anglicans. Therefore while he sympathised with the noble Lord he asked him whether he considered it well to try and deprive Nonconformists of the valuable Christian teaching they would get under the Cowper-Temple form so far as it went, and whether those who were Roman Catholics and Anglicans would not be wiser in confining themselves to doing the best they could for their own forms of faith without seeking in any way to infringe on the Christianity of other sects.
ME. BIRRELLsaid the noble Lord wanted to prevent the ordinary teacher from giving a kind of religious teaching for which he had no great liking, but which he need not therefore treat with disrespect. Personally he was anxious that these debates should increase the stock of knowledge of the people as to what was really going on. If people knew more than they did as to what went on in the ordinary Church schools

1705
and in the Board schools they would really feel that the issues involved in these debates were not so terrible as they sometimes were represented. He hoped that the volume containing the syllabuses would soon be published, because he believed they would have the same effect upon others as they had had on the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth, namely, that it would be seen that they had produced no disposition on the part of the majority of county councils in the country to injure the religious teaching of the children. The authorities were anxious under these syllabuses to do the best they could with the children under their charge. The syllabuses made no pretence to divine inspiration, and therefore it was not obligatory on every teacher to treat them as if they were declarations of his own Church. The syllabuses merely indicated the line of tuition the teacher had to take up; they did not interfere with his own spiritual independence, or impose upon him such a serious religious or theological obligation as might be supposed if they were treated as a confession of faith instead of as an indication on the part of the authority as to what it wished to be taught to the children. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the Amendment of the noble Lord had settled the Government, and that they had no answer to it. But the noble Lord had not settled the right hon. Gentleman himself, who claimed the right to differ entirely from him and said he could not support him in the lobby. There again he put it to the noble Lord quite candidly that his Amendments really said the same thing over and over again, namely, to have undenominational schools. But the Government had attempted in the great Protestant schools of the country to allow for a definite kind of religious teaching. He had never used the word"undogmatic" as applied to religion. If they undertook to teach religion without dogma there would be neither a Church of Rome nor a Church of England. The foundations of all creeds were those stupendous dogmas which were taught in every school where religion was attempted to be taught to the children. Personally, he avowed that the Christian teaching which was
1706
given in the schools of the country was dogmatic teaching, and that was the kind of teaching which the Government believed could be taught without giving it that denominational flavour whose object was to attach children at the earliest possible age to some branch of the Church. That was where they differed. The Government believed that this teaching could be given so as not to interfere with a subsequent union with a religious community, so as not to emphasise the points on which Christians differed, but to seek as far as possible to unite their attention on those points upon which Christians were agreed. The noble Lord's speech was in favour of secular education. He for one would always protest against secular education. It would be a monstrous and unfair thing, in order to get out of a difficulty, to compel parents to send their children to a school where they did not receive some form of definite religious instruction. He asked the noble Lord, therefore, to take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and not to continue this tit-for-tat argument. In this Amendment the noble Lord had not the support of his own side. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had made a study of of these syllabuses and who was a devoutly religious man did not wish to prevent the children of this country having some opportunity of getting from the hands of a devout teacher good religious teaching. Nobody did, and therefore he asked the Committee for God's sake not to do anything that would interfere with a good religious teacher giving excellent religious teaching to the children.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought that the right hon. Gentleman had fairly stated the broad views before the Committee. Nobody on the Opposition side of the House had shown any contempt for Cowper-Temple religion and, if they had, a careful study of these syllabuses would have shown them that there was an infinite amount of good religious teaching to be found in them.
ME. LOUGH: You called it municipal religion.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that was so. The form of Christianity approved by the municipalities in which it was taught was emphatically municipal religion and the term was used in no offensive sense. On the other hand, there was a large body of opinion who maintained that it was very desirable that a child should be a member of some religious community, and that he should receive, not only during his school life, but when he went out in life, the teachings of that denomination. He regarded the noble Lord's Amendment as a reductio ad absurdum, and he could not say that he desired to see it accepted. But it gave a logical form to the proposals of the Government, which as they stood were neither logical nor just.
LORD R. CECILsaid that his Amendment, which had been rightly described as a reductio ad absurdum, had been moved more in order to see what was to be said against it than to see it carried. In fact, he did not think he should like to see it carried. He was satisfied with the very moderate argument that had been urged against it. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? The right hon. Gentleman said—" We must have some religion, but we must have a religion which is not confined to any particular denomination." Many hon. Members supporting the Government took the view that it was not a necessity to be a member of a definite religious body, and that, therefore, it was not essential to teach the children that it was part of their duty as Christians to be members of a definite Christian body. The view of many on the Opposition side, however, was that it was essential, if children were to be brought up as Christians, that they should belong to a definite religious body. [An HON. MEMBER: Which?] It did not matter half so much which, so long as the child belonged to one definite body. He did not believe they would find one in ten of the devout Christians of the country who did not belong to one 01 other of the Christian bodies. The point, however, on which the Opposition differed from most Nonconformists was not as to whether the child should be s member of a Christian body, but whether
1708
it was essential that the main part of its-Christianity should be taught in the public elementary school.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he was afraid the noble Lord was not speaking to the Amendment.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was carried away by the desire to explain the views he held on this subject. He would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALCARRESmoved to omit Sub-section 2. The President of the Board of Education, in his speech to a deputation from the Jewish community, said the intention of Clauses 4 and 7 was that the teachers should remain the same as they were, viz., those who were most qualified to give the particular religious instruction which had hitherto been given in the schools. Since then the right hon. Gentleman had stated in the House that that would apply to the next generation, of teachers as well as the existing body of teachers. He had also repeated that he adhered to the statement made to the Jewish deputation. He wanted to know how the right hon. Gentleman's hope was to be realised that the schools should go on substantially as now under full denominational facilities in conjunction with Sub-section (2); and how the denomination or managers, or whoever was responsible for these facilities, in the future would be enabled to ensure that the teachers would be invested with the same rights and status. So far as he was concerned, he had not the smallest objection to saying that a teacher should not be required to subscribe as a condition of his appointment to any religious creed; but he would point out that the provision in the sub-section was not inconsistent with inquiry into the capacity of the teacher to give religious instruction in the Roman Catholic or Church of England faith in order to ensure that he was competent to carry out those particular duties. He desired to have a precise declaration from the Government as to how far the clause carried out the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman both in this House and to the deputation of the Jewish, community.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 20, to leave out Subsection (2)."—(Lord Balcarres.)
Question proposed,"That the words 'A teacher employed' stand part of the clause."
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that Clause 6 was a great step in the direction of secular education, and taking that clause and Clause 7 as they stood, they would have no guarantee whatever for the religious character of the schools. In the latter clause the Government attacked the teachers. He was greatly struck with the remark of the President of the Board of Education that the teaching profession was becoming a great secular profession. He had always regarded the profession as having a religious as well as a secular side. Any departure from that tradition would be mischievous, and, if carried beyond a certain point, fatal to the interests of the country. He had no doubt the Government were perfectly sincere in their statement that they wished the education of the country to be religious, but what security was there that that could be effected under this clause? Were they quite sure that the schools would not become purely secular schools? Supposing a master or mistress who was selected declined to give religious teaching, they could not enforce it. It was quite possible that in the days not far distant there would be a great disposition on the part of teachers to take no part in religious instruction. Connected as he was with training colleges, he could say that a feeling of that kind was beginning to exist, and he was afraid it might spread. He was by no means certain that if the clause became law the conduct of the schools on the present lines and according to religious principles would not become most difficult. He also wished to know whether the word"instruction" covered religious observances. He had in his hand the time-table of the Bradford Council, which was common to their schools and to the Church of England schools. It began the day in each case with a hymn and the Lord's Prayer, and closed with a hymn and prayer. At the end of the morning school a blessing was sought on the family dinner, and when the school met
1710
again thanks were given for the bounty of Providence in supplying that meal. He asked whether these religious observances were included in the religious instruction, and whether it would be possible under the clause for a teacher to refuse to perform that dignified office, so beneficial to himself and the children. If he could refuse to do so the school became, to his sorrow, and he believed to the sorrow of the Government also, a purely secular school. It was his strongest desire to avoid such a contingency.
DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)hoped the discussion would not be so prolonged as to preclude discussion of sub-section (4) in which the interests of teachers were involved. Unless an opportunity were given to discuss that I question now there would be no time on the Report stage.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. LOUGH, Islington, W.)did not think the Committee need anticipate that much time would be taken up on this sub-section. So far as he could gather, the noble Lord was not against it, and, in fact, he hardly knew of anyone who was. The noble Lord had put to him one or two questions in reference to statements made by his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education. He was sure the Committee would not expect him to deal with those statements. They had often been discussed and explained by his right hon. friend, and any further explanation that was required should be asked of the President. As to the sub-section itself he thought it was one of the most simple, most admirable, and least contentious in the Bill, and it could not hut improve the status of the teacher, since no penalty of a professional kind could fall upon him through his not belonging to a particular denomination. No one could deny that the suspicion which teachers had that certain openings in their profession had not been given to them unless they professed a certain creed must have a tendency to encourage a profession of religious belief on the part of those in whose minds it did not exist. The hon.

1711
Baronet the Member for Wigan seemed to suggest that in the practical working of the sub-section it might be difficult for the local authorities to succeed in giving religious instruction. He did not think the hon. Baronet need have any fear. The best answer was that the religious teaching contemplated under the the Bill was now being given in 9,000 of the largest schools throughout the country to 3,000,000 scholars in average attendance, without any difficulty of any serious character having occurred in regard to it. The hon. Baronet asked what certainty there was, but it was very difficult to predict with certainty about anything in this world. But he did not think the sub-section would tax the powers of the local authority more than at present. It was clear in the clause that the teacher was freed from every religious test, and any teacher might say that he did not desire to give any form of religious teaching; he need not even give the Cowper-Temple form of religious teaching if he did not desire to do so. On the other hand the Bill provided for the giving of Cowper-Temple teaching in every school if I/he local authority desired it. He did not think a dilemma would arise if a teacher declined to give this form of religious teaching though the local authority wished it. He admitted that in the case of there being only one teacher such a refusal would create a more difficult alternative, but even then it would not cause any serious difficulty in getting an arrangement made. It seemed to him there would be only two alternatives, one of which would be to select a teacher at the beginning who had no objection to giving Cowper-Temple teaching. [OPPOSITION cries of"That is a test."] Was it not enough to say that in more than half the schools of the country the system was now working satisfactorily?
SIR FRANCIS POWELLwished to know whether the word" instruction" covered religious observance, such as opening with prayer.
MR. LOUGHsaid that was a question of interpretation. In his opinion it would cover what was permitted under Section 14 of the Act of 1870.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Parliamentary Secretary had congratulated himself on having given a satisfactory answer to a comparatively indifferent matter, but he ventured to think this was a matter of importance on which they had received no answer at all. The hon. Gentleman had told them that in many thousands of schools Cowper-Temple teaching had been given with the greatest regularity. He quite agreed, but this clause said that no teacher in future was to be required to give religious instruction, and it was laid down in the Code that the teacher should not be required to perform any duty not connected with the work of a public elementary school. Religious teaching, however, had hitherto been part of the work of the public elementary school, and the teacher's agreement therefore bound him to give that teaching. Under these circumstances it was not a matter for surprise that the difficulty had not yet arisen. But what would happen when the teacher was not required as part of his duty to give any religious instruction? Where was that exemption to be embodied? Was it to be henceforth an extraneous duty, and altogether outside the duties of a teacher in a public elementary school? Had the Parliamentary Secretary ever considered this question, and read the Code in connection with this Bill? Would an agreement requiring the teacher to give this instruction be henceforth an unlawful agreement? Would it be enforceable in a court of law? The relation of the teacher to the local authority was that of employed to employer, but he was not to be required to give any religious instruction. What, then, was the security that any religious instruction would be given? A teacher might say" I am not prepared to give religious instruction." The local authority could not require him to do so. How did the Parliamentary Secretary propose-to meet such a case as that?
MR. LOUGH: If one teacher will not give it another will.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONasked what would happen where there was only one teacher assisted by pupil teachers in a rural school. This exemption of the teacher was a general exemption. It

1713
was very possible, if this feeling against religious teaching prevailed, that there might be three teachers in a school, not one of whom was prepared to give religious instruction. What then? Or supposing a teacher had agreed to give religious instruction and came down one morning and said he had changed his mind and would do so no longer; could the local authority terminate the contract?
Mr. LOUGHsaid that this method of question and answer was not debate. He thought it would be better if the hon. Baronet would develop his argument.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought the hon. Gentleman would consider the clause of more importance if he had studied the Code. Seeing that religious teaching could not be required of a teacher, he wanted to know what security there was that such instruction would be given. He wanted to know what was to happen? He presumed that if any local authority made an agreement with a teacher in which the teacher bound himself to give religious instruction the Board of Education, in the event of dispute arising, would say that the agreement was not binding. If that was so, it was a new departure on the part of the Board of Education. Then he would ask how the clause would apply to contracting-out schools and to certified efficient schools. Would the Board of Education decline to give the Parliamentary grant to the former or would they cease to hold the latter efficient if the managers made an arrangement with a teacher that he should give religious instruction? With the latter part of the clause he was in entire agreement. He had always desired the abolition of tests for teachers where they took the form mentioned in the clause; but, having swept away the actual test, they came to the simple relation of employer and employed, and in ordinary employment it was not called a test if a man was asked whether he was able to perform duties he was engaged to perform. Then he came to schools under Clause 4. Under the Bill the appointment of the teacher was reserved, under all conditions of delegation, to the local authority. But the President of the Board of Education, in
1714
his answer to the Jewish deputation and in his subsequent statement in the House, had stated that in the schools under Clause 4 the teaching would go on precisely as it had done in the past. How was that result to be attained? How was it to be ascertained beforehand whether the teacher whom the local authority engaged was capable of giving the teaching, Anglican, Jewish, Roman Catholic, which was required in Clause 4 schools? Some inquiry must be made. Was that a requirement within the meaning of the clause? If the local authority were to make no requirement, they falsified the assurance given by the Minister for Education, and if they made a requirement, they broke through the bottom of subsection (2) of this clause at once. He wanted to know, too, how it was conceivable that the promise of the Minister for Education to the Jewish deputation was consistent with sub-section (2) of Clause 7—how it was possible to ensure that special religious teaching was given under Clause 4 unless they made such requirement as to religious teaching as this sub-section would render a statutory impossibility. These questions needed an answer, and he awaited the answer with curiosity.
MR. BOWLESsaid he did not wish to add to what he conceived to be the difficulties in which hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House found themselves in regard to the far reaching and fundamental questions raised by his hon. friend. He wished to ask what was the real meaning and effect of this sub-section. A teacher in a public elementary school would be entitled to a certain fixed salary, which would be paid him for teaching all that was required of him, including payment for such Cowper-Temple teaching as he was ready and willing to give in the school. Supposing the teacher refused to give the Cowper-Temple teaching, was he to be docked j of his salary, and if not, what was the effect of this sub-section? If not, the effect would be that his conscience had become, indeed, of a very considerable pecuniary value, inasmuch as by the exercise of his conscientious scruples he would be doing his employer out of three-quarters of an hour of his

