Sitting of 10 July 1906

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

WORCESTER ELECTION.
King's Answer to Address reported, as follows:—
" I have received the Joint Address of the two Houses of Parliament in reference to the Report made by the Judges selected to try a Petition in respect of the Election and Return for the City of Worcester.
" And I have given directions accordingly for the appointments of the Gentlemen named in the Address to be Commissioners for the purpose of making the inquiry prayed for."

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Midland Railway Bill; Uxbridge Gas Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Newport Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered. An Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Great Yarmouth Waterworks and I Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords]. To be read a second time To-morrow.
Paisley Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill. " To confirm a Provisional Order under The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Paisley Gas and Water," presented by Mr. Sinclair.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended and the Bill be road the first time,—{The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Bill accordingly road the first time, and (under Sections 9 and 16 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) ordered to be read a second time upon Wednesday, July 18th, and to ! be printed. [Bill 304.]

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Mr. BONAR LAW reported from the Committee on Group J. of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Local Government Board Provisional Order (No. 10) Bill had stated that the evidence of Robert Sydney Marsden was essential i to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Robert Sydney Marsden do attend the said Committee To-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That Robert Sydney Marsden do attend the Committee on Group of Private Bills to-morrow, at half-past eleven of the clock.
Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order); South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
South Wales Electrical Power Distribution Company Bill; Cardiff Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—London and South Western Railway Bill; Manchester Corporation Bill; Cheltenham Gas Bill; Metropolitan Water Board Bill; Peterborough Gas Bill; North East London Railway Bill; Huddersfield Corporation Bill; Cardiff Gas Bill; London County Buildings Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to Manchester Churches Bill [Lords]; Penllwyn Railway and Road Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Bawtry with Austerfield; Bristol; Burton-upon-Trent; Crediton; Hickling; and Lincoln; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Arlington; Godmanchester; Platt; and Trowell; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petition from Long Sutton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN TRAWLERS (REGULATION) BILL.
  Petition from Royal Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC., (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Glasgow, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; Aberdare (two); Banffshire; and Keith; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Long Compton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to March 31st, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 487 (Weihaiwei, Report for 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
  Copy presented, of Report on Strikes and Lock-outs of 1905, and on Conciliation and Arbitration Boards [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SPAIN (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF).
  Copy presented, of Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Spain, with Comparison of the Duties leviable under the Tariff in force prior to July 1st, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account presented, of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the payments thereof, and the interest thereon, &c, during the financial year 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 246.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3664 and 3665 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUE (COLLECTION OF TAXES).
  Return ordered, " showing for each of the three Kingdoms (1) the amount charged for Income Tax, Land Tax, and Inhabited House Duty for the financial years 1904, 1905, and 1906; and (2) the amounts and percentage of same collected in each country by the 31st day of January and the 28th day of February respectively in each of the said years (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No 104, of Session 1905)."— (Mr. McCrae.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Post Office Telegraphists and Volunteer Corps.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: To ask the Postmaster-General if any orders have been recently issued with reference to the employees of the post office joining the Volunteer forces or attending camp; and if any order has been made applying to telegraphists in any way different to those applying to other employees of the post office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) the Answer is in the negative.

  Returns Relating to Administrative Boards in Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to Administrative Boards in Ireland standing on to-day's Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for West Kerry.†
  †Administrative Hoards (Ireland). Return setting out the various Boards which control Irish government, giving the members of each Board; the duties they have to perform; the annual amount of public funds administered by each; the total number of meetings of each Board held last year, with attendances of each member; the total amount of salaries, expenses, and other allowances paid to the officials in each Board; the annual expenses and allowances, etc., paid to the members of each Board; the direct control exercised by Parliament over each Board.
  706
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am considering the question whether some such Return as the hon. Member desires can be granted, though it could not in any case be the precise Return which he has put on the Paper. I would ask him to defer his Motion for a time.

  Convicts as Servants to Private Employers.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the despatch issued by Lord Carnarvon in 1874 [Cd. 1121], in which he condemned the assignation of convicts as servants to private employers or to companies, is still recognised by the Colonial Office; and, if so, what action is being taken to enforce its provisions in South Africa.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Lord Carnarvon's dospatch was addressed to the Governor of a Crown Colony. The system of convict and prison labour which prevails in the Cape Colony and in Natal is a matter properly within the control of the Parliaments of those Colonies and of the Ministers responsible thereto.

  Board of Education Library.
  MR. THOMASSON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether in view of the current controversy upon education and the complexity of the whole subject, he will arrange for a printed catalogue of the library of the Board of Education at St. Stephen's House, to be prepared and made available at the earliest possible time for the use of the general public.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Board of Education have already prepared a comprehensive list of books and pamphlets bearing on the difficulties connected with the organisation of religious instruction in connection with elementary schools in this and other countries of the world, but I regret that pressure in the printing offices has delayed the issue of this list, which would, I had hoped, have been useful in connection with discussions on the Bill. As regards a general catalogue of the library, the Question raises many considerable difficulties. The original education library, when it was transferred to St. Stephen's House from South

  707
  Kensington some years ago, showed considerable deficiencies in many important departments of educational study; indeed, it was in the highest degree incomplete, and had not been kept up to date. These defects are gradually being made good, and the library now, though not complete, may be considered a fairly comprehensive one in certain departments, at all events, of educational literature During the period of the library's location at St. Stephen's House the card catalogue now in use has been constructed; but this is simply an author catalogue, and it was impossible to make it otherwise. It contains about 36,000 entries, and if printed would fill a volume, royal quarto in size, of at least 1,500 pages. I think so huge a list of unclassified books would be of little value to researchers and students of education. Only a subject catalogue would meet their needs. The preparation of such a catalogue is engaging the attention of the officers of the library, but it is a piece of work which cannot be accomplished within a short space of time; indeed, the period must be measured by years rather than by months. A catalogue of this nature can only be satisfactorily constructed with the help of a specially qualified staff, when the books themselves have been arranged on the shelves on a subject basis. It would not be possible to carry out this rearrangement of the books in the present temporary and most imperfect quarters in Canon Sow; but the new classification has already been applied experimentally to the inspector's lending library, and it is hoped that the experience thus gained will enable the Board to extend the system to the reference library, and to proceed in course of time to the preparation of an efficient subject catalogue of these books when the removal to the new building has been effected.

  Children over Fourteen Attending State-Aided Schools.
  MR. MASSIE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education the number of children over fourteen years of age in England and Wales who are attending the day schools aided from the Parliamentary grant; and the proportion per 1,000 which those scholars bear to the total number of scholars attending those schools.
  708
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The figures for the year 1903–4 are as follows.
  Later figures are not available.

  Number of children over 14 years of age on the registers of public elementary schools

  60,056

  Number of children over 14 years of age on the registers of higher elementary schools

  2,123

  Number of children over 14 years of age on the registers of special schools

  2,140

  Total

  64,319

  Proportion per 1,000 which the number of these children bears to the total number of children attending the schools mentioned equals 10·6.

  Schools with Extended Facilities—Repre sentatives of Parents.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: To ask the President of the Board of Education if the managers of a school to which extended facilities are given will comprise any representatives of the parents who have asked for those; facilities?
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In schools carried on as schools provided by a local education authority the managers will be appointed by the public authorities, and it is impossible to make an v general statement as to what may be the constitution of such bodies of managers.

  Education Bill—Clause 4—Expenses of Public Inquiry.
  MR. A. ALLEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state by whom the expenses incurred in connection with a public local inquiry under Clause 4 of the Education Bill now before Parliament are to be defrayed; and whether, if these are to be defrayed by the local education authority, the Board of Education will secure, in the regulations relating to such inquiries to be made by thorn under Clause 13 (3) of the Bill, that the local education authority shall be protected against having to hold a second inquiry in the case of a particular school within, say, a year, if the result of the ballot has established that the statutory four-fifths majority in favour of special religious instruction does not exist, and

  709
  generally against having to hold frivolous and unnecessary inquiries?
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The expenses in question will be defrayed by the local education authority. I will give careful consideration to the point referred to in the last part of the Question.

  Teachers' Superannuation Fund.
  MR. ARMITAGE: To ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the amount of money standing to the credit of teachers in the Superannuation Fund on December 31st, 1905, and March 31st, 1906, also, the number of teachers, male and female, paying into it?
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The amount standing to the credit of teachers in the Deferred Annuity Fund on the dates mentioned is as follows:—

  December 31st, 1905.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Male teachers

  508,526

  19

  9

  Female teachers

  506,801

  16

  10

  Total

  1,015,335

  16

  7

  March 31st, 1906.

  £

  a.

  d.

  Male teachers

  539,717

  9

  5

  Female teachers

  543,397

  3

  10

  Total

  1,083,114

  13

  3

  Owing to the fact that the Board is not always kept informed of deaths, withdrawals from service, or other facts bearing on the continuous employment of teachers, it is impossible to say without a prolonged and laborious investigation which is the precise number of teachers who are actually contributing at any given time. But it may be stated that the number is roughly 90,000, of whom about 32,000 are men and about 58,000 are women. I may add that, when the actuarial inquiry into the fund which is now in progress is concluded, information as to the actual number of teachers contributing on March 31st, 1906, will be available.

  Children over Fourteen Attending State-Aided Schools in Scotland.
  MR. MASSIE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland the number of children over
  710
  fourteen years of age in Scotland who are attending the day schools aided from the Parliamentary Grant; and the proportion per 1,000 which those scholars bear to the total number of scholars attending those schools?
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The number of children over fourteen years of age on the school registers for the statistical year 1904–5 was 22,815. This gives a proportion to the total number of 28·37 per 1,000.

  Children's Courts.
  MR. H. J. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce his Bill to deal with the subject of the treatment of children in courts of summary jurisdiction; and whether the Bill will provide for separate treatment as well as for separate officers?
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I presume that my hon. friend refers to the Bill for the appointment of probation officers and the release of youthful and other offenders on probation, which is now in draft. The Bill presents several difficult questions; but good progress has been made with it, and I hope to be in a position to introduce it shortly. With regard to the separate treatment of children's cases, the information which I have already given shows clearly how much can be done under the existing law; and I think it will be well to wait for further experience of the effect of recent Home Office action before considering whether further legislation would be useful.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates—Case of Mr. W. C Palmer, of Merridge.
  MR. MONTGOMERY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. W. G. Palmer of Merridge, Spaxton, near Bridgwater, applied on September 29th, 1904, to the Bridgwater county petty sessional magistrates for a certificate of exemption from vaccination of his child, and was refused; that subsequently he was prosecuted for refusing to have his child vaccinated; that the same bench made an order, with 10s. 6d. costs, directing him to have his child vaccinated, and afterwards

  711
  fined him 20s. and 2s. costs for disobeying that order; that goods to the value of £10 have been seized to be sold in liquidation of the fine and costs which Mr. Palmer refuses to pay on the ground that they were illegally imposed; and whether, under the circumstances, the President of the Local Government Board will countermand such sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I have no information with regard to the facts of the case beyond that furnished by the hon. Member in the Question; but, assuming his statement to be accurate, I may say at once that neither I nor any other Department of the Executive Government have power to interfere with the execution of a warrant of distress issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. It does not appear on what ground the validity of the magistrates' order is disputed, but if any question of law is involved that could only be determined by a Court of Law.

  Rainfall in Guzerat and the Deccan.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the amount of rainfall in Guzerat and the Deccan since the 1st June; and what is the probable forecast of the monsoon.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) In a telegram of the 9th July the Viceroy reports "general and beneficial rain in Bombay, though insufficient in parts of three affected districts, in two of which sowing operations have been retarded; fodder continues scarce, and cattle not yet improved in condition; drinking water supply improved, but still insufficient in parts; prices continue high; numbers on relief decreasing; employment sufficient." The forecast issued in June last by the Meteorological Department predicts a seasonable rainfall not appreciably smaller in amount than that of the past year.

  Children over fourteen attending State-Aided Schools in Ireland.
  MR. MASSIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-
  712
  land the number of children over fourteen years of age in Ireland who are attending the day schools aided from the Parliamentary grant, and the proportion per 1,000 which those scholars bear to the total number of scholars attending those schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the number of children over fourteen years of age who are on the rolls of national schools in Ireland is 47,173 or sixty-four per thousand of the total number on the rolls. The Commissioners' records do not enable them to state the number of children over fourteen who are in average attendance, but the number over fifteen years of age in average attendance is 11,766 or 23·5 per thousand of the total average attendance.

  Army Promotions-Outside Influence.
  MR. PAUL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is acquainted with the terms of an instruction issued by the Army Council on the 26th of April 1904, and forbidding attempts to obtain favourable consideration of any application by the use of outside influence; and whether he is prepared to enforce that order by treating every breach of it as an admission on the part of the applicant that his case is not good on its merits.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Hildane.) I am aware of this order. It has been embodied in the King's Regulations, and the Army Council is determined that it shall be enforced.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Tidworth Barracks.
  LORD CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the barracks at Tidworth are still lit with oil; if it is proposed to introduce electric light, and thereby mitigate the chances of fire;

  713
  and will he say whether the barracks at Tidworth are insured against fire risks.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): The introduction of electric lighting instead of oil is entirely a matter of funds; none are available at this moment for this purpose. It is not the practice to insure Army barracks against fire risks.

  Norwich Barracks.
  LORD CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the barracks at Norwich, the foundations of which were laid early in October, 1905, are yet completed: and, if not, when will they be.
  MR. HALDANE: As I informed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, in February last†, barrack policy must be subservient to and dependent on general policy. I am not yet in a position to announce a decision on the question of military policy involved, and so I cannot at present assent to the expenditure of nearly £200,000 which would be involved by the building of new barracks at Norwich.
  †See (4) Debates, clii., 773.
  LORD CASTLEREAGHasked if the Army Council was in favour of the Norwich scheme.
  MR. HALDANE: The Army Council has never expressed an opinion on the subject, but I know the Council very strongly holds the view I have just expressed.

  Army Establishment Shortage.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT:: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can give from actuarial calculation figures as to the automatic shortage which will take place in the establishment of the Regular Army at Home and in India during the next six years.
  † see(4)debates,clii.,773.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Baronet is presumed to refer to the shortages which may be expected in the strength of the Infantry of the Line. On the assumption that the intake of recruits will not exceed 22,000 annually and that present establishments are maintained, it is probable that two years hence the shortage will be between 12,000 and 14,000. After that date the effective strength would begin to rise as the men enlisted under the three years system pass to the reserve.

  Army Chaplain and the Government Education Bill.
  MR. SEAVERNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in May last, at Tunbridge Wells, a highly partisan sermon attacking the Government's Education Bill was delivered by the chaplain at a camp church parade of the West Kent Imperial Yeomanry whether attendance at these services is compulsory; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent the recurrence of such practices in the future, and will further provide that attendance shall not be demanded from those who are not members of the Established Church.
  MR. HALDANE: The service in question was not a camp church parade, but was held in the parish church. According to the custom in the Army, all men not on leave or specially employed attend, but there is no compulsion to attend in the case of men who do not belong to the denomination concerned The action of the chaplain is to be regretted, and it is presumed will not be repeated.

  Army Pensions.
  MR. PARKER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of private soldiers of all ranks, as also non-commissioned officers, that have retired on a pension during the last seven years.
  MR. HALDANE: Number of noncommissioned officers and men discharged

  Service Pensions.

  Year.

  1899–1900

  1900–01

  1901–02

  1902–03

  1903–04

  1904–05

  1805–06.

  Non-Com. Officers

  656

  372

  708

  1,256

  1,050

  1,023

  1,204

  Corporals and Privates

  379

  162

  343

  768

  641

  615

  1,897

  Disability Pensions.

  Year.

  1899–1900

  1900–01

  1901–02

  1902–03

  1903–04

  1904–05

  1905–06.

  Non-Com. Officers

  148

  352

  530

  434

  289

  269

  239

  Corporals and Privates

  1,362

  4,849

  8,484

  6,960

  3,382

  2,665

  1,629

  Totals during the seven years—

  Service Pensions.

  Disability Pensions.

  Total number of Pensions.

  Non-Com. Officers

  6,269

  2,261

  8,530

  Corporals and Privates

  4,805

  29,331

  34,136

  Total

  11,074

  31,592

  42,666

  Under-Age Recruits.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the General Officer commanding the Forces in Ireland will now agree to the discharge of Michael M'Garvey, who enlisted in the Royal Irish Fusiliers, and whose parents applied for his discharge, he being still under eighteen years of age.
  MR. HALDANE: Questions of underage discharges are, under the King's Regulations, dealt with by General Officers Commanding in Chief, with whose discretion I am not prepared to interfere.
  MR. HUGH LAW: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it will encourage recruiting in Ireland to insist upon retain-
  with pensions during the seven years1899–1900 to 1905–6—
  ing with the colours boys under age who are the sole support of their parents?
  MR. HALDANE: These points can only be decided by those who have the full facts before them.

  Education in Ceylon.
  SIR C. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the fate of the Ordinance which was submitted by the Governor of Ceylon to the legislature of that Colony some month or two ago, with regard to giving power to municipalities and local boards to provide facilities for elementary vernacular education; and whether the further legislation for requiring planters to provide estate schools for the children of coolies and the inspection of those schools by Government officials has taken solid shape.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES(Mr. CHURCHILL,): The " Town Schools Ordinance " has been passed and has received His Majesty's sanction. A copy will be supplied to the hon. Member, if he desires to have it. I understand that the further legislation referred to is now being drafted.

  Indian Railway Administration.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the inconvenience and loss resulting to merchants, shippers, cultivators, and the public generally, by the insufficiency of rolling stock on the main lines of railway in India have been brought to his notice; and whether he will take such steps as may be proper and practicable to bring about an improvement in this behalf.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,): As the Secretary of State stated in reply to a Question on the 29th March,† this matter has been under consideration, and provision has been made for a large outlay upon rolling-stock during the next three years, which I hope will remove the causes of complaint.

  Rewards for Killing Tigers and Leopards.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will inquire regarding the indiscriminate offer of rewards by the Government of, and by the local governments in, India for the destruction of tigers and leopards; and whether, seeing that these animals keep down the head of deer and sounder of pig, which destroy the crops of the cultivator, he will consider the propriety of discontinuing to offer such rewards at the cultivator's expense, to the cultivator's detriment.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The Secretary of State does not consider that the discontinuance of these rewards is advisable. He thinks it is generally felt that any indirect advantage to crops that might result from the multiplication of tigers and leopards would be more than counterbalanced by the increased danger to human beings, cattle and domestic animals.
  MR. REESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that these rewards only operated on the margin of the cultivation where these animals wore personally known to the villagers.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: No doubt the Secretary of State is aware of that.
  † see(4)debates,eliv.,1521.

  Alleged Hanging of a Reprieved Native in Eastern Bengal.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is in a position to give any explanation of the circumstances under which Udoya Patni, of Sylhet, in Eastern Bengal and Assam, was hanged under the orders of the Lieutenant-Governor, although his prayer for mercy had been transmitted by the Lieutenant-General to the Governor-General in Council, and the orders of the Governor-General, granting a reprieve, arrived after the execution had taken place; and whether he can state what action he his taken, or proposes to take, in the matter.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The Secretary of State is not in a position to answer any Question on this subject to-day.
  SIR H. COTTON: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when I may put the Question down again?
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I am afraid I cannot. I am sure hon. Members who have Questions on this very grave subject will recognise it is absolutely essential that the India Office should be in possession of every fact available. I can assure the House, however, that no time is being lost, and that the Secretary of State will shortly be able to make his promised statement.

  Slavery in Morocco.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Sultan of Morocco has taken any steps to carry out the recommendation of the Algeciras Conference that the public sale of slaves should be prohibited in his dominions; and whether he has any official information showing that a young black girl was recently sold in the city of Tangier, and that her father was unable to obtain any redress.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): His Majesty's Government have so far received no information as to the steps taken by the Sultan of Morocco to carry out the recommendations of the Algeciras Conference that the public sale of slaves should be prohibited in his dominions.

  719
  They are, however, in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Tangier, who has brought the subject to the attention of the Sultan's Government, and has received a reply stating that the Sultan has sent orders to all the authorities of the towns to put a stop to the sale into slavery of children born free. In reply to the second part of the Question, no information has been received of the case of slave dealing mentioned.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will there be power under the agreement come to at the Algeciras Conference to stop the public sale of slaves in the coast towns?
  SIR EDWARD GREYasked for notice of that Question.

  Great Britian and Servia—The Regicides.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that of the thirty two officers and others who took an active part in the assassination of the late King and Queen of Servia, four only have been retired, aad that such four have boon retired on full pay, with the special thanks of King Peter; whether he is aware that the resumption of diplomatic relations in these circumstances has caused misgiving in the minds of a section of the Servian community; whether he is aware that it has been officially announced that the British representative, upon his arrival at Belgrade, is to be escorted to the Palace by prominent regicides; and whether, in all these circumstances, he will consider the propriety of delaying the departure of the British representative and the reception of the Servian Minister pending further explanations from Belgrade.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: For the first paragraph of this Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned by me to his Question in this House on the 28th ultimo,† namely, that the conditions upon which the resumption of Diplomatic relations between His Majesty's Government and the Servian Government was made to depend having been fulfilled, His Majesty's Government are not concerned with other matters The Answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. In regard to the third para-
  †See (i) Delates, clix, 1133.
  720
  graph of the Question His Majesty's Government are not aware that any such official announcement has been made, or that any such intention exists, which would obviously be quite contrary to the spirit in which Diplomatic relations have been renewed.
  MR. MACVEAGH: In view of the horror in which this country holds these and other regicides, will the right hon. Baronet consider the advisability of sending the King of Servia a copy of Lord Rosebery's "Life of Oliver Cromwell"?

  Metropolitan Police at Race Meetings.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to say by whom the application was made for the services of the Metropolitan Police to keep order at the recent race meeting at Ascot; by whom the request was granted; and how much was charged for the services of the police.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The police maintaining order at Ascot were applied for by Mr. Clement, the clerk of the course, Lieutenant-Colonel Carter, on behalf of the Grand Stand Trustees, the secretaries of the Coaching Club, the Four-in-Hand Club, and the Cavalry Clubs; the Great Western, London and Southwestern, and South-Eastern and Chatham Railways. A charge was made for their services at the customary rate for police employed beyond the district. This rate is fixed for each rank at a sum which includes pay, clothing, allowances, and every other item in the cost of a police officer. The total sum was £1,202 11s. 9d.
  DR. COOPERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that many of the suburbs of London were denuded of police during this meeting?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I am not at all aware of that.
  MR. MOONEY: Who is the-Master of the Buekhounds who, according

  721
  to a recent Answer by the right hon Gentleman, defrays a portion of the cost.
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Metropolitan Police are used to maintain order at the Lingfield or Gatwick race meetings, or at any other race meetings outside the Metropolitan Police area; and whether he will consider the advisabilty of allowing the Metropolitan Police being used outside their district.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It has been usual for many years for the Metropolitan Police to maintain order at certain race meetings outside the Metropolitan Police area. Those meetings are Aseot, Goodwood, Windsor, and Sandown. Metropolitan Police are not sent for this purpose to Lingfield or Gatwick. A considerable proportion of the spectators at these meetings come from the Metropolitan Police district, and, moreover, the county police cannot always provide the number of men required.
  MR. COOPERasked whether it was the duty of the metropolitan ratepayers to find police to keep order in other counties.

  Motor Car Accidents.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of accidents in the London area during the month of June last from motor 'buses and motor cars respectively; in how many instances have personal injuries resulted; and in how many cases have such injuries proved fatal.
  MR. GLADSTONE: During the month of June the number of accidents known to the police to have been caused by motor cars (including motor cycles) within the Metropolitan Police district was 559. Of these 178 resulted in personal injury and four proved fatal. In the same month 390 accidents wore caused by motor omnibuses, of which eighty resulted in personal injury and three proved fatal. Those figures do not include accidents caused by tramcars.

  Mr. H-H. Cunynghame, CB.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the various Commissions and Committees of inquiry upon which Mr. Henry Hardinge S. Cunynghame, C.B., the Logal Assistant Under-Secretary to the Home Office, has been appointed since his advent to the Department, or, if the information is beyond the limits of an oral Answer, will he give it in a Return; and what special qualifications Mr. Cunynghame possesses to report to the Department on mining and engineering questions.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Cunynghame has served with distinction on many Royal Commissions and Committees. Among others he was Chairman of the Committees on the notification of industrial accidents, and the use of electricity in mines. For twelve years all Home Office matters relating to factories and mines have come before him. He has served in the Royal Engineers and is a member of the Institute of Electrical Engineers. His scientific attainments are well known and appreciated by all who know his work.

  Chester-le-Street Vaccination Prosecution.
  MR. J. W. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Richard Dixon, of Birtley, was prosecuted under Section 29 of the Vaccination Act of 1867, at Chester-le-Street police court on July 4th, 1906; that the public vaccinator admitted, in evidence, that he had not called to offer vaccination at the home of the child before the cause of complaint arose, viz., before the child attained the age of six months, and that when he did call at the home, after the child had attained the age of seven months, he did so without having previously given twenty-four hours notice of his intended visit, contrary to the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Vaccination Act, 1898; and whether he will remit the fines and costs inflicted at Chester-le-Street petty sessions.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Justices convicted the defendant of neglecting to have his child vaccinated within six months of birth without rendering any

  723
  reasonable excuse for such neglect. They took the view that the notice and visit contemplated by Section 1 (3) of the Vaccination Act, 1898, are not conditions precedent to a conviction. This is a question of law which I have no authority to determine, but I understand the Justices have agreed to state a case for decision of the High Court, and while the matter is thus sub judice it would be improper for me to interfere.

  Tin and Black Plate.
  MR. PARKER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Summerbell) I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the fact that there are 250,000 persons employed in the manufacture of tin and black-plate; that the manufacture of such articles takes place under unhealthy and dangerous conditions; and, if so, whether it is his intention to afford more inspection to tin-plate works.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The number of persons employed in the manufacture of black and tin-plate in this country is, I think, very much smaller than that stated in the Question. I am unable to give the exact figures, as in the factory department's tables the industry is included under the heading " Conversion of iron into steel, etc."; but the total number under this heading in 1901 was 138,093, and the black and tin-plate workers would form only a small part. According to the figures of the 1901 census the number employed in the manufacture of tin plate was just over 15,000. The industry was made the subject of special inquiry in the years 1899 to 1901, and a conference was held with the manufacturers at which certain suggestions for protecting the workers against injurious fumes and dust were discussed. I will call for a special report as to the progress that has been made since then and the present conditions of the industry.

  Truck Commission.
  MR. PARKER: On behalf of the hon. Member for Sunderland I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Truck Commission will meet during the autumn session; and
  724
  when a Report from the Commission may be expected.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The task imposed on the Committee is a very heavy one, and they will continue their labours during the autumn session. Their work is being pushed on with all expedition, and it is hoped that a Report may be made to me as early as possible next year.

  Death Sentences.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sentences of death were passed in Great Britain during the ten years ending 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900, respectively; how many of such sentences were duly carried out; how many commuted to terms of imprisonment; and how many wore remitted altogether.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The various figures asked for would take too long to deliver, but if the hon. Member will put down his Question unstarred, I shall be happy to give them in the form of a Table.

  Chester-le-Street Vaccination Prosecution.
  MR. J. W. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Richard Dixon, of Birtley, was prosecuted under Section 29 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, at Chester-le-Street police court on July 4th, 1906; that the public vaccinator admitted in evidence that he had not called to offer vaccination at the home of the child before the cause of complaint arose (viz., before the child attained the age of six months); that when he did so, after the child had attained the age of seven months, he did so without having previously given twenty-four hours' notice of his intented visit, contrary to the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Vaccination Act, 1898; that the public vaccinator stated in evidence on oath that it was his usual custom to call upon parents to offer to vaccinate their children, without giving the notice provided by statute; that he omitted to send such notice on the advice of the Local Government Board's inspector; and whether he will take steps to ensure the observance of the provisions of the

  725
  Vaccination Act, in the Chester-le-Street union, in the above respects.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am aware of the case referred to. I understand that the public vaccinator did not give notice before he visited the home of the child because he had been informed by the father that he would have the child vaccinated by his own doctor, and in the circumstances he did not think notice necessary. The inspector alluded to retired a few years ago, and I have not been able to learn from him what advice he gave as to notices, but the public vaccinator states that in future cases he will endeavour to carry out rigidly the provisions of the Vaccination Acts in this matter.

  Milk Trade.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, having regard to the fact that in the recently issued Report of the Local Government Board for Scotland the Board of Agriculture are stated to have expressed the opinion that milk drawn from a cow within three days after calving is not in a fit condition for sale to the public as milk, and that the sale of any such product as milk renders the seller liable to prosecution under Section 6 of the sale of Food and Drugs Acts, will he state what steps have been taken to make this opinion known to the proprietors of dairies throughout the United Kingdom; and what steps have been taken to protect the public against sales of this character.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We are under the impression that it is generally recognised by dairy farmers that the milk referred to is not of the character of ordinary milk, and there is no evidence that it is sold as such to any appreciable extent. We shall be glad, however, to call attention to the matter in the next issue of our monthly Journal.

  Income-Tax Officials.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,
  726
  whether the Board of Inland Revenue have power under the Income Tax Act of 1842 to control the action of the local tax: commissioners in regard to assessments; will he say whether the Board have power under this Act, or any other, to dismiss an official (clerk, parochial assessor, or collector) appointed by the said commissioners; and whether the penalties provided by the Act of 1880 to meet obstruction, negligence, etc., by clerks, assessors, and collectors in England and Wales would have to be enforced by the local commissioners who appoint them.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): As regards the first Question, the Board of Inland Revenue, through their surveyors, have considerable powers as regards the initiation and correction of assessments. But they have no power to control the final decisions of local commissioners, except by reference to the courts and the obtaining of a judicial decision on matters in dispute. The Answer to the second Question is in the negative, and to the third, in the affirmative.

  Estate Duty.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue has power to recover, by surcharge or other means, estate duty which has been either omitted from any affidavit or under-estimated wilfully or otherwise; and will he state whether the authority is controlled by the Statute of Limitations and restricted to three years, or extends beyond that period.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. The power of the Board of Inland Revenue in the matter referred to is not limited as to time, or controlled by the Statute of Limitations. The power may, however, be terminated by the issue of a certificate under Section II. of the Finance Act, 1894.

  Laundry Inspection.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee if he will inform the House the names of the laundries that are employed by his Committee; whether they are State-inspected; and, if so, are trades

  727
  union rates of wages paid in such laundries.
  MR. JACOBY: The names of the laundries employed by the Kitchen Committee are Rogers and Cook, Limited, and the Seabrook Laundry Limited. Under the Factory Acts all laundries are State inspected, with the exception of those connected with charitable institutions. I am informed there is no trades union rates of wages, the employees being mostly women.

  Wells Charities.
  MR. SILCOCK: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether his attention has been drawn to the new scheme for the administration of Llewellyn's and Charles's charities in the city of Wells, Somerset, which provides that only three trustees shall be elected and five shall be co-opted; whether, seeing that it was the intention of the founder that the charity should lie administered by the Corporation, and that for a long period it was so administered, he will give the reasons which induced the Commissioners to complete and seal a scheme before replying to the representations which they had invited from the Wells Corporation, and without giving any reasons for refusing to appoint a majority of representative trustees; and will the Commissioners take steps to give effect to the request of the Corporation and to secure that at least a majority of the trustees shall be elected.
  MR. TEEVELYAN: This Charity was removed from the control of the Wells Corporation under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835. As I have explained on a previous occasion, the Commissioners cannot make a scheme, or amend one when made, when the income, as in this case, exceeds £50, except on application from the trustees. In the present instance, the Commissioners on their own motion proposed to introduce two representatives of the Town Council, and increased the number after publication to three, but they feel bound to exercise a discretion in such matters so as not unduly to discourage application for schemes by trustees of such large charities. The suggestions of the Town Council were
  728
  fully considered, and were acknowledged on the establishment of the scheme, but the Commissioners could not undertake to enter into correspondence on the subject of such suggestions when no point has arisen requiring further investigation.

  Protection of Fisheries.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state the number and the names of the gunboats at present employed in the protection of the fisheries off the Scotch coasts; and can he state the number and the names of the gunboats supplied by the Admiralty for this purpose.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The following four vessels are cruisers under the Fishery Board:—" Vigilant," " Brenda," " Minna," and " Freya." The Admiralty has placed the " Ringdove" at the disposal of the Board for fishery protection and on occasion they grant the temporary services of a vessel for special duty. His Majesty's Ship "Hussar" has been employed this summer at Balta Sound.
  MR. POWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that Answer to the Irish Secretary? It will strengthen his application to the Admiralty on behalf of the Irish fisheries.

  Crime in Clare.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the judge at the assizes held at Ennis for the county of Clare, viz., that in not a single instance have the judges been called upon to investigate any serious crime; whether he is aware that the county of Clare has got an unqualified certificate of good character from Mr. Justice Johnston; and whether he will explain why the Government counsel wore employed in the prosecution of an individual charged with the larceny of a pair of winkers.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I have seen a newspaper report of the learned Judge's address to the Grand Jury, in which he stated that the cases for trial were in no way exceptional. Eight cases in all were tried, none of which were of a very serious character. In six of these there

  729
  were convictions, and in two, acquittals. I gather from the reports of the police authorities that county Clare is, with the exception of one locality, in a satisfactory condition. In the particular case to which the hon. Member refers, the accused pleaded not guilty when before the petty sessions court, and demanded to be tried by a jury. The case having been sent forward in the ordinary way, I felt bound to direct it to be conducted by the Crown counsel. The seriousness of an offence cannot be determined alone by the value of the article stolen. The accused was convicted by the jury.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to that portion of the Judge's address in which, in endeavouring to describe the condition of the county, he said he could only compare it to Utopia? That is my constituency.
  MR. CHERRY: I am sorry to say I did not see a report of that portion of his address.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That was the best part of it.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement of the Judge to the effect that in order to make this an assize case the Crown added sixpence to the value of the " winkers "?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Dundrum Inner Bay Crossing.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the danger and inconvenience of the crossing Dun drum inner bay at low water, he will consider, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, the Agricultural Board, and the local authorities, the advisability of erecting a bridge joining Ballykinlar Camp, at Redmond's Point, with Dundrum for the convenience of farmers in that agricultural centre as well as for the troops quartered there during: a large portion of the year.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): It has been represented to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction
  730
  that a bridge or causeway at the place suggested would be a great convenience to the residents of the district. The navigation, however, would have to be provided for and the project would present considerable difficulty, and in the circumstances the Department are of opinion that they would not be justified in incurring expenditure on the suggested works. I have communicated with my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War upon the subject, and he informs me that a bridge would not be of sufficient importance from a military point of view to justify the expenditure of Army funds upon it.

  Mrs. Lewis's Estate, Woodford.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, have been taken by the Instates Commissioners to find out whether Mrs. Lewis, of Balinagar, Woodford, county Galway, is prepared to negotiate terms of sale with a view to the reinstatement of the evicted tenants.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are at present in communication with the agent of the estate referred to, with the view of purchasing the lands concerned, under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.

  Cooks Town Farm, Gort.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been directed to the circumstances attending the sale of the Cooks Town farm, near Gort, belonging to Mr. Edward Martyn, Tullyra Castle, Ardrahan, county Galway; whether he is aware that a number of small tenants in the neighbourhood were looking forward anxiously to have their holdings enlarged out of this farm; can he say if the farm has been sold to a large holder of land in Kilbecanby, near Gort, by Mr. Martyn, to the exclusion of these small tenants; and will he, for the general peace and contentment of the people, take such stops as may be necessary not to allow this rumoured sale to go through.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that two originating

  731
  applications have been lodged with them by Mr. Edward Martyn for the sale of portions of his estate in county Gal way. Neither of these applications, however, comprises the lands of Cooks Town to which the Question refers, and the Commissioners are not aware of the matters stated in the Question. If further particulars should be furnished to the Commissioners they will have enquiries made as to the alleged sale of the Cooks Town farm.

  Limerick Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, has the inspector, deputed by the Estates Commissioners, to enquire into the cases of evicted tenants in the county of Limerick, as yet made any inquiry in regard to the evicted farm of Mr. Edward Hartigan, in Bettyville Manister, in that county, formerly held from the Rev. J. T. Lee, of Hardwicke Rectory, Cambridge; whether he is aware that the Rev. Mr. Lee has alleged that he had paid £800 for this farm of Hartigan's, and that this sum was arrived at by adding up arrears of rent on a rack-rented farm and law costs to the amount of £500; and whether, seeing that some time since negotiations for reinstatement were opened between landlord, agent, and tenant, the Estates Commissioners will use their kind services to bring to completion the proposed arrangement.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not yet received the report of their inspector upon this case. The Commissioners have boon informed by the Rev. Mr. Lee that he did not pay £800 for the tenant's interest alone. Mr. Lee states that he bought the tenant's interest at a sheriff's sale, and had to pay a considerable sum of money to a creditor who had a charge on the tenant's interest, and in addition he lost a large amount due by the tenant for rent. When the Estates Commissioners have received their inspector's report they will consider what further action they can take in the case.
  MR. LUNDON: The offer by the landlord was all a bogey proceeding, was it not?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to that.
  MR. LUNDON: A very safe reply.

  Irish Magistracy—Fees on Appointment.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the fee payable on the appointment of a magistrate in Ireland is£6, seeing that it is only 10s. in Scotland.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the fee of £6 payable on each Commission of the peace in Ireland is fixed by an order made a good many years ago by the then Lord Chancellor with the concurrence of the Treasury, under the provisions of the 84 Section of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act, 1877. I understand that the fee payable in Scotland is now but five shillings. The matter is not within the control of the executive Government, but I will bring the Question to the notice of. The Lord Chancellor.

  Irish Herring Fishery.
  MR. HUGH LAW:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain Scotch herring curers have been accustomed to use the name of Downings Bay, in county Donegal, as a brand for herrings not captured or cured in Ireland; and that, in seeking to gain the prices usually paid for Donegal fish,, they have endangered the reputation of a special Irish product in the markets on the Continent; and whether the Irish Government will take any steps to put an end to this practice.
  MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture have received information to the effect that certain curers in Scotland have recently adopted the practice mentioned in the Question; and the matter is now being investigated.
  MR. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-consider the matter seeing that the use of an Irish brand would put a stop to this practice on the part of Scottish curers?
  MR. BRYCE: As far as the Department can ascertain the Irish fish curers are not favourable to having a brand, but

  733
  if it can be shown that they desire it, I will reconsider the matter.

  The Lord Lieutenant and Irish Self-Government.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the Lord-Lieutenant in Cork, on the 4th July, in which he stated that His Majesty's advisers will not be forgetful of the undertaking in His Majesty's Speech from the Throne, to study most carefully what can be done for the fulfilment of the aspirations, alluded to in an address presented by the town council, in favour of the passing of a measure that would entrust to them the control of their own affairs; and, if so, whether he can give any information as to the steps intended to be taken to fulfil the aspirations alluded to.
  MR. BRYCE: I may refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury to a Question addressed to him on Wednesday last by the hon. Member for Mid Armagh,† to which I cannot add anything.
  †See Col. 59.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman contrive to warn the Lord-Lieutenant that the Member for East Down has his eye upon him?
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: That is unnecessary.

  Court Fees at King's County Assizes.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Young versus Edward Brennan at the King's County Assizes, on June 30th last, when it was proved that in certain costs taxed in the King's County county court a fee of 5s. to the crier of the King's County county court had been allowed; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking-steps by legislation or otherwise to prevent such fees being charged in future.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the county court judge that as a matter of fact, no fee was allowed by him to the crier of the court in the particular case referred to, and that consequently the disallowance at assizes of the supposed
  † see col.59.
  734
  fee was made under a misapprehension. In any event, the allowance of fees to criers appears to be a matter for the county court judge, with whose judicial action I have no power to interfere. I am not aware that legislation on the subject is necessary.

  County Clare Police.
  MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, taking the fact of the peaceful state of the county of Clare into consideration, he will give instructions to have the Royal Irish Constabulary force in the county reduced, in number.
  MR. BRYCE: At the triennial redistribution of the Royal Irish Constabulary in May last, the free force of county Clare was reduced by fifty-two men, as the result of the peaceful state of the county. The established force of the county is now 367 sergeants and constables, and this, in the opinion of the police authorities, is the lowest number with which it can at present be policed. I need hardly say that the possibility of reducing the police force in the most tranquil parts of the country will continue to engage the attention of the Irish Government.

  Irish Land Prices.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the Western Problem will be such as to enable the Commission to inquire into the cause of the inflation of prices under the Land Act of 1903; and how far the operation of the zones and removal of inspection have contributed to that result.
  MR. BRYCE: It is not intended to direct the proposed Commission to inquire into the subject mentioned in the Question. The matters connected with the problem of congestion are so numerous and important as to be fully sufficient to occupy the attention of the Commission.

  Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made at the last.

  735
  meeting of the Agricultural Council, to the effect that, out of £19,000 paid by the Department since 1900, to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, £17,000 of that sum was handed away without the knowledge or approval of the Agricultural Board; whether he is aware that this statement was made by an elected member of the Agricultural Board with the concurrence of four other elected colleagues; and can he say upon what authority and for what purpose the Department disbursed this money without submitting the payments to the supervision of the Agricultural Board.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that a statement to the effect mentioned was made by an elected member of the Agricultural Board, who said that he had consulted four of his elected colleagues on the subject. The inference that the payments wore made without the concurrence of the Agricultural Board is, I am informed, incorrect. The expenditure in question, which was in respect of work one for the Department by officers of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, was undertaken with the concurrence of the Agricultural Board in the circumstances detailed in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for East Mayo on May 21st.†
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Irish Agricultural Organisation Society is a trade society competing with private traders?
  MR. BRYCEasked for notice of that Question.

  Irish Poor Law Commission.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state, after his promised communication with the Commissioners, when the Report of the Poor Law Commission (Ireland) will be presented to the House; and whether he can explain the cause of the delay.
  MR. BRYCE: the Commissioners inform me that they cannot yet name a definite date for the presentation of their report, but that every effort will be made
  †See (4) Debates, clvii., 902.
  736
  to submit it to the Lord-Lieutenant with as little delay as possible.

  Lord Stratheden and Campbell's Evicted Tenants.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many evicted tenants have been reinstated on the estate of Lord Stratheden and Campbell, Barna, county Galway, since the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1903.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have no information as to the number of evicted tenants reinstated on this estate. No applications have been received by the Commissioners from persons claiming to have been evicted from the estate. If, however, proceedings for sale should be instituted before the Commissioners, they will have due enquiry made in regard to the evicted tenants.

  Lord Stratheden and Campbell's Barna Estate.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the nature of the agreements entered into for the purchase of their holdings by the tenants of Lord Stratheden and Campbell, of Barna, county Galway, and the number of years' purchase; whether the tenants had ever received reductions in rent from the courts: what is the average acreage of the holdings; what are the conditions with respect to mineral and sporting rights; whether he can say if representations have been made to the Estates Commissioners that threats have been made to compel the tenants to accept the conditions of the landlord; and if the tenants were made fully aware of the nature of the agreements into which they were entering.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estate Commissioners inform me that, at the request of the owner, they have recently had a preliminary inspection made of the Barna estate, and have informed the owner that they considered that it should be sold to them under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act. No formal proceedings for sale have yet been instituted, and no agreements have been lodged. The information asked for cannot,

  737
  therefore, be given. If the estate should be offered for sale to the Commissioners, they will make due enquiry under the provisions of Section 6, and, in estimating the price, will have due regard to what the tenants, who they understand are mostly non-judicial, are willing to give.

  Cattle Mutilation in County Limerick.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: On behalf of the lion. Member for South Antrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on June 9th a case of cruelty to animals was perpetrated on an evicted farm on the Ellis estate at Abbeyfeale, county Limerick, when a cow was covered with paraffin and set fire to, and had subsequently to be destroyed; and will he say whether the police have any information as to the guilty person or persons, and as to the motive for the crime.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The police are pursuing their enquiries in the case, but have not yet succeeded in bringing the offender to justice. The police have no information as the motive of the offender, and oven if they had it would be undesirable to state the fact.

  Limerick Learner's Grievance.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why a learner was called upon to resign at Limerick on account of ill-health; is he aware that the learner was certified as sound in health by throe medical men of eminence; and will he say why, in the circumstances of the case, the certificates of these doctors wore not accepted.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I explained in writing to the hon. Member that the youth to whom he refers is not constitutionally fit for Post Office employment, and that in his own interest, as well as in the interest of the service, it is desirable that he should follow some other employment.
  MR. DELANY: Why were the certificates of the throe independent medical men ignored?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I can only say that this case has been carefully considered both by my predecessor and myself.

  Kingbridge Telegraph Staff.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General is he aware that a complaint was made a considerable time ago by the staff at the Kingbridge telegraph office, Dublin, with regard to the absence of facilities for obtaining meals while doing duty there; is he aware that under the present arrangement the men are compelled to visit neighbouring public houses to procure food; and can he say why no answer has been given by the controller of the Dublin telegraph office to a petition on this subject, and will he take immediate steps to improve this condition of affairs.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Two years ago the Post Office telegraphists employed in the telegraph office at Kingbridge Railway Station were allowed to use the dining room provided by the Great Southern and Western Railway Company for their staff. At the end of last year, however, the company withdrew the privilege, and as the result of the petition which was received endeavours were made to induce the company to reconsider their decision. I propose to communicate further with the company on the subject.

  Irish Intermediate Education Board.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the Intermediate Board for Ireland refused, without giving any reason, to obey the Resolution of the House of Commons, steps will be taken to have the members of the Board who refused to obey the House brought to the Bar and admonished for their misdemeanour.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): It is not the case, as the Question seems to assume, that the Board of Intermediate Education for Ireland are now refusing to obey the Resolution of the House of Commons. They are understood to have retired from the position which they at first hastily took upon the subject.

  Indian Budget.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the decision to take the Indian Budget upon the Morning Sitting July 20th and of the consequent curtailment of the time available for the consideration of Indian affairs upon the one day in the session devoted to India, he will move to suspend the- Five o'Clock Rule upon that occasion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is a good deal to be said for the course which my hon. friend suggests. I believe it is not expected that the debate will go on till a late hour if the Five o'Clock Rule is suspended and, with the concurrence of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India I propose, as at present advised, to move the suspension of the Rule.

  Merchant Shipping Bill.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can now say when the Report stage of the Merchant Shipping Bill will lie taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope that the Report stage of the Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken towards the end of the session.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the arrangements for Supply.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the arrangement at present was that Navy Estimates (Vote 8) would be taken on Friday, and the Vote for the Local Government Beard on Thursday week, after which the order of Supply to be taken would be Irish Estimates, Colonial Office, and Home Office.
  SIR J. JARDINEasked whether, on the Colonial Vote, the question of the Ceylon pearl fisheries could be discussed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that on the Colonial Vote there would be an opportunity of discussing everything colonial.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c, with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to printed. [No. 247.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 247.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 305.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Clancy, Mr. Mooney, Mr. Charles Devlin, Mr. Field, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. Vincent Kennedy, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Luke White, Mr. Hart Davies, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Charles Craig, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Mr. Fetherstonshaugh and Mr. James Campbell.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill; Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and Mr. Cremer; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. James Bryce, and Mr. John Williams.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON further reported: That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Bill: Mr. Halley Stewart; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Watt.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 10:—
SIR WILLIAM ANSONmoved the omission of subsection (1), in order to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education to make an addition to the clause by the insertion therein of the names of the Commissioners.
Amendment proposed—
"To omit sub-section (1)."—(Sir William Anson.)
Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,)said this matter had escaped his attention. He was perfectly willing that the names should be inserted in the clause. He had not got all the titles of the Commissioners with him, so perhaps he might be allowed to move the insertion of the names, and add the dignities on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'three Commissioners to be appointed by his Majesty' and to insert the words ' The Right Hon. Sir Arthur Wilson, K.C.I.E., Sir Hugh Owen, G.C.B., and Mr. Woreley-Taylor,'K.C.'"— (Mr. Birrell.)
Question, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause"— put, and negatived.
Words inserted.
LORD BALCARRESnext moved the omission of sub-section (3). He wished to know what estimate had been made of the expenses of the Commission and where the money was to come from. He brought forward his Motion in order to hear the opinion of the Government upon the matter.
742
The noble Lord also wished to know whether a sub-commission would be appointed.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 6, line 14, to leave out' sub-section (3).' "—(Lord Balcarres.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. BIRRELLsaid it was, he believed, the intention of the Government that the remuneration of the Commissioners should come out of the million of money to be provided under Clause 12. The Resolution before the House was formulated in that way. The remuneration of the Commissioners would be settled as soon as an arrangement had boon made with these gentlemen, and he dared say the amount would be determined by the number of sittings they held, or something of that kind. That was the only answer he could give at the present time. With regard to the appointment of sub-commissioners, the Government did not contemplate taking such a step.
LORD BALCARRESsaid that as Clause 12 stood in the Bill the million of money was to be distributed among the local education authorities, and unless the right hon. Gentleman meant that the three Commissioners were to be paid by the local authorities his arguments fell to the-ground. They had had a specific declaration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this million was not to be provided during the present financial year, and therefore there would be a gap during which the Commissioners would be engaged and it would be impossible to pay them the money owed them by the State. He thought they required some elucidation of the point; he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would give it them at the present time?
MR. BIRRELLsaid he had already answered the Question according, he believed, to the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the matter.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if those were the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the matter it was evident the right hon.

743
Gentleman had not read the Bill, or he would have realised that some change was necessary in Clause 12. He thought he could say what had happened without much difficulty. There had been a conversation between the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The former had seen that it was impossible to get any more than a million pounds, and so the matter had been left there. He, however, contended that it could not be left there, and it was not sufficient that they should alter Clause 12; in fact Clause 12 should be left as it was as far as the present point was concerned, but a new section would have to be introduced specifically stating that these gentlemen were to receive remuneration by statute.
MR. BIRRELLsaid they were, up to the present, quite in order. The Resolution provided for the million pounds and also for the remuneration of the Commissioners. If any inaccuracy had been committed it was by himself in saying that the remuneration of the Commission should come out of the million. It was provided that the remuneration of the Commissioners should come out of the public funds, and therefore it was not necessary to alter Clause 12. He would, he thought, be able to make clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this remuneration would come from outside the million pounds.
LORD BALCARRESpointed out that it was imperative that the monies to be provided for these gentlemen should be set out in the financial Estimates.
MR. BIRRELLreplied that it might be necessary to provide supplementary Estimates.
MR. STUART WORTLEYasked whether it would not be necessary to have a supplementary Estimate for the remuneration of the Commission, on which the House might discuss its constitution.
MR. BIRRELL: That is most likely.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ASHLEYmoved an Amendment to subsection (5)— " To insert after the word ' Commissioners,' the words, ' each of them ' with the additional words ' subject to an appeal to the three Commissioners sitting together.'" He took it that the duties of the three Commissioners were to make inquiries into and examine trusts and then formulate schemes for the carrying on of the schools. The men who had to do this work must be men of high legal standing and men accustomed to the examination of witnesses, and under such circumstances the work to be done by these gentlemen could not be delegated to men in sub ordinate positions. Especially was this necessary in view of the fact that the court had power to inflict imprisonment for contempt of court. It seemed to him, however, that unless the clause was altered a great deal of the work of the Commission would have to be done by clerks. He was sure it was the desire of the Government that the Commissioners should decide each case upon its merits and to see that none received unjust treatment. There were 14,000 voluntary scoools in England and Wales, all of which, with the exception of 200 or300, were held under charitable trusts. Each one of these schools might come before the Commissioners—he did not say it was likely—but there was the possibility of their doing so. At any rate, lot them say that one in every ten would come before the Commission; that would mean that the Commissioners would have to make 1,400 schemes for that number of schools. Let them see what time the Commissioners had got. They were allowed two years under the Bill, so that they would have to dispose of these 1,400 schemes in two years. If they worked every day in the week, which they would not wish to do, they would have to make two schemes each day. The Commissioners, however, could not be expected to do that; they would want holidays, and, therefore, if they reckoned on 170 or 180 working days in the year it would then mean that they would have to make four schemes in one day. He asked the Committee to consider, under these circumstances, whether the Commissioners would be able to give full and adequate consideration to each scheme. He did not think they would, and therefore, the object of his Amendment—which was a perfectly friendly one—was that

745
these Commissioners should have the power to work alone and make schemes alone, with the right of appeal to them sitting together in cases where trustees were of opinion that they had been unjustly dealt with. He thought that some such Amendment was necessary in the interest of the good working of the Act.
Amendment proposod—
" In page 6, line 20, after 'word ' Commissioners' to insert the word 'each of them, subject to an appeal to the three Commissioners sitting together.' ''—(Mr. Ashley.i>)
Question proposed " That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the right hon. Gentleman, before answering on the Amendment, to give some estimate of the amount of work which these Commissioners would be required to carry out. His hon. friend had contended that the amount of work was so great that if the Commissioners had to sit together they would never get through their task in the time allowed by the Bill. He confessed his hon. friend's Amendment frightened him. He had every confidence in the three gentlemen appointed. He thought they were all judicial men with great knowledge, but he had, however, greater confidence in the judgment arrived at by the three sitting together than the judgment of only one of them, even if there were the right of appeal to the whole body. He should be sorry to see such an Amendment adopted. If his hon. friend's contention was right, and the Government were also of opinion that the Commissioners could not get through their duties in the time allotted, then some other machinery must be tried than that comprised in the Bill, but he hoped it would not be the same as that advocated by his hon. friend the mover of the Amendment.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he fully appreciated the remarks of his right hon. friend and of the hon. Member for Blackpool. The Government had made very cautious inquiries, and the advice they had obtained did not enable them to form any estimate of the work these gentlemen would have to do. It would all depend upon temper, the manner in which the negotiations were carried out
746
under Clause 2, upon the general feeling of the district with regard to the Bill, and upon other circumstances over which it would be impossible for anyone to cast more than a cautious eye. Therefore, although he felt pretty certain that in many parts of the country the labour of the Commissioners would be limited to work quite within their capacity, he would not like to say in answer to the straightforward question of the right hon. Gentleman that they had been able to form any estimate which would provide an adequate answer. It was of the utmost importance that the decisions of the Court should be uniform and command respect. He at first thought of meeting the difficulty by appointing assistant Commissioners to make preliminary inquiries and report to the Commission; but on consideration he had come to the conclusion that that course would not be necessary. He should like to have an opportunity of consulting the three Commissioners as to what their view might be upon the subject. But personally he thought that, though the cases might be numerous, a few months of the work would enable the three Commissioners sitting together to discover that the things which they had to decide fell on the same lines. They would have the same kind of problem to solve in the different cases brought before them. They would soon, get to know, and the local authorities and trustees would also get to know what they had to do. Therefore on the whole he thought the Committee had better stand by the clause as it was. He would, however, take the opportunity of consulting with the Commissioners and seeing what their notions of procedure might be. They would consider the suggestion about appointing sub-Commissioners to visit places, collect information, and transmit it to the Commissioners for the purpose of enabling them to form their judgment, but he was not at all sure that that would be a satisfactory way of proceeding. The parties could state their case in writing, or in any other way that might be necessary. He thought, therefore, that he would not accept the Amendment. He ought, perhaps, to mention what he overlooked on a former occasion, that Mr. Worsley-Taylor's acceptance of the position of one of the Commissioners was. conditional on the state of his health, but he had reason to hope that that.