1715
valuable services without any pecuniary loss. The hon. Gentleman opposite had said that the abolition of tests would improve the status of the teaching profession. That was an extraordinary statement, for it amounted to this,— that because henceforth no teacher would be bound to teach religion, the esteem in which he was held would be increased. He could not subscribe to that view. In arithmetic, geography, and other branches of secular education they had most exhaustive tests for the teacher. Inquiry was made as to his fitness to give instruction on these subjects, but the Minister for Education had introduced the extraordinary doctrine that on matters of faith and doctrine, which, by his own showing, were of the greatest possible value in our educational system, no questions were to be asked as to the fitness of the teacher to give even Cowper-Temple teaching. The dilemma in which hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches found themselves was a very real and practical one. What was going to happen in the case of a school looked after by the local education authority employing only one teacher, if that teacher refused, as he had a right to refuse, to give the undenominational teaching? Was that teacher to be dismissed? It was plain to his poor intelligence that hon. Gentlemen opposite had not practically considered the full effect of this clause. They were faced at every turn by considerable dilemmas. They had given no answer to the most obvious questions which had been put to them, and the Bill, as it stood, would inflict serious disabilities on men had done nothing to deserve them. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division unless a satisfactory answer was forthcoming.
MR. LOUGHsaid he did not see any difficulty in answering the questions which the hon. Gentleman had put. He though the difficulties had been exaggerated. The teaching of religion would be put, if he might say so, on just the same basis as the teaching of history and geography. [OPPOSITION cries of"Oh, oh!"] They asked the teacher of history and geography if he was competent to teach these subjects, and
1716
they asked the teacher of religion if he was competent in a similar way. What had been complained of by teachers was that however qualified they might be to teach history and geography, and whatever University or other degree they might have obtained, they were not allowed to teach these subjects unless they submitted to a religious test. Now the teacher would be tested in regard to his capability of teaching secular subjects only, and there would be no ignominious test applied to him as in the past. [An HON. MEMBER: Why ignominious?] Well, irrelevant test if they liked. He used the word in no invidious sense. He saw no difficulty in the questions put to him, and would answer them in their order. The first question was, whether it would be a matter of contract between the local authority and the teacher they were employing to give this religious instruction. It would, and they would see that they got a good teacher. The second question was, If there were three teachers and none of them would give the Cowper-Temple teaching which the local authority wanted, what were they to do? The answer was, they would get another teacher to do it. The third question was, Supposing a teacher had been employed to give this religious teaching, and a contract was made, and after that the teacher changed his mind and would not give the teaching, what would the local authority do? Well, they would get rid of him, and they would get a man who would fulfil his contract. The fourth question was, Whether the teacher who gave religious instruction would be in the same position as had been in the past the teachers who were asked to play the organ, a demand which could not be enforced. The answer was that the teaching of religion would be a duty connected with the school and obligatory under the Act, and therefore it could be imposed. The fifth question had regard to tests. It was asked what his right hon. friend meant by his statement to the Jewish deputation that everything would go on as it had before. He was glad to see that his right hon. friend had now entered the House, so he would leave that question to him.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Committee had had a most amiable

1717
explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary of the contents of the Bill and of the policy which lay behind the Bill. But though the explanation was amiable, he thought there was hardly a Member in the House who had not been absolutely stunned by it. They really did not know where they were, and he thought the time had come for the Minister for Education to relieve them from the anxieties into which they had been plunged by the speech of his enthusiastic subordinate. He would not deal with the last question to which the Parliamentary Secretary had referred, the only question which the hon. Gentleman admitted he was incapable Of completely solving—namely, as to the explanation of his chief's answer to the Jewish deputation. That the hon. Gentleman said he would leave to the Minister for Education. Whether the hon. Gentleman would have been wiser to have left some of the other questions to be dealt with by the same high authority it was not for him to judge, but he might mention to the Minister for Education some of the perplexities of mind to which he had been reduced by the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman had explained that religion was in the same scholastic category as history and geography, in the sense that just as the local education authority required the teacher in an elementary school to teach geography and history they were entitled to require him to teach religion; and just as they were entitled to inquire whether the teacher was competent to teach history and geography they were entitled to inquire whether he was competent to teach religion. The hon. Gentleman had further said that he regarded religious tests as either ignominious or irrelevant—he could not make out which adjective the hon. Gentleman preferred.
MR. LOUGH: Religious tests applied to the teacher of history and geography. That was what I said.
MR. A. J. BALPOURsaid he should endeavour to deal with the increasing confusions caused by the hon. Gentleman as well as he could. The hon. Gentleman's argument now was that it was
1718
irrelevant or inconvenient to apply religious tests to a man who was asked to teach geography or history.
MR. LOUGHsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no intention of doing him an injustice. History and geography had been mentioned by an hon. friend behind him, and he had simply used the terms to illustrate the hard position of a teacher who, while fully qualified to teach these two subjects, could get no opportunity of doing so unless he was a member of the Church of England. That seemed to him to be a most intolerable test to apply to a teacher of history and geography. He said further that the various subjects should stand on the same plane.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should try to explain his difficulty to a sympathetic audience. He would take the three subjects that had been mentioned'— geography, history, and religion. If a teacher was engaged to teach these three subjects, it was quite clear that those who engaged him were entitled to see that he could teach them. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the local authority were bound to satisfy themselves that he could teach history, and that he could teach geography. By parity of reasoning the local authority ought to satisfy themselves that the teacher could teach religion. He did not think that was denied by the hon. Gentleman. In that case he could not understand why religious tests should be described as either ignominious or irrelevant. The geographical test was not ignominious or irrelevant; nor was the historical test. Why was religion alone of the three subjects mentioned not to be one to which the ordinary methods of investigation were to be applied before the teacher was engaged? That was his first difficulty. The second of his difficulties was much more serious. The sub-section provided that a teacher employed in a public elementary school should not be required as part of his duties as teacher to give any religious instruction. Those words at first sight seemed plain, but after the explanation of the hon. Gentleman they had become extraordinarily obscure. He said that under the plan of the Government it was part of the contract of the

1719
teacher that he should teach religion. Up to 10 o'clock that evening he thought that a person who entered into a contract to do a thing was required to do it. He now discovered that although the local authority could make a contract with the teacher to give religious instruction, the teacher who had entered into that contract was not to be required by the persons with whom he had entered into the undertaking to carry it out. He was confident he was not misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman. He had endeavoured to give to the Committee what he conceived to be the effect of the hon. Member's words, and he hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would take that opportunity of intervening if he had in any way misrepresented him. He had been asked what was to be done with a teacher who refused to carry out his contract to teach religion. The hon. Gentleman had given two answers. He had said that the local authority must get another teacher. If teacher A refused to carry out his contract, we must have recourse to teacher B. It seemed to him that so far as religious education was concerned that answer was satisfactory. If teacher A refused to give religious teaching, it was clear that the religious wants of the community would be satisfied if teacher B was found who would do the work which A refused to do. Then, however, the local authority had upon its hands two teachers—teacher A, who would not carry out his contract, and teacher B, who until the contrary was proved might be expected to carry out his contract. If teacher B refused, he supposed there would be a third teacher, C. No local authority, with the passion for economy with which all our local authorities were known to be animated, would like to engage two or three men or more to do the work for which one man was adequate. The problem arose, what was to be done if teacher A had been replaced for religious purposes by teacher B or C? The hon. Gentleman, brought face to face with this problem, rose to the occasion and showed the Committee the way out of the difficulty which had been created by teacher A's recalcitrance. He said simply," If teacher A refuses to do what he has contracted to do, get rid of him." That was the policy of the Government which came in on a mandate
1720
to abolish religious tests. Had they come in on a mandate to abolish geographical tests and historical tests? He thought there was a great deal to be said for the policy. He wished the hon. Gentleman had had the conduct of this Bill throughout. According to the hon. Gentleman, geography, history, and religion were three things which teachers were engaged to teach; on every one of them, he presumed, they might inquire into the question of competence, and on each one of them, he presumed, they might dismiss the teacher if he proved to be incompetent. That was a policy against which he had nothing to say. They on the Opposition side, in total ignorance of the policy of the Government in connection with this clause, would have been completely satisfied if, on this sub-section at four o'clock in the afternoon, the Cabinet had announced what they actually meant in this matter. He did not desire—in fact, he disclaimed the idea —that any teacher should be asked to sign a document embodying religious thought It never had been done, he did not think it ever would have to be done, and he for his part had not the smallest objection to its being forbidden by statute. He congratulated the Government on having found an exponent of their policy who had given equal satisfaction to both sides-of the House, and whose speech was a model of precise lucidity, unmistakable in its terms, unambiguous in its general outline, and he congratulated the hon. Gentleman on having made a speech which he could assure him would allay fears and suspicions which had been widely aroused by the less fortunate interpositions of the Ministers near him.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he thought the speech to which they had just listened was rather unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman or of the dignity of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was himself opposed to any tests being required of teachers. If that were so, they might have been spared a good deal of the criticism in which he had indulged. The clause said—
"A teacher … shall not be required as part of his duties as teacher to give any" religious instruction."
That part of the clause was a conscience clause for the teacher, and having regard

1721
to the nature of the syllabus teaching which the education authorities required of their teachers, he thought it was a very necessary and proper clause. The clause went on—
"And shall not be required as a condition of his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed."
Everybody knew that in times past many teachers in schools which received State aid and rate aid were required as a condition of their appointment to belong to a particular denomination. Questions were put to many of the teachers in voluntary schools, and they had to pledge their honour that they belonged to the particular denomination. That was a test of the kind most in people's minds at the last General Election. That was the test which this Bill was intended to abolish, and did abolish. The subsection proceeded—
"And shall not be required as a condition of his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed, or to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school or place of religious worship."
Those words were put in to hit a practice prevailing in hundreds of Church schools, where teachers, no matter what their secular attainments, could only get the appointment by promising to go to church and to play the organ at the Sunday school, and otherwise to act as a kind of lay curate. Eight hon. Gentlemen opposite were completely mistaken if they thought such conditions did not create in the minds of thousands of teachers a sense of indignity and injustice. Therefore, if this clause got rid of that it would be received with satisfaction at least by the Liberal Party in the country. With regard to qualification, he quite agreed that, supposing a man applied for a position as teacher who had in his leisure written agnostical works assailing the authority of the Scriptures, not in the manner in which they were assailed by high dignitaries of the Church, but in a manner calculated to give offence to those who attached authority to the Bible, then he quite agreed it would be undesirable that such a person should be considered by
any local authority as qualified to give the religious teaching contemplated in the syllabuses which had been mentioned. [OPPOSITION cries of: "That is a test."] No, it was not a test. The local authority might perfectly well and safely be left to exercise its own discretion in this matter of the duties which it would impose upon its own teachers. These teachers might, if they desired to do so, protect themselves from any conscientious burden by refusing to give the religious teaching, in which case the local authority would have to find somebody else. In this Christian country it should not be an impossible task to find another person who did not claim this particular conscience clause. But those teachers who were not willing to give the particular teaching required could claim the protection of the conscience clause.
LORD R. CECILsaid he really did not understand what the Government meant. They said in the sub-section—
"A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not be required as part of his duties to give any religious instruction of a special character."
And now they said if he did not give it it he should be dismissed.
MR. BIRRELL: I did not say he was to be dismissed.
MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, you did.
LORD R. CECIL: What do the Government mean?
And, it being half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, "That the words 'A teacher employed' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 416; Noes, 118. (Division List No. 184.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Acland, Francis Dyke

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Alden, Percy

Armitage, R.

Astbury, John Meir

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crean, Eugene

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Cremer. William Randal

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crombie, John William

Har m s worth, RL. (Caithness-sh.

Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hart-Davies, T.

Barker, John

Crossley, William J.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

Cullinan, J.

Harwood, George

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dalziel, James Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Beale, W. P.

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hayden, John Patrick

Beauchamp, E.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hedges, A. Paget

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Delany, William

Helme, Norval Watson

Beck, A. Cecil

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

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

Bell, Richard

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Henry, Charles S.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor(Mon., S.)

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Higham, John Sharp

Bertram, Julius

Dillon, John

Hills, J. W.

Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dodd, W. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Billson, Alfred

Donelan, Captain A.

Hogan, Michael

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Duckworth. James

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Duffy, William J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Blake, Edward

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Hooper, A. G.

Boland, John

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Bolton, T.D.(Derbyshire, N.E.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Horniman, Emslie John

Boulton, A. C. F.(Ramsey)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Brace, William

Ellis. Rt. Hon. John Edward

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bramsdon, T. A.

Erskine, David C.

Hyde, Clarendon

Branch, James

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brigg, John

Essex, R. W.

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bright, J. A.

Evans, Samuel T.

Jackson, R. S.

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Jacoby, James Alfred

Brodie, H. C.

Everett, R. Lacey

Jenkins, J.

Brooke, Stopford

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

Farrell, James Patrick

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Fenwick, Charles

Jones, Sir D (Brynmor, Swansea

Bryce, J.A.(Invernes8Burghs)

Ferens, T. R.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ffrench, Peter

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Buckmaster, Stanley 0.

Field, William

Jowett, F. W.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Joyce, Michael

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Findlay, Alexander

Kearley, Hudson E.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kekewich, Sir George

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Flynn, James Christopher

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kilbride, Denis

Byles, William Pollard

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Cairns, Thomas

Fuller, John Michael F.

King, Alfred John(Knutsford)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Kitson, Sir James

Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Furness, Sir Christopher

Laidlaw, Robert

Cawley, Frederick

Gardner. Col. Alan(Hereford, S.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Channing, Francis Allston

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gilhooly, James

Lambert, George

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gill, A. H.

Lamont, Norman

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Ginnell, L.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Clancy, John Joseph

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Glendinning, R. G.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Cleland, J. W.

Glover, Thomas

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Clough, W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

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

Gooch, George Peabody

Levy. Maurice

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Grant, Corrie

Lewis, John Herbert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lough, Thomas

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Grove, Archibald

Lundon, W.

Cooper, G. J.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lupton, Arnold

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Gulland, John W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

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

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Lynch, H. B.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hall, Frederick

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cory, Clifford John

Halpin, J.

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hammond, John

Maclean, Donald

Cowan, W. H.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cox, Harold

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

1724

1725

Macpherson, J. T.

Pearson, W.H.M.(Suffolk, Eye)

Strachey, Sir Edward

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.

Perks, Robert William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

M'Arthur, William

Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

M'Callum, John M.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sullivan, Donal

M'Crae, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Summerbell, T.

M'Kean, John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sutherland, J. E.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Pollard, Dr.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

M'Killop, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

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

Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

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

Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

M'Micking, Major G.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Maddison, Frederick

Radford, G. H.

Thomas, Sir A(Glamorgan, E.)

Mallet, Charles E.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Thomas. David Alfred(Merthyr)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Thomasson, Franklin

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thompson, J. W.H.(Somerset E

Markham, Arthur Basil

Reddy, M.

Tomkinson, James

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Torrance, A. M.

Marnham, F. J.

Rees, J. D.

Toulmin, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Renton, Major Leslie

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Massie, J.

Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th)

Verney, F. W.

Meagher, Michael

Richardson, A.

Vivian, Henry

Menzies, Walter

Rickett, J. Compton

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wallace, Robert

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walters, John Tudor

Mond, A.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walton, Sir John L (Leeds, S.)

Montagu, E. S.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Montgomery, H. H.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Mooney, J. J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

Wardle, George J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Robinson, S.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Morley. Rt. Hon. John

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Morrell, Philip

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Waterlow, D. S.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Roe, Sir Thomas j

Watt, H. Anderson

Murphy, John

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Murray, James

Rose, Charles Day

Weir, James Galloway

Myer, Horatio

Rowlands, J.

Whitbread, Howard

Napier, T. B.

Runciman, Walter

White, George (Norfolk)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Russell, T. W.

White, J. w. (Dumbartonshire)

Nicholls, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whitehead, Rowland

Norman, Henry

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer i

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Wiles, Thomas

Nuttall, Harry

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

Wilkie, Alexander

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Sears, J. E.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Seaverns, J. H.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Connor James(Wicklow,W.

Seddon, J.

Williamson, A.:

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Shackleton, David James

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

O'Hare, Patrick

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Winfrey, R.

O'Malley, William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk. Mid

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Parker, James (Halifax)

Soares, Ernest J.

Woodhouse Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

Partington, Oswald

Spicer, Albert

Young, Samuel

Paul, Herbert

Stanger, H. Y.

Yoxall, James Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Steadman, W. C.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Pearson, Sir W.D.(Colchester)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Pease.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balcarres, Lord

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Baldwin, Alfred

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

1726

1727

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Nield, Herbert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend]

Boyle, Sir Edward

Haddock, George R.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Brotherton, Adward Allen

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Percy, Earl

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Healy, Timothy Michael

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Campbell. Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hervey, F. W. F(BuryS Edm'ds

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Remnant, James Farquaharson

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cave, George

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Hunt, Rowland

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Keswick, William

Smith. F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

Starkey, John R.

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. JG(Oxf'dUniv.

Corbett, T.L. (Down North)

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Craig, Capt. James (Down E.)

Long, Col, Chas. W. (Evesham)

Tumour, Viscount

Craik, Sir Henry

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walker, Col. W.H. (Lancashire)

Cross, Alexander

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Dalrymple, Viscount

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Doughty, Sir George

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W.

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

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

Magnus, Sir Phillip

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Fardell, Sir T. George

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Fletcher, J. S.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Viscount Valentia.

Forster, Henry William

Nicholson. Wm. G. (Petersfield

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the allotted business to be concluded.
Question put,"That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 364; Noes, 183. (Division List No. 185.)

AYES.

Acland. Francis Dyke

Bellairs. Carlyon

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonport

Buckmaster, Stanley 0.

Alden, Percy

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

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Berridge, T. H. D.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bertram, Julius

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Armitage, R.

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bethell, T.R.(Essex, Maldon)

Byles, William Pollard

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Billson, Alfred

Cairns, Thomas

Astbury, John Meir

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Causton, Rt, Hn. Richard Knight

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E

Bolton, T. D.(Derbyshire, N.E.

Cawley, Frederick

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Charming, Francis Allston

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brace, William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barker, John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R,

Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

Branch, James

Churchill, H Winston Spencer

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brigg, John

Clarke, C. Goddard

Barnard, E. B.

Bright, J. A.

Cleland, J. W.

Barnes, G. N.

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Clough, W.

Barron, Rowland Hirst

Brodie, H. C.

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.

Beale, W. P.

Brooke, Stopford

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbo'rne

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes. Leigh

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

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

Beck, A. Cecil

Bryce, Rt. Hn. Jas. (Aberdeen)

Cooper, G. J.

Bell, Richard

Bryce, J.A (Inverness Burghs)

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henderson, J.M (Aberdeen, W.

Mond, A.

Cory, Clifford John

Henry, Charles S.

Montagu, E. S.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Montgomery, H. H.

Cowan, W. H.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cremer, William Randal

Higham, John Sharp

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Crombie, John William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Crosfield, A. H.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Cross Alexander

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Crossley, William J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murray, James

Dalziel, James Henry

Hooper, A. G.

Myer, Horatio

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset N.

Napier, T.B.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horniman, Emslie John

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nicholls, George

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norman, Henry

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dickinson, W. H. (St Pancras N.

Jackson, R. S.

Nussey, Whomas Willans

Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nuttall, Harry

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jenkins, J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Dodd, W. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Duckworth, James

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Partington, Oswald

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

Paul, Herbert

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Paulton, James Mellor

Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kearley Hudson E.

Pearce William (Limehouse)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kekewich Sir George

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kincaid-Smith Captain

Pearson, W.H.M(Suffolk, Eye)

Erskine, David C.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Perks, Robert William

Essex, R. W.

Kitson, Sir James

Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton

Evans, Samuel T.

Laidlaw, Robert

Philipps, T. Wynford(Pembroke

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lambert, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Fenwick, Charles

Lamont Norman

Pollard, Dr.

Ferens, T. R.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St, Pancras, E.)

Price, Robert John (Norfork. E.

Findlay, Alexander

Leese, Sir J. F. -(Accrington)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Foster, Rt, Hon. Sir Walter

Lever A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Radford, G. H.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Rainy, A. Holland

Fuller, John Michael F.

Levy, Maurice

Raphael, Herbert H.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rees, J. D,

Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S

Lough, Thomas

Renton, Major Leslie

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lupton, Arnold

Richards, Thomas (WMonm'th

Gill, A. H.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mton)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richardson, A.

Glendinning, R. G.

Lynch, H. B.

Rickett, J. Compton

Glover, Thomas

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Gooch, George Peabody

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Grant, Corrie

Maclean, Donald

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, Sir G Scott(Bradford

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Arthur, William

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Grove, Archibald

M'Callum, John M.

Robinson, S.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

M'Crae, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Gulland, John W.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Roe, Sir Thomas

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Rogers F. E, Newman

Hall, Frederick

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

Rose, Charles Day

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

M'Micking, Major G.

Rowlands, J.

Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Maddison, Frederick

Runciman, Walter

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Russell, T. W.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Hart-Davies, T.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launcest'n

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Harwood, George

Marnham, F. J.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Schwann, Sir C.E(Manchester)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Massie, J.

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Menzies, Walter

Sears, J. E.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seaverns, J. H.

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seddon, J.

Helme, Norval Watson

1730

1731

Shackleton, David James

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

White, George (Norfolk)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

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

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

White, Luke(York, E. R.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Thomasson, Franklin

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Tomkinson, James

Wiles, Thomas

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Torrance, A. M.

Wilkie, Alexander

Snowdon, P.

Toulmin, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Soares, Ernest J.

Verney, F. W.

Williamson, A.

Spicer. Albert

Vivian, Henry

Wills, Arthur Walters

Stanger, H. Y.

Walker, H. De R.(Leicester)

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Wallace, Robert

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Steadman, W. C.

Walsh, Stephen

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Walters, John Tudor

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Winfrey, R.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk Mid

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wardle, George J.

Wood, T M'Kinnon

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Hudd'rsfi'd

Summerbell, T.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Yoxall, Thomas Henry

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Waterlow, D.S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Watt, H. Anderson

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pease.

Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

Weir. James Galloway

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitbread, Howard

NOES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

Craig, Captain Jas. (Down, E.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

Ambrose, Robert

Craik, Sir Henry

Hill, Henry Staveley(Staffordsh

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Crean, Eugene

Hills, J. W.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cullinan, J.

Hogan, Michael

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Aubrey-Fletcher Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Delany, William

Houston, Robert Paterson

Baldwin, Alfred

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Hunt, Rowland

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

Dillon, John

Joyce, Michael

Banbury. Sir Frederick George

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Donelan, Captain A.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Doughty, Sir George

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Keswick, William

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Duffy, William J.

Kilbride, Denis

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Blake, Edward

Fabe, George Denison (York)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Boland, John

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

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Boy'e, Sir Edward

Farrell, James Patrick

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Bridgeman, W, Clive

Fell, Arthur

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Ffrench, Peter

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bull, Sir William James

Field, William

Lundon, W.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Burke, E. Haviland-

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Fletcher, J. S.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Flynn, James Christopher

Macpherson, J. T.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Forster, Henry William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Cave, George

Gilhooly, James

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

Ginnell, L.

M'Kean, John

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon, J. (Londonderry South

M'Killop, W.

Cecil, Lord John J. Joicey-

Gordon, Sir W Evans-(T'rH'mlts

Magnus, Sir Philip

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Haddock, George R.

Marks. H. H. (Kent)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.)

Halpin, J.

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

Hammond, John

Meagher, Michael

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

Hardy, Laurence(Kents, Ahford

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mooney, J. J.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Healy, Timothy Michael

Morpeth, Viscount

Cox, Harold

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

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

1732

1733

Murphy, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G.(Oxf'dUniv

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Thomson, W. Mitchell(Lanark)

Nield, Herbert

Ratclff, Major R. F.

Thornton, Percy M.

Nolan, Joseph

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Turnour, Viscount

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid.

Reddy, M.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Redmond, John E(Waterford)

Wolker, Col. W. H. (Lancash.

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

White, Patrick (Heath, North)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Williams, Col. R. Dorset, W.)

O'Doherty, Philip

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

O'Hare, Patrick

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

O'Malley, William

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Young, Samuel

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Younger, George

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Starkey, John R.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Sir

Percy, Earl

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Alexander Acland Hood and

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Sullivan, Donal

Viscount Valentia.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, and agreed to.

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported: "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of an additional annual grant, not exceeding £1,000,000, to be distributed among local education authorities in pursuance of any Act of the present session to make further provision with respect to education in England and Wales, and of the remuneration and expenses of the Commissioners appointed under such Act."
Resolution read a Second time.

GREAT NORTHERN (IRELAND) AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
Read a second time, and committed.
MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)said that in moving the Instruction which stood in his name, it was necessary, for the information of those Members
1734
who are not acquainted with the circumstances, that he should state the reasons why he and his colleagues thought it should be adopted by the House. In the first instance he would deal with the objection which the promotors raised. The railway companies urged that it would be unfair on the part of the House to dictate to a limited liability company as to how it should appoint its clerical staff. The answer to that was obvious. Railway companies came to this House for powers, privileges, and monopolies, and this House had a perfect right when conferring such monopolies to attach any restrictions and conditions it might think fit. The powers conferred were not in the nature of a gift. They were a public trust; and it was not only the right but the duty of Parliament to see that the trust was exercised wisely and to the public interest. He should show that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland had not used its trust, so far as its appointments were concerned, either wisely or in the public interest, and upon that ground they asked the House to restrain this Company from further abusing the trust reposed in it. The second line of defence was that there was no precedent for imposing this condition on railway companies. That was true. But if no such condition had been imposed on any English company it was because no English railway company would dare to act as the Great Northern of Ireland had acted, and he had not the slightest doubt that when the House heard the facts it would decide that if

1735
there was no precedent, it would at once create one. In any event, they were dealing not with England where, as he had said, such abuses would be impossible, but with Ireland, and in Ireland there were plenty of precedents, for every important Irish railway except this one had already voluntarily adopted the system of open competitive examinations. What was their complaint? This was a new Parliament, but it was already old enough to have learned, from the performances of the Ulster Unionist Members, that the real reason of the opposition to Home Rule was the fear that their political and religious ascendency in Ireland would pass away. He thought it was Byron who said of Irish landlords that their being, end, aim, existence, was rent, rent, rent; and, paraphrasing that, one might say of the Irish Unionists that their being, end, aim, existence, was jobs, jobs, jobs. Not content with holding nine out of ten patronage appointments under Government in Ireland they controlled the appointments to all the Irish railways and nearly all the banks, which thus became a close preserve of the little ascendency gang; but public opinion asserted itself and the other chief railways thought it wiser to end this bigoted system and to throw their clerkships open to competition. Only a few weeks ago the Nationalist Members had opposed the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill, although his hon. friend the M amber for North Wexford was one of the directors, until the hon. Member and his colleagues agreed to do what they asked the House to compel the Great Northern Company to do now They had no complaint against the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway, and their only reason for taking that step was that they desired to treat all railway companies, whether their directors were Nationalists or Unionists, with absolute impartiality The Great Northern was the only Irish Railway which feared the terrible consequences of competitive examinations. It stood shivering on the brink but was afraid to take the plunge, and he hoped the House would assist it in arriving at a right determination. He had in his possession full details of the salaries paid in all the departments of the company, but he should not weary the
1736
House with details. He might say, however, that in whole departments there was not one official who professed the political or religious faith of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, of the population of the districts through which this railway ran and of its customers. Was not that an extraordinary coincidence? The salaries paid at the Dublin terminus—he did not include the weekly wages of workmen-amounted to £21,130 and only £720 went to officials sharing the predominant religious opinions of the country. At the Belfast terminus, it was the same story; the idolators got £895 out of £7,862; whilst in the manager's office, in the secretary's, in the cashier's, in the engineer's, there was not even one in-individual who did not subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles or their equivalent. There were sixty-eight officials drawing salaries of £150 or upwards, and with one solitary exception none of them could by any possibility be suspected of want of loyalty to the glorious, pious and immortal memory of William the Third. These figures were too remarkable to be accidental, and were strongly at variance with the results of every competitive examination in Ireland. He had read in an Orange paper published in Befast that if their demands were conceded the loyal minority would be driven out of Ireland. Well, if the loyal minority could not stand the test of competitive examinations, it was the only argument he ever heard for their extermination, and he regretted that such an argument should come from a Party that claimed to have two-thirds of the wealth, three-fourths of the patriotism, and an absolute monopoly of the intelligence of the country. He was told that it would be said on behalf of the promoters that they already had competitive examinations, but if that were so, why did they issue the other day a statement to Members of this House to the effect that competitive examinations would be undesirable? Why did they oppose and reject at the last half-yearly meeting of shareholders a resolution for competitive examinations? The Chairman and the General Manager attended a conference summoned a few weeks ago by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and made no such impudent