747
gentleman would find it possible to undertake the duties.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman could not give the Committee precise information as to the amount of work likely to fall on the Commissioners. There were a certain number of privately owned schools which, under no circumstances, would come before the Commission. Then there were certain schools held on mixed trusts which, as they now understood, will also be exempt. Then again there were certain circumstances in which the trustees might choose to go to the Board of Education, and not to the Commissioners. It might therefore be impossible to say what was the probable number of schools whose cases might be brought before the Commissioners, but could they not be told what was the proportion of schools privately owned to trust schools?
MR. TALBOTasked whether the Commissioners would always sit in London or whether they would be encouraged to go to places in the country as might seem desirable. He thought a great deal of friction might be avoided if they took the latter course. It was difficult to put on paper all the local conditions which ought to be taken into consideration. He might further suggest that the work of the Commissioners would be easier if more favourable terms were given to voluntary schools in respect of religious instruction.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that so far as moving about was concerned it was a matter which would be left in the hands of the Commissioners. They would determine the places of meeting, and it was not proposed to lay down any rule on the subject. He did not anticipate that their duty would necessarily require to be performed in the atmosphere of the place. As to the question asked by the hon. Baronet, he did not think that the maximum number of schools about which controversy would arise, and which could by any possibility come before the Commission would be found to be very large. It was difficult to estimate the number.
LORD BALCARRESsaid his impression was that in every doubtful case the parties would go to the
748
Commission. The Minister for Education had clearly stated that the Commissioners were to sit together and not to be separated. He thought that would make the appointment of sub-Commissioners necessary—not men with executive power, but men, for instance, like the inspectors of the Board of Education, who would make inquiries as to matters of fact and report the results to the Commission itself. The right hon. Gentleman apparently thought that the Commissioners need not breathe the atmosphere of the locality in order to determine the nature of the school. He dared say they need not, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question of their procedure and place of meeting was within the discretion of the Commission itself. It would be a great hardship to the owners or trustees of schools if they were required in every case of dispute between themselves and the local education authority-to come to London to lay their case before the Commissioners. There should be statutory power given to the Commissioners to appoint sub-Commissioners, but he did not see that they had such power under the clause as it stood. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider before the Report stage whether the words of the clause were sufficiently broad to enable the Commissioners to appoint sub-Commissioners.
LORD MORPETHsaid he considered it very important that the Commission should go round to the various localities. They were more likely to come to an amicable understanding if they met the trustees and the representatives of the local education authorities on the spot. It would often be very difficult to get trustees and county councillors to come to London, and, therefore, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to introduce a provision in the Bill requiring the Commissioners to go about the country. He regarded with some doubt the policy of having assistant Commissioners. He thought there would be greater safety in going before the Commissioners themselves. The persons who gave the decisions should be the persons who heard the evidence and saw the trustees. If assistant Commissioners heard the evidence it would be almost certain

749
that the decisions of the Commissioners would be coloured by the reports received from them. He would have more confidence if the Commission went down and heard all the evidence and saw' the persons concerned.
MR. PAULasked whether there was any reason to suppose that the legal effect of the trusts could only be estimated in the atmosphere of the place concerned.
MR. ASHLEYsaid the Amendment had not received the support which he should have expected, but none of the speakers had suggested a more workable plan whereby the schemes could be got through in a reasonable time. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
LORD HELMSLEYmoved an Amendment providing that the right to continue in force, after December 31st, 1908, the powers of the Commission should be vested in Parliament instead of His Majesty by Order in Council as the clause proposed. He thought this was a matter of some importance. The question whether the exceptional powers conferred on these Commissioners should be continued or not was one which Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing. Why was part of reviewing the work of the Commission taken away from Parliament? It was just as well, he submitted, when the question of the continuance of the Star Chamber arose that Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing their action during the time they had held office. He would not suggest to the Committee what should be decided by Orders in Council; but he would say that Orders in Council were intended to deal with minor details of administration and not with the body expressly set up by Parliament to carry out these functions. If Parliament set the Commission up, Parliament ought to have a say as to whether their services should be continued or not. Then as to subsection (3), which provided that the remuneration of the Commissioners and all expenses of the Commis.
750
sion incurred in the execution of this Act should be paid out of monies provided by Parliament, that seemed to him, in itself, a sufficient justification for the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 6, line 27, to leave out the words ' His Majesty may by Order in Council,' and insert' Parliament may ' "—(Viscount Helmsley.)
Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BIRRELLsaid that if the noble Lord had had to search through the proceedings of the Star Chamber as often as he had had in the course of his historical crazes, he would have had a respect for it, at all events inasmuch as its proceedings were consistent with the principles of the Tory Party. The Star Chamber was a prerogative Court, which the proposed Commission was not. This Commission was created by the authority of Parliament and the term "Star Chamber" ought not to be applied to it at all.
LORD HELMSLEYsaid he was glad to note from the remarks of the right hon. The Minister for Education that this Commission was not, to be a Star Chamber.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that at all events this Commission was created by the authority of Parliament and therefore was not open to any of the objections urged against the machinery of the ancient tribunal of the Star Chamber. He really thought that when the noble Lord saw that Parliament, having created this Court, having assigned to it certain business, having been obliged to say what was the amount of business the Court would have to do, and not knowing how long it would take the Court to do that business, it was only reasonable and proper that some means should exist of prolonging its existence for three, six, or twelve months. Fortunately there was at hand a very rational means by Orders in Council of prolonging the existence of the jurisdiction which this House had set up. The only reason the Government inserted those words was that they

751
wished to put an end to the Commission when it had done its work, adding a reasonable precaution for providing for its prolongation if its work-was not concluded by the date inserted.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he himself was going to suggest that without this sub-section a new Act of Parliament would be required if the Court did not do its work within one year. His noble friend only said that this machinery of Orders in Council should not be resorted to until necessity arose, and it only became necessary because of the insertion of a time limit. They could not imagine that the gentlemen composing the Court would unduly drag on their proceedings. There was no power to hurry them; and no power to delay them when they had a specific and well-defined job before them. Why then, put a limit to their time? Parliament had brought them into being and they were an absolutely independent tribunal. When the Court had done its work it should be dissolved by a natural process.
LORD HELMSLEYbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, " That Clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
Clause 10.
LORD R. CECILmoved to insert after the words " charitable trusts," the words, " solely of an educational character." He understood that the position of the Government was that only trusts of an educational character should be handed over, but there was nothing in Clause 10 which directed anybody to have any regard to the trusts on which the school-houses were held; and, therefore, the heal educational authority could take possession of schoolhouses which were held under a loose trust. He consequently ventured to suggest to the Government that some such words as he had moved should be inserted if they
752
wished to confine the operation of the clause to the schools which they really had in view. There were a large number of schoolhouses which were held partly for educational and partly for religious purposes, and it might well be that very great hardship would be inflicted upon those who wished to use the schoolhouses for purposes other than educational. They might for a whole year or longer be deprived of the use of the schoolhouse because the local educational authority chose to demand the use of it without I considering the effect upon the other persons interested.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 6, line2, after the words 'charitable trusts, to insert the words ' solely of an educational character.' "—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, " That these words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid that a difficulty might arise between the local education authority and the trustees when the premises were held in trust for school or Church or other purposes. But in that sense the trust could not be held as a trust solely for educational purposes. All that was wanted was that the school premises should be held by the local education authority until the dispute had been settled by the Commission. There could be no interference with the other part of the trust. It was obvious that if the premises were used as a school for five days in the week the educational trust excluded other parts of the trust, which only came into operation when the premises were vacated as a school. The educational trust excluded the other charitable trust only when the educational trust was in operation, and when the educational trust was finished the other trust came into possession of the school premises. They could not do two things at once, at the same time and in the same place. The local education authority could only require the use of the school premises when these had been always dedicated to educational purposes. Therefore any interference with other trusts could not

753
by any possibility arise. It would give rise to doubt and possible dissension to alter the words, and he could not see that the Amendment would make any legal difference.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that he understood the object of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education in inserting this clause was to avoid the inconvenience which would arise from schools being closed under the, provisions contained in the earlier portions of the Bill in consequence of failure to come to an arrangement before the 1st January, 1908. If a local authority temporarily used a school as a public elementary school it was, it seemed to him, bound to observe the conditions upon which the school was run before. He confessed that as he understood the clause he did not think his noble friend need be anxious as to the precise character of the user of the school. The school would be used under the precise conditions of a voluntary school upon which it was used before the Bill came into operation. It might be necessary to insert words later in the clause to ensure that these conditions were maintained.
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSinquired what the effect of the clause would be upon a school, which on the passing of this Bill had converted itself into a certified school. Would it be possible for the local education authority to come in, if the public elementary school accommodation was insufficient, and interrupt the whole arrangements and progress of the certified school and take it for the purposes of public elementary school education?
THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON,)said the contingency contemplated by the hon. Gentleman could scarcely arise. If an existing voluntary school was changed into a certified school there would be no deficiency of school accommodation in regard to the district it served. Then this clause would not come into operation at all. If, however, it changed its character and the class of its scholars, a deficiency might arise and then it would be proper that this clause should operate and that the local education authority should have power to say that the teachers and
754
scholars who had previously occupied a place in our national system of education no longer did so and that a deficiency had been caused without an opportunity being given to them of making it good. The local authority had a right to say that they should have adequate and proper notice that the premises were not available for the purpose of enabling them to give proper accommodation. If the trustees chose to alter the character of their school so as to make a deficiency in school accommodation, of course the powers of the local authority would come into force.
LORD R. CECILthought that in his desire to be brief he had not made himself clear. The point was this. The only limiting words in this clause were that the local education authority were to have the power to acquire the school-house for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school, and they could only judge what the use of that would be to the local education authority by supposing that it would be carried on as a public elementary school. If the trustees thought that the local education authority were going beyond their powers and were not carrying on the school for the purposes if a public elementary school, and if the trustees appealed to a Court, that Court would say that the local education authority must be the judge, and they could not interfere if the authority told them that their user was necessary for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school. If the Committee looked at sub-section (2) of the clause they would see that it was provided that while a schoolhouse was used under the powers given by the section, the same conditions and provisions should apply as where an arrangement was made for the use of a schoolhouse, except that the local education authority should permit the religious instruction given in the school to be of the same character as that previously given and also permit the teachers in the school to give that instruction as part of their duties. That, as he understood, with other provisions of the Bill, gave the local education authority power to carry out during the year they were in possession any alterations or improvements that they

755
thought necessary for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school, and they might so change the character of the building as to make it useless except for that purpose. That was a danger which should be guarded against. He thought the owners were entitled to have some restriction put upon the local education authority to prevent them from using their powers so as to unfit the school for the purpose for which it had hitherto been used. At the end of the period it must be remembered that the local education authority might not take over the school and they might be even building meanwhile another school to take its place.
MR. BIRRELLdid not think the noble Lord could be accused of repeating himself, as in his second speech he had said many things which he did not say in his first. As to that second part, for himself he must say he could not conceive that the use of the schoolhouse for the purpose of an elementary school by the local education authority would be any greater than it was by the authority previously existing. The user would be the same as it had been up to the present. Then the noble Lord raised another point and said that the local authority, having got possession of the school under this section, would proceed to spend a great amount of money upon it, and then, having spent that money, would go out at the end of the year and leave the result of their expenditure behind them. Local authorities might be pig-headed in the opinion of certain misguided persons, but they were not likely to spend money on a schoolhouse and then give up the results of their expenditure.
MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not think that the point of his noble friend had been met. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a picture of the local authority spending vast sums of money upon improving another person's property, while all the time they were building another school. He did not conceive that his noble friend was referring to such a far-fetched case as that, but the pulling down of a partition or anything of that sort might do a vast amount of damage to
756
a school for the purposes for which it was being used. He thought, however, that his noble friend would see that the proper place to raise his Amendment was lower down in the clause, and he thought he should reserve it.
LORD R. CECILasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CAVEmoved to omit from page 6, line 34, the words, " without payment " with a view of inserting later on, in line 38. the words " And such use shall be had during such period in such manner and upon such terms as to payment and otherwise as shall be agreed between the local education authority and the owners of the schoolhouse, or in default of agreement shall be determined by the Board of Education." He did not see why, if rent was to be payable under Clause 2, it should not also be payable for the temporary user of the schools allowed by this clause. The school was being taken compulsorily and for a public purpose, and he thought that payment should be made to the trustees. As the clause stood the local education authority could say that, unless the trustees accepted the terms offered under Clause 2, they (the authority) would, under Clause 10, take the school for twelve months for nothing. That did not seem to be a very fair position in which to place the owners of the schools. The effect of such a proceeding would be that the whole thing would be hung up for twelve months and nobody could know what might happen at the end of that time, while at the same time no public money would be given by the local authority to the trustees of the school to enable them to carry out their trust. It might be asked what the trustees were going to spend the money on. They would incur heavy legal expenses during the year, and have no funds out of which to pay these expenses; they ought therefore to have a payment from this source.
AN HON. MEMBER: Do they get payment now?
MR. CAVEsaid they did not get payment now, but they had their own property for their own use, and so long as they had that, no payment was required. When the State took away a man's property for State purposes, up to the present the State had always paid for it, and so far as he knew this was the first time that that principle had not been followed. Again, in the question of repairs, there ought to be an opportunity for a stipulation on the part of the owners that the local authority should not do any unnecessary damage, but should, during the operation of this clause, keep the building in repair. All these things ought to be settled by a fair agreement between the owners and the local authority; or, failing such agreement, by the Board of Education. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman understood how harsh and unfair these provisions appeared to those interested in these schools. He did not contend against this clause if properly amended, because he quite saw that in view of the passing of Clause 1, there ought to be some interval allowed during which the local authority should be allowed to see that the school was carried on, but while that might be necessary, he thought there should be some concession made in this matter to the owners. He did not ask for payment in all cases; what he asked the Committee to do was to leave the matter in the hands of the Board of Education.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 6, line 34, to leave out the words ' without payment.' "—(Mr. Cave.)
Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he was bound to confess that the speech of his hon. and learned friend, one of the most fair-minded men in the House, filled him almost with despair. Whatever he might have thought of the other clauses in this Bill he did think that Clause 10 would appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were taking the trustees' property away. Why, they were maintaining and repairing it;
758
they were taking upon themselves the whole expense in regard to it; they were relieving the trustees of all pecuniary liability in respect of it. They were not touching, altering, or affecting the religious instruction that was going on in the school—["Oh."]—no, not during this year. It would go on exactly as it was going on ow—the same teachers, the same denominational conditions, and therefore they were putting money into the pocket of the owners. And then the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose character he admitted, said—he did not actually use the word "robbing"—they were for the first time in English history taking away property without paying for it. They were paying for it. Running a school was not a profitable occupation, like running a public-house. It was a public purpose which they fulfilled. They had assumed every possible obligation with regard to these schools, and he really did not see what more they could have done. He thought this was as fair and reasonable a clause as it was possible to have framed. The hon. and learned Gentleman's contention that the owners ought to have the money in their pockets for trust purposes was absolutely unreasonable, and he thought this was not an Amendment that should be pressed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if the policy of the Government was what the right hon. Gentleman had just said, he did not think the Amendment need be pressed. But let it be understood that that was their policy, and that if they could show that in any single respect the position of the schools was not the same as in the time when the teaching was under the control of the managers, then the Government were bound in honour to see that that was put straight. That being the understanding, he would suggest that they need not divide on the Amendment.
MR. BIRRELL: We will see what the understanding is when we come to the clause.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what, then, came of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman? If the right hon. Gentleman would tell them now that, if they could show that under the clause

759
as it was drafted there could be a modification of the manner in which the school had been carried on up to this peculiar and special year, he would do his best to accept Amendments which would put that straight, then he would advise the withdrawal of this Amendment. But if the right hon. Gentleman would not give that pledge, what became of his argument, of his passionate denunciation of his hon. and learned friend?
MR. BIRRELLsaid he had not in his mind every particular Amendment that might be on the Paper. He was dealing with the financial position of the school, and he said that it would be better off financially under these conditions than it was before, and that, therefore, he did not quite see how any claim for the
payment of rent could be made. The clause was framed in a fair spirit so as to secure that the religious teaching in the school should not be affected during the period it was temporarily under the control of the local authority.
MR. CAVE, having regard to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment. [MINISTERIAL cries of " No."]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then we will divide.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 343; Noes, 98. (Division List No. 205.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Acland, Francis Dyke

Buxton,Rt. Hn. SydneyCharles

Dobson, Thomas W.

Adkins, W. Ryland

Byles, William Pollard

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cameron, Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Alden, Percy

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Duffy, William J.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Carr Gomm, H. W.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Ambrose, Robert

Causton,Rt.Hn. Richard Knight

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Armitage, R.

Cawley, Frederick

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Chance, Frederick William

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall.

Astbury, John Meir

Channing, Francis Allston

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Elibank, Master of

Barker, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Erskine, David C.

Barnard, E. B.

Clough, W.

Essex, R. W.

Barnes, G. N.

Clynes, J. R.

Everett, R. Lacey

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Coats, SirT.Glen. (Renfrew,W.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Beale, W. P.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Fenwick, Charles

Beauchamp, E.

Cogar., D is J.

Ferens, T. R.

Beaumont. W. C B. (Hexham)

Collins, SirW.J.(St.Pancras,W.

Field, William

Beck, A. Cecil

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Bell, Richard

Cooper, G. J.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Bellairs, Carlyon

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

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Bertram. Julius

Cotton, Sir H. J. S

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Bethell, T. R. (Essex Maldon)

Cowan, W. H.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Billson, Alfred

Cox, Harold

Fullerton, Hugh

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Gardner,Col.Alan (Hereford,S.)

Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

Crean, Eugene

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Blake, Edward

Cremer, William Randal

Gill, A. H.

Boland, John

Crombie, John William

Ginnell, L.

Brace, William

Crosfield, A. H.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Crossley, William J.

Glendinning, R. G.

Brigg, John

Cullinan, J.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bright, J. A.

Dalziel, James Henry

Gooch, George Peabody

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Brooke, Stopford

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

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

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Grove, Archibald

Bryce, J. A. (InvernessBurghs)

Delany, William

Gulland, John W.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Dewar, John A- (Inverness-sh.

Hall, Frederick

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

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

Halpin, J.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Micklem, Nathaniel

Seaverns, J. H.

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Seddon, J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Seely, Major J. B.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Montagu, E. S.

Shackleton, David James

Harwood, George

Montgomery, H. G

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mooney, J. J.

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

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hayden, John Patrick

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Morrell, Philip

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hedges, A. Paget

Murphy, John

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Helme, Norval Watson

Murray, James

Snowden, P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Napier, T. B.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Nicholls, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Henry, Charles S.

Nicholson, Chas. N (Doncast'r)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nolan, Joseph

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Higham, John Sharp

Norman, Henry

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hogan, Michael

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hooper, A. G.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Summerbell, T.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Hare, Patrick

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Malley, William

Tennant.SirEdward (Salisbury)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Shee, James John

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Paul, Herbert

Thomasson, Franklin

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Tomkinson, James

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kilbride, Denis

Perks, Robert William

Toulmin, George

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Philipps.Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

King,Alfred John (Knutsford)

Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke)

Ure. Alexander

Kitson, Sir James

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Verney, F. W.

Laidlaw, Robert

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Lambert, George

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Cent.)

Wallace, Robert

Lamont, Norman

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Walsh, Stephen

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

Walters, John Tudor

Lea. Hugh Cecil (St Pancras.E.)

Rainy, A. Holland

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

Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

Raphael, Herbert H.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent)

Levy, Maurice

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

Wardle, George J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, William (Clare)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Lundon, W.

Rees, J. D.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Lupton, Arnold

Rendall, Athelstan

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Lutterell, Hugh Fownes

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

Whitbread, Howard

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richardson, A.

White, George (Norfolk)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Ricket, J. Compton

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Macdonald,J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee

Whitehead, Rowland

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Robertson,SirG.Scott (Brad f'rd

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

M'Callum, John M.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

M'Crae, George

Robinson, S.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Williams, Llewelyu(Carmarthen

M'Killop, W.

Roche John (Galway, East)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

Roe, Sir Thomas

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

M'Micking, Major G.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Mallet, Charles E.

Runciman, Walter

Winfrey, R.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Russell, T. W.

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Young, Samuel

Marnham, F. J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Yoxall, James Henry

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Massie, J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

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

Masterman, C. F. G.

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Meagher, Michael

Schwann,Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Menzies, Walter

Sears, J. E.

762

763

NOES.

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlex. F.

Du Cros, Harvey

Nield, Herbert

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Arnold-Forster.Rt Hn.HughO.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Ashley, W. W.

Fletcher, J. S.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sir H.

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson,JohnFrederickPeel

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Roberts,S (Sheffield.Ecclesall)

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gordon,SirW.Evans-(T'rHam.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George R.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Saunderson, RtHn. Col. Edw. J.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.)

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East

Beach,Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

Helmsley, Viscount

Starkey, John R.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Burdett Coutts, W.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Thornton, Percy M.

Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Turnour, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Valentia, Viscount

Cavendish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lee, ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Liddell, Henry

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone,E.)

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

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

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham

Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Wyndham, Rt.Hn. George

Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Younger, George

raig,Captain James(Down,E.)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Craik, Sir Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Cave and Mr. Bridgeman.

Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon

Morpeth, Viscount

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

Question, "That the word 'ten ' be there inserted " —put, and agreed to.

MR. ASHLEYmoved to insert words in the clause limiting the use of the schoolhouse of an existing voluntary school held under charitable trusts, in so far as it was necessary for the purpose of carrying on a public elementary school " in accordance with the terms of the trust," till January 1st, 1909. The Minister for Education a few days ago had stated that it was his opinion that this clause would enable a voluntary school to be carried on during the year practically and substantially as it was now being carried on. There was, however, an important exception to that. Under the clause the local education authority might during the year dismiss the head or any teacher and appoint a teacher entirely opposed to the religious views of the trustees, and all he asked was that the Minister for Education should carry out what he was sure was he intention of the Government—that there should be continuity of policy during the year. It was no use for the right hon. Gentleman to make friendly and amicable speeches. The Commissioners could only interpret the Act; and they would not
764
pay the slightest attention to speeches in this House.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 6, line 36, after the word ' school,' to insert the words ' in accordance with the terms of the trust.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid he did not think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would really do him or the cause he had at heart any good. It was not at all a desirable thing that the onus should be put upon the local education authority of interpreting the trust. A good many of these Church schools were not carried on according to any trusts whatever. If the local authority found it necessary to take over the school it would allow the same religious instruction to go on as before without any burrowing and diving into the trusts. He did not think that the insertion of these words would either be useful or effect the object which the hon. Member had in view. The general

765
purpose of the clause was to preserve the continuity of the school. In case the school was not taken over nobody desired that its religious history should be rudely broken. He did not think any difficulties would arise, but if an alteration was necessary it should be made later on.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONagreed that if any precautions were necessary on this point they should be taken later in the clause. During the year the local authority would have taken over the greater number of the voluntary schools, and would use them as non-provided schools under Clauses 1 and 2 with full control over them. But side by side with them there would be those schools which the local authority were running on voluntary lines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CLOUGHsaid his Amendment extended the period to 1910 or such date as the Board of Education might decide. Apart from Clause 10, there was nothing in the Bill enabling the Local Education Authority to retain the use of the schoolhouses, pending the arrangements being completed under Clauses 2 and 8. The education authorities might want to look round to see whether they could procure sites in order to build schools before the present schools passed out of their hands. Under the local education authority of which he was a member, they had no fewer than 559 schools to be transferred, and although they hoped to draw up some agreement by which the bulk of them would be willingly, cheerfully, and promptly transferred, they had always to bear in mind that there were other pig-headed people besides local authorities and they sometimes came across pig-headed parsons, pig-headed diocesan authorities, and pig-headed trustees, and the transfer of the schools might take a little time. How long the Judicial Commission would be over its work even the President of the Board of Education said he could not forecast. Under the Bill the powers of the Commissioners might be extended indefinitely, and he submitted that there
766
should be a little more elasticity with regard to the date. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 6, line 38, to leave out at the end of sub-section the word ' nine ' and to insert the words ' ten, or such later date as the Board of Education may in any case decide.' "—(Mr. Clough.)
Question proposed, " That the word ' nine ' stand part of the Clause."
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he should support the substitution of ten for nine. That would be fair and reasonable and would give both parties time to look round. It would give more elasticity to the proceedings. It would also enable the teachers in the schools to look round and find other posts. He hoped the President of the Board of Education would see his way to alter the date from 1909 to 1910, although he could not agree to leaving the matter to the Board of Education to decide.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he was not satisfied as to who was going to pay the expense of the repairs during this period under the clause.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order order ! That question does not arise on this Amendment.
LORD R. CECILhoped the Government would accept this Amendment, although he would prefer to leave the date to the local authority rather than to the Board of Education. If his suggestion were adopted it would give further elasticity instead of a hard and fast date. To him one year seemed insufficient to get through the considerable amount of negotiations that must take place under the Bill. The year 1909 would give a very short period for all the negotiations with reference to the transfer of the schools, and therefore some means of extending that period was absolutely essential, otherwise they would be brought to an absolute impasse. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept some such Amendment as would give them an extra year in which to conclude negotiations.
MR. BIRRELLsaid that, considering the amount of work which the Board of Education would have to do in the future, he could not be a party to adding to their duties by leaving the Board to fix the date. He thought there was a great advantage in having a fixed period. He was quite willing under the circumstances to accept an amendment substituting " ten " for " nine."
MR. CLOUGHsaid he should be pleased to move his Amendment in the amended form suggested.
LORD BALCARRES: Perhaps the hon. Member would have no objection to inserting the local authority in place of the Board of Education.
Question put and negatived.
LORD R. CECILmoved to insert in the second sub-sect ion of the clause the words " not do anything which shall render the schoolhouse less fit for the other purposes of the trust and shall." His object was to make it clear that during the temporary possession of the schoolhouse, which was now extended to two years, the local education authority should do nothing which would interfere with its use for the other purposes for which it was held. He thought if the Minister for Education would bear in mind the exceedingly wide powers conferred upon the local education authority by Clause 2, he would see that in the case of a really hostile local education authority—and there were some—it was necessary that some words should be inserted for the protection of the beneficiaries of the trusts beyond the strictly educational trusts.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 7, line 4, after the word ' shall,' to insert the words ' not do anything which shall render the schoolhouse less fit for the other purposes of the trust and shall.' ''—(Lord R Cecil.)
Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid the Amendment raised a difficulty in his mind. As to the general purpose of the Amendment he quite agreed with the noble Lord, but it seemed to him that the insertion of these words might give rise to the possibility of disputes between the parties. Everybody would agree that it would be a most improper and unreasonable thing for the local education authority to put up anything of a permanent character which would interfere with the other uses of the schoolhouse during the time it was not used by the local education authority. On the other hand there were certain alterations which from time to time became necessary in the course of the conduct of a school—as, for example, a new class-room was constructed, or something was walled off, screened off, or partitioned off. Then a question might arise between the local education authority and the trustees as to whether that was in excess of their proper user. If the words of the Amendment were accepted disputes and discord would arise. That was the difficulty he felt. The local education authority had, after all, to discharge an educational duty, and it had to see that the premises were suitable for the particular purpose it had to carry out. Of course, a good deal would depend on the character of the alterations which the local education authority might make from time to time. He thought the words proposed by the noble Lord were rather stronger than the necessity of the case required, and that the safeguard which the noble Lord considered necessary would be given if words were inserted to provide that the alterations made should be such as to render the premises fit and proper for use as a school. He was entirely at one with the noble Lord in the general desire, yet he foresaw a source of irritation and litigation between the local authorities and the trustees of the school if the words proposed were inserted. The trustees might say that something had been done which was inconvenient for the other purposes of the school. Therefore, he hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment. He thought the matter was one of importance, and he would consider whether he could not introduce words which would limit as

769
much as possible any friction between the parties. He did not want to tie the hands of the local authority. He could conceive that certain trustees might rot like any alteration. If the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment he really would be very much obliged to him.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Minister for Education had made a most delicate appeal to his noble friend, but the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that about half an hour ago he made light of the idea that any local authority would make alterations on any other body's property which was to be held, as was now provided, for two years. If the local authorities were not going to be such fools as to make alterations on somebody else's property, of which they had the use for two years, he could not see what objection the right hon. Gentleman had to this Amendment. Would he accept the Amendment if his noble friend proposed to put in the words " shall not make any permanent alteration which shall render the schoolhouse less fit for the other purposes of the trust? " He suggested these words as a compromise between the respective opinions of the right hon. Gentleman and his noble friend who appeared to be very close in the matter of policy.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he had not had an opportunity of considering the words. He would like a little time for consideration. He thought the words suggested by the Leader of the Opposition were of the kind which should be introduced.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid this was really the same Amendment as he proposed on Clause 2. The objection raised by the Government on that occasion was that there was an appeal to the Board of Education. In this case they had a proposal of the same kind, but without the security provided under Clause 2.
MR. BIRRELL: This is a very different thing. This is temporary user.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid if it was temporary user it really could not be necessary that the local authority should
770
enter upon expensive alterations which might cause great inconvenience. He, therefore, thought that some security of the kind proposed was necessary for the protection of the owners of the school. Was the cost of the repairs and maintenance to be borne by the local education authority or the owners?
LORD R. CECILthanked the Minister for Education for his promise to consider the matter. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BALCARRESmoved an Amendment that it should be an obligation upon the local education authority to make certain that the religious teaching given in the school during the period of transfer was the same as that hitherto given. He thought that such an Amendment was very necessary. These schools under their existing conditions and status gave religious instruction of a particular character, and as they were going to be quasi transferred to the local education authority for a limited period pending a decision as to their ultimate fate by the Commissioners, he thought it only right that the local education authority should not content themselves with permitting the religious instruction previously given to be continued, but should secure that that instruction was really given. He imagined that this was an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept in order to secure that the schools during the intervening period should continue substantially in the same position in regard to religious instruction until their status was decided by the Commission of three.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 7, line 5, to leave out the word ' permit' and insert the word ' cause.' "—(Lord Balcarres).
Question proposed, " That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that throughout the

771
discussions on the Bill they had used phrases such as " special religious instruction " and " religious instruction of the same kind as previously given," but they had had no reference to the particular religious teaching intended, nor was there any security that the teaching would continue of the same character. The Amendment proposed to make it obligatory on the local education authority to secure that the religious teaching given in the schools temporarily taken over should be of the same character as that previously given. But who was to determine whether it was of the same character? What an obligation to put on the local education authority ! It was perfectly true there were religious bodies with absolutely rigid, or, at any rate, well-defined, religious principles, about whose religious teaching no question could possibly arise. But that was not true of all religious bodies, and least of all was it true of the Church of England. He would be glad if the Minister for Education would turn his mind seriously to this aspect of the problem, leaving controversial matters for the more satisfying region of ecclesiastical research. He held in his hand the Report issued by the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline in the Church of England— [OPPOSITION cries of "Order"]—and he would invite the Committee to consider the serious nature of the problems raised by that Report.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the question which the hon. Member was raising was not, in his opinion, relevant.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid they never knew what would happen in the Church, but the Amendment on the question was whether it should be obligatory on the local authority to make sure that the teaching of the Church of England continued to be of the same character as heretofore. However, the Report to which he referred showed that there was no security.
LORD R. CECIL, on a point of order, asked if it could possibly be relevant to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission. The only question raised was whether the religious teaching was
772
to be of the same character as had been given before, and in what way that was to be secured. The question whether there was a considerable variety of religious teaching in the Church of England was not germane to the subject.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that discussion on the Report of the Commission would, of course, be out of order, but the hon. Member had not yet begun to discuss it.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he was only showing by illustration the difficulties which would fall on the local authority if the Amendment were carried. Under the Act of 1902 there was an appeal to the bishop as regards religious instruction, but they were going to alter that, and under the Bill there would be no appeal to the bishop. One clergyman might direct the teaching in his school without any reference whatever to the bishop of the diocese. This was really a very serious matter, because whenever bishops had tried to exert their authority they had met with extreme difficulty. He found on page 75 of this Report that—
THE CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment had nothing to do with lawlessness in the Church of England.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that with all respect he submitted that the question of the continuity of a particular kind of religious teaching was involved, and the local authority was stepping into the shoes of the bishop. Therefore he was fairly justified in calling the attention of the Committee to the extreme difficulty which the bishops had experienced in regulating the affairs in their own dioceses. [OPPOSITION cries of " Order."]
THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he did not wish to irritate hon. Members opposite, but would proceed to deal with specific allegations in regard to the character of the teaching. The Church of England was in the melting-pot, from a theological point of view, and therefore it was from that point of view that he wished to direct attention to the serious obligation