1737
assertion then. On the contrary, they entered into an agreement with the opponents of the measure to establish immediately such examinations, and within forty-eight hours, with scandalous breach of faith, they repudiated the proposals which they had put forward in their own handwriting. The examinations they held were merely qualifying examinations, subject to nomination; and these were in no sense of the term either open or competitive examinations. The promoters had aggravated that breach of faith by circulating a statement to members setting out that this was essentially a matter for the proprietors, and giving figure, by which they alleged that this demand was rejected by the shareholders. He denied that it was a matter only for the shareholders; it was a matter for the Irish people and for this House; and the figures of the alleged division amounted to a scandalous and wilful falsehood and a deliberate attempt to deceive this House. There was no vote whatever on that Motion, for the simple reason that the Chairman arbitrarily, and to his mind illegally, refused a poll, and the poll, as the promoters well knew, was on the question of bringing forward three Bills in Parliament. As for the claim that the directors should be allowed to disqualify any candidate for general unfitness, they resisted it because they knew how that power would be used. The Civil Service did not claim any such veto, and it was quite unnecessary. The competitive examination would test the youth's intellectual fitness, the medical examination would test his physical fitness, and if he was found generally unsuited he could be dismissed. The only other test that could be applied was that of personal beauty, and he objected to setting up the Great Northern directors as beauty specialists. If it were applied to the management of the line, the general manager might escape, but there would, he feared, be a few vacancies on the board; and, personally, although he could sit in that House, he would under a beauty test be ineligible for a Great Northern clerkship. The remedy they proposed was a very simple one. They asked for neither favour, nor preference, nor ascendancy, for they were net going to destroy one ascendancy in order to establish another; but what
1738
they did ask for was a fair field and no favour, and let the best man win. The whole Civil Service of the country was based on open competition, and despite all the dangers and terrors of that system, the Empire still survived, and was dragged like King Charles' head into every speech that an Ulster Unionist tried to make. Competitive examinations prevailed in all the other Irish railways, and in the Dublin Corporation; and last year, even under a Conservative Government, the Belfast Corporation, when it came to this House, had to accept the principle. Their proposal would remove many abuses, and would inflict no injustice on any human being. They asked the House not to sanction the continuance of a system that was part of a religious ascendancy—an ascendancy, let him remind hon. Members, which pressed upon Irish Nonconformists almost as severely as it did upon Irish Catholics. If an English railway company, with a board of directors who were all Churchmen, resolutely set themselves to exclude Nonconformists from their service, this House of Commons would give them short shrift; and as this was a Parliament that put in the forefront the doctrine of" no religious tests," he felt sure that it would not hesitate to say that it would no longer tolerate the application of religious tests to clerks of this Irish railway company. He begged to move.
MR. DODD (Tyrone, N.)said he seconded the resolution of the hon. Gentleman with much pleasure. He should have thought that the Great Northern Railway would have been only too glad to have accepted such a resolution. If it was asked why this was pressed upon the Great Northern Railway Company he would say it was because it had got a monopoly from the State. Its lines extended over a very large part of Ireland, and it employed a very large number of men. Therefore they thought it was only right that the Nonconformists and Catholics of Ireland should have an equal chance of obtaining employment in that undertaking. He hoped the Instruction would not be opposed. He recognised gratefully the benefits which the railway had conferred on Ireland in opening UD the country, and he was

1739
very desirous that this Bill should be read a second time and passed. He considered the Instruction a reasonable one, although of course they recognised that there were some situations which were above competitive examination as well as others which were below it; but inside those two limits a great company like the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland should not object to such a reasonable suggestion as this. It was a legitimate claim to make that vacancies should be filled by the successful candidates in competitive examinations, and he should have thought it would be a great relief to the company itself not to have to exercise patronage of this kind. Perhaps some hon. Member on the other side would relieve the Committee from the obligation to discuss this matter by giving an undertaking that the railway company would accept the Instruction. Of course they must have a proper undertaking, and he would like the hon. Gentleman who gave it also to say that the proxies at the next general meeting of the company would not be used for the purpose of defeating the undertaking given in this House.
Motion made, and Question proposed." That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause providing that all future appointments to clerkships of the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) and of the Midland Railway in Ireland shall be made only after and as a result of open competitive examinations; that the examinations shall be conducted by two examiners, whose remuneration shall be fixed by the Committee, one of the examiners to be appointed by the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, or the head of any other educational institution, and the other by the Rector of University College, Stephen's Green, Dublin; that the vacancies shall be filled in the order of merit of the candidates, as reported by the examiners, subject to medical examination; and that due notice of such examinations shall be published in at least four Nationalist and four Unionist daily papers in Ireland. —[Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh.]
MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)said the Instruction which had just been
1740
moved was an absolutely unprecedented proposition to place before the House.. When any public company came to Parliament for power to carry out a scheme the questions to be considered were those immediately connected with the scheme itself, and if the House of Commons were satisfied that the company applying for such powers had violated some great principle and had not kept within the powers which they already possessed, they had a perfect right to reject any Bill promoted by that particular ompany. But when a company asked for something which was reasonable, he thought they were entitled at any rate to have the opinion of a Select Committee upon their measure. The case was, however, different with regard to matters which were extraneous and outside the ambition of the Bill itself, and in reference to such matters this House had not been in the-habit of entertaining Instructions. They had now before them a Bill which had passed through the other House, and it was a measure which could not be objected to in regard to its principles or the objects and aims which it sought powers to carry out. The Bill was intended to do good service to the people of County Donegal. It would relieve some of the baronies in that county of their guarantees, and would also hand over a certain sum of money to the Treasury. What the company had to do in return was to take over two little lines in Donegal, both of them having baronial guarantees. These lines were making a little profit, and the Government had advanced money to build them, but in return for this the company undertook to pay to the Government a certain amount of money I in lieu of those profits. Outside this House it would be regarded as intolerable that the management of the private affairs of a company should be dictated by any outside body. This. I Instruction proposed to insert into the I Bill a clause in regard to matters connected with the railway which did not appertain to the public at all. He wished to point out that this company did not profess to provide all these facilities as philanthropists, but as a money making concern. The House was now being asked

1741
to put a restriction upon the control of the company over its own affairs j such as had never been asked for before in Parliament. ["No, no."] Well, he had only heard of one similar instance, and that was in the case of the Belfast Corporation when they were seeking powers to buy the tramways. But what a difference there was between the two cases. The Belfast Corporation were going to use the money of the ratepayers; who had no control whatever in the matter, and they were being compelled to submit to the Belfast Corporation borrowing money upon the credit of the! rates to work the tramways, and, naturally, they asked for a provision to be put in as to the appointment of clerks. In the present case no person was compelled to take shares in the company, and he did not think that the House ought to put upon the management of a distinctly commercial undertaking, such conditions as went beyond anything that had been done before. What was the avowed objection put forward? It was a question of religion. The next time such a measure was brought forward they might have an Instruction moved that the directorate must have upon it a certain number belonging to one Church, and a certain number belonging to another Church, or to some particular Party. When the House was asked to do this kind of thing in the interests of a particular political Party what would be the state of things when another political Party came into power and attempted to reverse the order of things? He, therefore, asked the House to pause before sanctioning the" beginning of a process which it was very difficult indeed to see the end of. In this House Parties changed, and it was not long ago that Parties had changed.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Thank God.
MR. GORDONsaid they might change again before long and then the Nationalist Party would not get everything. If the House was going to allow itself to be carried away from the consideration of important matters by interruptions of that sort when measures necessary for the development of Ireland were brought forward it would be a very great misfor-
1742
tune. It had been stated that certain sums of money had been paid to Roman Catholics. He had inquired into this matter, and the directors informed him that they did not know anything about the matter. [Cries of "Oh" from the NATIONALIST Benches.] It was by interruptions of(that kind that hon. Members below the Gangway hoped to carry this measure through. The directors were men whom the people of Ireland knew very well, and they had assured him that they did not know anything about the accusation which had been made and they had no means of knowing. The appointments were made at the present time by examination, and why should they not be allowed to appoint the best men they could get? Did anyone think for a moment that a body of intelligent men working a large concern like this successfully would fail to get the best men they could because some of them belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and others were Protestants? As business men their first aim was to get the best men they could and obtain the best value they could for their money, and that was what was being done by this company. He was inclined to think that if the Chairman of Ways and Means had been present he would have disagreed with what had been stated by the hon. Member who had moved this Instruction. The hon. Member had stated that the representatives of the railway company entered into an agreement to grant this competitive examination; but what actually took place was that the matter was discussed with the only two representatives of the company who were present, and they stated that although they could not bind the company they I would bring forward a scheme for competitive examinations. [An IBISH MEM-BEE: Nothing of the kind.]
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I was present, and nothing of the kind occurred.
MR. GORDONsaid he was instructed to that effect. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: What is the fee on your brief?] He had inquired, and he had been told, upon authority which he believed, that all that; happened was that these gentlemen made that offer but said they could not

1743
bind the company. There were only two of them present representing the company, one of them the chairman of the company and the other the manager, and how could those two gentlemen bind the whole board of directors or the shareholders? All they said was that they would put it before the shareholders. ["No, no."] That was at any rate what lie was informed actually took place. The directors of the company were perfectly willing and they had themselves put forward a scheme which they were willing to put before a meeting of the shareholders and recommend for their approval. Beyond that they could not go, and he did not think this House ought to ask them to go any further. They were quite willing to give that undertaking. The appointments were made by competitive examination at the present moment. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: They are not.] He thought the directors knew their own business and that was what they had told him. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Then they have instructed you wrongly.] This was a matter which was more within the knowledge of the board of directors. Was it reasonable to insert an Instruction that certain persons outside this House and outside the company should be the persons to appoint the examiners? The terms which the directors were willing to offer were that they had prepared a scheme dealing with the appointment of clerks which they had resolved to submit at the next half-yearly meeting, and they would use their best endeavours to have it confirmed. When the directors said that, he thought that even the hon. Member for South Tyrone would agree with him that they might be trusted to carry out anything which they undertook to do. Surely that statement was not capable of any double meaning.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE): Does that mean that the directors will use their proxies in favour of the scheme?
MR. GORDON: Yes. He was very glad of that interruption, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the
1744
directors intended it to be a real compromise. He would now leave the matter entirely in the hands of the House, and he hoped it would be dealt with as a matter of principle. He hoped the abuse which had been indulged in would not operate upon the House or influence them to do something which would be a great injustice to a great commercial undertaking.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the House would be under some difficulty in dealing with this matter unless they had some authoritative statement on behalf of the railway company. The hon. Member for South Londonderry had spoken with authority, because he had told them that he had spoken from instructions. When the hon. Member rose he entertained the hope that he would have approached this question in an entirely different spirit and that he would have been able to give, not only in the letter, but also in the spirit of his speech some undertaking that they could accept. But the whole spirit of the speech of the hon. and learned Member was a protest against any interference with this company at all. The House of Commons was dealing with a Bill introduced by the company asking for certain powers, and yet the hon. and learned Member spoke of this House as an outside body, and protested against an outside authority interfering in the management of the company. All that they were asking for in this matter was that this company should do what all the other railway companies had already done voluntarily. The hon. and learned Member seemed to be under the delusion that the action of the Nationalist Party in this matter was animated by a desire to have in the employment of this company a certain number of Catholics and a certain number of Protestants. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the object of the railway company was to have the best men possible in the employment. What was asked was that there should be a system of competitive examination which would provide for the engagement of the best men. With reference to the question of the religion of those employed, all he had to say was that it was monstrous for the hon. Gentleman to ask the House o£

1745
Commons to assume that in the employment of this company there could not be found even one per cent, of men of the | religion of the majority of the country fit to carry out the work. [Cries of "No."] Yes; the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech amounted to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was that the company employed the best men they could get. Not one per cent, of these men were Catholics.
MR. GORDON: My statement was that the directors did not know the religion of the men. They do not know whether these figures are correct or not. I entirely repudiate the idea of the hon. and learned Gentleman that I said that.
MR. J. REDMONDsaid he could not see that the interruption of the hon. and learned Gentleman affected his argument. If on examination it turned out that not one per cent, of the men were Catholics, it followed, therefore, that in the opinion of the railway company Catholics were not competent for the carrying out of the work. That was a monstrous assumption to make. All that he and his friends were asking in this matter was that this railway company should do what the Great Southern and Western Company and the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Company had done voluntarily. What was the objection to this railway company undertaking to do what the other railway companies had done? He had hoped that the hon. and learned Gentlman would be able to give an assurance which would have satisfied his hon. friends, but as he had not done so he hoped the Instruction would be pressed to a division.
CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)asked the hon. Member for South Down to withdraw the instruction in view of the assurance which had been given. In many parts of Ireland there was far too little railway communication, and it would be a great pity if this House were to-night to cripple railway communication by passing the Instruction on the Paper, which had really nothing to do with the Bill actually before the House. The Chairman of Ways and Means was absent, but if he had been here, he was
1746
quite sure the hon. Gentleman would have explained to the House that such an Instruction in connection with a Bill of this sort would not in the ordinary course be a proper one to send to the Committee. He thought the assurance given by his hon. and learned friend should suffice to assure the House that so far as this, railway company was concerned there was no desire to do anything which was not perfectly fair and above board. He sincerely hoped the House would treat the matter in a large spirit of tolerance and sympathy. He also hoped that someone on the Front Bench would stats the views of the Government on the matter.
MR. LLOYD-GEOEGEsaid he had hoped that the representatives of the railway company would have met some of his Nationalist friends and that they would have seen their way to deal with what he considered to be the grievance made out in respect of the way in which the Great Northern Railway Company had acted. He confessed that after listening to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman he was completely disappointed. He had understood that the directors of the company were prepared to meet hon. Members in a conciliatory spirit, but, instead of doing so, the hon. and learned Gentleman had made and delivered a speech which made it absolutely impossible for his hon. friends from Ireland to accept the assurance given at the end. In an assurance of that character everything depended on the spirit in which it was made. If the hon. and learned Gentleman represented the directors— and he had good reason to think that he did, not merely inside the House, but outs'de—he must know what was inside their minds, and what were exactly their views on the matter. He had explained their policy in one of the most intolerant speeches he had ever heard in the House. He was not at all surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford was absolutely unable to accept an assurance couched in such language. The facts were perfectly notorious. They were summarised by the hon. Member for South Down in the figures he gave. Of

1747
the £21,130 paid in salaries at the Dublin terminus—exclusive of weekly wages to workmen—only £720 was paid to Catholics. Of the £7,862 paid in salaries at the Belfast terminus only £895 was paid to Catholics. The only answer given by the hon. and learned Gentleman to that very grave accusation as to the way in which the railway company dispensed its patronage was that the director did not know the religion of the men. The railway company knew for weeks that this case was to be investigated when they came to this House for additional powers, and the hon. Gentleman opposite knew perfectly that the charge that was made by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland was true in substance and in fact.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he knew nothing of the kind.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that at any rate the hon. Gentleman had been in full possession of the facts. It was said that this was a very novel proposition, but then they were dealing with very novel circumstances. All that was asked was that the practice which had been initiated by other railway companies should be followed by the Great Northern Company. Under the circumstances he had no option except to support in substance the instruction which the hon. Member for South Down had moved. He proposed, however, to amend the instruction by leaving out the words" after competitive examination" with the view of inserting" held in accordance with such conditions as the Committee may prescribe."
Amendment proposed'—
"In line 5, to leave out the words from the first word 'examinations,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'held in accordance with such regulations as the Committee may prescribe.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George) —instead thereof.
Question proposed," That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR E. CARSONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman who, he supposed, appeared in his position as President of the Board of Trade, although it was difficult to imagine so, had said
1748
that the speech of the hon. Member for South Londonderry was one of the most intolerant he had ever listened to. The right hon. Gentleman was a good judge of intolerant speeches, and he thought he could call to mind many more intolerant speeches than that of his hon. friend which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. The Instruction which had been moved would compel the Great Northern Railway to change their whole method of appointment of their staff when their undertaking was taken over by the Midland Railway. From what he knew of the matter, many shareholders would think that it was not worth while to take over these two baronial railways at the price which the President of the Board of Trade put upon them.
MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): Your days of bullying are over.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not suppose that the hon. Member who made that interruption, which he heard imperfectly, would suppose that any insolence or abuse would affect him.
MR. KILBRIDE: No; we all know you in the coercion courts.
SIR E. CARSONsaid it was perfectly plain to anyone who had followed Private Bills dealing with Irish railways this session that those responsible for the undertakings could not expect to get anything like the fair and orderly treatment which railway companies in other parts of the United Kingdom obtained. He thought the promoters of thes Bills ought to remember that, as in the Rathmines case, the question of bigotry would be the sole question which would be considered. Promoters ought to know that whereas in other cases they would have the Chairman of Committtes expressing his views, in the case of an Irish Bill that hon. Gentleman would run away for fear of having to express any opinion at all. The presence of the hon. Gentleman would have been welcome in this particular case because the discussion had turned upon a conference which was said to have taken place in his presence, various accounts of which had been given by those

1749
interested in it. The railway company had, through the Members who had spoken, made a very fair proposal. They said they had drawn up a scheme for appointment by competition. They would submit it to their shareholders and do their best to get them to accept it. Anyone would suppose that that was a fair proposal, but the President of the Board of Trade had made a speech as if he were sitting below the Gangway instead of trying to bring about some arrangement which should give satisfaction and have regard to the feelings of the shareholders. The truth of the matter was that the President of the Board of Trade looked at this question in a purely partisan way. He cared nothing about the shareholders and directors, and in the great position to which he had attained—which many of them were glad he had attained to— he thought it consistent with his dignity to show that he was only anxious to gain the cheers of hon. Members below
the Gangway. He did not think such conduct was worthy of the right hon. Gentleman in a purely business matter. He believed that if any other railway company had come before the House and said they had formulated a scheme and they thought their shareholders should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it the House would not have hesitated to say that that was a perfectly fair proposal to make. Of course, however, if the House voted for the Instruction the Great Nothern Company would have the opportunity of considering whether they would proceed further with the Bill.
Question put, and negatived.
Words added.
Main Question, as Amended, put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 31. (Division List No. 186.)

AYES.

Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lamont, Norman

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Ambrose, Robert

Evans, Samuel T.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Astbury, John Meir

Everett, R. Lacey

Lewis, John Herbert

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Ferens, T. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Field, William

Lough, Thomas

Barnard, E. B.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lundon, W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Fullerton, Hugh

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Billson, Alfred

Gilhooly, James

Macpherson, J. T.

Boland, John

Gill, A. H.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Brace, William

Ginnell, L.

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Brigg, John

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

M'Crae, George

Brodie, H. C.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kean, John

Brooke, Stopford

Gulland John W.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Bryce, J.A (Inverness Burghs)

Halpin, J.

M'Killop, W.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hammond, John

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

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

M'Micking, Major G.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Causton. Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cheetham, John Frederick

Haworth, Arthur A.

Meagher, Michael

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hayden, John Patrick

Montgomery, H. H.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Healy, Timothy Michael

Mooney, J.J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cooper, G. J.

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

Murphy, John

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

Higham, John Sharp

Murray, James

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Crean, Eugene

Hogan, Michael

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Crosfield, A. H.

Horniman, Emslie John

Nichols, George

Crossley, William J.

Jenkins, J.

Nolan, Joseph

Cullinan, J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Delany, William

Joyce, Michael

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Doherty, Philip

Dillon, John

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Hare, Patrick

Dodd, W. H.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Duffy, William J.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Malley, William

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Rose, Charles Day

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Russell, T. W.

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

Paul, Herbert

Samuel; Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walsh. Stephen

Paulton, James Mellor

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent]

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Watt, H. Anderson

Pirie, Duncan V.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Weir, James Galloway

Power, Patrick Joseph

Seddon, J.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Rainy, A. Holland

Seely, Major J. B.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Reddy, M.

Shackleton, David James

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Whiteley, George (York W. R.;

Redmond, William (Clare)

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Richards, Thos.(W. Monmouth)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wilkie, Alexander

Richardson, A.

Shipman, Dr, John G.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Sullivan, Donal

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Robinson, S.

Summerbell, T.

Captain Donelan and Mr.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Patrick O'Brien.

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Courthope, G. Loyd

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

Montagu, E. S.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Morpeth, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Bridgeman, VV. Clive

Forster, Henry William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Younger, George

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Carson, Rt Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Hills, J. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

John Gordon and Mr.

Corbett, A. Cameron.(Glasgow)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Lonsdale.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert a clause providing that all future appointments to clerkships of the Great Northern Railway (Ireland) and of the Midland Railway in Ireland shall be made only after and as a result of open competitive examinations, held in accordance with such regulations as the Committee may prescribe.
And, it being after half-past eleven of the clock on Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LORD GRAVES (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Report from the Committee for Privileges that Henry Cyril Percy Graves, Lord Graves, Baron of Graves-end in the Peerage of Ireland, had made out his claim as Baron Graves to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and agreed to; and resolved and adjudged accordingly.

LORD GRAVES (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Ordered, That the Claimant do pay all the expenses attending the taking and printing the evidence, and also the cost of the examination of the evidence by an examiner appointed by the Crown Agent.
The Lord Clonbrock took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London Squares and Enclosures Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Bill on being reported should be referred to the Chairman of Committees in order that certain proofs and consents may be given in respect thereof; read and agreed to. The King's consent signified; Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments; and re-committed.
London County Buildings Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
London United Tramways Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill, Reported, with Amendments.
Cheltenham Gas Bill; Metropolitan Water Board Bill; Peterborough Gas Bill; North East London Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Huddersfield Corporation Bill; Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill; Dublin,
1558
Wicklow and Wexford Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
South Suburban Gas Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 15th and 25th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 21st and 25th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 14th and 25th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 26th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 19th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill. Read 3a and passed.
Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill, Waterford Corporation and Bridge Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Trent Navigation Company Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with

1559
Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment.
Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1.) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2.) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.], House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.] House in Committee (according to order). The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made. Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9.) Bill. Brought from the Commons and read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners. (No. 151.)

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools. Of teachers in schools at Shawforth—Facit— Cheetham Hill; of parents and guardians of children attending schools at Shawforth—Facit.
  Read, and ordered to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Report of the Company Law Amendment Committee.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3662. Sweden (Gothenburg).
  Presented [by Command]; and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
  The Lord Wolverton discharged from serving on the Select Committee, and the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) named of the Committee in his place.
  WORCESTER ELECTION.
  The captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms to attend His Majesty with the address on the part of this House in the place of the Lord Steward.
  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 150.)

  GROUND GAME BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, the measure which I venture to ask your Lordships to read a second time this afternoon is a small one, but with a somewhat ominous title—a title which will remind those of your Lordships who are unfortunately old enough to remember the difficulties of a quarter of a century ago of the considerable amount of opposition that was aroused to the Ground Game Act of 1880, which was brought in by the late Sir William. Harcourt and my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford.
  The purport of this Bill may, I think, be summed up briefly, but accurately, in a single sentence. It is to extend to the sheep farmers of the Highlands the privilege which every other tenant farmer in Great Britain has enjoyed for many years past—the right of trapping and snaring ground game all the year round. As a matter of fact, this particular right was given to the tenant farmers of Scotland in the Bill of 1880 as it was originally introduced into the House of

  1561
  Commons, for that Bill, as Sir William Harcourt said on the First Reading, was brought in to establish the principle that the right to destroy animals which preyed upon the crops of the farmer should be inseparably incident to the occupation of the soil.
  But in the course of the discussions in another place, Mr. Duff, whom some of your Lordships will remember, raised opposition to this privilege being extended to the grouse moors of Scotland. He stated that if moorland was included it would practically do away with sheep farms, and that all the farmers of Scotland would turn their land into deer forests. Mr. Duff took a too pessimistic view of the matter, but Sir William Harcourt seemed to be convinced by his arguments, or, at any rate, he was convinced of the difficulty of piloting so controversial a measure through the House of Commons, and he introduced an Amendment in the Committee stage, which Amendment this measure is designed to delete. The Amendment is in sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Ground Game Act of 1880. That subsection practically takes away from the occupiers of moorland the right given to every other occupant of agricultural tenancies in Great Britain—namely, the right to trap and snare ground game all the year round.
  During the past five or six years this question has been a somewhat burning one among the tenant farmers of Scotland. Sheep farmers allege for various reasons that this sub-section (3), which, as I have shown, is in itself an exception to the principle of the Act, and takes away a right from the tenant farmers in the Highlands only, places them in an exceptional and invidious position, and they have agitated to have it repealed. I would ask your Lordships to remember that the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, which, as noble Lords opposite know, is by no means a partisan body, have on two occasions—at Edinburgh in 1903 and at Perth in 1905—passed unanimously a resolution advocating the principle of the measure which I now ask your Lordships to read a second time. On those occasions two ex-Presidents of the Board of Agriculture were present—at the first, my noble friend, Lord Onslow, and at the second, my right hon. friend Mr. Ailwyn
  1562
  Fellowes; and I gather from the reports of their speeches that these two ex-Ministers for Agriculture looked with a favourable eye on the Resolution unanimously passed in their presence.
  Perhaps I should state the principal reasons which were put forward at the meetings in question why the Highland farmers wished this Bill to be brought in. In the first place, they point out that as their right to snare and trap ground game was confined to the period from December 11th to April 1st, the climatic condition of the north of Scotland rendered it somewhat difficult for them to obtain the full advantage of that privilege. As your Lordships know, the higher ground in Scotland is very often covered with snow during a considerable period of the time I have mentioned, and it is impossible for them, during that period, to trap and snare rabbits. The second reason put forward is this, that owing to the custom, which your Lordships know is prevalent in Scotland, of moving sheep early in August to the higher ground, rabbits come in at that time and eat a good deal of the winter feed. The sheep, moreover, trample out the rabbit runs, and render it almost impossible for farmers to fix their snares to catch rabbits. Another I reason put forward is that the tenants are unable to get a sufficient supply of rabbits which by sale might in some way or other compensate them for the winter keep which had been eaten.
  I do not say that these are the only reasons which can be given, but they were the reasons put forward by the tenant farmers, and which the Chamber of Agriculture endorsed by a unanimous vote. Anybody who has talked with tenant farmers in the Highlands on this subject will know perfectly well that they are just as much impressed as anybody with the value of grouse moors, which they recognise as generally beneficial to the interests of the country; and I am certain that if in the discussions of this Bill any one on behalf of the landlords of Scotland points out that there is anything in the measure detrimental to the preservation of grouse, or in any way injurious to the interests of landlords, the promoters of the Bill and the tenant farmers of Scotland will regard any such suggestion in the most reasonable spirit,