773
there was to arrest unlawful teaching in Church of England schools. The Report said that in a large number of Churches there were illegal lights, incense and illegal practices in the service of the Holy Communion—
THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not see what that had to do with the question. He must warn the hon. Member that he was becoming highly irrelevant.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he bowed to the Chairman's decision; but he would really advise the Committee to study the position in which they might find themselves in view of the serious character of the Report of the Commission, and the impossibility of the local authority accepting under the Bill duties which the bishops of the Church of England had been unwilling or incapable of discharging.
SIR E. CARSONthought it would be better to leave the word " permit " as carrying the meaning that the local authority was to leave things alone.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he really believed there was no difference between the policy of the Government and the desire of the Opposition in reference to this clause that there should be no change whatever in the schools during the transition period. His noble friend thought the effect of the words in the Bill would be to leave this open to the local authority. Perhaps this would be a convenient moment to ask the Government whether the trustees were to have control over the teachers, and give orders as to the hours when religious teaching should be given, or whether that would be left with the local authority. It might be convenient to have from the right hon. Gentleman a statement of the relations that were to subsist between the two co-ordinate authorities.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the local authority would have to assume responsibility for the school, taking it over upon certain terms and carrying on the school work. It would be a condition that the local authority should have no option, but should permit religious instruction of the same character as that previously given, and should permit teachers to give
774
that instruction as part of their duty. That clearly indicated that, although it would not be in the power of the trustees or managers to lengthen the time allotted for religious instruction, the local authority would stand by and permit the teachers to give the same religious instruction as had been given heretofore. The only thing of importance was that the local authority was not to interfere with the character of the religious teaching and it was to be of the same kind as it was before and given by the same teachers.
LORD BALCARRESasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECILmoved to amend subsection (2) in order to provide that the local education authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, and so far as practicable, cause the teachers in the school to give religious instruction of the same character as that previously given as part of their duties.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 7, line 6, to leave out the word 'permit' and to insert the words ' subject to the provisions of this Act, and so far as practicable, cause.' "
Question proposed, " That the word proposed to be left out to stand part of the Question."
MR. BIRRELLsaid he preferred the word "permit" to the word "cause" for the reasons he had already given.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his noble friend had moved an Amendment which raised a very specific question, namely, as to whether the managers or trustees were to be liable to give religious instruction as they were before and would be able to compel the teachers to give religious instruction during the time which they were now compelled to give it. They did not want anything more, but they did want that they should be compelled to do what they had done in the past. The Government had agreed that the managers should not be deprived of their existing machinery for carrying on religious education, but the subsection

775
as it stood did not seem to him to carry out that object. On the other hand, he thought the words proposed in the Amendment were dangerous because they were limiting in their character. He desired that religious education should be given, not according to the provisions of the Bill, but according to what had hitherto taken place.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORasked whether there was any power to appeal or to regulate the character of the religious instruction in these temporarily used voluntary schools. There was a great deal of curiosity on that point.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid it appeared to him that they were getting into difficulty with this subsection. It was provided that while a schoolhouse was used under the powers given by this section the same conditions and provisions should apply as where an arrangement was made for the use of a schoolhouse, except that the local education authority should permit this religious instruction to be given. Therefore the present trustees and the managers would disappear, and it appeared to him that they could not under those circumstances compel the teacher to give this religious teaching if he did not wish to do so, because the only provision made was that the local education authority should " permit" the religious instruction given in the school to be of the same character as that previously given.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the intention of the clause was that the religion of the school should not be interfered with, and, therefore, the local education authority was put under an obligation to permit the teachers to give religious instruction as heretofore. He hoped the hon. Member for North Camberwell agreed with that.
DR. MACNAMARA: No, I do not.
MR. BIRRELL: All I can say is that it is the intention of the clause that the local education authority shall be under an obligation to permit religious instruction of the same character as heretofore to be given.
DR. MACNAMARA: Oh, I thought you said the local authority could compel the teachers to give it.
MR. BIRRELL: Oh no, there is no power on the part of the local authority to compel the teachers to give religious instruction. The only compulsion is on the local authority to " permit" instruction to be given. The trustees are to be given the power to secure the continuance of the religious teaching in the schools.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was admitted by the Government that this religious teaching ought to go on, and that all the local authority had to do was to " permit " it to go on. Who had got the power to compel it?
DR. MACNAMARA: No one.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was the real point. The question was whether the managers would have the power to say that between certain times this religious instruction must be given. If they had not that power there was no security that the old system would be carried on. If they had that power, they would be able to see that the religious education was continued. At present the managers had that power, and if it was taken away there would, as he had said, be no security for the continuance of this kind of teaching.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the teacher had been engaged to give this religious instruction, and when the school came under the provisions of the Bill the teacher would be paid, by the local authority and he was therefore in the service of that body. Could he not take advantage of the clause which said that the teacher was not to be required to give religious instruction? He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment to provide that the local education authority should enforce any requirement made by the managers on the teachers in the school to give that religious instruction as part of their duties. The teachers had been engaged by the managers to give this instruction, and, if the managers were displaced by the local authority, the

777
power of the local authority should be brought to bear on the teachers at the instance of the managers.
MR. YOXALLdid not think the difficulty would be got over by the Amendment suggested. So long as the existing head teacher, who had been appointed to give this definite religious instruction, continued in the school, he could go on giving that instruction if he wished to do so. But, if he was removed and another head teacher arrived, then the question arose who would appoint, him, and whether he should be asked whether he would or would not give this religious instruction. That was in the nature of a temporary test. The difficulty might be got over, but he did not think it would be by the words suggested.
MR. BIRRELLthought the difficulty would be got over when they came to consider subsequent Amendments with regard to the appointment of the teacher. He did not know that, during the period the schools were taken over, the foundation managers would be continued. He did not think they would. He had always had it in his mind that the appointment of the teacher would be entirely with the local authority, and one, at all events, of the subsequent Amendments would have to be accepted so as to provide that the local authority, in appointing a new teacher for these schools, would have to make the appointment in connection with the trusts of the schools, just in the same way as the foundation managers would have done if this Act had not been passed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was most satisfactory as far as it went, but although it solved one difficulty it did not solve all. It would solve the difficulty of the character of the teaching to be given. It would ensure that the teacher would be of the denomination by which the school had been built and carried on, but it traversed the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago that all that was required was to leave these things alone. The clause insisted on the appointment of denominational teachers, and that might be the only way out of the difficulty, although he should have thought it would have been much more simple to
778
have left the managers in the same position as they were in now for the next two years. It might be fair, so far as it went, but it did not settle the question who was to require these teachers to teach religion during this three-quarters of an hour. Who was to say to the teacher, "You shall teach religion, and the religion you shall teach is such and such religion? " If that was to be the local authority then they came back to the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for East Toxteth at an earlier stage. If it was not the local authority, was it to be the managers? The managers were to be abolished. If the managers were abolished the only possible alternative was the trustees. He thought it ought to be left to somebody. Somebody must be responsible for seeing that a teacher who had to give the religious teaching should be qualified to give it.
MR. BIRRELLexplained that there would be managers appointed by the local authority, and it would certainly be their duty to see that the statutory obligation that the religious teaching should be the same as heretofore was carried out.
MR. BLAKEsaid it was obvious that the intention of the Government was that during this transition period the things which did exist already should remain so far as religious instruction was concerned. That appeared to be foreshadowed by the clause, but if there was any doubt the words at the end of the clause, " to give that instruction " might, be strengthened by the addition of the words " as part of their duty." It should be part of their duty to give the accustomed religious instruction, and he thought that with that fortification of the section it might be very well left to the managers to fulfil their duty, which was to see that the things which they were accustomed to do before should continue to be done.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid the difficulty was that the first three lines of this subsection of Clause 10 made these schools " provided schools " subject to the particular form of religion taught in them being continued. What he wished to know was, it being a provided school, whether the teacher of that school would not have the relief granted by Section 7,

779
subsection (2)—that was to say they would not be required as part of their duty to give any religious instruction, or submit to any religious test. He submitted that the whole of these three lines would have to be materially altered.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid he believed the clause aimed at being a continuance of the Status quo ante. In effect it was not so, nor would the Amendment secure that result. It would have no operation except on a vacancy arising. In the intervening period teachers would not be under any obligation to obey anybody's orders in regard to religious instruction.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that this clause was drafted on the assumption that the teachers who had been giving religious instruction would not decline to go on giving that teaching. He thought it was true to say that they would not be bound to give it, but, at the same time, they expected that the teachers would go on as they had heretofore done. The Government were unwilling to go through even the form of putting in words of compulsion, because they believed they would be quite unnecessary.
MR. R. PEARCEsaid that the only object of the clause was to enable the local authority to take possession of a school in an area where there was not sufficient school accommodation and to provide for secular instruction. They on the Ministerial side of the House had no sympathy with all this talk of denominational instruction. They could settle the question by substituting the ordinary religious instruction which was to be given in the provided schools, and he hoped the Government would not place any obligation upon the local authority to go beyond permitting religious instruction being given.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid his right hon. friend was practically putting the local authority in the responsible position that bishops occupied. The obligation for continuing in these schools religious instruction of the same character
780
as had been previously given, rested with the local authority. It rested on the teacher to give the same kind of religious instruction as was given before in the schools; that threw a much more serious responsibility on the local authority than any responsibility that was thrown upon them under Clauses 3 and 4. Under Clause 3 the local authorities only threw open the door of the schools and gave facilities to certain people to give the religious instruction they desired to give. Under Clause 4 it was provided that where four-fifths of the parents desired it that religious instruction should be given; but here the local authority was going to undertake to give the religious teaching. Surely, therefore, it should be of the same character as that previously given. Might he ask his right hon. friend to answer the question as to who was really to settle a case of dispute regarding the character of the religious teaching in these schools?
LORD R. CECIL, in asking leave to-withdraw the Amendment, said he wished the right hon. Gentleman had expressed the view earlier that in order to secure the continuance of denominational teaching, it was necessary to have denominational teachers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ASHLEYmoved to add at the end of the clause the words, " and the local education authority shall have no power to dismiss teachers except on educational grounds."
MR. BIRRELLsaid he could not accept this particular Amendment.
Mr. ASHLEYsaid perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment later on. The fight hon. Gentleman in a speech he delivered this afternoon had stated that he wished these schools to have the same teachers during the next two or three years. It did not say so in the clause, and though he granted it would seldom happen that they would be dismissed, the Committee ought to guard against eventualities,

781
and put in words at the end of the clause to afford security in this respect.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 8, at the end, to add the words ' And the local education authority shall have no power to dismiss teachers except on educational grounds.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, " That those words "be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid he could not accept these words, because they put far too great restrictions upon the power of the local authority. Nor did he think
the Amendment at all necessary in order to carry out the general purposes of this clause.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONthought they wanted some security as regarded this matter, and he hoped if the right hon. Gentleman would not accept this Amendment he would give careful consideration to some other Amendment to effect this object.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 152; Noes, 326. (Division List No. 206.)

AYES.

Abraham, William(Cork,N.E.

Field, William

Mooney, J. J.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Finch, Rt, Hon. George H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Arnold-Forster.Rt. Hn. HughO

Fletcher, J. S.

Murphy, John

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn.SirH.

Flynn, James Christopher

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Nield, Herbert

Balfour, RtHnA.J. (City Lond)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Nolan, Joseph

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Ginnell, L.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Banner. John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George R.

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

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Halpin, J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Beach, Hn. MichaelHugh Hicks

Hamilton, Marquess of

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Blake, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Hare, Patrick

Boland, John

Hazleton, Richard

O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

O' Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hervey, F. W. F(BurySEdm'ds

O'Malley, William

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

O'Mara, James

Bull, Sir William James

Hills, J. W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Burdett-Coutts. W.

Hogan, Michael

O'Shee, James John

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Parkes, Ebenezer

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

Carson, Rt .Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Cave, George

Keswick, William

Ratcliff, Major R, F.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Kilbride, Denis

Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

King, Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)

Redmond, John E(Waterford)

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Clancy, John Joseph

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

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

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

Liddell, Henry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cogan, Denis J.

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Long, Col, Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley,Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Starkey, John R.

Craig,CharlesCurtis(AntrimS.

Lundon, W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Craik, Sir Henry

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sullivan, Donal

Crean, Eugene

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

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

Cullinan, J.

M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh,W

Thomson, W. Mitchell(Lanark)

Delany, William

M'Kean, John

Thornton, Percy M.

Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

M'Killop, W.

Turnour, Viscount

Dixon-Hartland.SirFred Dixon

Magnus, Sir Philip

Valentia, Viscount.

Donelan, Captain A.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancash.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Du Cros, Harvey

Meagher,Michael

Duffy, William J.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan

Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Fell, Arthur

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr. Ashley and Mr. Butcher.

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

Young, Samuel

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

Younger, George

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

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

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

Adkins, W. Ryland

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henry, Charles S.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cory, Clifford John

Herbert, ColonelIvor(Mon.,S.)

Alden, Percy

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cowan, W. H.

Higham, John Sharp

Armitage, R.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Hobart. Sir Robert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cremer, William Randal

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Crombie, John William

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Astbury, John Meir

Crooks, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hooper, A. G.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Crossley, William J.

Hope, John Dean(Fife, West)

Baring, Godfrey(IsleofWight)

Dalziel, James Henry

Hope, W.Bateman(Somorset,N.

Barker, John

Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.

Howard, Hun. Geoffrey

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Barnard, E. B.

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hyde, Clarendon

Barnes, G. N.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Illingworth. Percy H.

Beale, W. P.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Beauchamp. E.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Jackson, R. S.

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Beck, A. Cecil

Dobson, Thomas W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Bell, Richard

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Berridge, T. H. D.

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bertram, Julius

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kennedy. Vincent Paul

Bethell, J.H.(Essex.Romford)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Billson, Alfred

Elibank, Master of

Kitson, Sir .James

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Ellis.Rt.Hon. John Edward

Laidlaw, Robert

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Erskine, David C.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)

Essex, R. W.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lambert, George

Boulton, A. C. F.(Ramsey)

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Brace, William

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lamont, Norman

Bramsdon, T. A.

Fenwick, Charles

Lea, HughCecil(St,Pancras,E.)

Branch, James

Ferens, T. R.

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington

Bridgeman, W, Clive

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich.

Brigg, John

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire,Wirral)

Bright, J. A.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Levy, Maurice

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lewis, John Herbert

Brodie, H. C.

Gardner, Col.Alan(Hereford,S.

Lough, Thomas

Brooke, Stopford

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lupton, Arnold

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

Gill, A. H.

Luttrel, Hugh Fownes

Bryce, Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen

Gladstone,Rt.HnHerbert John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bryce, J.A.(InvernessBurghs)

Glendinning, R. G.

Macdonald. J. R. (Leicester)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macdonald. J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs-

Burns, Rt.Hon. John

Gooch, George Peabody

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Maclean, Donald

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macnamara. Dr. Thomas J.

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Arthur, William

Byles, William Pollard

Grove, Archibald

M'Callum, John M.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Gulland, John W.

M'Crae, George

Causton, Rt.Hn. RichardKnight

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cawley, Frederick

Hall, Frederick

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

Chance, Frederick William

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

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

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

M'Micking. Major G.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hart-Davies, T.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Clarke, C. Goddard

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mansfield, H. Kendall (Lincoln)

Clough, W.

Harwood, George

Marnham, F. J.

Clynes. J.R.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mason,A. E. W. (Coventry)

Coats, SirT. Glen(Renfrew,W.)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Massie, J.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hedges, A. Paget

Masterman, C. F. G

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Helme, Norval Watson

Menzies, Walter

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Micklem, Nathaniel

784

785

Molteno, Percy Alport

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomasson, Franklin

Montagu, E. S.

Robertson, Rt.Hn.E.(Dundee)

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

Montgomery, H. G.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Tomkinson, James

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson, J. M. (Tynsside)

Torrance, A. M.

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Robinson, S.

Toulmin, George

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Morrell, Philip

Roe, Sir Thomas

Ure, Alexander

Morse, L. L.

Rogers,F. E. Newman

Verney, F. W.

Myer, Horatio

Runciman, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Napier, T. B.

Russell, T. W.

Wallace, Robert

Newnes, V. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Walsh, Stephen

Nicholls, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Walters, John Tudor

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Walton, Sir John L(Leeds, S.)

Norman, Henry

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Nuttall, Harry

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Wardle, George J.

O'Grady, J.

Sears, J. E.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Paul, Herbert

Seddon, J.

Wason, JohnCath art(Orkney)

Paulton, James Mellor

Seely, Major J. B.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Shackleton, David James

Whitbread, Howard

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

White, George (Norfolk)

Perks, Robert William

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

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Whitehead, Rowland

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Pollard, Dr.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmart'n

Price, RobortJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Williamson, A.

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Rainy, A. Rolland

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Raphael, Herbert H.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

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

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

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

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Rees, J. D.

Summerbell, T.

Winfrey, R.

Rendell, Athelstan

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Renton, Major Leslie

Taylor, John W. (Durham.)

Woodhouse,Sir.JT(Hud'rs'field

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

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radciffe)

Yoxall, James Henry

Richardson, A.

Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

Racket, J. Compton

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

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

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Thomas, Sir A(Glamorgan, E.)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr)

MR. ASHLEY, in moving to add at the end of the clause:—" And no teacher shall be appointed by the local education authority, except in accordance with the terms of the trust," said he would not detain the Committee with any remarks, because he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his willingness to accept this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 7, line 8, at the end, to insert the words ' And no teacher shall be appointed by the local education authority, except in accordance with the terms of the trust,' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, " That these words be there inserted."
MR. BIRRELLsaid these words were rather out of keeping with the earlier
786
part of the clause. Of that there could be no doubt, but he thought the whole Committee would recognise that they were here simply acquiring the temporary use of voluntary schools, and they did so because they wished the local authority to provide sufficient accommodation. If they could not come to terms they might have to build new school premises. He thought justice and equity demanded that they should not do anything during their temporary usage of other people's premises which would interfere with the character of the school when the tenancy ceased. It was essential that they should make a provision that if any vacancy arose in the office of teacher whilst the schoolhouse was being used, the local authority should only appoint a teacher who was willing to give the

787
teaching of the denomination, whatever it might be, to which that school belonged. He thought that was only a fair and just proposal. He did not know that the words proposed by the hon. Member opposite were the best for that purpose, and he would suggest the following—
" And if a vacancy arises in the office of teacher, while the schoolhouse is used under this section, the local education authority shall, in choosing the teacher, appoint a teacher who is willing to give the religious instruction required under this section."
Those words would secure that the local education authority would be obliged to appoint a teacher who was willing to give the religious instruction in accordance with the denominational character of the school. Having regard to the nature of the bargain there was the possibility that the local education authority would never acquire the school and they might build others. He thought it would be clearly wrong to do anything which would break up or interfere with the religious continuity of the school.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that after the liberal way in which he had been met, he would withdraw his Amendment and accept the words the right hon. Gentleman had suggested.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 8, at end, to insert the words ' and if a vacancy arises in the office of teacher while the schoolhouse is used under this section, the local education authority shall, in choosing the teacher, appoint a teacher who is willing to give the religious instruction required under this section." '— (Mr. Birrell)
Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
MR. PERKSsaid he most earnestly protested against this concession which the Minister for Education had made. He and other Members on the Ministerial side of the House had noticed with some concern during the passage of the Bill the concessions made in the direction of the sectarian schools repeatedly whittling away some of the advantages in the opposite direction which they thought they were entitled to look for from the
788
Government. If he understood the new provision correctly it would, in villages especially, enable the Church of England or the National Society to hold possession of the village schools for two years during the whole of which time they might be negotiating with the local authority; and during that period they would have control of the school and practically control of the appointment of teachers. Owing to an Amendment accepted earlier in the day the period of one year which would have compelled the voluntary schools to have quickly come to terms had been extended so that two years were now given for these negotiations. If he was wrong in that interpretation he should be glad to be set right. That meant that the Church of England or the National Society would have absolute control for two years of the national schools in the villages, which they had fondly hoped would have immediately come under the control of the local educational authority. There was also another singular result of this concession. The Bill was intended to unify education and to provide all through the country schools under popular control and free from sectarian tests. Those were the two principles for which many Members fought very hard at the recent election. Under the late Education Act two types of schools were created, but the present Bill provided five types of schools, and this new proposal provided a sixth—a transition type of school under which there would be all the objectionable features of the imposition of sectarian tests upon teachers.
MR. BIRRELL: There is no need to take it over.
MR. PERKSreplied that that was exactly his grievance; he wished to take it. [" Oh."] He was not surprised at this out burst from Members on the Opposition side of the House. Those hon. Members knew what they wanted, and that was to have control of the sectarian schools. He was supremely anxious that these schools at the earliest possible moment, especially in the villages, should be freed from sectarian and denominational control.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid his hon. friend the Member for Louth did not appear to recognise that these schools were to be taken over without any payment during the transition period. The object was to carry them on for a period of two years under the schemes of 1902. He was sorry they had to carry on the Act of 1902 in these respects, but they could do nothing else just now while the negotiations were proceeding. If his right hon. friend honestly desired to carry on things as they were in cases where no agreement had been arrived at he was bound to recast the clause, and especially the first three lines of it. With regard to the Amendment of the President of the Board of Education, the spirit of which he entirely accepted, he admitted that they must carry on the 1902 arrangement for a short period, but thought the present proposal went a little beyond that arrangement. The arrangement only required the trustees in the matter of appointments to have the head teacher of the denomination to which the school belonged.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his recollection of the 1902 arrangement was that the appointment of teachers was to he left to the managers of the schools, subject to the veto of the local education authority on secular grounds. But the managers were not obliged to appoint any of the teachers of the school according to the religion of the denomination to which the school belonged.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was prepared to have that arrangement during the whole of the time which elapsed before an agreement was arrived at. This Amendment subjected every teacher in the transferred schools to the religious test. It was to the credit of the Leader of the Opposition that he freed the pupil teacher and the assistant teacher from a denominational test.
SIR W. ROBSONdissented.
DR. MACNAMARA: The Solicitor-General shakes his head.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid under the Act of 1902 the managers were not bound to
790
appoint the under-teachers of the same denomination, but it was to be assumed that they generally appointed under-teachers of the same denomination.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that under the proposed Amendment there would not be any assumption at all. He appealed to the Government to carry out the letter and the spirit of the 1902 arrangement. He thought they might fairly ask that if they subjected the head teacher to a religious test for the period to which he had alluded they should free the pupil teacher and the assistant teacher. In his opinion they were bound to carry out the spirit of the 1902 arrangement with the school with which no agreement had been made.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that under the Act of 1902 the denominational majority of managers had what he understood the Government had not made up their minds to give, namely, the power of requiring that the teachers appointed should carry on religious teaching in the school. He had requested the Government to carry the 1902 scheme in that most important and essential particular into their new system, but so far he could not honestly say that he had received more than generalities. He had asked the Government to embody these generalities in specific words, but he had not yet got them to do it. He asked the Committee not to think even with the concession of the Government these schools would, from the denominational point of view, be under the 1902 standard and not above it.
MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHcomplained that concession after concession, night after night, was made by the Minister for Education to the Opposition. [Cries of " No, no."] At any rate, hon. Gentlemen opposite had been very strong in their praise of the right hon. Gentleman, and they praised him because he satisfied them. The right hon. Gentleman ought to limit his concession to the head teacher.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the word " concession " was constantly being used—he did not think in the very exact meaning of

791
the word. An important concession would be a departure from the principle of the Bill as introduced. Surely they could not say it was a concession if the Minister in charge of a Bill, doing his duty as best he could under somewhat difficult circumstances, endeavoured to make the meaning of the Government perfectly intelligible and did so in good faith. The Amendment only carried out the intention of the clause, no more and no less, and he disputed the statement that it was a concession. In a deliberative assembly, when an argument was presented and they felt the force of it, they had to give attention to it. If they felt a point had been made they had to regard it wholly irrespective of the majority they might command in the lobbies. Otherwise they would cease to be a deliberative assembly. Of course, he would much sooner have the support of his own side than that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but when a good point was made which showed that amendment was called for in order to carry out the expressed intentions of the Government, he saw no shame in accepting it.
MR. HERBERTsaid the President of the Board of Education in this particular matter was going further than was required by the circumstances of the case. He was one of those who desired to consider the matter in a fair and business spirit. He understood that it was the intention of the Government that the school should be carried on upon the same terms, and in the same way, as it was now being carried on. The condition applying to the school at present was that no teacher, except the head teacher, should be required to give religious instruction as part of his duties. The Amendment of the Minister for Education proposed to go far beyond that, because it required all the teachers in the school to give religious instruction. He ventured to think that that was
going unnecessarily beyond the existing system, or what was required to fulfil the desire of the Government. He was unable to assent to the Amendment unless the Minister was willing to limit it to the head teacher.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he agreed with the Minister for Education that a point made by those on the opposite side of the House might be good, but a point made by those on the Ministerial side might also be good. He thought the point that the religious test should be limited to the head teacher was a good point. The Amendment of the President of the Board of Education went beyond what was reasonable. Under the 1902 Act the managers of provided schools were allowed to appoint sub-teachers without regard to the denominations to which the schools were attached. But under the Amendment, as he understood it, if an under-teacher was removed, a successor would have to be appointed belonging to the denomination to which the school was attached, so that in that case the denominational test for teachers would be again applied. He submitted that that went far beyond the necessities of the case and might injuriously affect the whole teaching Staff of a school.
MR. CLOUGHsaid he should vote against, this Amendment in any shape or form, because it went against the whole principle and spirit of the Bill. It would cause the local education authority to impose a religious test on teachers, which they did not even have to do under the deplorable Act of 1902.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 369; Noes, 51. (Divisional List No. 207).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Balcarres, Lord

Acland-Hood,RtHn.SirAlexF.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Balfour,RtHn.A.J. (City Lond.

Adkins, W Ryland

Ashley, W. W.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith,RtHn.HerbertHenry

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Alden, Percy

Astbury, John Meir

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt.Hn.Sit H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

Barker, John

Crombie, John William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hooper, A. G.

Barnard, E. B.

Cullinan, J.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset,N.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Horniman, Emslie John

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Davies, M. Vaugban-(Cardigan

Houston, Robert Paterson

Beale, W. P.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Beauchamp, E.

Delany, William

Hunt, Rowland

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Hyde, Clarendon

Bell, Richard

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDixon

Jacoby, James Alfred

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

Dobson, Thomas W.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)

Bertram, Julius

Du Cros, Harvey

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Bethell J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Duffy, William J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Billson, Alfred

Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Gov'n

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Kenyon-Slaney Rt.Hn.Col. W.

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Kilbride, Denis

Black,ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Blake, Edward

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Boland, John

Elibank, .Master of

King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

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

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kitson, Sir James

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Erskine, David C.

Laid law, Robert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Essex, R. W.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Bramsdon. T. A.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lambert, George

Branch, James

Everett, R. Lacey

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fenwick, Charles

Lamont, Norman

Brigg, John

Ferens, T. R.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Brodie, H. C.

Field, William

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Brooke, Stopford

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lee,ArthurH. (Hants. Fareham

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Finch, Rt. Hon. (George H.

Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington)

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

Findlay, Alexander

Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lewis, John Herbert

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Liddell, Henry

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Long, Col. CharlesW(Evesham

Burke, E. Haviland

Gardner,Col.Alan(Hereford,S.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lough, Thomas

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Ginnell, L.

Lundon, W.

Buxton,Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas

Gladstone, Rt. Hn.Herbert John

Lyell, Charles Henry

Byles, William Pollard

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Carlile, E. Hildred

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Grove, Archibald

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gulland, John W.

Maclean, Donald

Castlereagh, Viscount

Haddock, George R.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn.ViotorC.W.

Hall, Frederick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.

Cawley, Frederick

Halpin, J.

M'Arthur, William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hamilton, Marquess of

M'Crae, George

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Iver SirLewis(EdinburghW

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Kean, John

Chance, Frederick William

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

M'Killop, W.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Harwood, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Clancy, John Joseph

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Clarke, C. Goddard

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mallet, Charles E.

Cleland, J. W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

Hazleton, Richard

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cogan, Denis J.

Heaton, John Henniker

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hedges, A. Paget

Massie, J.

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

Helmsley, Viscount

Masterman, C. F. G.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

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

Meagher, Michael

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

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hervey, F.W.F.(BurySEdm'ds

MiddlemoreJohnThrogmorton

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Higham, John Sharp

Molteno, Percy Alport

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Cowan, W. H.

Hills, J. W.

Montgomery, H. G.

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Mooney, J. J.

Craik, Sir Henry

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Crean, Eugene

Hogan, Michael:

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Cremer, William Randal

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morpeth, Viscount

794

795

Morrell, Philip

Rees, J. D.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Toulmin, George

Murphy, John

Renton, Major Leslie

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Murray, James

Rickett, J. Compton

Ure, Alexander

Myer, Horatio

Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Valentia, Viscount

Newnes, F.(Notts.,Bassetlaw)

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Walker, Col.W. H. (Lancashire)

Nield, Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Nolan, Joseph

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Walters, John Tudor

Norman, Henry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Nuttall, Harry

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wardle, George J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Schwann Sir, C. E. (Manchester

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Sears, J. E.

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Waterlow, D. S.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Seely, Major J. B.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick)

Whitbread, Howard

O'Hare, Patrick

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon .John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Malley, William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Whitehead, Rowland

O'Mara, James

Smith,Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

O'Shee, James John

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

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Paul, Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wiles, Thomas

Paulton, James Mellor

Soares, Ernest J.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Spicer, Sir Albert

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

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Starkey, John R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Pollard, Dr.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid

Power, Patrick Joseph

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Sullivan, Donal

Woodhouse,SirJT.(Huddersf'd.