  1563
  so long as it does not directly interfere with the principle of the measure.
  Speaking as one who has had considerable experience of grouse moors, I do not believe this Bill would do any harm at all, because the trapping would invariably take place on the fringe of the moor, where birds do not nest in any quantity, for the reason that that part of the moor is constantly being disturbed as it is contiguous to the inhabited farms. I would also point out that in Clause 3 of this Bill there is a provision by which tenants and landlords, should any special circumstances occur to render it necessary that such a step should be taken, can make an agreement for joint exercise. I do not know that it is necessary for me to explain the Bill at any greater length; it is a very short Bill, and it explains itself. Clause 2, as I have said, repeals sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Ground Game Act of 1880, and enables the occupier of moorland and unenclosed land to kill ground game at any period of the year.
  As your Lordships know, in the Ground Game Act no tenant is allowed to make an agreement or contract himself out of the provisions of that Act, but by Clause 3 of this Bill it is permitted that landlords and tenants may make agreements, so long as the agreements they arrive at are to their joint benefit. What that means is this, that if a landlord thought it would be better for his own gamekeeper to destroy the rabbits on the moor, he might come to an agreement with his tenant by giving that tenant a certain proportion of the rabbits that were killed to compensate him for the arrangement. By this it will be seen that Clause 3 is by no means a useless measure. I would remind the House that when the Act of 1880 was first brought in there were some gloomy prophets who said that its introduction would have an injurious effect on the game preservation of Great Britain, but I think your Lordships will acknowledge that, instead of its having had an injurious effect, there never was a time when there was a greater preservation of game than now. Those of your Lordships who wore in political life before that time must remember the agitation for doing away with the game laws altogether. Since the passing of the Act of 1880, however, there has been no agitation against the game laws, and the state
  1564
  of preservation of game at the present moment is considerably better than it was before that much contested Act came into operation. For these reasons I venture to commend this small measure to your Lordships' consideration. I do not think it can possibly do any harm to the interests of grouse moors and shooting tenants, but it will remove a real and legitimate grievance of which the Highland farmers have, in my opinion, every reason to complain.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a.'—(Lord Burghclere.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to me as being one of those representing the Department over which at one time he presided who have attended the meetings of the Central Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland. That was an annual event always attended by the President of the Board of Agriculture, and which I used to dub by the title of"the annual heckle." We were always asked a number of questions as to what were the intentions of the Government, and amongst others I was asked whether it was possible for the late Government to bring in a measure similar to this one. I took the precaution of writing round to a large number of my friends, many of them Members of your Lordships' House and large owners of property in the Highlands of Scotland, to ask whether a measure of this kind would meet with their approval. I am bound to say that in the great majority of cases, the replies which I received were entirely in favour of some modification of the existing law, which it was generally felt worked hardly on the tenants of moorlands in Scotland.
  But the proposal put before me when I was President of the Board of Agriculture differed in some respects from the one which the noble Lord has introduced tonight. The proposal was that ground game—hares and rabbits should be destroyed by the tenant, not all the year round, but from October 1st, instead of from December 10th. I am not sure whether it will not be worth while, when, your Lordships go into Committee on this Bill, to give consideration to the question whether the power to destroy rabbits during the grouse nesting season is absolutely necessary. I know that

  1565
  when the Ground Game Act was passed, that was one of the very strong reasons why the existing exemption in respect of moorlands was inserted, so that it might not interfere with the grouse at the time they were nesting. I venture to submit for the consideration of my noble friend, whether some alteration of that kind might not with advantage be introduced; but, so far as the general principle of the Bill is concerned, I believe that no right-thinking landlord in Scotland would object to some extention of the conditions under which tenants of moorlands may destroy rabbits. I, therefore, offer no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not think that there can be any real harm in tenants having the right to kill rabbits all the year round, but what I do fear is that, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the men they employ may trap or snare birds. During the season when birds are nesting and breeding they are very tame; they move about the runs and are very easily trapped and snared. I think some provision ought to be made for the protection of birds during the nesting season. If my noble friend who has brought in this Bill would accede to that request I would be quite satisfied with the Bill. What I propose—and I will be frank—is to move an Amendment in Committee to make the season begin on September 1st. I hope my noble friend will induce the promoters of the Bill to accept that Amendment, in which event I shall have no objection to the Bill, which would do no harm whatever.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, this is not a Bill which applies solely to Scotland. It applies generally to the United Kingdom. It has, however, a special application to Scotland, and has therefore had the earnest consideration of Mr. Sinclair (the Secretary for Scotland). Your Lordships have heard how the restrictions of the snaring of hares and rabbits came to be introduced into the Ground Game Act, 1880, and I should like to call attention to a phrase that was used by the late Sir William Harcourt when he introduced this Amendment. He said that the Amendment was consistent with the principle which he had over and over
  1566
  again stated—namely, that where he could accomplish the object of protecting crops without injuring sport he would do so. He said he had good reason to believe that three-and-a-half months was a sufficient period for farmers on moorlands and unenclosed land to keep down the ground game, and he was, therefore, content that the limitation should be introduced into the Bill.
  The attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter is precisely the same to-day as that taken up by Sir William Harcourt twenty-six years ago. Their desire is to protect agriculture and not to injure sport, and as it has been found in practice that the period allowed under the Act of 1880 is not sufficient, His Majesty's Government will have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. They would like, however, to point out to the noble Lord who has introduced it that it might perhaps be desirable in Committee to consider whether the period might not be slightly restricted. This Bill in the other House had the names of two Conservative Members upon it—Lord Dalrymple and Mr. Lane Fox. I think your Lordships will allow that those are two names with a good sporting ring about them. The Bill passed through the other House without Amendment and I believe without discussion, and I hope your Lordships will see your way to give it a Second Reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not think that any of my noble friends who sit near me are likely to take exception to this Bill. It seems to me, if I may be allowed to say so, a very reasonable measure. It may be desirable in Committee to introduce certain changes in detail, but I will not enter into the consideration of those at present. The Bill as it stands seems to me to be one which, as the noble mover told us, is not calculated to do any material injury to sporting rights in unenclosed places; but I confess I support it on a somewhat broader ground—I mean on the ground that it is not-desirable that during nearly nine months of the year occupiers of land in any part of the country should be absolutely pro-vented from protecting themselves against the ravages of mischievous and destructive animals. I am the more inclined to

  1567
  regard the Bill favourably because I observe that it contains two important provisions which to some extent qualify its effects. Under one of them the use of fire-arms, which for a purpose of this kind are clearly unnecessary, is not permitted, and, under the other, leave is given to the owners and occupiers of these holdings to make and enforce agreements for the exercise for their joint benefit of the right to kill and take ground game. I welcome that admission that questions of this kind can be best dealt with by the joint efforts of the two parties interested in the land of this country, and I for one shall therefore raise no objection to the passing of the Bill.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, although the course of the debate renders it unnecessary for any words from me, perhaps your Lordships will not think it unnatural that I should like to say something at this stage. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill stated that the Act of 1880 was jointly introduced by the late Sir William Harcourt and myself. In one sense that is true, but it is not an entirely accurate description of what took place. The credit for that Bill was due to Sir William Harcourt. I, as law officer, rendered him all the assistance I could, but it was he who designed the Bill and carried it through the House of Commons. Sir William Harcourt took charge of the negotiations with every possible interest that could be affected, and the skill with which he managed those negotiations can well be understood by every one who knew him.
  We were in a strange position then. There were very great fears that the Bill would irritate more than it would soothe. The interests opposed to the landlords were then in a state of great anger. The Bill, however, passed, and those anticipations have been proved to be entirely unfounded If the Act of 1880 had not been passed, what would have been the state of our game laws now? Probably there would now be no protection for game. The Act has by its justice produced a state of protection for game, and has also got rid of that unhappy feeling which in 1880 existed between the owner of the land and his occupying tenant.
  What is the evil that the tenant now complains of? He says that you give him
  1568
  only three months' protection at a time o the year when he cannot take full advantage of it. The three months are of no use to him comparatively. He is shut out during nine months of the year from taking ground game. If we think that there is any hardship on the landlord, that can be dealt with in Committee; but my present view is that we shall not do sufficient to redress the present wrongs if we do not pass the Bill as it is. There will be no more facilities given by this Bill to the tenant to poach the landlord's grouse than exist at present. As tenant he is already on the gronnd. The only practical question to be considered is whether there shall be any alteration in the period of time in the Bill during which ground game may be killed, but I think if you reduce the time mentioned in the Bill it will not give satisfaction to the farmers. There is a desire to do justice to both parties, and I am sure that a satisfactory measure will result from the' consideration of this Bill in Committee.
  On question, Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  THE CONGO FREE STATE.
  LORD REAYrose to call attention to the recent Decrees issued by the Government of the Independent State of the Congo, and the correspondence respecting its administration: Africa, No. 1.(1906.)
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the first place I wish to call your attention to a Circular Despatch of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne), dated August 8th, 1903,. which gives a very clear statement with regard to the Congo situation. Lord Lansdowne states in the Despatch that—
  "The sentiments which undoubtedly animated the founders of the Congo State and the representatives of the Powers at Berlin were such as to deserve the cordial sysmpathy of the British Government, who have been loath to believe either that the beneficent intentions with which the Congo State was constituted, and of which it gave so solemn a pledge at Berlin, have in any way been abandoned, or that every effort has not been made to realise them. But the fact remains that there is a feeling of grave suspicion, widely prevalent among the people of this country, in regard to the condition of affairs in the Congo State, and there is a deep conviction that the many charges brought against the State's administration must be founded on a

  1569
  basis of truth. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that it is incumbent upon the Powers parties to the Berlin Act to confer together and to consider whether the obligations undertaken by the Congo State in regard to the natives have been fulfilled; and, if not, whether the Signatory Powers are not bound to make such representations as may secure the due observance of the provisions contained in the Act."
  The next important document in connection with affairs in the Congo was a very-able Report by one of His Majesty's Consuls, Mr. Casement, dated December 11th, 1903. It was probably that document and the despatch of the noble Marquess which led the Government of the Congo to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in July, 1904. The next important document is the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, which was issued on October 30th, 1905. Immediately after that Report had been issued, the Congo Government appointed another Commission to examine the Report of the Commission of Inquiry.
  The evidence received by the Commission of Inquiry, and the Report of the second Commission have not been published. The reasons given for the refusal to publish the e documents are not convincing, and it is certainly to be regretted. But we are told that the conclusions of the second Commission were"in general harmony" with those of the first Commission. That Report may, therefore, be considered to have an authoritative character. There can be no doubt that the Berlin Act gives to His Majesty's Government, as one of the parties to that Act, the right to claim that the obligations undertaken by the Congo State should be fulfilled. I admit that interference with the internal affairs of a foreign State should be sparingly exercised, but from the Report of Consul Casement, and the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, it is quite clear that exceptional circumstances fully justified the remonstrances of His Majesty's Government, which have been endorsed by public opinion in this country.
  The next important document is one which appeared on June 3rd—a Report to the Sovereign of the Congo State, by the three Secretaries, Mr. de Cuvelier, Mr. Droogmans and Mr. Liebrechts. That Report is accompanied by a series of extremely important Decrees. Everything depends on the spirit in which these Decrees will be carried out by the officials of the Congo State. Great
  1570
  difficulties have been experienced in the organisation of the Civil Service of the Congo State, and we have a right to expect that continuous efforts will be made to improve the status of officials, who have a very difficult task to perform in such a large territory. With regard to the financial condition of the Congo State, we have not sufficient data to form an adequate judgment. Greater publicity in this respect similar to that which obtains with the accounts in our Colonies would be to the advantage of the Congo State, and would disarm legitimate criticism.
  I now wish to call attention to some of the Decrees. The first Decree establishes the right of the natives to the lands they occupy according to local customs. The rights of occupation are to be scheduled in accordance with regulations to be issued by the Governor-General. This involves, of course, a survey. In every village the extent of land occupied by natives is to be trebled, and even a further extension can be sanctioned by the head of the State. If necessary, expropriation will be applied in order to give effect to this rule. The natives are not allowed to alienate their property without the previous sanction of the Governor-General. Seed and plants are to be placed gratuitously at the disposal of the cultivators, and they will receive guidance with respect to proper cultivation. Their rights in the forests and fisheries are recognised with proper safeguards. This Decree is certainly a step in the right direction, if it is carried out properly, especially in that part of the territory in which companies have obtained concessions, as well as in the national domain and in that of the Crown.
  The next Decree has reference to direct and personal taxes. It is left to the Governor-General to settle the tax, keeping in view the resources of the different districts and of the population and the condition of the natives. The tax cannot be less than six francs or more than twenty-four francs annually. Therefore, it will always be less than one pound. The tax can be paid in produce or in labour. The heads of districts determine what produce will be received in payment and its value. They also settle the labour and its value. It must not in any case exceed forty hours a month. The Decree states

  1571
  that in order to create in the natives a taste for work they will receive for produce and for labour such remuneration as takes into account the value of the produce and the standard of wages in the district. The remuneration will be paid in kind or in vouchers, which will be exchanged in kind at the warehouses of the State. I need hardly point out that the efficiency of this reform depends on the effect given to this Decree by the Administration. Forced labour is open to abuse, and the sooner it disappears the better. If the valuation of produce and labour is made on a liberal scale, the abuses which undoubtedly have been proved will tend to disappear.
  The Despatch of Sir Edward Grey, dated January 9th last, ought certainly to be carefully considered in this connection. In that Despatch it is pointed out that if the tax is employed for commercial operations it remains open to the imputation of constituting a form of servitude. Sir Edward Grey says—
  "But the labour demanded of the Congolese natives in the from of a 'tax' is not, for the most part, employed for objects of general utility in which they are themselves interested; it is employed by the State, or by the trading companies, to whom the right to levy the 'tax' is delegated, for the advancement of commercial operations, in which the native has no interest, und from which he can receive no benefit."
  That delegation, I believe, will be no longer possible under this Decree which repeals Article 35 of the Decree of the 18th November, 1903. Sir Edward Grey proceeds—
  "A system which compels the personal service of the citizen for such a purpose as this—and it is to be observed that the provisions in Article 34 of the Law of the 18th of November, 1903, enabling the native to fulfil his obligations to the State by other means, have proved in the Congo to be almost entirely illusory—must always, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, remain open to the imputation of constituting a form of servitude, differing in essence but little from actual slavery."
  With that opinion of the Secretary of State I entirely agree. Then he further proceeds to say—
  "His Majesty's Government are not aware of any grounds for supposing that the natives of the Congo, if provided with land for cultivation or offered employment as labourers, would show less willingness to work for the same object, and the habit of work thus acquired would, no doubt, in the Congo as in British Africa, eventually conquer their natural
  1572
  indolence and lead them to engage in the cultivation of the soil and in trade, not merely to fulfil their obligations to the State, but to ameliorate their own position. While protesting, however, against the theoretical justification of the existing system, which is contained in the Report—a system resulting in the substitution in the Congo of forced labour for the hired labour, by means of which the development of the other parts of Africa is effected—His Majesty's Government are glad to note that the Commissioners consider that, in practice, no native should be compelled to pay his contribution to the State in the form of labour if he can find the means to pay it in money or produce. His Majesty's Government earnestly commend this suggestion to the favourable consideration of the Congo Government, but they would point out that the reality of the reform, doubtless aimed at by the Commission, consists not so much in the proposed amplification of Article 34 of the existing Law as in removing the obstacles which at present preclude the natives from taking advantage of it."
  Whether the Decree will fully give effect to this advice given by Sir Edward Grey I admit is open to doubt, and I think it would be well to enforce this advice on every occasion which will be given to His Majesty's Government to enforce it.
  The next Decree deals with the collective tax. The native chiefs are made responsible for the collective tax, which is assessed on a group of individuals. The chiefs are salaried and exempt of the tax. It is obvious that abuses may easily arise if the chiefs are inclined to act arbitrarily in the collection of the tax, and strict supervision will have to be exercised. An important reform is that the collection of taxes will only be carried out by officials of the State, and that private individuals will no longer be allowed to act as collectors. The system of armed sentries is abolished with regard to the collection of taxes. Individual assessment will be the rule, and collective assessment will only be tolerated where individual assessment is impracticable. The improvement of communications is mentioned in the Report as necessary in order to facilitate transport. This is self-evident, and necessitates expenditure on a large scale.
  The next Decree I wish to allude to is that on the tribal chiefs. It appeared that both Commissions were of opinion that the recognition of the authority of the tribal chiefs was important for the better government of the State. The Government of the Congo itself is convinced of t-ho importance of maintaining the

  1573
  tribe under the authority of its chief, and, what is of even greater importance, of its customs. They are of opinion that this institution strengthens the authority of the State and improves the social condition of the natives. The chief has no other rights than those which are stated in the Deed of Investiture. Among other duties, he is bound to assist the local authorities in the levying of militia and of labourers, and in providing the supplies which are required. It is quite clear that without sufficient control abuses may easily arise. If it is intended that the native chief should protect the members of his tribe, and that he should be punished for any illegality he may commit, the system may be accepted. In the absence of a sufficient number of trained officials, there is no alternative. Provision should be made for training the heirs of chiefs, so that they should be able to discharge their duties when called upon to succeed.
  Both Commissions were of opinion that for public works—roads, railways, fortifications—forced labour was justifiable. A Decree limits the liability to such labour to a period of five years. In this case, again, the conditions under which this Decree is applied must affect the criticism of a measure which in principle must be considered opposed to sound economics. A Decree has been issued, in accordance with the recommendations of both Commissions, to distinguish between police and military operations. In the Report of the second Commission it is also laid down that care should be taken that companies and private individuals should not engage in armed expeditions, which is already prohibited. The Decree does not allow a military expedition to be undertaken until an effort has been made to restore order by other means. It is admitted in the Report that the number of European officers—one to fifty men—ought to be doubled in order that strict supervision may be exercised. The Report states that this will be done as soon as the public exchequer can dispense the necessary funds.
  Inspectors are to be appointed to secure to the natives their lawful rights, and to see that their mutual relations, and those with State officials and private individuals should be in accordance with the regulations. They will exercise their duties
  1574
  especially in the territories owned by or leased to private companies. The inspectors will receive complaints from and against the natives and will inform the judicial authorities of any breaches of the law. If these inspectors are carefully selected, and if they are sufficiently numerous, they may be able to prevent and put a stop to arbitrary proceedings. But in Sir Edward Grey's Despatch of January 9th the root of the evil is dealt with. Sir Edward Grey says—
  "In dealing with the question of the concessionary companies, the commissioners express the view that the ideal remedy for the abuses noted within the concessions would be to deprive these companies of all administrative power. His Majesty's Government hold that the exercise of administrative functions by persons or companies who have acquired the whole trade of the area which they are called upon to administer must lead to grave irregularities, and they would have welcomed a declaration by the Commission condemning the association of trade and administration, whether in the person of concessionary companies or in that of the State itself. It is much to be regretted that the Commissioners should have ignored altogether the evils of State-trading, and failed to recommend, in the case of the companies, the practical adoption of the remedy which they themselves recognise as 'ideal.'"
  I need hardly say that I am in cordial agreement with the advice here given to the Government of the Congo State by the Foreign Secretary, and it certainly is to be regretted that in these Decrees there is nothing showing that any effect has been given to that advice.
  The strictures of the Commission of inquiry on the judicial system have led to a Decree, which establishes circuit courts. The recruitment of trained jurists is difficult, but their increase is clearly required for the effective administration of justice. We must I think accept these Decrees as evidence of the recognition by the Government of the Congo State that reforms were urgently needed. These reforms are tentative, and must lead to further reforms in the same direction.
  As regards trade, in the Circular Despatch of August 8th, 1903, it was stated that—
  "Article 1 of the Berlin Act provides that the trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in the basin of the Congo; and Article V. provides that no Power which exercises Sovereign rights in the basin shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, the system of trade now existing in the Independent State of the

  1575
  Congo is not in harmony with these provisions."
  The Despatch further stated that—
  "His Majesty's Government will be glad to receive any suggestions which the Governments of the signatory Powers may be disposed to make in reference to this important question, which might perhaps constitute, wholly or in part, the subject of a reference to the tribunal at the Hague."
  I wish to ask my noble friend the Undersecretary whether any suggestions have been received, and whether reference to the Tribunal at the Hague is considered by His Majesty's Government as a possible solution.
  It should be noticed that Belgium is not responsible in any way for the affairs of the Congo. Belgium is one of the best-governed countries on the continent, and its prosperous condition is the result of its wise Government. I will quote the opinion of M. Beernaert, the eminent Belgian statesman, than whom no one can express an opinion of greater weight on the affairs of the Congo. M. Beernaert stated in the Belgian Chamber on March 1st that—
  "Belgium to-day has no right whatever to take over the Congo, and it is deliberately, voluntarily, but against my wishes, that she renounced that right under the form of an ill-defined adjournment. Freely also, and after examination, did Parliament renounce all control and all demand for information which the preceding Convention assured to our country, and gave to the Congo State its full liberty of management and borrowing powers."
  Then he added—
  "These are matters which we may regret, and I need hardly tell the House that this is my personal feeling."
  That is a very authoritative expression of opinion with regard to the affairs of the Congo, and I can only add that I hope that His Majesty's Government will be able in the future as in the past to exercise its due influence so that in the Congo State an administration may be introduced worthy of its founders and worthy of the virtues of the Belgian people, with whom, although it has no legal link, it is certainly in many respects connected and will ultimately become more closely related.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, there is a very wide interest felt in this country in the question which has just been
  1576
  brought forward by my noble friend in his comprehensive speech. He has sketched very correctly the history of the matter in its main lines. It is not necessary, therefore, that I should take up the time of your Lordships by explaining the nature of the successive Commissions—the Commission of Examination and the Commission of Reform, which have been dealt with by my noble friend; but I would like to take the earliest opportunity of paying a deserved tribute of respect and admiration to an eminent British Civil servant, a member of the Consular Service, whose work was preliminary to that of both the Commissions. It is within the knowledge of many of your Lordships that at an earlier stage in these transactions Mr. Robert Casement was sent to the Congo to make a Report, so that the Foreign Office might be informed whether or not they could attach credence to the statements made by gentlemen in this country and others who had taken up the question of the government or, as they called it, the misgovernment, of the Congo State. Mr. Casement had an exceedingly difficult task, and was subject to all those perils of flood and field which a man who has work to do in the interior of Africa has to encounter. He had, moreover, to carry on an inquiry which could not fail to be more or less disagreeable to those concerned, and to make him an object of suspicion and dislike to them. It is, as has been pointed out, unfortunate that the Report of the first Commission was not accompanied by the evidence, but the Report is sufficient to vindicate Mr. Casement. That gentleman has been the object of many unjust attacks, and I am sure I am giving utterance to the feelings of all here when I express the hope that Mr. Casement, whom reasons of health have compelled to retire from an appointment which he held at Lisbon, will have an opportunity of adding further services to those with which his name is already associated.
  My noble friend has placed before your Lordships a considerable number of details in regard to the work of the second Commission. Although we have the Decrees, of which I have placed a considerable number of copies in the Library, we have not the text of the Report on which they were founded.

  1577
  But the documents we have are quite sufficient. If I desired—not that I do so—to take up the time of the House by a long indictment of the Government of the Congo Free State as Mr. Casement found it, I am quite satisfied with one simple fact. The Quarterly Review— a great English literary and political organ, not addicted to being the too ready recipient of every tale which the missionary or humanitarian may bring from distant parts of the world—placed on record in a most complete and carefully written article, published in January, the opinion that in many of these large districts in the Congo, and especially in the Abir district, worked by the so-called Abir Company, such a condition of things has existed, and to a certain extent exists still, that the old Government of the Arab slave traders had some features which entitled it to a more favourable opinion from civilised persons than the Government of the Congo Free State, which dispossessed and succeeded the Arab Empire.
  Turning to the condition of things described by my noble friend, I may say that I have done my best to make myself master of the net result of the Decrees. The first thing that strikes me is that one of the most important recommendations of the Commission, basing itself on the Report of the earlier Commission, has not been carried out, and it is a very vital one. The Commission recommended that the Procureur-D'Etat, who has now become Procureur-Général, should be absolutely independent of the Governor-General as regards the prosecution of the offenders, except in cases where the security of the State was at stake. The Government of the Congo have refused to adopt that recommendation, and by leaving the previous legislation unaltered have confirmed the power of the Governor-General to stop legal proceedings which he considers inopportune.
  I am willing to grant that if one takes the mere letter of these bulky Decrees and isolates them from the surrounding circumstances, and regards them as operating under a Government able and willing to enforce them, the position of the native in the Congo Free State might really be regarded as so idyllic that some of your Lordships on leaving this House might almost be disposed to take a
  1578
  ticket immediately for the Congo. But I cannot say that the matter really works out in practice in that way. No doubt it may be said that the native of a rubber-bearing district in one of the big concessions will live on the extensive lands which had for centuries been in the occupation of his tribe under the authority of his chief. That is what the Decrees seem to contemplate. He will pay a tax of between 4s. 10d. and. 19s. 4d. a year, which sum he will procure either by the sale of his rubber to the highest bidder among the traders, who will be free to set up their establishments on the native reserves, or by working as the hired labourer of the concessionary company for a fair wage —the companies are to be induced to pay wages in money as much as possible—until he has earned the necessary sum, or, if he is foolish enough to prefer this roundabout way, by working out his tax in not more than forty hours' labour a month on the concession. The tranquillity of his existence is broken perhaps once by compulsory service as a paid labourer on a work of public utility for five years, or seven years in the army, and occasionally by a slight corvée of short duration. If a European ill-treats him, he has easy access to one of the travelling magistrates, who can deal with the case by himself, if it is trivial, and if not send it before a territorial Court, or if the offence is very grave, before one of the four new Courts of first instance. If the European is sentenced and appeals, the native need not go to Boma to be present at the trial on appeal, as the Appeal Court will judge sur pièes. If he has a dispute with his employer about his wages, the travelling magistrate can decide the question, if the amount involved is under £4, without appeal. If the native is idle and will not provide himself with the money to pay his tax, he is given two warnings, at intervals of a fortnight (if his tax is payable monthly), and then, if he has not paid, he may be imprisoned with hard labour at the nearest Government post for not more than one month in the case of a first offence and not more than three months in any case. No official inferior to a chef de secteur may order his imprisonment on this account, and the company's agents have no say in the matter at all. His wife cannot be imprisoned for his own failure to pay.

  1579
  If this were really to be the happy existence of the natives, the concessionary companies would, to say the least of it, find their profits enormously reduced, and very quickly reduced, an eventuality which the State will not be too anxious to permit. The delimitation of the lands to be accorded to natives is left entirely to the discretion of the Governor-General, and the State, be it remembered, is still to take half profits in the company concessions besides being an immense owner itself. Therefore, while the opportunities of ill-treating the natives are slightly lessened, the chance that the opportunities still left will be made the most of is as great as it ever was, seeing that the State is still the chief trader in the country, and that there is still no real guarantee that offenders will be brought to justice.
  Some more admirable laws have been added to the statute-book of the Congo State. There was, perhaps, not a great deal to be said before against many of the laws. A fairly ideal picture could have been drawn under the old state of things; but the conditions which made former legislation in practice absolutely useless for the protection of natives remain, so far as I am able to judge, substantially unaltered. If the spirit of the law had been observed before, the Congo would have been a paradise; if the spirit of the law were observed now, it would be a paradise, with a few extra attractions thrown in. It is difficult, however, to see why or how the law should be carried out as long as the conditions to which I have already referred exist, as long as the State is itself the principal trader, while at the same time the Governor-General is the judge of the extent of the native lands, and the administration of native justice, though organised in a faultless manner on paper, does not afford any real or substantial security. I am afraid that I must say that under these circumstances the ticket to the Congo, which I referred to just now, had better, perhaps, on grounds of ordinary prudence and foresight, be a return ticket.
  The question will, of course, be asked, What under these circumstances is the position of His (Majesty's Government? I am glad to think that here again we are able to look back with complete agreement upon the policy of our predecessors. This country has certain rights
  1580
  in regard to what goes on in this vast territory. But our rights are hedged about in various ways which give rise to diplomatic difficulties. The noble Marquess opposite, when Foreign Secretary, issued the appeal to which reference has been made. But so far as I know the only Sovereign who really sent anything like a real reply to that appeal was the Sultan of Turkey, who stated that he felt a great interest in this question. That is one of the ironies of the situation. Yesterday your Lordships were discussing Macedonia; to-day we are discussing the Congo.
  Under the Berlin Act we, in common with the other signatories, have certain rights which cover the vast basin of the Congo which nothing except a further Act of the signatory Powers can alter or change. I might compare the position of the ruler of the Congo State, on coming into his kingdom, to the position of a man buying or inheriting an encumbered estate. He finds that there are mortgages upon it. He finds also, perhaps that it is subject to a variety of casements and serving rights, which he is bound to recognise. I need not again enumerate the main conditions of the Berlin Act, but I would desire to remind the House that amongst them is the right of the Powers to establish an International River Commission on the Congo, which I have always believed, if established, would be the means, like the Danube Commission was, of upholding the flag of civilisation by its presence in these waste and neglected regions of the earth. But we have other rights under the Convention of 1884 which first recognised the existence of the International Association of the Congo out of which the Free State grew. One of the most important of these is the right to establish Consular Courts. It may be said that this would not directly benefit the natives. Nevertheless, when we are aware that a British subject, the Rev. Mr. Stannard, a missionary of high character, to whose reputation testimony has been borne by the officials of the Congo State, amongst whom he has lived and had his being for a considerable time, has only quite recently been placed upon his trial, and when we are expecting hour by hour to know what the result of that trial may be, and remembering what took place at the trial of Mr. Stokes, which was one of the