Radford, G. H.

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

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

Rainy, A. Rolland

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. (George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Young, Samuel

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

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

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Thomasson, Franklin

Rea, Waller Russell (Scarboro'

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

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thornton, Percy M.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Tomkinson, James

NOES.

Barnes, G. N.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Rutherford. V. H. (Brentford)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Shackleton, David James

Beck, A. Cecil

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Shaw, Charles Edw. ({Stafford)

Bignold. Sir Arthur

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Summerbell, T.

Brace, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Clynes, J. R.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

Crooks, William

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Walsh, Stephen

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

White, George (Norfolk)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Williams,Llewellyn(Carmathen

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Nicholls, George

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

Fell, Arthur

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Price, Robert John (.Norfolk, E.

Winfrey, R.

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Gill, A. H.

Rendall, Athelstan

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Ellis Griffith and Mr. Clough.

Glendinning, R. G.

Richards, T.F.(Wolverhampt'n

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Richardson, A.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Russell, T. W.

MR. GARDNERstated that under a misapprehension he voted in the wrong lobby.
SIR E. CARSONmoved to insert at the end of the words last inserted—
"Clause 6 of this Act shall not apply while the schoolhouse is used under this section."

797
The object of the Amendment was merely to make clear what the right hon. Gentleman stated in the earlier part of the discussion to the effect that it would be unwise to interrupt the facilities for religious teaching during the time the school was in this transition state. Clause 6 enacted that the parent of a child attending a public elementary school should not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at the schoolhouse except during the times allotted in the time-table exclusively to secular instruction. That enabled parents to withdraw their children during the hours of religious instruction. There was some division of opinion about the clause, when it was discussed, and as the right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish any interference with religious instruction in the schools now under discussion, he did not think he could have any objection to this Amendment which simply provided that during the transition period the instruction should be continued.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 7, line 8, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, ' Section 6 of this Act shall not apply while a schoolhouse is used under this section.' "
Question proposed. " That, those words be there inserted."
SIR W. ROBSONdid not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman correctly stated the effect of what his right hon. friend had said, which was that he did not wish to interfere with facilities for religious instruction in these temporary schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went by his Amendment a good deal further than his right hon. friend's words, or any reasonable meaning to be attached to them. Why should not Clause 6 apply to these schools? No difficulty had existed in the past, and he did not believe that a single summons had been issued to compel a child to attend during the time of religious instruction. The compulsion had only been applied in regard to secular instruction. There was no necessity for compulsion now, especially as the local education authority only held these schools for two years, which period might
798
be reduced by agreement. It was therefore very undesirable to make a different rule between these schools and other schools.
LORD R. CECILfailed to follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not know whether he thought that Clause 6 had any meaning or not. He understood that the Government desired to keep these schools in status quo during the transition period. If that was their desire did Clause 6 make any difference at all?
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that religious instruction would go on in the same way without compulsion.
LORD R. CECILwanted to know whether that was understood. The Solicitor-General had argued that there was no compulsion at the present time, and also that Clause 6 made no alteration. If that was so, why was it in the Bill at all? In his view, if denominational teaching was to continue in these particular schools they must be freed from Clause 6. The attitude of the Government over that clause was not very reasonable, and it was because they dared not face the fury of their Nonconformist supporters a second time that they did not assent to this alteration. Although they were a Government full of courage, and ' master in their own house', they declined to grant an Amendment which he ventured to say no other Government would have refused.
MR. LANE-FOXasked why if Clause 6 was absolutely innocuous the Government refused to accept the Amendment. For himself he believed that clause to be most harmful and mischievous, and therefore he supported the Amendment. He hoped that clause, which was most objectionable, would be used on every platform in the country against the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was a certain want of lucidity about the Solicitor-General's argument. Indeed he made two excellent speeches which were contradictory. He had asked what was the use of using compulsion when it was

799
never applied. If that argument had any meaning at all it meant that Clause 6 was innocuous. But why did the Government introduce it into the Bill if that was so? He could not see why the Government could not accept the Amendment which dealt with a state of things which were identical in regard to these schools both before and after Clause 6 was passed. It would be remembered that the Government left Clause 6 to the House, which showed that they thought the less they had to do with it the better for them. If there was any argument, as there certainly was, for leaving Clause 6 to the Committee, there was certainly a stronger argument for leaving this Amendment to the Committee. The whole position of the Government was that these schools were to remain as they were. If that was so they ought to be allowed to remain under the law as it was before Clause 6 was passed. Even if Clause 6 was popular with the Government and the House there would be a strong ground for not applying it to these interim schools. But when they found a difference of opinion in the Government upon it; when they found members of the Government voting against that clause, and when they found the Amendment to the clause rejected by a majority of only sixteen, in that condition of affairs surely the practice the Government had deliberately adopted in that case should be adopted in the case of the present Amendment. The anomaly would not last for more than two years. Let the hon. and learned Gentleman consistently carry out the ideas of his own Government and make the system of these schools conform as near as possible to the system suggested in the Amendment. If he could not accept the suggestion let the Committee remain free to say for itself whether Clause 6 should apply to these schools.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that in his opinion the merits of Clause 6 did not arise. The intention of the Government was to continue these schools during this short period as under the Act of 1902. The difficulty arose owing to these schools being provided schools. If the first three lines of the Clause remained, not only would the Amendment which had been moved exclude these schools from Clause 6, but other Amendments would
800
exclude them from Clause 7. What was wanted was the introduction of words which would in terms continue these schools as under the Act of 1902. He thought the clause should be recast. The sooner that that was expressed in terms the better for the schools.
MR. GEORGE WHITEsaid this clause affected the rural districts far more than the urban districts, and he therefore urged the Government not to yield on this point. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had over and over again admitted that the position occupied by these schools under the Act of 1902 was very unfair and anomalous. That being so why should they continue it a moment longer than necessary? This was one of the exceptions that they should remove with the least possible delay. He hoped the Government would resist the Amendment.
MR. LEIF JONESsaid he could not see that they had really been landed in the great difficulty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with regard to this Amendment. The idea of the Government was to carry on these schools in such a way that no injury would be done to them if the owners decided to carry them on themselves hereafter. And no harm would be done to them by setting up at once the permanent arrangement under which they would have to be carried on at the end of the two years. No real grievance could be alleged by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite owing to there being no official to secure the attendance of the children at the religious instruction. The effect of the section would be that a system would be set up at once which would in any case be the permanent system of the school at the end of two years. He could not see that any harm would be done by this procedure.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the hon. Member for N.W. Norfolk had directly invited the Government to break the pledge given by the President of the Board of Education earlier in the day, and therefore the Committee ought to

801
hear from a representative of the Government either that they were going to keep the pledge given, or some argument from them to show that this was not a breach of it. When debating a previous Amendment the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee they ought not to ask for any payment on the ground that the Church schools were going to be carried on in the same way as they had hitherto been carried on, and everything the Church people held dear in the teaching was to be preserved during the time this clause was in operation. It had now been pointed out that what they regarded as most important was going to be taken away, and so far from leaving the schools in the same position as they were before the introduction of this Bill, they would be placed in a much worse position. The Government must recognise that if they did not accept this Amendment they would break the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave earlier in the afternoon.
LORD MORPETHsaid that Clause 6 was the most un-educational clause of the most un-educational Bill introduced into this House during the last thirty years. Under this clause three-quarters of an hour a day was going to be lost to thousands of the children of the country. He supported the Amendment because if it was carried that time would be saved. It was of the greatest importance in his opinion that a contrast should be set up in order that the country should have an opportunity of seeing the working of the schools under Clause 6 as compared with the working of the other schools. They would then see that Clause 6 was un-educational, reactionary, and bad.
LORD BALCARRESsaid the hon. Member for N.W. Norfolk objected to this Amendment on grounds which were incompatible with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education. So far as the Committee was concerned, everybody accepted the statement that the object of the clause was to put the suspensory schools during the two or three years of transition in precisely the same conditions as they were now under. The President of the Board of Education had said it
802
would be a gross injustice to alter the continuity of religious instruction in these schools, on the ground that in two or three years from now they might be taken over by the local education authority on the one hand, or else that the local education authority might say that they found they could get on better with new schools and that they would not take over these schools. Whether they agreed with the Bill or not they must admit that that was a reasonable line to take up. The Government supported the last Amendment on the ground that it avowedly was to keep the schools in the position they now occupied, and that being so, it was not possible on logical grounds to decline to accept this Amendment. He had gathered from the observations of some hon. Gentlemen that Clause 6 was inoperative; that Clause 6 being passed, these schools would not thereby be affected. He was unable to understand that, because Clause 6 was obviously put in the Bill for some purpose. The object of this clause being to maintain the schools in precisely the position they now occupied he could not understand why the Government should exclude from the provisions of Clause 10 the Clause 6 schools.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHthought it was only fitting that they should have a clear reason why the Government opposed this Amendment, and some further explanation ought to be given by someone more closely connected with the Department of Education. It was true that Clause 6 had been discussed, but not fully, and that was the case with a good many other clauses in the Bill. Clause 6 aimed at the religious education of the country, and would strike out religion from the schools. He hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would see his way to give a clear indication of the views of the Government with regard to the reasons why they would not accept the Amendment.
MR. NAPIERsaid that although he was strongly opposed to Clause 6 he could not vote for the Amendment. The. clause had nothing to do with the schools; it was concerned with the parents. When one was establishing a general law affecting people

803
how was it possible to except from its scope parents who might send their children to a particular school?
SIR E. CARSONsaid the extraordinary speech to which they had just listened necessitated some observations. He failed to follow the frame of mind of the hon. Member for Faversham, who said that he was opposed to Clause 6 and yet desired that it should be applied to the particular schools dealt with in that clause, but not to the State schools. This meant that the hon. Member considered that Clause 6 was harmful in the permanent system of the country, but not harmful in the case now under consideration. That was a frame of mind which resulted from the conscience of the hon. Member on a previous occasion having got a holiday and not having a holiday on this occasion. The distinction which the hon. Member had drawn that Clause 6 applied to parents and not to schools could not be maintained. When parents had once been encouraged not to send their children during the hours of religious instruction, it would be impossible to restore them to the frame of mind in which they regarded it as part of their duty to insist on their children's attendance. If the policy announced as the policy of the Government by the President of the Board of Education was to be carried out the Amendment ought to be accepted. If it was not carried out, it would be practically a breach of faith.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid there never was a charge put forward upon less foundation than that which had just been made. No man in the House was less likely than the President of the Board of Education to commit a breach of faith. Was it to be supposed that to withdraw compulsion would break the continuity of religious teaching? He did not think so ill of religious teaching in the denominational schools and of the parents who sent their children to them as to believe that that would be the result. How unjust that accusation was would be seen when they considered what the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of at the time. He was dealing with the very question of the temporary continuity of religious instruction which he said he did not desire to break. He did not say that
804
there was going to be no change whatever in the condition of the schools during the operation of this clause. Members of the Opposition ought to be a little more careful before using such phrases as a " breach of faith "; such accusations ought not to be made recklessly.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought the Government ought to accept the Amendment. If the Bill failed to satisfy the expectations of its best friends it would be almost entirely because of Clause 6. To say that there should be religious teaching, but that that teaching was of so little importance that it need not necessarily be given, was to insult the feelings of a great many people. A child would be compelled by law to attend geography lessons and learn where Birmingham was, for instance, but when any one wanted to teach him anything about Heaven he might stay in bed and not go to school. This was simply turning religious teaching into ridicule, and it would be far better to say that there should be no religious teaching at all. He thought it would be found that in future the real opposition of this Bill would centre round Clause 6, and in order to mitigate that danger he urged the Government to make a small concession by agreeing to the proposal that Clause 6 should not be operative in the case of these schools.
MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid the Government by the introduction of Clause 6 into the Bill had merely tabulated and made law that which had grown to be customary. Why then should the Committee accept the Amendment, especially as this privilege of compulsion could only continue for a matter of two years? After the end of that time tin; schools would either lapse into private certificated schools or become public schools under the operation of the general law. No doubt in some parishes there would be little ground for complaint, but in many parishes of England there was a number of parents that dared not use the conscience clause, and he did not think it was desirable that either Party in the House should continue the form of compulsion for even two years longer. If the Amendment were adopted, it would be known throughout the country that

805
compulsion might be safely disregarded. After a period of disuse, would any hon. Member opposite suggest that a compulsory attendance upon the religious lesson could be put in force? If it could never become operative, surely the Opposition did not desire to retain a mere bogey by means of which to effect their end ! It was better that hon. Gentlemen opposite should rely upon those numerous parents who had sent petitions to every member of the House assuring him of their fidelity to the schools and of their passion for religious education. Hon. Members on the Ministerial side had treated these petitioners seriously. If that were so, parents could be depended upon to send their children to the denominational school for their catechism.
MR. PIKE PEASEsaid this was a question of extreme importance. The real point was not so much that which had been raised as whether there should be any alteration in regard to the schools during the temporary period. They all wanted the children in the schools to receive religious instruction, but if the arrangement suggested was made there was a likelihood that those facilities would not be real in the future, because many of the children would get into the habit of not attending the school during the time of religious instruction. It was difficult to see under this Bill how 80 per cent. of the parents of the children would be likely to vote for facilities being granted.
VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid it would appear rather extraordinary in the country if the Government now refused to accept the Amendment and thereby made Clause 6 obligatory, when they had not even sufficient affection for that clause when it was before the Committee to make it a Government question. A distinct pledge had been given by the Minister in charge of the Bill that religious instruction should be given exactly as before in the schools during the two years of transition. It was on that ground, and on that ground alone, that the right hon. Gentleman had resisted the Amendment dealing with that particular point. It was extraordinary to be asked to break the pledge without a word of explanation on the
806
subject. While the right hon. Gentleman was temporarily absent from the House the Parliamentary Secretary sat in his place in Sphinx-like silence, and nothing would induce him to answer the point raised by his hon. friend. He appealed to the Minister of Education now that he had returned to his seat, to give some further explanation of what he proposed to do on the subject.
MR. HELMEsaid that hon. Members who were needlessly holding the Minister of Education to his words must certainly admit that his promise did not go further than the appointment of teacher. They were now asking that school attendance officers should be employed to compel the children to attend these schools at an hour when sectarian teaching would be given although the Committee had decided to alter the whole system of compulsory attendance by Clause 6, which would be frustrated if this proposal became law. Supposing even that Clause 6 was struck out of the Bill in another place—did anyone suppose that the House of Commons would in future allow the schools to be conducted without a stringent conscience clause— absolutely operative?—the want of this had been the cause of all the mischief in the past. He did not think hon. Members on the Opposition side were justified in making such a charge against the right hon. Gentleman as they did—and he held that officers should not be compelled so to act in respect to schools which might or might not in a few months be handed over—in matters of conscience they should not be exceptionally treated.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON, who was received with cries of " Divide, divide," pointed out that the duty of the school attendance officer was to secure that the attendance was such as to obtain the Parliamentary grant, and, as no Parliamentary grant was given for religious instruction, he had to see that the children attended school during the hours devoted to secular instruction.
MR. COMPTON RICKETT: Where does the compulsion come in?
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the local authority determined by by-law the time during which the children were to

807
attend school and that included the time devoted to religious instruction. Whether Cowper-Temple or denominational instruction was given the children would still be liable to attend, or else they would lose prizes, or be liable to punishment for unpunctuality. The matter was entirely under the control of the local authority, and there, was no compulsion except the desire of the parent that the child should be punctual and of the child to avoid the penalties of unpunctuality. The objection to Clause 6 was that, so far from stereotyping the existing practice, it ostentatiously announced that, in the view of this Parliament and of the Government, it was rather undesirable that children should be present during religious instruction. Clause 6 did create the impression that parents were invited to keep their children away from school during the time devoted to religious instruction. It had been promised that during the time which would intervene before an arrangement was made, or a scheme obtained, the school would be conducted precisely as it would have been if it had remained a voluntary school. That could not be if the children were invited to stay away during the time of religious instruction. He thought there was strong reason for asking that it should be explicitly stated that Clause 6 should
not apply to those schools which were, as it were, in a state of suspended animation, during which they were to remain precisely as before the Bill was introduced.
MR. MIDDLEMORE—(who was received with cries of "Divide")—said he had not intervened often in the debates on this Bill. When he had done so he had been treated with some amount of rudeness, and he would rise on this occasion if only to make a protest against the less than courteous interruptions which were made when his hon. friend the Member for Oxford University rose. This was an Amendment of very great moment indeed, and it ought not to be slurred over. Unless it were carried, thousands of children who had been in the habit of attending religious instruction would cease to do so, and the whole tone of the schools would be altered. The continuity of the teaching would be broken, and the pledge given by the Minister for Education would not be fulfilled. They could not treat religion as an indifferent matter.
Question put.
Committee divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 258. (Division List No. 208).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galw'y

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlex.F

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Donelan, Captain A.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Ashley, W. W.

Duffy, William J.

Lundon, W.

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

MacVeagh. Jeremiah (Down,S.

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

Field, William

M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinb'gh,W.)

Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Kean, John

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Killop, W.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Flynn, James Christopher

Magnus, Sir Philip

Blake, Edward

Forster, Henry William

Meagher, Michael

Boland, John

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Middlemore,JohnThrogmorton

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Mooney, J. J.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Ginnell, L.

Murphy, John

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Haddock, George R.

Nield, Herbert

Burke, K. Haviland-

Halpin, J.

Nolan, Joseph

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ryMid

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Helmsley, Viscount

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hills, J. W.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Cogan, Denis J.

Hogan, Michael

O'Hare, Patrick

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Houston, Robert Paterson

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

Craik, Sir Henry

Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

O'Malley, William

Crean, Eugene

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Mara, James

Cullinan, J.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Delany, William

King, SirHenrySeymour(Hull)

O'Shee, James John

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Walrond, Hon, Lionel

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

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

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Starkey, John R.

Young, Samuel

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Redmond, William (Clare)

Sullivan, Donal

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Remnant and Mr. Burdett-Coutts.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

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

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Thornton, Percy M.

NOES.

Adkins, W. Ryland

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cowan, W. H.

Jacoby, James Alfred

Allen,A. Acland (Christchurch)

Crombie, John William

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Crooks, William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Baker Sir John (Portsmouth)

Crosfield, A. H.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Davies, David(MontgomeryCo.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davis, Ellis William (Eifion)

Laid law, Robert

Barker, John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lamb, Ernest H.(Rochester)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lambert, George

Barnard, E. B.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lamont, Norman

Beauchamp, E.

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

Lea, HughCecil(St.Pancras,E)

Beaumont. W. C. B. (Hexham)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leese, SirJoseph F.(Accrington)

Beck, A. Cecil

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Bell, Richard

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire,Wirral)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Duncan, J. H. (York. Otley)

Levy, Maurice

Benn,SirJ. Williams(Devonp'rt

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Lough, Thomas

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lupton, Arnold

Bertram, Julius

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

Elibank, Master of

Lynch, H. B.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Billson, Alfred

Essex, R. W.

Macdonald, JM (FalkirkB'ghs

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Everett, R. Lacey

Maclean, Donald

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Fenwick, Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)

Ferens, T. R.

M'Arthur, William

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

Findlay, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Bottomley, Horatio

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Crae, George

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Brace, William

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Micking, Major G.

Branch, James

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Maddison, Frederick

Brigg, John

Gill, A. H.

Mallet, Charles E.

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Glendinning, R. G.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Brodie, H. C.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Brooke, Stopford

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Marnham, F. J.

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

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

Griffith, Ellis J.

Menzies, Walter

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Grove, Archibald

Micklem, Nathaniel

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Gulland, John W.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Hall, Frederick

Montagu, E. S.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Byles, William Pollard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Morse, L. L.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Hart-Davies, T.

Murray, James

Cawley, Frederick

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Myer, Horatio

Chance, Frederick William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Napier, T. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hedges, A. Paget

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nicholls, George

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncast'r

Clarke, C. Goddard

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Norman, Henry

Cleland, J. W.

Higham, John Sharp

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Clough, W.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nuttall, Harry.

Clynes, J. R.

Hooper, A. G.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hope, John Deans (Fife,West)

Partington, Oswald

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hope, W. Bateman(SomersetN.

Paul, Herbert

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Porks, Robert William

810

811

Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Pollard, Dr.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Simon, John Allsebrook

White George (Norfolk)

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

Radford, G. H.

Soares, Ernest J.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Spicer, Albert

Whitley,J.H. (Halifax)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Wiles, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rendall, Athelstan

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Williams,Llewelyn(C'rm'rth'n

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

Richardson, A.

Summerbell, T.

Williamson, A.

Rickett, J. Compton

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

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

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Thomasson, Franklin

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thompson, J.W.H.(SomersetE.

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

Robinson, S.

Torrance, A. M.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Ure, Alexander

Winfrey, It.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Verney, F. W.

Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk, Mid

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Vivian, Henry

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Runciman, Walter

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Walsh. Stephen

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

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

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

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Sears, J. E.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Shackleton, David James

Wardle, George J.

SIR HENRY CRAIKmoved an Amendment providing that the local education authority should pay the salaries of the teachers during the whole time that the school was open, including the time set apart for religious instruction. He said the object of the Amendment was to attain what, he thought, the Minister of Education would agree were essential points. First of all, it would give clearness of language and thus make it possible to understand exactly what they were doing. The principle involved was a very simple one, but it was perfectly clear that they should come to an understanding upon it, and that it should not be left to the interchange of assurances on one side or the other which were sure to result in charges, naturally resented on both sides, of bad faith. The conditions which regulated the occupation of these schools were to be in force from the beginning of the year 1908, possibly to the end of the year 1909, and during that interval the position of those schools would have an important and lasting effect on the education of the country. They had the assurance that there would be repeated in all respects in those schools the course, the complexion, the
812
style and colour of the education which had hitherto been given in them. No one would contradict him in saying that from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman they had arrived at a perfectly clear understanding on that point. But misunderstandings might, easily arise, as had been shown by the hon. Member for North Camber-well, who spoke with so much knowledge and experience, and who had shown that in regard to Clause 2 the interpretation thereof had been made by some hon. Members in an entirely different sense from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education. And he was obliged to say that his reading of the clause, before he heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, agreed with that of the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that if the hon. Member would look at the Amendment he would see that the question before the Committee was that the salaries of the teachers should be paid by the local education authorities.
HENRY CRAIKsaid that he did not intend to go beyond the point raised by the Amendment. What he wanted was to make it explicit that the

813
payment of the teachers in respect of religious education should be made perfectly clear.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was making a Second Reading speech on the question of religious instruction, and was therefore out of order.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that with all respect he had simply referred to the necessity of perfect clearness as to the guarantees which were to be given for the carrying on of those schools as heretofore.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the guarantees had nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee, which referred simply to whether the salaries of the teachers during the time the school was open should be paid by the local authority or not.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that he would not refer any further to that point, since it seemed to the Deputy-Chairman that he was travelling out of order. But they had been told that afternoon by the Minister for Education that certain things would be secured to denominationalists by this clause with regard to the two years' existence of these schools. His object was to put in the clause not a vague understanding but something definite in black and white. That was the reason for his Amendment, and he urged on the right hon. Gentleman the extreme necessity there was to be perfectly definite as to the provisions of the Bill.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he really called the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he was travelling far beyond the limits of his Amendment, which was that the salaries of the teachers should be paid by the local education authority, and by no one else.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid that it would not do to trust to the local education authorities to provide for the payment of the salaries of the teachers as long as the schools were open. The Solicitor-General had said that they must trust the local education authorities, while the hon. Member for Leek said that they ought not
814
to have any understanding at all on the matter. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not think that a clear and definite understanding as to the payment of salaries ought to be put into this clause of the Bill, otherwise the salaries of the teachers might be reduced. Had they any security that the local education authorities, which the Solicitor-General said they should trust, would not follow the example of the education authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire? It was for the sake of the President of the Board of Education himself that he thought his Amendment should be adopted because when the right hon. Gentleman had given not a concession, but a clear interpretation of his own Bill, he had been told by hon. Gentlemen behind him that he was giving away the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
" To add after the words last inserted in line 8, the words ' while the schoolhouse is so used the local education authority shall pay the salaries of the teachers during the whole time the school is open, including the time set apart for religious instruction. ' "—(Sir Henry Craik.)
Question proposed, " That these words be there added."
MR. BIRRELLsaid that this Amendment was absolutely unnecessary. The salaries of the teachers would be paid by the local education authority as heretofore. He described as unfair the references that had been made to the case of the West Riding of Yorkshire. The West Riding of Yorkshire, acting under legal advice, was told that it was justified in taking a particular line of action on a construction of the Act of 1902. He was advised that the legal advice given to the West Riding County Council was wrong. The matter went into Court, and the Judges agreed with his advisers rather than with those of the county council. The council immediately assented to the decision of the Court and had expressed their willingness to abide by it and had intimated that they did not intend to carry the matter any further. He saw no reason why that matter should be brought against the West Riding County Council,

815
unless it was a crime to act upon counsel's opinion. The salaries of these teachers would be paid by the local education authority.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas quite sure that his hon. friend in introducing this Amendment had no more desire than he had to cast any reflection upon the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was a body with whom he had had a good many differences while he was at the Education Department, but it was a body for whom he had a regard owing to the efforts which it had made to improve the secondary education i its area. All that his hon. friend and all that those on the Opposition side of the House desired, was that the meaning of this subsection should be made perfectly clear in the Bill itself. He thought there might be greater difficulties in regard to the construction of this clause than there were in regard to the Act of 1902, the wording of which had led the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire into the position which they took up. In view of the provisions of Clause 6, which put religious instruction out of school hours, and of Clauses 3 and 4, which excluded the teacher from giving denominational religious teaching in the school, there would be greater difficulty in regard to this Bill than there was in regard to its predecessor, and all he wished was that the meaning should be clearly expressed so that no other deserving local authority might be led by counsel's opinion into the trap into which the West Riding County Council no doubt unwittingly fell. For himself he did not cast any slur upon that county council.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): You menaced them.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I make no complaint in regard to this particular matter, although I had many differences with them. The hon. Baronet went on to say that although there were other matters in regard to which he attached blame to this county council, yet in this particular matter he recognised that all they had done was to act upon a view of
816
the law which was wrong. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would let them know clearly what his view of the construction of the clause was, because for his part he could not see any reason for his refusal to accept the Amendment of his hon. friend, and put in black and white what was his expressed intention.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid that as a member of this much maligned local authority, he thought it had been extremely hardly treated. The right hon. Gentleman had in effect alluded to it as being a poor thing which was misled by its legal advisers. He thought they all ought to sympathise with it on that ground. He did not think it was a slur upon its moral character that it was so misled, and everybody admitted that the council acted honestly, in good faith and from conscientious motives. They were mistaken and wrong, but they acted with the intention of carrying out what they believed to be right. At the same time, speaking on behalf of a great many poor teachers in the West Riding of Yorkshire, he must say that this mistaken action had resulted in inflicting quite unnecessary hardship upon a great many poor teachers. It was, therefore, important that this matter should be put right and that such a proceeding should not be possible in the future. In endeavouring to carry out a propaganda involving sectarian strife, this body inflicted a great injury upon people who could ill afford the money of which they were deprived. Although he believed the county council were conscientious, he thought the Committee should do their best to prevent the recurrence of such an incident, and that his hon. friend was justified in raising the question. He welcomed the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that it was impossible for such a proceeding to happen again in the future.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid there was not the slightest doubt that they were all agreed upon the meaning which it was intended should be placed upon this subsection,

817
and that was that the local education authority should pay the teachers their full salaries. The words which created a doubt, however, were those which provided that while a schoolhouse was used under the section " the same conditions and provisions shall apply under this Act as where an arrangement is made for the use of a schoolhouse." If those words were read strictly, there was not the slightest doubt that the managers of the schoolhouse and not the local education authority would have to pay the teachers for the religious instruction given during school hours. As the words of the section were capable of the construction put upon them by the mover of the Amendment, was there, he asked, any harm in accepting his words.
LORD HELMSLEYsaid the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman was the strongest justification for the Amendment. If a powerful local body took up a strong position it would be difficult to deal with this matter, and it was important that no room should be left for misconception or misinterpretation. The reason why the Amendment was not to be accepted seemed to be that it would lay the right hon. Gentleman open to the charge of giving a concession to the Opposition. The Amendment was purely a verbal one, and he could not see why if these salaries were to be paid by the local authority it should not be stated in the Bill. Considering that the people who had to construe and act upon these Acts of Parliament had not the opportunity of availing themselves of the facilities for interpreting them which were at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman, he thought it would be far better to put these words in, so that there should not be such a fiasco as there was under the Act of 1902 of a local authority taking up a position and having to be put right by a Court of law. Would the right hon. Gentleman assure them that the salaries would be paid by the local authority?
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he would withdraw his Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman assured him that it was unnecessary and impliedly contained in the Bill.
MR. BIRRELL: Salaries are paid by the local authority.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that to say that the salaries were paid by the local authority was no doubt to state what was indisputable. There was no doubt that the payments which the teachers would get would be paid by the local authority. What they wanted to know was whether the salaries covered the whole time that the school was open. What they wanted to know was whether the teachers would get what they were entitled to. r would the provisions be such as would give rise to the difference of opinion and the loss of time in recovering the amounts due to them, which had arisen in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,)proceeded to put the Question.
LORD HELMSLEYasked whether they were to have an answer from the Government?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid as there was no answer he had put the Question.
MR. BIRRELL: I have answered.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had always been distinguished for his courteous behaviour, and he would ask him whether it was courteous to refuse an answer?
MR. BIRRELL: I have given the answer again and again.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If the right hon. Gentleman would give an answer, we might be spared the necessity for a division. Hon. Members will not allow us either to speak or to listen.
MR. J. WARDasked whether it was in order for the hon. Gentleman to say the Committee would not listen to him when he had already spoken four times.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANthen put the Amendment, not observing Lord R. Cecil, who had risen, and who continued to stand, amid loud cries of " Answer," " Order," " Name," and Opposition cheers.
LORD R. CECILprotested against the action of the Deputy-Chairman. [" Order."]
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had put the Question.
While the Committee proceeded to a division,
LORD R. CECIL, seated and with his hat on, said: I do not think this kind of way of conducting business is likely to conduce—[Cries of "Name," "Withdraw," and OPPOSITION cheers.]
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I put the question for the second time after it was obvious that no further answer was to be given, and I did not observe anyone rise.
LORD R. CECIL: You would not look.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 333. (Division List No. 209.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craik, Sir Henry

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

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

Forster, Henry William

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Haddock, George R.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Bowles, G. Stewart

Heaton, John Henniker

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Helmsley, Viscount

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

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Starkey, John R.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hills, J. W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carlile, E. Hildred

Houston, Robert Paterson

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carson,Rt. Hon. SirEdw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Thornton, Percy M.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.