  1581
  most disgraceful judicial farces which ever sullied the annals of what purported to be a Court of justice, we can have no intention of abandoning our right to establish Consular Courts in the Congo State, and we on the contrary attach great importance to that right.
  When the Congo Free State first came into existence it was placed before the world as a great philanthropic enterprise; and when acting as Under-Secretary to Lord Granville, I was the mark for many attacks by those who thought that I was indifferent to this great philanthropic enterprise that was to carry civilisation into the heart of Africa. And now, twenty years after these events, I find the writer in the Quarterly Review using these words—
  "Whoever they may he—British, Belgian, German, or what not—the names of the directors of the Abir Company should be published in full; and the owners of those names should then and there retire into private life as the only expiation they can make for having, consciously or unconsciously, left so dark a stain in the heart of the Congo Free State. They have directed a policy which has resulted in the death of several thousand defenceless savages, the mutilation of many more, the outraging of women, the destruction of homes, and the depopulation of a once well-peopled land."
  After the events that have occurred in the Congo, every right this country possesses, diplomatically or morally, is a right that we ought to stand upon. But in all these matters we have not only to bear in mind what our rights are, but the time and the opportunity. I am inclined to think that we shall be upon firmer ground, when the time comes for more active interference, by now standing upon what I may call the broad equities of the situation, rather than upon comparatively small legal points. But for the moment our duty is to indicate the great gaps which exist in the scheme of reforms, and to do everything we can to encourage the Government of the Free State to give as real and as wide an operation as possible to these reforms.
  There was an idea on the Continent of Europe at one time that the campaign of the Congo Reform Association in this country was either the action of a few misguided enthusiasts, or only the work of some Protestant fanatics. No doubt the action of those who laboured in this cause was very greatly hampered by that impression abroad. Now, fortunately, those ideas have entirely disappeared.
  1582
  In Catholic as well as in Protestant countries, and in Catholic as much as in Protestant circles in Belgium, it is now recognised that this campaign was in no manner either the work of misguided fanaticism or of Protestant bigotry. One of the most eloquent denouncers of what has been done has been that eminent Roman Catholic statesman, who some time ago was the much respected Prime Minister of Belgium. I refer to M. Beernhart. This great Belgian statesman, himself gave voice to the feelings of outraged humanity upon this question. Among the severest critics of the Congo State are not only M. Cattier, the eminent Belgian jurist, and M. Vandevelde, the great Parliamentary Labour Leader, but also Father Vermeesch, a well known Roman Catholic ecclesiastic. It is therefore our duty to believe that public opinion in Belgium, which is much more powerful, because nearer, is rapidly bringing to bear on the official heads of the Congo State a pressure which will cause not only the enforcement of these Decrees, but their re-issue in a revised and far more drastic form.
  It is our interest and policy in this country to support the legitimate action of Belgian opinion, and to be most careful not to suggest by word or deed that any attack is being made on the Belgian Government or people. We desire that it should be theirs to move in the matter, and they know best when the circumstances are favourable. Whether this matter is one which can be brought before The Hague Conference is a question to which I cannot give a positive answer. The sphere of work of the future Hague Conference is still a topic of consideration among the Powers; and I cannot hold out too great hopes. But the idea is present to the mind of the Secretary of State, and no opportunity to press forward this question will be lost. But, on the other hand, I hope and believe that the extremely complicated character of the task which His Majesty's Government have in Africa and the Congo will be recognised.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not desire to add many words to the statement to which we have just listened. My noble friend has spoken strongly, but not at all too strongly, of the manner in which the

  1583
  Government of the Congo State has discharged the responsibilities which, in a moment of mistaken confidence, were thrown upon it by the Great Powers. The attitude of the Congo State has been unsatisfactory throughout, and I am bound to say that I do not think it has ever been more unsatisfactory than it is at the present moment. I learn from my noble friend's statement that His Majesty's Government will watch events in the Congo with care, that it is their intention to insist upon our treaty rights, and that we shall certainly not admit the extravagant pretensions which have recently been put forward by the ruler of the Congo State to deal with these vast territories as if they were a private chattel of his own, and without guidance or direction from outside.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has lately announced that he claims for the signatory Powers the right to take such steps as they may consider called for to ensure the observance by the independent State of its obligations; and I trust that he may be successful in inducing the other Powers to act with us in this matter. I can scarcely bring myself to believe that, however reluctant they may be, they will be content to acquiesce in the claim of the Sovereign of the Congo State in the shape in which it has been most recently presented to the public. Nothing could, I venture to think, be more humiliating to the Great Powers than to acquiesce in such a position; and nothing certainly could be more humiliating to us; for we may fairly claim that it is this country which from the first has taken a leading part in endeavouring to obtain redress for the wrongs of this misgoverned people.
  It was the outburst of indignation in this country which first called attention to these occurrences. Then came the mission of Mr. Consul Casement, to whom my noble friend referred in terms of commendation which were thoroughly well deserved. Mr. Casement's report certainly had the effect of raising a corner of the curtain behind which were shrouded the iniquities that had been going on for many years. It led to the Commission of Inquiry whose report was very valuable, although it was given to the world—in spite of the assurances that had been obtained— without the all-important evidence on
  1584
  which it was founded. That report, even if allowance be made for the fact that in remote regions of this kind a certain amount of hardship and rough usage is inevitable, disclosed a condition of things more deplorable than anything which we could have ventured to imagine for ourselves. We have had discussions in this House as to what is and what is not slavery; but there was certainly brought to light in Mr. Casement's report and in the report of the Commission of Inquiry the existence of bondage under the most barbarous and inhuman conditions, and maintained for mercenary motives of the most selfish character.
  What is the latest phase of these transactions? We are presented with a collection of Decrees which, no doubt, contain the outline of many reforms such as might be of great advantage if full effect were given to them; but it is, I believe, the universal opinion that these Decrees still leave room for the existence of some of the worst abuses which have prevailed in recent years in the Congo. They contemplate, although perhaps in a modified form, forced labour; and forced labour under the supervision of the officials of the Congo Government is forced labour in its very worst shape. Then, again, as I understand them, they leave the local courts subject to the interference of the Executive Government —a state of things which is not very likely to conduce to the administration of justice.
  Again, they contain, as far as we are aware, no provisions rendering it necessary that the accounts of these provinces should be made public. It is to information as to the financial condition of the country above everything else that it is desirable that the public should have access. We know that these concessionaire companies are making enormous profits. I see it stated that the £20 shares of some of them are quoted at £600. These huge profits are wrung out of the suffering population of the Congo, and there is no moans of ascertaining how much or how little of the money thus extorted is devoted to expenditure for providing proper administration. We are told that by these Decrees plots of land owned by these wretched villagers are to be increased. But we all know that it is not out of the little village patches which they cultivate that they earn a livelihood,

  1585
  but that it is on their forest rights upon which these companies have so mercilessly encroached that they are dependent for their existence.
  It has been truly said that it is not to the letter of these regulations that we have to look, so much as to the spirit in which the laws and regulations are administered. On that point there is a grain of comfort in these decrees. Three inspectors are, I believe, to be appointed; but they will have 300,000 square miles of territory apiece to look after, so that the grain of comfort is a small one. I trust that His Majesty's Government will keep an eye on the inspectors.
  Something has been said as to our right to interest ourselves in these matters. I cannot admit that there is any doubt whatever as to our right. We rely on the spirit as well as the letter of the Berlin Act. What does it say? It lays down that no Power exercising sovereign rights in the above-mentioned regions should be allowed to grant a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade. I believe that the whole country is covered with monopolies, and that each of the concessionaire companies has been given a monopoly of the most objectionable character.
  The next clause in the Act states that all the Powers exercising sovereign rights or influence in the territories bind themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes and their moral and physical well - being, and to help in suppressing slavery and the slave trade. These words, read by the light of what we know to be going on in the Congo, seem almost to be ironically written. I say, therefore, that our right is perfectly clear. But I may add, quite irrespective of any right we enjoy under the letter of these Acts, that we have a moral right to interfere which comes to us in consequence of the false pretences—I cannot use a gentler word—under which the Congo State has acquired its privileged position in that part of Africa. There can be no doubt that when this country acquiesced in the original arrangement most people believed that what they were doing was to give to the Belgian Government a certain control over the regions in question. We know how great a difference there is between the Government of Belgium— the enlightened and wise Government of
  1586
  Belgium—and the Administration of the Congo Independent State.
  One word as to the remedies to which it is possible for us to look in the hope of contributing something towards the introduction of a better state of things. We entered into a specific agreement in 1884—an agreement executed between Sir E. Malet and the representative of the then Congo Association—under which we were guaranteed the most-favoured-nation treatment in the Congo, and under which we especially reserved the right to exercise consular jurisdiction within it. I agree with my noble friend that this was a very important reservation; and all I can say is that I hope, if these abuses continue, we shall claim our right to appoint consuls in the Congo. I do not care in the least whether there are British subjects to look after or not; but what I do feel is that the presence of half a dozen Englishmen located in the centres of trade within the Congo will be worth more than a whole row of inspectors or officials belonging to the Administration of the Congo Free State.
  But besides this, I should certainly not abandon the hope that, should these abuses continue, the Powers, who are signatories of the Berlin Treaty, will consider, in a favourable spirit, a proposal that a conference should be again summoned to examine the whole question, and how far the promises, held out to these Powers at the time when the Congo Government was created, have been fulfilled or not. The assembly of such a conference would, I am confident, have the effect of leading to proposals which would result in a better state of things. I repeat that I guard myself, as the speakers who have pro-ceded me have done, from being supposed to make any complaint or criticism of the Belgian Government. I believe, on the contrary, that the Belgian Government, or the members of it, abhor and regret these occurrences as much as we do. Personally, I should be delighted to see the Congo State transferred to the Belgian Government. I hope it may some day be so transferred; and if it is, I trust it will be transferred under conditions which will give the Belgian Government an absolutely free hand to deal with this concessionaire region, within which the worst abuses prevail, and which claims for itself a kind of

  1587
  immunity from all interference or supervision. The only other remark I will make is this. I trust that we may have some at all events of the Papers to which reference has been made in this debate and in the public Press.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I rejoice to think that the speeches delivered here this evening will find an echo outside, not in England only, but beyond the sea, and not least in Belgium itself. The story of these Congo misdeeds is as extraordinary in its character as it is melancholy in its incidents; and it is a strange dénomoument that what was originally regarded as a great philanthropic enterprise should a few years afterwards become a source of bewilderment to those of us who have no special opportunity of being conversant with the details of matters of this kind.
  In this ignorance of the precise facts as to what is going on wise men always shrink from being ready to lend themselves too readily to some obvious popular outcry about something which may be only imperfectly understood. That danger, real at all times, is increased when we are dealing, not merely with a question of administration in some savage or semi-savage country, but with what may be supposed at all events to concern the administration of a civilised and friendly State. But the story has now been revealed to the world, not by mawkish sentimentalists or by unbalanced enthusiasts who are raising some mere fanatical outcry, but by an investigation carried on by competent men. It has taught us that cautious as we ought to be not to join too readily in an outcry which may often prove to be exaggerated or baseless, we ought, on the other hand, to be cautious lest we too readily put down to fanaticism or prejudice the protests which we sometimes treat too lightly because we think that the facts alleged are too bad to be true. That is the moral we have to remember on one side as well as on the other when we read of what is taking place in the Congo State.
  But to-night's speeches will do very real good in this matter. From noble Lords on each side of the House who are in the best possible position to know all the facts, we have had wise and weighty
  1588
  words both as to the present condition of things and as to the possibility of moving in the direction of amendment. I rejoice to hear the voice of those who speak from Foreign Office experience on each side of the House proclaiming that it is clearly at this juncture the duty of Great Britain to use every right which the country possesses, diplomatic as well as moral, and to stand on those rights. We are dealing with broad considerations of principle rather than with legal technicalities. In what we are urging, we are anxious to make it clear that our criticism is directed not in any sense against the Belgian Government, which is not, as a Government, concerned or responsible. We are denouncing offenders, be they many or few, against whom a protest is here raised for wrongs which the whole world has felt to be intolerable, and which must not be allowed to continue. It is the earnest hope of every thoughtful man that the effort will be crowned with success.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I rise to emphasise not only to your Lordships, but to those to whom the words of this debate may go, the absolute unanimity which exists on both sides of the House as to this question. There has been no difference of opinion expressed. Noble Lords who have spoken have spoken with authority, and they are all agreed both as to the general course of policy and the steps which the Government are likely to take. We have a great responsibility in. this matter, and I also declare that the Powers who signed the Act of Berlin have a great responsibility in common with us. I regret that the appeal made by my noble friend to the other Powers met with but indifferent success, but the policy which dictated that appeal is as much the policy of the present Government as it was the policy of noble Lords opposite when they were in power. I welcome the advance of public opinion in Belgium on this matter, and I think that we are bound to do nothing that would check the free expression of that public opinion. The Belgian people have great interests involved in this matter, and your Lordships may be sure that the course His Majesty's Government will pursue will not be one calculated to promote any jealousy in the Belgian Government, who have little or no responsibility in

  1589
  this matter, except the moral responsibility of being, as it were, indirectly connected with it. But that, my Lords, will not deter His Majesty's Government from pursuing a course which they may think to be right for the purpose of maintaining and discharging their own responsibility.
  I am very glad to find that my noble friend opposite feels, as we feel, that we have still in reserve, whenever we may think fit to exercise it, a very valuable power in connection with the appointment of consuls in the Congo. I make no declaration as to the time when a step of that kind may be taken; but I do think it is an excellent thing that there should have gone forth from this House to those in other countries who are interested in this matter, and have grave and serious responsibilities in respect to it, an absolutely unanimous declaration as to policy in this question.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.