Walker,Col. W.H.(Lancashire)

Cave, George

King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

Coates, E.Feetham(Lewisham)

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

Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and

Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh,W.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Magnus, Sir Philip

Viscount Valentia.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Beauchamp, E.

Blake, Edward

Abraham. William (Rhondda)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Boland, John

Adkins, W. Ryland

Beck, A. Cecil

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

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hell, Richard

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Allen, A.Acland(Christchurck)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Brace, William

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

Branch, James

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Benn, W.(Tw'rHamlets,S.Geo.

Brigg, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Bertram, Julius

Brodie, H. C.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Brooke, Stopford

Barker, John

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Billson, Alfred

Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen

Barnard, E. B.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Barnes, G. N.

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Beale, W. P.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Burke, E. Haviland-

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Griffith, Ellis J.

Maddison, Frederick

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Grove, Archibald

Mallet, Charles E.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gulland, John. W.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Buxton, Rt.Hn.SvdneyCharles

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Byles, William Pollard

Hall, Frederick

Marnham, F. J.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Halpin, J.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Cawley, Frederick

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Masterman, C. F. G.

Chance, Frederick William

Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Meagher, Michael

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Monzies, Walter

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r

Micklem, Nathaniel

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hart-Davies, T.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Clancy, Joseph John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Clarke, C. Goddard

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Montagu, E. S.

Cleland, J. W.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Montgomery, H. G.

Clough, W.

Hayden, John Patrick

Mooney, J. J.

Clynes, J. R.

Hazelton, Richard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hedges, A. Paget

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cogan, Denis J.

Helme, Norval Watson

Morse. L. L.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murphy, John

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

Henry, Charles S.

Murray, James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Myer, Horatio

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

Higham, John Sharp

Napier, T. B.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hogan, Michael

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nicholls, George

Cowan, W. H.

Hooper. A. G.

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Crean, Eugene

Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

Nolan, Joseph

Cremer, William Randal

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Norman, Henry

Crombie, John William

Horniman, Emslie John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Crooks, William

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nuttall, Harry

Crosfield, A. H.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Crossley, William J.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cullinan, J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Hare, Patrick

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Mara, James

Delany, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Malley, William

Devlin, CharlesRamsay(Galway

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Shee, James John

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

Kilbride, Denis

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Partington, Oswald

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Paul, Herbert

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Pearce,Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lambert, George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Duffy, William J.

Lamont, Norman

Perks, Robert William

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

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

Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Pollard, Dr.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Elibank, Master of

Levy, Maurice

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

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lewis, John Herbert

Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk,E.)

Essex, R. W.

Lough, Thomas

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lundon, W.

Radford, G. H.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Raphael, Herbert H.

Fenwick, Charles

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Ferens, T. R.

Lynch, H. B.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Field, William

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Findlay, Alexander

Macdonald, J. M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Redmond, William (Clare)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Maclean, Donald

Rees, J. D.

Flynn, James Christopher

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Kendall, Athelstan

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Fuller, John .Michael F.

M'Arthur, William

Richardson, A.

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Callum, John M.

Rickett, J. Compton

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Crae, George

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Gill, A. H.

M'Kean, John

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ginnell, L.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Glendinning, R. G.

M'Killop, W.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robinson, S.

822

823

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Sullivan, Donal

Whitehead, Rowland

Roe, Sir Thomas

Summerbell, T.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Runciman, Walter

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Wiles, Thomas

Russell, T. W.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Thomasson, Franklin

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Williamson, A.

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Sears, J. E.

Toulmin, George

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

Seaverns, J. H.

Ure, Alexander

Wilson, John (Durham. Mid)

Seddon, J.

Verney, F. W.

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

Shackleton, David James

Vivian, Henry

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

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Walsh, Stephen

Winfrey, R.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Wodehonse,Lord(Norfolk, Mid

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Simon, John Allsebrook

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Young, Samuel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Yoxall, James Henry

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Waterlow, P. S.

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

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, George (Norfolk)

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Question, " That Clause 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

LORD R. CECILrose to a point of order, and asked the Deputy-Chairman what was the proper course for him to follow under circumstances that had arisen before the division—
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (interposing): That incident is closed. The Question now before the Committee is that Clause 10 as amended stand part of the Bill.
LORD E. CECIL, who was received with loud Ministerial cries of " Order, order," and " Sit down," said he claimed he was entitled to speak on a point of order. He understood that the Deputy-Chairman had ruled that it was impossible for him to raise any question in connection with what had just occurred.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is impossible to raise it now, the incident having been done with.
SIR E. CARSON: When would it be possible to raise it?
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not for me to advise; it is for hon. Members to find that out for themselves. We must proceed with the Bill. I therefore put the question that Clause 10 as amended stand part of the Bill.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid he wished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Education to the fact that at the close of sub-section (2), in order to give effect to his own desire that the schools should be continued on the 1902 conditions, he added words to the effect that if a vacancy arose the local authority should say that the teacher appointed should be one who would give the religious teaching which had been given in the school in the past. He thought his right hon. friend however should confine the addition to the head teachers, and should not have brought in the assistant teachers and pupil teachers for submission to any religious test upon appointment. He hoped on the Report stage his right hon. friend would see that the clause did carry out that in which they were all agreed, namely, that this should be a provisional scheme under which schools could be continued for a short period as they were under the 1902 Act. Would his right hon. friend bring the Amendment he had made absolutely into accord with the provisions of Section 7, subsection (5), of the Act of 1902, which did remove assistant and pupil teachers from the necessity of submitting to any religious test on their appointment?
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the hon. Gentleman had failed to remember

825
some considerations which would perhaps modify his views. His account of the Act of 1902 was perfectly accurate, but the persons in whose judgment the discretion was left absolutely by the Act were the managers of the schools, a majority of whom were of the same denomination as the school of which they were managers. What the hon. Member for North Camberwell, or the Government under his guidance, must do, was to bring n a clause under which the managers would be left with the power of appointing the head teacher and the under teachers, and with the power of requiring those teachers to carry out the religious instruction for which they were engaged. That would fulfil the views of the hon. Gentleman, and it would fulfil his view. They could not continue these schools ad interim as they were in every respect, unless the Government "brought in a clause saying that they should go on exactly as if this Act had not passed. The latitude proposed to be given to the teachers was really a serious violation of the 1902 system, and no mere modification of the clause would put them precisely in the position of 1902.
MR. BIRRELLsaid the Government were not prepared to restore the 1902 conditions for the simple purpose of these temporary schools. That would not do now, because the managers now were the local authority, who had no denominational bias. It would not be a fair thing, therefore, having regard to the temporary user of these schools, that the undenominational local authority should appoint the assistant teachers. He thought the words he had introduced were the best that, could be introduced in the circumstances, in order to carry out the view which the Government had always entertained of this clause.
Clause 11:—
MR. ASHLEYmoved to insert after "school" in line 15, the words "held or maintained under charitable trusts." The object of the Amendment was
826
to save certain schools from the clutches of Clause 11, which said that an existing voluntary school should not be closed at any time between the passing of the Act and the 1st January, 1908, except with the sanction of the Board of Education. If his Amendment were carried it would exclude privately-owned schools from the scope of this clause. It seemed to be a very highhanded procedure to tell the owner he must either carry on the school until 1908, or the local authority would take the school from him and carry it on. This was all the thanks that a generous-minded man was to get who for many years past at great personal expense had helped forward the cause of both secular and religious education. He quite agreed that schools held under charitable trusts were in a different category, but in the case of a privately-owned school the State had no right to step in in the manner proposed by the clause. On the First Reading of the Bill the Minister for Education said that privately-owned schools were to be exempt from the purview of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman said that the owners could close them altogether, pull them down, or do what they liked with them. Surely if they recognised that the private owner had these rights as regarded the Commission of three, they must also recognise that he had equal rights in respect of this clause. Under these circumstances they ought to exclude privately-owned schools from the clause.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 7, line 15, after the word 'school,' to insert the words ' held or maintained under charitable trusts.' "—(Mr. Ashley.)
Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Committee would understand that they were here dealing not with schools held under charitable trusts, but principally, at all events, with schools which were in the hands of private owners. The object of the clause under review was to ensure that the local education authority should have some remedy, if the private owner chose between the date of the passing of the Act and January 1st, 1908, to

827
close the school and leave the local education authority—it might be in a single school district—without any means of performing its duties to the children. Without this provision, the very moment that this Bill passed the private owner might close his school and there might be no other accommodation available in the particular parish or district, and the children would have to go without education altogether. Obviously the owner of the school must accept some responsibility, because he had allowed his private property to stand as the only school, it might be, and had availed himself of Parliamentary grants for the purpose of carrying on the school. It would be grossly inequitable, therefore, for him to be permitted, without a word of protest, to close the school without giving any kind of hint to the local education authority. The hon. Gentleman had said a man might do what he liked with his own, but in this case he was straining too much the rights of private ownership. It might be said that there had been a partnership, the owner having provided the building, and the State the maintenance. Any abrupt termination would not be the act of a generous-minded man, but would be a very unjust act, which he hoped the Committee would not allow.
LORD R. CECILsaid he was quite unconvinced by the speech of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that if an owner accepted public assistance for which public service had been rendered, he was to be prevented from closing his school because the Government chose to bring in a measure which they called an Education Bill. The Amendment was a right and just one, but he desired to ask his hon. friend whether it was really worth while moving Amendments and making speeches. Sometimes they had been fortunate enough to convert even the Government, but hon. Members behind the Treasury Bench thereupon rose in their places and denounced the Government for their weakness in meeting the Opposition. Even when they did not convince the Government they had very little opportunity of convincing the majority, because they remained outside the Chamber until a division was called,
828
and then they voted against the Amendment merely on the ground that it was an Opposition Amendment. He did not think a debate under these conditions was very useful, besides which they were restricted not only by a very severe closure Resolution, but by irregular methods now used to stifle debate in this House. Under these circumstances he could not see there would be any advantage in his hon. friend further urging this Amendment, and he hoped he would withdraw it.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he always thought it was a great pity that they should be unnecessarily irritated by the action of anybody in this House. These were matters on which they felt very strongly, and nobody ought to do anything to increase the irritation which necessarily arose. He hoped his hon. friend would persist in this Amendment, because he preferred to argue the question of the clause rather than that of the unfair treatment which they had been accustomed to from the other side in these debates. He would like to draw attention to the discrimination made between schools dedicated to a charitable trust and schools owned by an individual. In the case of a charitable trust the school would be carried on as heretofore, but if an individual owned a school which he had carried on as a denominational school the local education authority could apparently take it off his hands and refuse to carry it on as a denominational school. There was no reason why a distinction should be made between the case of an absolute owner and the case of a school held on trust. Was it fair to say to the absolute owner, " We are going to take your school, but we are not going to have the least regard to your wishes, and we shall carry on the school without the denominational instruction which has hitherto prevailed in it "? He was going to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he would not do so; not because he did not believe that in their heart of hearts they would wish to do what was fair, but because he knew they were not allowed to do it. Whether they succeeded in having the proposals of the Bill made clear or not, it was their duty, at all events, to show to the House and the country that they

829
had protested against interference with private property in the way contemplated by this clause.
MR. CAVEsaid it was clear that Clause 11 was not confined to private owners. It also applied to schools held under charitable trusts. If a school of that kind was about to be closed, the local authority might take possession of it under Clause 11, and while holding possession under that clause would give Cowper-Temple teaching only or no religious teaching at all. That would go on down to January 1st, 1909. When that date arrived there might still be no agreement or scheme for taking over the school; and if so, Clause 10 would come into operation for the year 1909, and, the very religious teaching which had been suppressed would have to be restored. That was an extraordinary tangle. He thought the clause ought to be carefully reconsidered.
MR. PAULsaid it did astonish him to hear the Member for Dublin University, a great lawyer and greater Member of Parliament, say there was no difference between a school under private ownership and a school under a trust.
SIR E. CARSON: I said there was a great difference.
MR. PAULsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman stated that a school under private ownership was subjected to more delicate treatment than a school under a trust. He thought the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to maintain the sacredness of trusts. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no distinction between denominational and
830
undenominational teaching. That was the question which divided the two sides of the House.
SIR E. CARSON: I never said anything of the kind.
MR. PAULsaid that on the Ministerial side they held that undenominational, unsectarian, or as he called, it Christian teaching, ought to be entitled to more consideration than denominational, or as he called it, the un-Christian teaching. [An HON. MEMBER: Why un-Christian?] He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman express such a low opinion of trusts and such a high opinion of the schools which were under private ownership.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the observations of the hon. Member were an absolute travesty of what he had said.
MR. ASHLEYsaid that no argument had been advanced by either of the two responsible Ministers in reference to his Amendment.
MR. BIRRELLsaid he had been absent for sixteen minutes to eat what it would be a travesty to call a dinner.
SIR E. CARSON: Why did you abolish the dinner hour?
MR. BIRRELLsaid his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General had remainded in attendance during his absence. He felt it to be rather dangerous to take part in a discussion he had not heard. Private schools had received large grants of public money, and it would

831
not have been a hardship, but a righteous act, if the legislature had made it a condition that, if they chose to take this public money, they should continue, and promise to continue, their schools as part of the school system. Anything more reasonable than that he could not conceive. Hon. Gentlemen had been so fed on public money that they had begun to think because they supplied the building —very generously, no doubt—they were entitled to claim the exclusive right of a private owner and to say that at any moment they would turn the building into a greenhouse or a stable, It would be most unreasonable after all these years, if they could not get the full dole, tha they should complain because the education authority wished to utilise the school for purposes of national education according to law.
MR. CARLILE: I wish to point out that these men have not received public money.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would have treated this question in the way he had done. All he had said was that the iniquitous private owners had received public grants.
MR. BIRRELL: I did not say " iniquitous."
SIR E. CARSON: The Government is penalising them because they received public grants.
MR. BIRRELL: The receipt of public money involves a public sense of duty.
SIR E. CARSONsaid the Government was penalising these men because, having
832
built schools, public money had been paid in respect of the public education given. Why should the absolute owners of the school be treated worse than the trustees? That was the whole question, and he hoped that the Solicitor-General would give a definite answer to the Committee. Why should the absolute owners of the school be treated worse than the trustees?
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that if any owner, either a trustee owner or a private owner, who took advantage of his position after the passing of this Act, and before it came into operation, or anything could be clone under it, closed his school to the detriment of the locality, then, he thought, the consequences under Section 11 were by no means too severe.
MR. PAULsaid that he wished to apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University if in what he had said he had been guilty of a " travesty " of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. It merely resulted from the humble attempt of a layman to understand the language of a great lawyer.
SIR E. CARSON: I entirely concur with the remark of the hon. Gentleman,
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid they still awaited an answer to the question why this distinction should be drawn between private owners and trustees in regard to the carrying on of the schools.
An HON. MEMBERsaid that an owner was practically a trustee, and if he shut up his school in the way which had been suggested, he would be violating his trust.
MR. CAVEproposed for an answer to this question whether a school taken over under Section 11 and carried on as an ordinary provided school until January 1st, 1909, would not, as from that date fall within Clause 10, and would it not thereupon become the duty of the local authority to revive the denominational teaching? He suggested that the difficulty might be met by introducing into Clause 11 the provisions of sub-section (2) of Clause 10, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this point before the report stage.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that the point would be very carefully considered, but he could not give an immediate answer.
MR. CARLILEapologised for having intervened in the middle of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but at the same time he should like the Committee to understand that the private owners did not receive, nor had they ever received, any public money. The private owners supplied the school free of charge, made any alterations required, and got no aid from the rates or taxes. The object of the owners of the private schools in being ready and willing to spend money on their schools was to secure continuity of religious instruction to the children.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 309. (Division List No. 210.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn SirAlex.F.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fell, Arthur

Middlemore, J. Throgmortor

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Arkwright, John (Stanhope

Fletcher, J. S.

Morpeth, Viscount

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hn.Sir H.

Forster, Henry William

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Balcarres, Lord

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(CityLond.)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Nield, Herbert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Haddock, George R.

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd

Basch, Sir Frederic Carne

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Heaton, John Henniker

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Helmsley, Viscount

Ropner, Col. Sir Robert

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hervey,F. W. F. (BurySEdm'ds

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hills, J. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Bull, Sir William James

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Smith,Abel H- (Hertford.East)

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hunt, Rowland

Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kennaway, Rt.Hn. Sir JohnH

Starkey, John R.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.ColW

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

Castlereagh, Viscount

Keswick, William

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

King,SirHenry Seymour(Hull)

Thornton, Percy M.

Cavendish, Rt.Hn. Victor C. W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil,Lord It. (Marylebone, E.

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants., Fareham

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

Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

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

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

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

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Long,Rt. Hn. WaltenDublin.S.

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Courthope, G. Loyd

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Younger, George

Craik, Sir Henry

M'Iver,SirLewis(EdinburghW.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Magnus, Sir Philip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Ashley and Mr. Remnant.

Du Cros, Harvey

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cleland, J. W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clough, W.

Groove, Archibald

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Clynes, J. R.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gulland, John W.

Alden, Percy

Cogan, Denis .J.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haldane, Ht. Hon. Richard B.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Collins,SirWmJ.(S.Pancras,W.

Hall, Frederick

Armitage, R.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Halpin, J.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cooper, G. J.

Harcourt, Right. Hon. Lewis

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd

Hardie,J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

Astbury, John Meir

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cory, Clifford John

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Baker, JosephA.(Finsbury, E.]

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cowan, W. H.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Barker, John

Crean, Eugene

Hayden, John Patrick

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cremer, William Randal

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Barnard, E. B.

Crombie, John William

Hazleton, Richard

Barnes, G. N.

Crooks, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crosfield, A. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Beale, W. P.

Crossley, William J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Beauchamp. K.

Cullinan, J.

Henry, Charles S.

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Dalziel, James Henry

Herbert,Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Davies,David(Montgomery Co.

Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe

Beck, A. Cecil

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Higham, John Sharp

Bell, Richard

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hobart, Sir Robert

Bellairs, Carlyon

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

Davies, W.Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hogan, Michael

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

Delany, William

Holden, K. Hopkinson

Berridge, T. H. D.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Hooper, A. G.

Bertram, Julius

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh,

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

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

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset,N

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Horniman, Emslie John

Billson, Alfred

Dobsen, Thomas W.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Donelan, Captain A.

Hyde, Clarendon

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Duffy, William J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Blake, Edward

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Boland, John

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jacoby, James Alfred

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

Dunn, A. Edward(Camborne)

Jardine, Sir J.

Bottomley, Horatio

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Johnson, John (Gateshead

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Brace, William

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Branch, James

Elibank, Master of

Kearley, Hudson E.

Brigg, John

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kekewich, Sir George

Bright, J. A.

Erskine, David C.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Essex, R. W.

Kilbride, Denis

Brodie, H. C.

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Brooke, Stopford

Everett, R. Lacey

King, Alfred John (Knutsfords

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

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Kitson, Sir James

Bryce, Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen

Fenwick, Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs

Ferens, T. R.

Lamb,EdmundG.(Leominster)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Field, William

Lambert, George

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lamont, Norman

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Findlay, Alexander

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

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

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Flynn, James Christopher

Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich

Byles, William Pollard

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral}

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Fullerton, Hugh

Levy, Maurice

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Cawley, Frederick

Gill, A. H.

Lough, Thomas

Chance, Frederick William

Ginnell, L.

Lundon, W.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Lupton, Arnold

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Glendinning, R. G.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lyell, Charles Heny

Clancy, John Joseph

Gooch, George Peabody

Lynch, H. B.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

836

837

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

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

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Perks, Robert William

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Maclean, Donald

Philipps,Col.Ivor(S'thampton

Sullivan, Donal

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembrok

Summerbell, T.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

M'Callum, John M.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

M'Crae, George

Pollard, Dr.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

M'Kean, John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

M'Killop, W.

Price,RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

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

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

Thomasson, Franklin

M'Micking, Major G.

Radford, G. H.

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

Maddison, Frederick

Rainy, A. Holland

Tomkinson, James

Mallet, Charles E.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Toulmin, George

Mansfield,H. Rendall (Lincoln

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Marnham, F. J.

Redmond,John E. (Waterford

Ure, Alexander

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Verney, F. W.

Massie, J.

Rees, J. D.

Vivian, Henry

Meagher, Michael

Rendall, Athelstan

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Menzies, Walter

Renton, Major Leslie

Wallace, Robert

Micklem, Nathaniel

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th

Walsh, Stephen

Molteno, Percy Alport

Richardson, A.

Walters, John Tudor

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rickett, J. Compton

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

Montagu, E. S.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Montgomery, H. G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

Mooney, J. J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wardle, George J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson,Rt.Hon. E. (Dundee

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Robertson,SirG.Scott (Bradfrd

Wason,Engene (Clackmannan

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Morrell, Philip

Robinson, S.

Waterloo, D. S.

Morse, L. L.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Murphy, John

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Whitbread, Howard

Myer, Horatio

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, George (Norfolk)

Napier, T. B.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Runciman, Walter

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Nicholls, George

Russell, T. W.

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Whitehead, Rowland

Nolan, Joseph

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Norman, Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wiles, Thomas

Nuttall, Harry

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Williams,Llewelyn(C'rm'rth'n

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Soars, J. E.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Seaverns, J. H.

Williamson, A.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Seddon, J.

Wills, Arthur Walters

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Shackleton, David James

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

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

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

O'Hare, Patrick

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon.N

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Winfrey, R.

O'Malley, William

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk,Mid

O'Mara, James

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Woodhouse,Sir J.T. (Huddersf'd

O'Shee, James John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Young, Samuel

Parker, James (Halifax)

Soares, Ernest J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Partington, Oswald

Spicer, Sir Albert

Paul, Herbert

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Strachey, Sir Edward

And, it being after half-past Ten of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, to put forthwith the Questions
838
necessary to dispose of Clauses 11, 12, and 13.
Question put, "That Clause 11 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:— Ayes, 395; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 211.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Glendinning, R. G.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Clancy, John Joseph

Gooch, George Peabody

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clarke, C. Goddard

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Alden, Percy

Cleland, J. W.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Allen A. Acland (Christchurch)

Clough, W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Grove, Archibald

Armitage, R.

Cogan, Denis J.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Gulland, John W.

Asquith, Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

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

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Astbury, John Meir

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cooper, G. J.

Hall, Frederick

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

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

Halpin, J.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cory, Clifford John

Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Barker, John

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cowan, W. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Barnard, E. B.

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Hart-Davies, T.

Barnes, G. N.

Crean, Eugene

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Barron, Rowland Hirst

Cremer, William Randal

Harwood, George

Beale, W. P.

Crombie, John William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Beauchamp, E.

Crooks, William

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Crossfield, A. H.

Hayden, John Patrick

Beaumont, W C. B. (Hexham)

Crossley, William J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Beck, A. Cecil

Cullinan, J.

Hazelton, Richard

Bell, Richard

Dalziel, James Henry

Hedges, A. Paget

Bellairs, Carlyon

Davies,David (MontgomeryCo.

Helme, Norval Watson

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

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

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Henry, Charles S.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Bertram, Julius

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Bethell,J. H. (Essex,Romford)

Delany, William

Higham, John Sharp

Bethell, T.R.(Essex, Maldon)

Devlin,Charles Ramsay(Galway

Hobart, Sir Robert

Billson, Alfred

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

Hogan, Michael

Black, Alexander Wm. (Banff)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Black, ArthurW. (Bedfordshire)

Dobson, Thomas AV.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Blake, Edward

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hooper, A. G.

Boland, John

Donelan, Captain A.

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

Duffy, William J.

Hope,W. Bateman(Somerset,N.

Bottolmey, Horatio

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

Horniman, Emslie John

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Brace, William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Hyde, Clarendon

Branch, James

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Illingworth, Percy H.

Brigg, John

Edwards, Enoch(Hanley)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bright, J. A.

Edwards, Frank Radnor

Jacoby, James Alfred

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Ellibank, Master of

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Brodie, H. C.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Brooke, Stopford

Erskine, David C.

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

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

Essex, R. W.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Bryce,Rt. H n. James(Aberdeen

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

Everett, R. Lacey

Kearley Hudson E.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fenwick, Charles

Kekewich, Sir George

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Ferens, T. R.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fergusson,R. O. Munro

Kilbride, Denis

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Field, William

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Findlay. Alexander

Kitson, Sir James

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Laidlaw, Robert

Byles, William Pollard

Flynn, James Christopher

Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Causton.Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lambert, George

Cawley, Frederick

Fullerton, Hugh

Lamont, Norman

Chance, Frederick William

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gill, A. H.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras,E.

Ginnell, L.

840

841

Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington)

O'Shee, James John

Spicer, Sir Albert

Lover, A Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Partington, Oswald

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Levy, Maurice

Paul, Herbert

Strachey, Sir Enward

Lewis, John Herbert

Paulton, James Mellor

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Lough, Thomas

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lundon, W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lupton, Arnold

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

Sullivan, Donal

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Perks, Robert William

Summerbell, T.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Philipps,Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Taylor, Austin (East Tosteth)

Lynch, H. B.

Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Philipps, Owen C.(Pembroke)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Macdonald,J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Pollard, Dr.

Tennant, H.J.(Berwickshire)

Maclean, Donald

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Thomas, David Alfred(Morthyr

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Price,Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

Thomasson, Franklin

M'Arthur, William

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

M'Callum, John M.

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

Tomkinson, James

M'Crae, George

Radford, G. H.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

M'Kean, John

Rainy, A. Rolland

Toulmin, George

M'Kenna, Reginald

Raphael, Herbert H.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Killop, W.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Ure, Alexander

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

Ree, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Verney, F. W.

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

Redmond, John K. (Waterf'rd)

Vivian, Henry

M'Micking, Major G.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Maddison, Frederick

Rees, J. D.

Wallace, Robert

Mallet, Charles E.

Rendall, Athelstan

Walsh, Stephen

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Renton, Major Leslie

Walters, John Tudor

Mansfield,H. Rendall(Lincoln)

Richards,Thomas(W.Monm'th)

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

Marnham, F. J.

Richards, F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Richardson, A.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)'

Massie, J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Wardle, George J.

Meagher, Michael

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Menzies, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Robertson, Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee)

Waterlow, D. S.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Montagu, E. S.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Whitbread, Howard

Montgomery, H. G.

Robinson, S.

White, George (Norfolk)

Mooney, J. J.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Roche, John (Galway, East)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Roe, Sir Thomas

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Whitehead, Rowland

Morrell, Philip

Runciman, Walter

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Morse, L. L.

Russell, T. W.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Myer, Horatio

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wiles, Thomas

Napier, T. B.

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Nicholls, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carm'rthn

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Nolan, Joseph

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Williamson, A.

Norman, Henry

Sehwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sears, J. E.

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

Nuttall, Harry

Seaverns, J. H.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Seddon, J.

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Seely, Major J. B.

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

O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.

Shackleton,David James

Winfrey, R.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Woodhouse, SirJ.T(Hudd'rsfi'd

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Young, Samuel

O'Hare, Patrick

Simon, John Allsebrook

Yoxall, James Henry

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N,

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

O'Malley, William

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

O'Mara, James

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Soares, Ernest J.

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Ashley, W. W.

Balfour,Rt Hn A. J.(CityLond.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hn. Sir H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Balcarres, Lord

Banner, John S. Harmood-

842

843

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Nield, Herbert

Beach, Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

Bowles, G. Stewart

Heaton, John Henniker

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Helmesley, Viscount

Rawlinson, John Frederic P.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hervey,F.W.F. (BurySEdm'ds

Remnant, James Farquharson

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

Bull, Sir William James

Hills, J. W.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Houston, Robert Pateraon

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hunt, Rowland

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kennaway,Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone.W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Cave, George

Keswick, William

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

Cavendish,Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

King,SirHenry Seymour (Hull)

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

Cecil, Lord K. (Marylebone,E.)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Coates,E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Thornton, Percy M.

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

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

Walker,Col.W-H. (Lancashire)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Courthope, G. Loyd

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

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

Craik, Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

M'Iver, David (Liverpool)

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

Du Cros, Harvey

M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh, W.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Dunean,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Magnus, Sir Philips

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Faber, George Denison (York)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fell, Arthur

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Younger, George

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Fletcher, J. S.

MiddlemoreJohnThrogmorton

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

Forster, Henry William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Morpeth, Viscount

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Haddock, George R.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Peterafield)

Clause 12 agreed to.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 397; Noes, 111. (Division List No. 212.)

AYES.

Abraham,William (Cork.N.E)

Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

Brigg, John

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Bright, J. A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beck, A. Cecil

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bell, Richard

Brodie, H. C.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bollairs, Carlyon

Brooke, Stopford

Alden, Percy

Benn,Sir J.Williams(Devonp'rt

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

Bryce,Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen)

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Berridge, T. H. D.

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Armitage, R.

Bertram. Julius

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bethell, J. H (Essex, Romford)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Burky, E. Haviland-

Astbury, John Meir

Billson, Alfred

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Black, Alexander Wm.(Banff)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Black,ArthurW. (Bedfordshire)

Buxton.Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Blake, Edward

Byles, William Pollard

Barker, John

Boland, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Barnard, E. B.

Bottomley, Horatio

Cawley, Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Chance, Frederick William

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brace, William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Beale, W. P.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Beauchamp, E.

Branch, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Clancy, John Joseph

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Clarke, C. Goddard

Grove, Archibald

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Cleland, J. W.

Gulland, John W.

Maclean, Donald

Clough, W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macnamara Dr. Thomas J.

Cabbold, Felix Thornley

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Cogan, Denis J.

Hall, Frederick

M'Arthur, William

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hal pin, J.

M'Callum, John M.

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

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Crae, George

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Kean, John

Cooper, G. J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Kenna, Reginald

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

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

M'Killop, W.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hart-Davies, T.

MLaren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Cory, Clifford John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

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

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Harwood, George

M'Micking, Major G.

Cowan, W. H.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Maddison, Frederick

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Mallet, Charles E.

Crean, Eugene

Hayden, Join Patrick

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Cremer, William Randal

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Crombie, John William

Hazleton, Richard

Marnham, F. J.

Crooks, William

Hedges, A. Paget

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Crosfield, A. H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Massie, J.

Crossley, William J.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Meagher, Michael

Cullinan, J.

Honry, Charles S.

Menzies, Walter

Dalziel, James Henry

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

Micklem, Nathaniel

Davies,David(MontgomeryCo.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Higharn, John Sharp

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Montagu, E. S.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montgomery, H. G.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hogan, Michael

Mooney, J. J.

Delany, William

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hooper, A. G.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Dickinson, \V.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Hope, John Deans(Fife, West)

Worrell, Philip

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Morse, L. L.

Dobson, Thomas W.

Horniman, Emslie John

Myer, Horatio

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Napier, T. B.

Donelan, Captain A-

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Newnes, Sir G. (Swansea)

Duffy, William J.

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholls, George

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Illingworth, Percy H.

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Poncast'r)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Nolan, Joseph

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norman, Henry

Dunne, MajorE. Martin(Walsall

Jardine, Sir J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nuttall, Harry

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Brien;Kendal(TipperaryMid)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Elibank, Master of

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

O'Connor,James (Wicklow,W.)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Erskine, David C.

Kekewich, Sir George

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Essex, R. W.

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

O'Bonnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kilbride, Denis

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Everett. R. Lacey

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

O'Hare, Patrick

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

King, Alfred John(Knutsford)

O'Keily,James(Roscommon,N,

Penwick, Charles

Kitson, Sir James

O'Malley, William

Ferens, T. R.

Laidlaw, Robert

O'Mara, James

Ferguson, H. C. Munro

Lamb, EdmundG.(Leominster)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Field, William

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Shee, James John

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lambert, George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Findlay, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Partington, Oswald

Flavin, Michael John

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Paul, Herbert

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Paulton, James Meller

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Leese,SirJoseph F.(Accrington)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever,A. Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Fullerton, Hugh

Lever, W. H.(Cheshire,Wirral)

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

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Levy, Maurice

Perks, Robert William

Gill, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Philipps,Col.Ivor (S'thampton)

Ginnell, L.

Lough, Thomas

Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Lundon, W.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Glendinning, R. G.

Lupton, Arnold

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Pollard, Dr.

Gooch, George Peabody

Lyell, Charles Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lynch, H. B.

Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Price, Robert John (Norfolk.E.

846

847

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Seely, Major J. B.

Walters, John Tudor

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

Shackleton, David James

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

Radford, G. H.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Rainy, A. Rolland

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

Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Shipman, Dr. John G-

Wardle, George J.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro'

Simon, John Allsebrook

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Waterlow, D. S.

Rees, J. D.

Soames, Arthur Wollesley

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Rendall, Athelstan

Soares, Ernest J.

Whitbread, Howard

Renton, Major Leslie

Spicer, Sir Albert

White, George (Norfolk)

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Richards, T.F.(Wolverh'mptn)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, Luke (York, E. R)

Richardson,A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Rickett, J. Compton

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitehead, Rowland

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Whitley, S. H. (Halifax)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Roberts, John H. (Donbighs.)

Sullivan, Donal

Wiles, Thomas

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Summerbell, T.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robertson,SirG. Scott(Bradf rd

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Robinson, S.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Williamson, A.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Tennant, SirEdward(Salisbury)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

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

Rose, Charles Day

Thomasson, Franklin

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Runciman, Walter

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

Winfrey, R.

Russell, T. W.

Tomkinson, James

Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wood. T. M'Kinnon

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Woodhouse.Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

Samuel, S. .M. (Whitechapel)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Young, Samuel

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Ure, Alexander

Yoxall, James Henry

Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Verney, F. W.

Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

Vivian, Henry

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

Sears, J. E.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Seaverns, J. H.

Wallace, Robert

Seddon, J.

Walsh, Stephen

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Castlereagh, Viscount

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Cave, George

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cavendish, Rt.Hn.Victor C. W.

Heaton, John Henniker

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn. Hugh O

Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Helmsley, Viscount

Ashley, W. W.

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon.SirH.

Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Balcarres, Lord

Coates.E.Feetham (Lewisham)

Hills, J. W.

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.. J. (CityLond.)

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

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Balfour, Capt. O. B. (Hornsey)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Banbary, Sir Frederick George

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Craik, Sir Henry

Kennaway,Rt. Hon SirJohn H.

Barrie, H.T (Londonderry, N.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

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

Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

Du Cros, Harvey

Keswick, William

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

King,SirHenry Seymour (Hull)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Fell, Arthur

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Law, Andrew Bonar(Dulwich)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Fletcher, J. S.

Lee,ArthurH Hants. (Fareham

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Forster, Henry William

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

Bull, Sir William James

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Haddock, George R.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hamilton, Marquess of

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

M'IverSir Lewis (EdinburghW

848

849

Magnus, Sir Philip

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

Meysey-Tbompson, E. C.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Middlemore,Jn.(Throgmorton

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Morpeth, Viscount

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Smith,Abel H.(Hertford.East)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Nicholson, Win. G.(Petersfield)

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

Younger, George

Nield, Herbert

Stanley, Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk)

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Starkey, John R.

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Thornton, Percy M.

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Walker, Col.W. H.(Lancashire)

Question put, and agreed to.

Question put, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out Tart II. (Clauses 14 to 24 inclusive)."—(Mr. Birall.)
Question, " That Part II. stand part of the Bill," put forthwith, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th June, and negatived.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
The House resumed.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill he now read a second time."
MR. J. WARDasked the representative of the Board of Trade for some information in regard to the
850
Bill. He had been instructed by Dudley Corporation and another public body to oppose the Bill, but he understood that they were now perfectly well satisfied with the pledges secured from the promoters of the measure. The statements which had been, placed in his hands by the Dudley Corporation, and other opponents of the Bill, raised a question on which this House ought to be satisfied, gamely, the bona fides of the promoters. It appeared that the Bill was originally introduced in 1903, and nearly all the powers now asked were secured then, except that under the present Bill there was to be an extension of the territory over which operations were to be conducted. Under the 1903 Bill there was a time limit of two years, and during that period absolutely nothing had been done in the way of putting into practice the powers given by Parliament. What was still more important was the statement of the Dudley Corporation that on the previous occasion the Bill was not really introduced by a bona fide company in any sense of the term, that the promoters were the Parliamentary agents and solicitors who backed the measure, and that, to a great extent, the company was bogus. It was further stated that

851
the moment a monopoly was secured by that Act the gentlemen concerned sold the powers they had obtained under the Act to a syndicate. That syndicate had been unable during the intervening time to carry out the provisions of the Act, and now application was made to Parliament again for the purpose of reviving the powers which were obtained in 1903, and which had been allowed to lapse. The House had no guarantee even now that the promoters intended to use the powers. The House ought to get some security that this was a bona fide promotion, and not merely a speculation. They should be fully assured that the promoters, if they secured the passage of the Bill, were not immediately going to sell the powers as in the case of the previous Act. He was not inclined to proceed with his Motion that the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months, as the Committee upstairs would have an opportunity of going into these matters. At the same time, in view of the facts which he had mentioned, the question was no longer merely local. It was a question whether powers could be obtained from Parliament by two or three persons, and then sold to others who had nothing to do with the original undertaking. He hoped if the Bill went upstairs the Committee would thoroughly investigate the whole of the circumstances.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)said the opposition of the local authorities to this Bill had been withdrawn, and he had satisfied himself as far as he could that the financial support behind the Bill was ample. He had seen the names of the financial group, if he might use that term,
852
and although he did not know them all, he recognised the names of several gentlemen who were regarded as sound financiers. He would point out that the House of Lords had investigated the financial position of the company, and had put in a clause requiring £300,000 of capital to be set up within eighteen months.
MR. J. WARD: An exactly similar provision was in the original Act, but it was never complied with.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he was not able to speak of what had been done in the past. He could only speak of what had been done during this session. It was quite impossible for the House to constitute itself into a Committee to inquire into all these details. The House might accept the assurance that he had had an opportunity of seeing the financial group who were behind this Bill, and he believed that their financial obligations would be carried out. He therefore urged the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, and leave the Committee upstairs to make what further inquiries might be deemed necessary.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid that on behalf of a large number of the inhabitants of Harbourne, which was a residential community, he opposed the Bill. Many of these people let their houses at £20 a year and upwards, and their whole living would be affected by the generating station being planted at the spot indicated in the Bill.
Adjourned at twenty minutes after Eleven o'clock

Preamble
The Lord Oriel (V. Massereene) sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Bute (English and Welsh) Estates Bill [H.L.]. The Duke of Norfolk (in his; place) consented to the Bill.
Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bills reported, with Amendments.
London Squares and Enclosures Bill [H.L.]. (On re-commitment.) Reported with further Amendments.
Rochester, Chatham, and Strood Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Watford Gas Bill; Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill; Bute (English and Welsh) Estates Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
North West London Railway Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 21st and 25th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
London Government Schemes (London and Penge, etc.,) Bill. Reported from the Select Committee, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Buckhaven, Methil, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill had been withdrawn. The Order made on Tuesday
654
last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
Great Northern Railway 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.
Dover Corporation Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to.
London and North Western Railway Bill [H.L.] Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Reserve Forces Bill; Dowlais Gas Bill; Epsom and Ewell Gas Bill; Waterford Corporation and Bridge Bill. Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3.) Bill. House in Committee (according to order). Bill reported without Amendment. Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.] Read 2a (according to order), and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been reported from the Committee; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

PETITIONS.
  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Incorporated Company of Merchants of Edinburgh; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools; of parents and guardians of children attending schools at Manchester, Cheetham Hill;

  655
  of teachers in schools at Chadderton, Manchester.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of the Incorporated Company of Merchants of Edinburgh; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Report of Proceedings at the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888. Thursday, 14th June, 1906; Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, etc., etc., for the year 1905; Report of the progress of the ordnance survey, to the 31st March, 1906.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 487. Wei-hai-Wei (Report for 1905).

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3664. The Bahrain Islands.
  No. 3665. United States (New York).

  SPAIN (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF).
  Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Spain, with comparison of the duties leviable under the tariff in force prior to the 1st July, 1906.
  Report on strikes and lock-outs and on conciliation and arbitration boards in the United Kingdom in 1905.

  ARMY.
  Committee on civil employment of ex-soldiers and sailors. Report, together with appendix; Minutes of evidence, together with digest and index.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
  Account of deposits in Naval Savings Banks and the payments thereof, and of interests thereon, of all investments
  656
  under the Naval Savings Banks Act, 1866, and the application of the interest or dividends accruing in respect thereof, and of the proceeds of any sale of any stocks, annuities, or securities during the financial year 1904–1905. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for receiving Report of Amendments read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN): My Lords, there is one important Amendment which was made in Standing Committee relating to appeal in the case of capital punishment. Words have been inserted to the effect that rules under this Act shall provide that the Court shall be available for this purpose as well during vacation as during the ordinary sittings, and in this way such an appeal will be heard at once and without delay.
  Moved, " That this Report be now received."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next and to be printed as amended [No. 156.]

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
  EARL ROBERTSrose to call attention to the unpreparednesss of the nation for war, and to the necessity for action being taken in accordance with the recommendation of the Elgin Commission; that Commission having declared that the true lesson of the war was that no military system could be considered satisfactory which did not contain powers of expansion outside the limit of the regular forces of the Crown, whatever that limit might be.
  He said: My Lords, in opening the debate on the important subject of our unpreparedness for war, I would remind your Lordships that, just a year ago, I pointed out in this House that the Regular portion of the Army, either by itself or with any reserve it could foim—no matter under what system the men may be enlisted—can

  657
  never be numerically strong enough to secure success in a war against a European Power, and that it is essential we should have behind the Regular Army a large potential Reserve, sufficient and efficient in all respects. Subsequently at a meeting at the Mansion House I endeavoured to explain that while our very existence depends upon our being supreme at sea, the defence, not only of the Empire, but of these islands, cannot be entrusted to the Navy alone; and moreover, that the maintenance of our sea-power necessitates our being able to control on land what may be called the sinews of sea-power. In other words, that the military forces of the Crown must be constituted, organised, and trained in such a way as will ensure their being able to take their full share in the defence of the Empire.
  Since I first ventured to speak about Imperial defence I have frequently heard it remarked that it is not necessary for us to have a large potential Reserve, for the reason that nowadays our Navy is larger and more powerful , than it has been at any former period of our history. It is said that our Army has always been small as compared with foreign armies, and it is asked why, even admitting there was not in earlier centuries the same disproportion as exists to-day, should we not be able, in the event of Continental and Asiatic complications, to hold our own now as well as we did in days gone by. History alone supplies us with an answer to these questions. I think, therefore, I cannot do better than ask your Lordships to consider for a few moments the past history of the British Army, so far as it concerns the successes gained by our arms in European wars; from which I trust I shall be able to convince your Lordships—first, that we have never carried on a war that has been waged on sea alone; and, secondly, that, apart from the South African War, we have never won a considerable campaign on land by our own independent efforts, and that in all the wars that have made the Empire powerful military allies have given us the help for which a large potential Reserve is now needed.
  The people of this country, my Lords, have been led to believe, by the stress
  658
  that has been laid during the last five-and-twenty years on the necessity for our having a powerful Navy, that the safety of these shores and the maintenance of the Empire can be secured by the Navy alone. No one believes more firmly than I do in the necessity—the vital necessity—for our being supreme at sea; but what I want most earnestly to impress upon you, my Lords, is the fact— paradoxical as the assertion may seem— that our sea power was not won altogether upon the sea, and that it cannot be maintained solely by the Navy. We know from history that the Dutch were able to hold their own against us at sea, so long as their financial resources enabled them to keep up fleets at all comparable in strength with our own; but the Dutch sea power perished because of the military weakness of that country as compared with the overwhelming military power of France. Although the Dutch, with the aid of other Powers, were just able to save their independence, they could not overcome their mighty antagonist; and the immense financial burdens entailed on them by protracted struggles on land, crippled the finances of Holland to such an extent as to make it impossible for her any longer to compete with us on the sea. Thus sea power passed away from Holland and into our possession, mainly because of the conditions resulting from a purely military situation. This fact ought to teach us a useful lesson, for there is a parallel between our present position and that of the Dutch in those days. The Dutch had a land frontier, and sea power alone could not save them. We, as an Empire, have extensive land frontiers which sea power alone will not enable us to defend. And in our case, as in the case of the Dutch, prolonged and indecisive conflicts, resulting from an inadequate military organisation, would assuredly load this country with a weight of debt and taxation which would deprive us of the financial power upon which the maintenance of our enormously expensive Navy fundamentally depends.
  The first point I want to make clear to you, my Lords, is, that our predominance at sea was chiefly the result of military events upon the Continent. And the second point, which I trust I may also be

  659
  able to make clear, is, that in those events, as well as in the wars which have since won for us our present dominion, we never fought without allies, and that our successes were in a great measure due to the help our allies afforded us. Those allies, my Lords, acting with us in consequence of treaties and subsidies, did actually give us in the past the services, in emergency, of those large military forces which only a national Reserve, under the changed conditions of the world, can be expected to supply in the future.
  The Duke of Marlborough, though his supreme genius cemented the Continental coalition, had only comparatively a small number of British troops under his command during the war of the Spanish Succession. But for the aid given by the Germans, the Austrians, and the Dutch—who formed by far the large part of the total forces in the field against France—Marl-borough's famous victories could never have been won. And if they had not been won, France would have been enabled to resume subsequently, with her larger resources, the contest for the sea, and might quite possibly have obtained it. In any case, it was our own and our allies' military successes on land, by breaking down French competition, which made our sea power secure. It was the same in the next great historical struggle—that of the Seven Years' War—when France could not devote herself to the sea, because her resources were strained to the utmost by the conflict on land with Frederick of Prussia. The fact that German military power was thus distracting the attention and the energies of France left this country free to concentrate her whole resources upon the development of sea power, and upon that conquest of remote regions in North America and India by which the foundations of the British Empire were laid. Without the military aid of our allies upon the Continent, our own naval and Imperial struggle would have been far more protracted and arduous, and it is doubtful what the result would have been.
  Then, again, in the third and greatest of these historic struggles—the struggle against Napoleon—although the French and Spanish Fleets were destroyed at
  660
  Trafalgar, Napoleon was not prevented from extending his dominion and striking down nation after nation. What Trafalgar did was to give us the opportunity of reaching the heart of his power; and although this was accomplished by military means, it was not by our own military means alone, for the limited number of men we were able to place in the field in the Peninsula could never have brought about Napoleon's overthrow. There was the disaster in Russia; there was the national uprising in Germany; there was the revival of the military resources of Austria; there was the revolt of the Spanish people. In a word, there were enormous masses of men in arms fighting against Napoleon in all parts of the Continent, and he was exhausted and beaten in the end by superior numbers closing in upon him from all; sides. Thus, again, as I conceive it, in spite of the brilliant part played by Wellington's Army in the Peninsula, we should have been unable to bring about our great enemy's downfall had it not been for the co-operation of the vast military forces of other Powers.
  Our mastery of the sea was confirmed at Leipsic and at Waterloo; and it is largely owing to the military conditions and the military issues of those tremendous conflicts that our sea power has endured without challenge for a century. I have told you how comparatively few British soldiers Marlborough had under his command during the War of the Spanish Succession; but I think it will surprise some of you to learn the absurdly small number of British soldiers who were sent from this country to take part in the war with Napoleon, when compared with the large army we were maintaining in Great Britain at that time. We had actually on an average more than 600,000 men under arms during the years 1807–8–9, of whom a little over 33,000 were with Sir John Moore's army in the Peninsula, and later still fewer—only 27,000—with Sir Arthur Wellesley. In 1811 Wellington had only 58.000 out of the 471,000 men enrolled at home. It was much the same during the remaining years of that war; while at Waterloo, with 265,000 British soldiers in this country, less than 24,000 shared the honours of that great battle,

  661
  the balance—43,670 men—of the Duke's force were made up of foreigners. Even as lately as the Crimean War we found it necessary to employ a German legion.
  Two other points to which I particularly wish to invite attention are— first, that 100 years ago, when the population of Great Britain numbered only 16,000,000, there were more than 600,000 men under arms, while at the present time, with a population of upwards of 42,000,000, with far greater Imperial responsibilities, and with proportionately an infinitely larger revenue, the total strength of our armed forces is very little more than it was then. And, secondly—and this is by far the more important point—that Great Britain has never depended upon her own resources since the days of Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth, when it was enacted by law that every able-bodied man should be taught to shoot and fit himself for the defence of his country. I trust that from this glance at past history I have been able to prove to your Lordships that, in all the many wars we have waged—except the recent one with the Boers—our treaties and our subsidies have given us the aid we needed in support of sea power; and that, without such aid, sea power alone would have been an inadequate guarantee of our interests; indeed, the fate of our sea power itself and of our whole Empire would, to say the least, have been problematical.
  If then the conclusion I have arrived at is correct, surely the question of the future organisation of our military forces requires the most careful consideration. The numbers of fighting men which have hitherto been provided by alliances and subsidies upon every emergency cannot again be provided with anything like equal certainty by the same means. The German races, who in every previous age have been our military supporters, have now become our direct competitors in trade and shipping, and it would be at the expense of their own interests if they were to employ their armies to help us in the future. The Germans now have acquired a military preponderance to which, in the judgment of many, no certain military counterpoise exists. At the present day we have, in Asia and elsewhere, as I have
  662
  often pointed out, immense land frontiers for the protection of which we must be able to depend upon our own resources. Neither alliances nor subsidies would be of any avail for such a purpose. History tells us in the plainest terms that an Empire which cannot defend its own possessions must inevitably perish.
  It is, as I have said, exactly a year to-day since I ventured to bring the matter of our unpreparedness for war before your Lordships' House. Since then, meetings have been held in this great Metropolis and in the large commercial cities of Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. And though, to my great satisfaction and encouragement, the subject has attracted a greater amount of attention throughout the United Kingdom than I dared to hope for in the time, no response has been made by this House, and, with the exception of an infinitesimally small number, the more influential of my fellow-countrymen do not appear to give the slightest heed to what services our armed forces may be called upon to perform, or to satisfy themselves as to whether they are or are not in a fit condition to carry out the duties such services would involve. The lessons of the late war seem to be completely forgotten, no thought is given to the possibilities of the future, and the one prevailing idea seems to be to cut down our military expenses, without reference to our increased, responsibilities and our largely augmented revenue. I confess I sometimes despair of the country's ever becoming alive to the danger of the unpreparedness of our present position until too late to prevent some fatal catastrophe. Nearly seven years have passed since the warm South Africa broke out, and one year has gone of our alliance with Japan. But the lessons that the war should have taught us have borne no fruit, and it would appear as if the nine years that remain of the alliance may pass without our house having been put in order. Surely the consideration of measures which have for their object the security of this great Empire should be given precedence over all other measures. The security of the Empire is not a Party question. I can understand there being differences of opinion on educational, fiscal, and the various other matters which occupy the attention of the Houses

  663
  of Parliament; but I altogether fail to understand how there can be any differences of opinion as to the vital necessity for our armed forces being in all respects efficient, sufficient, and ready for war. For what other purpose are the armed forces maintained? And is there anything else in the world upon which our fellow-countrymen, individually or collectively, would be content to spend money without being satisfied that they got their money's worth?
  Within the last three years two Royal Commissions have reported in the plainest possible language that the Auxiliary Forces, as they now exist, are not fit to take their place against an organised enemy. What response, my Lords—as I asked at the Mansion House last year— have these carefully weighed words of warning received from the country? None. Indeed, I doubt if they have been even read except by a very limited number of people. It is no use our having 671,511 men bearing arms—which is the exact number of the Regular Army with its Reserve and the Auxiliary Forces at the present time—unless they can be depended upon successfully to fight Great Britain's battles; and this they cannot to unless they are trained sufficiently to know how to make proper use of their arms, and are in a condition to justify the money they cost the State. With the exception of the Regular Army, including the 76,000 men in India, and numbering with its Reserve under 400,000 men. few of the 671,511—with their insufficient training, their lack of discipline and organisat on, and their paucity of officers—could be depended upon to defend these shores in the absence of the Regular Army; nor could they, for similar reasons, and on account of the uncertainty concerning their volunteering for foreign service, be depended upon as a support to that Army.
  No one can have greater respect and admiration than I have for the patriotic spirit which actuates the Volunteers, and no one can sympathise more keenly than I do with the difficulties against which they have to contend. It is because I feel that these difficulties are insurmountable, and that this must continue to be the case so long as military efficiency depends upon the Volunteers
  664
  themselves having to make serious sacrifices both as regards time and money, and also upon the willingness of the employers of labour to treat their employees in a patriotic and generous manner, that I so strongly urge the recognition by the country of the first duty of citizenship—viz., military training, in order that every able-bodied man may be able to take his part in the defence of the Empire in the event of any great national emergency. The evidence given before the Royal Commission on the War in South Africa, of which the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies was president, showed so clearly the shortcomings of the Auxiliary Forces that the members gave it as their unanimous opinion that—
  " No military system will be satisfactory which does not contain powers of expansion outside the limit of the Regular Forces of the Crown, whatever that limit may be."
  This opinion was endorsed by a subsequent Royal Commission, assembled under the presidentship of the Duke of Norfolk to report on the condition of the Militia and Volunteers, which, in referring to the Militia, stated that—
  " in its existing condition it is unfit to take the field for the defence of this country."
  Alluding to the Volunteers, the Commission reported that—
  " neither the musketry nor the tactical training of the rank and file would enable it to face, with prospect of success, the troops of a Continental army."
  And again that—
  " in view of the unequal military education of the officers, the limited training of the men, and the defects in equipment and organisation, the Volunteer force is not qualified to take the field against a Regular Army.''
  The Commission wound up their Report by unanimously declaring that the—
  " Militia and Volunteer Forces have not at present either the strength or military efficiency required to enable them to fulfil the functions for which they exist; their military efficiency would be much increased by the adoption of the measures set forth in the fourth section of this Report, which would make them valuable auxiliaries to the Regular Army; but a Home Defence Army capable, in the absence of the whole or the greater portion of the Regular Forces, of protecting this country against invasion, can be raised and maintained only on the principle that it is the duty of every citizen of military age and sound physique to be trained for the

  665
  national defence, and to take part in it should emergency arise."
  Even if such strongly expressed opinions carry no weight, it is incomprehensible to me how people who know the time and trouble that are expended in making the soldiers of the Regular Army fit to take the field, and that, when they are called upon to fight, they are commanded and led by officers who have made the Army their profession—it is, I say, incomprehensible how they can believe that the honour and safety of their country can be entrusted to men who have had scarcely any training, and who would be commanded and led by officers whose time is so completely occupied by their civil callings that it is an impossibility for them to learn all that it is essential for them to know. To be of any use, both officers and men must undergo a course of military education before they have to work for their own livelihood.
  Nothing, my Lords, can be more misleading than for the people of this country to be told—as unfortunately they have been told by persons in responsible positions — that if only our Navy is maintained in all respects efficient there will be plenty of time after war breaks out to drill our soldiers. The fallacy of such a statement was proved beyond dispute during the war in South Africa, when we were given a greater amount of breathing time than could possibly be expected if we were called upon to fight a first-class military Power, for up to the very last, when the war had been going on for more than two years, men had to be hurried out inadequately drilled and positively unable to shoot or ride. I have no hesitation in giving it as my opinion that it is criminal for a nation, and especially criminal for its rulers, to enter upon a war without having trained soldiers sufficient in number to justify their having every reasonable hope of carrying it to a successful issue.
  It is not necessary, nor indeed would it be possible, to have the whole number of men that would be required during a lengthened campaign ready at the very commencement; but if we wish to render this country safe under all circumstances and to maintain the integrity of the Empire we must have, in addition to a
  666
  suitably-sized Regular Army, a sufficient and efficient Reserve large enough to enable 500,000 men to be at once mobilised, and, in addition, an organisation by means of which less highly-trained men could be rapidly turned out to replace the wastage of war, which, even under the most favourable conditions, must inevitably be serious. Officers are the most important part of an army, and of these not only is there scarcely any reserve, but, as I have already pointed out, some 7,000 are needed to bring the Militia and Volunteers up to their full complement, and to mobilise the Regular Forces at home and in India.
  In order to secure a sufficient supply of officers some special organisation is necessary. It is upon the officers that responsibility rests, and on whom failure or success mainly depends. In order to carry out their work in a satisfactory manner officers must have confidence in themselves, and this they can never have if they feel they have but a superficial knowledge of the duties they may be called upon to perform. I cannot too strongly impress upon this House the supremely important fact that we can never hope to be ready for war without there being a very large reserve of properly trained officers. Surely the time has come for the leaders of this nation to point out to their fellow-countrymen, who look to them for guidance, how essential it is seriously to consider the actual condition of our armed forces, and not to permit another year to pass without satisfying themselves that all necessary measures are being taken to render those forces in every respect fitted for the services they may at any time be called upon to undertake.
  Do not, I implore you, my Lords, suffer our fellow-countrymen to continue any longer under the misconception that a small Regular Army is all that is needed for the security of India and other places; that the defence of these islands can be entrusted to insufficiently-trained, insufficiently-officered Auxiliary Forces; and that it will be time enough when war breaks out or is imminent to arrange for the large Reserve that will inevitably be required. My Lords, the Regular Army is only just numerically

  667
  strong enough to admit of its policing the Empire in times of peace and of carrying on the small wars to which our widely scattered possessions will always render us liable. To enable the Regular Army to hold its own against the carefully organised forces of a European Power and to ensure the safety of these shores, we must have a properly constituted, thoroughly well-organised, and efficiently-trained potential Reserve; and such a Reserve can never exist unless it is composed of all classes, high and low, rich and poor—men who will consider it not only a duty, but an honour and a privilege, to hold themselves in readiness to take their part in the defence of the Empire should their services be required in the event of any great national emergency.
  THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, no words of mine can add to the arguments so ably presented to you by that great master of his work, the noble Earl, in favour of adequate Reserves for our Regular Army. A combination of circumstances, mainly the pluck of past generations of our countrymen, has given us this great Empire, but are we doing our best to render secure and maintain what we have inherited? The most moderate proposals made after careful study of our requirements are met, as to a considerable section of the people, by apathy; as to another section of the people, by hostility. I received only the other day a leaflet from some earnest, and, I believe, excellent man, against the military training of boys; and there are tens of thousands in this country who hold the same views, and call anything appertaining to the adequate defence of the land in which they dwell in peace, militarism. Militarism, I need not remind your Lordships, as described in any dictionary, consists in the abnormal development of the military spirit, but can the elementary preparation of the youth of the country to take their place in the battle line from which their forefathers have never shrunk, be designated by the extreme, and I may add in such a connection as this, hysterical epithet of militarism?
  I do not favour, my Lords, compulsory service for the adult, but I do think
  668
  that no time should be lost in training-the youth of the country, before they have become immersed in the business of their lives, to a knowledge of the rifle and in military drill. One hundred compulsory drills between the ages of thirteen and seventeen would be quite sufficient as a minimum; the youth of the country would be benefited by this training, and it would then become possible to call into being, at short notice, a large citizen Army. I do not believe, my Lords, that it will ever be possible to create a large unpaid Volunteer or citizen Army, unless recruits have done the drudgery and elementary work of soldiering in their school-boy days. Only by such training on a large scale can we arrive at a great reservoir of military strength which could provide the men, when the time came, to defend not only the shores of their country, but the territory of the Empire wherever threatened.
  I hope that the Government will take in hand seriously the question of the provision of a great corps of trained officers and non-commissioned officers; in this respect we are lamentably deficient, and bear in mind, my Lords, leaders cannot be improvised. Just as there are tens of thousands of men in this country who cannot give the whole of their time to military pursuits, so there are thousands of men who would make good and intelligent leaders if they were encouraged to devote a portion of their time to the acquirement of the necessary knowledge. Why cannot the services of these men be utilised? Why cannot, for example, every officer and non-commissioned officer in every regiment in the United Kingdom have his understudy, under agreement to do a certain amount of training in the year? A reserve of thousands of well-trained leaders we must have, and I hope the Government will endeavour to create this Reserve by every means in its power.
  While on this subject, I cannot but express my regret at the short-sighted policy that has driven from the Army large numbers of men, and first-rate leaders of men, who declined to conform to the idea that for a bare pittance of

  669
  pay they should give up every occupation of their position in life, in exchange for the humdrum existence of a junior officer. I should like to place down on paper the number of hours in a year actually utilised by an ordinary regimental officer in the performance of those duties actually necessary to an officer for his perfection as a leader of men in the field. Your Lordships would be astonished at the number of hours spent in the performance of duties connected with the health, dress, discipline, etc., of the men committed to their care, and at the comparatively few number of hours devoted to actual fighting knowledge.
  There are only two ways of obtaining good officers in this country—by paying them well or by largely utilising in a sensible manner the services of that great class who do not serve mainly for remuneration, but who have hitherto led British soldiers into action, and under whose leadership, let me remind your Lordships, the vast territories now forming the British Empire have been won and held. The mediæval system of education at our great centres of instruction has, in the past, been largely instrumental in turning out young men of our leisured classes unfit for practical work, and it has been responsible for many shortcomings for which a young officer has been termed stupid, whereas fault ought to have been found with a system of education which stuffed his head with a lot of material which he tried to forget as soon as possible. If I had to go away to-morrow to undertake some important military work, I would rather have as A.D.C. a young man who knew how to file and keep papers, could write shorthand and express himself on paper in clear good English, than a man who could write Latin verses, or was an adept at higher mathematics and was a child as regards the ordinary routine of business; for soldiering, my Lords, is nothing more than a business which has to be run on business lines by practical men.
  There is one other point I would like to enlarge upon if time permitted, but I will confine myself to expressing the hope that if we are to have a Militia Army liable to service abroad in time of war, money will not be spent on barracks, but tin training and in pay. It is in the power
  670
  of the Government, by largely training men at company centres throughout the country at convenient times of the year, to keep a large number of men on the land and in this way to help counteract the rush to the urban centres. The subsidy or bonus—call it what you like—will, with a man's wages in civil life, largely help in this desirable direction.
  I am fully aware that the question of finance must decide what sort of force can be kept up in this country, but I believe that the best value for our money will be obtained by keeping in being well-trained skeletons, with first-rate and highly-trained leaders, which can be clothed with the flesh and blood of good rifle shots when war breaks out, rather than by keeping in being a larger force of men with a uniformity of instruction of a mediocre character. This was the system which, after full consideration of the requirements of a citizen Army, I urged the Government of Canada to adopt on the score of economy and efficiency, and which they did adopt. I have already spoken long enough, but before concluding I would like to call your attention to another important paragraph in the Elgin Report—
  " If the war teaches anything it is this, that throughout the Empire, in the United Kingdom, its colonies and dependencies, there is a reserve of military strength which for many reasons, we cannot and do not wish to convert into a vast standing army, but to which we may be glad to turn again in our hour of need, as we did in 1889. In that year there was no preparation whatever for utilising these great resources."
  My Lords, these words are clear and unambiguous, and represent the true state of affairs. In this connection I do not think it is sufficiently known in this country how splendidly the Militia of Canada came forward when they thought the Motherland required their services. No individuals only, but regiment after regiment volunteered as a whole; and mind you, my Lords, these were men who were only embodied for twelve days training in the year. I may say that though some 8,000 Canadian soldiers went to South Africa, many times that number were eager to go, even officers throwing up their commissions and serving in the ranks as privates.
  What provision have we made adequately to utilise the services of all the

  671
  patriotic British who dwell beyond the seas? Why cannot we, by bonusing individuals or by bonusing regiments so as to enable them to do more training, be able to count upon the services of a large and well-trained Reserve in our great Colonies? I do not know what steps have been taken by this or the previous Government to utilise the services of the loyal Militia of Canada, and the other great self-governing Colonies in the event of a great war affecting the Empire; but this much I can say, and I can assure your Lordships with a full knowledge of the facts, and speaking only for the Militia of Canada, that we may count upon every officer and man in that Militia coming forward in defence of our common Empire. They would come forward on sentimental grounds, freely giving their services and asking nothing in return; but however patriotic a man may be he appreciates the usual official signs of gratitude for service in time of war.
  I cannot say, my Lords, that those in responsible executive positions here have done their best to encourage our Colonial brethren to throw up lucrative employment and again come forward to risk the uncertainties of a campaign. Those only who know the soldier realise how much he values that little bit of ribbon presented on behalf of a grateful country to those who help it in its hour of need. Towards the expiration of the war, various regiments were raised in Canada for service in South Africa. Some of these regiments, unfortunately, did not land in time before the conclusion of peace, but were actually in South African waters. On the return of these men, I was inundated with letters asking if the Imperial authorities would not grant them the South African medal. I, as general officer commanding, strongly recommended that their request should be granted, but the application was refused. I must here say emphatically that the decision arrived at was most illogical and most unwise. I grant that the refusal was in accordance with the precedent of late years of over-ruling and ignoring the opinion and advice of the man at the wheel, who cannot—or perhaps I should say must not—know as much as the man in charge at home. Many of the
  672
  men who went to South Africa pointed out in their letters to me that their places had been filled up and they were now serving at half the remuneration they had previously received; others said they could get no employment and were in a bad way. If the South African medal had been strictly confined to all those who had been actually on South African soil, no Canadian soldier would have found fault with the decision of the authorities at home, but this is not so. Medals have been distributed to persons who have never seen South Africa or been as near to it as the men who were denied it. I trust that even in this eleventh hour the Government will see fit, in the interests of even-handed justice, and in the interests of the Empire, to be logical in the distribution of what ought to be the emblems of a nation's gratitude.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH): My Lords, the Motion of the noble and gallant Earl calls attention to the un-preparedness of the nation for war. I am afraid I cannot say how far the nation is prepared for war. That is not purely a military question. In the case of war with some great Power or Powers the struggle to the nation, a vital struggle of life and death, would be both long and costly. However perfect our military organisation, however brave our troops, the credit of the nation would be most essential. I cannot help feeling that the taxable capacity of the community and its financial reserve power are forces which would form a most important factor in determining the preparedness of the nation for war. I am afraid I cannot this evening embark upon so large, so indefinite, a question as the preparedness or not of the nation for war; but, speaking on behalf of the Army Council, I am glad to see that the noble and gallant Earl has withdrawn the statement which he made in his speech in your Lordships' House on July 10th of last year, that the armed forces as a body are as absolutely unfitted and unprepared for war as they were in 1899 and 1900.
  EARL ROBERTS: That is a statement I repeat now.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The noble Earl repeats that statement now; but, in his recently published volume of speeches and letters, he makes this correction—
  " Since these words have been represented as implying that the tactical lessons of the war have not been taken to heart by the Regular Army—an entirely erroneous idea which I had no wish to convey—I would here substitute the words the nation' for the phrase ' armed Forces as a body.' "
  I understand from the noble and gallant Earl that he now returns to the statement that the armed forces as a body are as absolutely unfitted and unprepared for war as they were in 1899 and 1900.
  EARL ROBERTS: My remark about the Regular Forces was misconstrued. I never said a word against the Regular Forces. I said that the armed Forces of the Crown, taken as a body, were not more fit for war now than they were in 1899. I was talking about the recommendation made by the Commission presided over by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that outside the Regular Army there should be a power of expansion. Nothing has been done to bring that about. That was what I was alluding to last year and what I allude to now.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do not wish to enter into any controversy with the noble and gallant Earl if I can avoid it. I think the question of expansion is a totally different matter. If the noble and gallant Earl adheres to the statement that the armed forces of the Crown are in a condition of unprepared-ness as great as they were in 1899 and 1900, then he, as Commander-in-Chief for three years and a half after the South African War was over, must have some of the responsibility. I am perfectly certain he would have received from the Government of the day support for any reasonable measure he might have suggested.
  As regards action being taken in accordance with the recommendations of the Elgin Commission to expand the military system outside the limit of the Regular Forces of the Crown, the noble and
  674
  gallant Earl is doubtless aware—in fact he must be—that this idea has been and is being, thoroughly discussed by a very representative Committee appointed by the War Office, of which Committee he is a distinguished member. It may be readily admitted that this is only a preliminary step, but the subject is a very large one, and the adoption of any measure in this direction will require very careful consideration and legislative action before it can be put in force. The great difficulty in our military system is that whereas other countries can shape their peace organisation in accordance with war requirements, we cannot do so. In fact, with us peace and war requirements are often not only not in harmony with, but directly antagonistic to, each other.
  Take the terms of service. If it were not for the necessity of finding drafts in peace for service abroad we should never think of keeping men over two or three years with the colours, but that necessity compels us to retain men for at least seven years—we cannot find the drafts with less. The unfortunate experiment of enlistment for three years colour service, for which the noble and gallant Earl has honourably admitted a large share of responsibility, has landed the War Office in a mass of difficulties, to cope with which has taken up a great deal of the time and attention, not only of the present Secretary of State, but of his predecessor also, and considering the short time he has been in office I do not think Mr. Haldane can justly be accused of procrastination. It is worth noting that Mr. Card well came into office late in 1868, but did not carry out any important reform till the session of 1870 was well advanced. The Secretary of State is to make an important statement on Thursday, from which it will be seen that he has by no means neglected the question of a territorial Army, but time has not admitted of any plan being fully considered, still less carried out.
  It must be noted that no drastic scheme of reorganisation can be completed and be in full working order for many years. This we have found to our cost in remedying the breakdown of the three years enlistment, a break-

  675
  down which, however, has a great redeeming feature in that it has provided us with a very much larger Reserve than we have ever had before. I appreciate fully the self-restraint which the noble and gallant Karl has exercised in dealing with the question of the territorial Army. I cannot say more this afternoon than that we hope it may be agreeable to Parliament and to the Militia as part of a great general scheme to make them a living support to the Regular Army, while retaining, as far as possible, their own individuality, and by making them under conditions liable for foreign service to add seriousness and increased consideration to the Militia force itself. As regards the territorial Army, we have, as is well known to your Lordships, appointed a Committee to advise us. No one is more conscious than I am of the difficulties and the innumerable criticisms to which this project is, and will be, subjected. I must decline to be rushed into any rash or half-considered expression of opinion. This I hope will be recognised by the House, that we desire to move in this matter upon strictly non-Party lines, and, claiming the co-operation of all Parties, to make no Party capital out of it.
  I should like now to say a few words in reply to the points raised by the noble and gallant Earl in his speech. The noble Earl has been, I believe, since its commencement, President of the National Service League. I confess I felt some difficulty, in listening to his speech in discovering what his proposals were, and there ore I hope I shall not be unduly trespassing on the time of your Lordships if I quote a letter which bears the signature of the noble and gallant Earl as President of the National Service League, and is dated February 17th of this year. The noble and gallant Earl wrote—
  As president of the National Service League I am anxious to remove any misconceptions as to the attitude of that body, and to place before the public a definite outline of its policy. The objects of the National Service League are generally:—
  "1. To ensure peace and security for the British Empire by organising our land forces in such a manner that we may not only be able to defend successfully any portion of the Empire against attack, but also that the strength of our defensive arrangements may lender any attack improbable.
  676
  " 2. To improve the moral and physical condition of the nation, and thereby to increase its industrial efficiency."
  Then the noble and gallant Earl went on to say—
  " With a view to attaining these two objects the League advocates that, subject to certain exemptions to be defined by law, including those necessary to provide for the requirements of the Navy and mercantile marine, every man of sound physique, without distinction of class, shall be legally liable during certain years of his life to be called upon to serve for the defence of the United Kingdom in case of emergency. In order to fit him for this duty he shall be legally obliged to undergo three or four months military training when he arrives at the military age."
  Having listened to the speech of the noble and gallant Earl this afternoon, I think it is a fair question to ask whether it is his desire that this compulsory training and liability shall be for the defence of the United Kingdom or for the defence of the Empire at large. He-dwelt upon the great land frontiers of our Empire, and it seems to me that it is reasonable and fair to infer from his speech that he meant that we should have for the defence of our Empire a sufficient force to be able to defend that Empire as a first-class military power. The noble and gallant Earl told us that we had been preserved in the past by alliances with other military nations, which we cannot expect or hope to have at the present time. I wish to ask the noble and gallant Earl whether it is his suggestion that there should be compulsory service at a certain age for home defence or for the defence of the Empire. I shall be willing to stand aside if the noble and gallant Earl will answer that Question. [The noble Earl here paused, but Earl Roberts did not rise to reply.] If it is to be only for home defence. I should like to point out that the responsible advisers of the Crown of both parties—Mr. Balfour in his speech about a year ago, and the Secretary of State in a recent speech—have laid down the principle that for home defence we must rely upon our naval supremacy. We are told that we are not to rely, and need not rely, upon defence by a large Army, but must look in cases of raids to the Volunteers.
  I have endeavoured to obtain a Return as to what the proposal of the

  677
  noble and gallant Earl in his letter amounts to. He is not able to tell me whether he means to make these men liable for foreign service or for home service only. I propose to show your Lordships, in the first place, what the cost would be if they were made liable for home defence only, and what the cost would be if they were made liable for foreign service. I have taken the age of twenty as the military age. I find it to be the age of enlistment in the armies of France, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Switzerland. The noble and gallant Earl proposes that every man of sound physique, without distinction of class, shall be legally liable to undergo three or four months military training when he arrives at military age, to be called out in time of national emergency. Now, I think it will be agreed that if these men are to have once and for all only three or four months military training they must be trained by perfectly competent instructors. Assuming that a staff of instructors, say, of warrant officer rank, should be maintained to train these youths, we may take it that five such instructors could train 100 men in each half year; that is to say, 200 men per annum.
  I find that, roughly speaking, there are 400,000 youths attaining the age of twenty every year. I deduct 15 per cent, as the proportion of those unfit from various causes for military service, and that gives me a total of net effectives of 340,000. You would, therefore, require a permanent staff of at least 8,500 instructors for this force of 340,000, and if, as I believe would be necessary, you assume them to be of warrant officer rank —the cost of maintaining a warrant officer being about £150 per annum—the total cost of giving these youths their initial training alone amounts to an annual expenditure of £1,275,000. These figures would roughly represent the minimum cost of merely supplying instructors for this initial training. It does not include any of the numerous incidental charges that are inseparable from military training, and, what is more important still, it is doubtful whether this expenditure of one and a quarter million pounds per annum would be very remunerative if the youths so instructed for three or four
  678
  months undergo no subsequent training during the interval—possibly a long interval—between this initial training and a national emergency demanding their mobilisation.
  The noble and gallant Earl speaks of a national emergency, but there is some difficulty in defining what a national emergency is. Was there a national emergency between the Crimean War and the Boer War? And of what value would it have been if, during all that time, these men had merely had three months training and no subsequent training? I can say, as regards the remarks of the noble and gallant Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Dundonald), that we at the War Office, although not in favour of compulsion, because we do not think it will be necessary, are in complete sympathy with any measure that would tend, not only for military, but for physical purposes, to promote the drilling of youths both in secondary and in elementary schools; but we feel, and it is, perhaps, a wise feeling on our part, that while anxious to help forward this movement, it had better not be interfered with or dictated too much by officials at the War Office.
  There is no doubt that, if you once say that men are to be made liable for training for three or four months, you practically admit the principle of conscription, and it becomes a question of detail whether the three or four months are to be in one year, or as in some foreign countries, a graduated system of certain times of training going over several years. We have an interesting estimate which was drawn up by the late Secretary of State for War, Mr. Arnold-Forster, showing the extra cost of conscription. Perhaps I shall not be wearying your Lordships if I quote some of the figures. This is an actuarial statement drawn up when Mr. Arnold-Forster was at the War Office. He estimated that the extra cost to the State, apart from anything else, for conscription would be close upon £26,000,000 a year, and he arrived at it in this way. He estimated that the number of men to be raised each year would be 380,000; that officers and non-commissioned officers would be additional to that number

  679
  and would be in the proportion of thirty officers and seventy non-commissioned officers to 900 men; that a commissioned officer would cost the State from £450 to £500 a year, and non-commissioned officers about £150; that officers and non-commissioned officers would be paid at Army rates and privates at a shilling a day; that the Militia and Volunteers would cease to exist; that the Regular Army at home would be reduced by about 30,000 all ranks, including reservists, and that it would be necessary to double the regimental pay of the Regular Army except officers. The figure of £25,900,000, which would be the extra cost for conscription, is made up as follows:—Cost of conscript Army of 380,000 men, with proportion of officers and non-commissioned officers, £27,530,000; cost of doubling the regimental pay of regular soldiers, £4,414,000, making a total of £31,944,000. From this was deducted the saving by the abolition of the Militia and Volunteers, £3,807,000; and the saving by the reduction of 30,000 men in the Regular Army, £2,237,000; leaving, as I have said, a net additional annual cost of £25,900,000. His Majesty's Government have not the money, and I do not think it is likely that any Government would submit proposals involving such financial obligations on the taxpayers of this country.
  I should like, before leaving this question, to deal with another point which I think is too often lost sight of. Conscription, whether it is for service of a great or limited degree, implies a very serious interference with the private life of the people. I have with considerable trouble obtained, through the efforts of those at the War Office, a very careful analysis of the system which now exists in Germany. I take Germany because all the other Continental Powers which have conscription have more or less modelled it upon the German system. The procedure adopted in Germany to ensure the registration of all adults for military service is briefly as follows. As soon as a child is born in Germany its name is registered with the civil authorities, and if a male its name is placed upon a special list kept by the police. From that time the boy
  680
  is under the eye of the civil police, and any change of abode must be reported to the police. Liability to military service lasts from the end of the 17th to the end of the 45th year of age, and this service is divided into active military service and Landsturm service. Every person liable to military service is bound to report himself to the civil authorities of the place of his residence, or of his birthplace if he does not live within the Empire, between the 15th of January and the 1st of February of the year in which he completes his twentieth year of age. He is then bound to appear twice a year, if called upon, before the recruiting authorities until a final decision as to his disposal is arrived at. Then, again —and I beg your Lordships to take notice of this—men are not allowed to emigrate between their seventeenth and twenty-fifth years without permission from the recruiting authorities, Clergymen, or those in charge of registers of birth, have to send in to the recruiting authorities before the 15th of January of each year an extract from their register showing the births of the past year, and those are inscribed on the recruiting register as they come of age for military service. On the personal reports, checked by the registers of births, the parish authorities, under the supervision of the Civil President of the Recruiting Circle, draw up the recruiting registers giving all necessary particulars of each man. All the men becoming liable to service in each year are placed upon one roll in alphabetical order, and on the 15th of February these rolls are sent to the Civil President of the Recruiting Circle. From this time the recruiting passes into the hands of the military authorities.
  When we talk of conscription I do not think we quite appreciate the strong feeling that would be aroused in this country with its industrial, and to a large extent its nomad, population if we were to alter almost all the habits and the ways of freedom the people have hitherto enjoyed, and submit them, as you would have to do, to a most careful system of police espionage. The noble and gallant Earl has alluded to the great services of our Army. Our Army has a wonderful history and a wonderful past. It has

  681
  conquered an Empire greater than the Empire of Rome; but every great battle and ever great victory has been fought and won upon territories outside the United Kingdom, and our Army is required, not for home defence, but for the defence of our Empire in India and elsewhere.
  The views of other parts of the Empire are very decisive upon this question of conscription. Under the Military Defence Act of 1903 members of the military force of Australia are not liable to service outside the territory of the Commonwealth. In the case of Canada and the Cape active service is not restricted to the limits of the Colony, but may be extended outside the limits only for the defence of the Colony. It is therefore perfectly clear that, in all three cases, though a form of compulsory service is recognised, it is by no means compulsory service to defend the Empire generally in whatever part the danger threatens. On the other hand, general compulsory service or conscription, if established in the British Isles, could have for its only object, or indeed its only possible justification, defence of the distant parts of the Empire, such as India. There is therefore, no comparison between the present compulsory system of these colonies and conscription in the United Kingdom as regards the burden thereby put upon the colonist and the citizen at home, respectively.
  To sum up the view of the Government, I think I may say that we feel that the average citizen has begun to expect that before any further demands for monetary or personal service are made upon him he should receive some encouragement by way of seeing some return in the shape of efficiency for the £29,000,000 already spent. The first task, therefore, of the Government is to ensure that the armed force of the nation, which is known as the Regular Army, should be brought to the highest pitch of efficiency consistent with reasonable expenditure. Our second task is to give practical effect to the suggestion of the Commission presided over by my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies— that is, to secure those powers of expansion outside the limit of the Regular
  682
  Forces of the Crown which that Commission considered essential.
  To conscription, whether disguised or undisguised, we are absolutely opposed, and we believe that any suspicion in the minds of the people that our measures were leading in that direction would damn them. In conclusion, we do realise the needs of the Empire and especially the need of a territorial Army, and I trust that in due course we may receive general support in arousing local interest in the raising and training of this Volunteer Army, in creating a close and abiding contact between it and the general civic life of the local community, and in developing it so as to make it an integral part of the civic life, drawing strength and vigour from its general surroundings.
  After a pause the MARQUESS of LANS-DOWNE and VISCOUNT MILNER rose together, but the former gave way.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: My Lords, I venture to apologise for intruding at all in this debate, and especially for intervening between the House and the noble Marquess; but, as certain questions have been asked with regard to the policy of a body of which I am myself a humble member, I may attempt to give such an answer as is possible on the spur of the moment to the conundrums in question.
  I am familiar with the policy of brushing aside all representations, however grave, based on the experience of men most competent to speak with regard to our national unpreparedness for war —of brushing them aside by setting up a bogey called conscription, by putting forward fantastic calculations of what conscription would cost, and by appealing to hardened prejudice on the part of a great section of the British people against a policy which is labelled conscription. On behalf of the National Service League, I am not prepared to allow that body to be saddled with the support of conscription without a very much clearer definition of what conscription means than has ever yet been afforded to us. Speaking for myself, if conscription means the acceptance by this country

  683
  of the principle that it is one of the primary duties of citizenship to take part in the defence of one's country, and that it is a corollary of that primary duty that every man should be trained to take part in that defence effectively, then, however unpopular it may be, I must confess that I accept it. I am a believer, out and out, in the doctrine of a great nation relying for its own defence and the defence of its possessions on its whole manhood, and not on a limited professional class.
  But I should not be justified in attempting to saddle the National Service League with any policy going further than that which the average member of that body approves. I may go further in my own private judgment than the whole of that body; but I am content on this occasion to defend the programme which has been put forward by that body and accepted by all its members against the criticisms—not unfriendly, but perhaps insufficiently-considered criticisms—directed against it by the noble Earl. As I understand him, he tried to impale us on the horns of a dilemma. He said—"If you wish to compel men to serve it must be either only in this country or outside this country—if only in this country, then you will not get the men where you require them. If outside this country "— then followed the usual peroration about conscription. The programme of the National Service League, let it be distinctly stated, is that there should be a local national army—a national army obliged to serve for the defence of these islands. And here I should like to deal with a subsidiary point raised by the noble Earl. He asked—" What is a national emergency?" And he may well ask. But I believe it would be for Parliament to decide when a national emergency arises, as Parliament decides to-day when an emergency has arisen which justifies the calling out of the Reserve forces. I do not see that the necessity of providing an authority to declare a national emergency is any argument against constituting a force which is only to be called out when a national emergency arises.
  Now let me turn to the question of the limitation of this obligation—the limita-
  684
  tion to the defence of these islands. The programme which has received the sanction of the noble and gallant Earl who initiated this debate goes no further than that. There may be some of us who are prepared to go further; but I am speaking fur a body, and in some sense for the noble and gallant Earl himself, and I confine myself to the convictions of that body as a whole. But does it follow that because a national territorial army would be under no obligation to serve abroad, the existence of such an army would not provide an invaluable reservoir of men from which there would be no difficulty in drawing a sufficient number of Volunteers to reinforce our Regular forces in the defence of the Empire? What was the experience of the South African War? Was it the experience of an effete country, of a country in which patriotism was dead and in which the people were not willing to come forward in a moment of emergency? Not at all; the difficulty was, not to find men willing to fight, but to find enough men who knew anything about fighting. That is the first great position which we should gain if we had a national territorial army, even if its service in the first instance was limited to this country. We should have a large body of men trained to arms, and an appeal for Volunteers to defend our distant possessions would be addressed to people, not only willing, but competent to respond.
  But then it is said that this territorial army will cost a great deal of money. Undoubtedly it will. I am not prepared to discuss at a moment's notice a calculation, involving, it may be, £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, put forward by the noble Earl as the cost of what he calls " conscription." I would rather confine myself to the more modest calculation which he made as to the cost of that which the National Service League does propose—namely, to train for a certain number of months all the youth of the nation of military age. I think the noble Earl came to the conclusion that the number of instructors that would be required would be so great that it would cost something between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. Well, I am bound to say the figure does not appal me. I am willing to go further and to admit that the programme of the National

  685
  Service League would cost more than that, though nothing at all like the fantastic figures given as the cost of " conscription." How much exactly it would cost would require far more careful examination of details than I am in a position to give, nor do I believe anyone has yet attempted to settle the question.
  But, my Lords, there are other objections which, I believe, have a greater effect in deterring men from the idea of general military service than its alleged costliness. I should like, if you will permit me, to address myself for a few moments to these objections. I am now speaking not on behalf of any particular body, but I venture humbly to put forward some personal opinions—opinions which, I believe, are obtaining a considerable amount of popular support throughout the country. The view I would venture to maintain is this—that if you go so far as the noble Earl has gone, so far as the Government apparently are prepared to go, in recognising the necessity of the military training of the nation, you will be driven in the last resort to extend that training not only to such individuals as may choose to undertake it, but to the whole body of the people. There are many reason why I believe that that system is the only one which will give you the desired result. I will only trespass on your Lordships' time by putting forward a very few considerations. I think that system is to be commended on the ground of its greater fairness, on the ground that it alone will ensure an adequate seriousness in your dealings with the territorial army. So long as its numbers are left to chance there will always be a tendency in the future, as there has been in the past, to treat it as a side issue and a subordinate thing—in a manner in which it never can be treated if it includes the whole youth of the nation. I believe, moreover, that a smaller amount of interference with the industry of the country is involved if the obligation of training is universal, and if, therefore, all industrial arrangements are made from the first with a view to it; than if it is spasmodic, irregular, and uncertain. I do not think you can altogether blame the employer for the objection he feels
  686
  to his men being taken away from him under present conditions. He starts his industry without knowledge of any obligation resting upon all citizens to undergo a certain military training; and the demands which may be made upon him in respect of the training of an uncertain number of Volunteers are quite incalculable.
  I do not think it is fair to handicap Volunteering as it is handicapped under present conditions. As long as the defence of the country is left only co those who are willing in the first instance to undertake it, it seems to me that the whole force of our social organisation, of our social arrangements, is directed to causing inconvenience and discomfort to the Volunteer and to checking the number of those who undertake to join in the defence of the country. I believe, further, that the voluntary principle overlooks the great moral value of the idea of a general patriotic obligation. As every citizen in this country has a right to have a voice in the control of its destiny, so he is bound on the same principle to be prepared to serve for its protection.
  We hear highly-coloured accounts of the dreadful regulations which have to be adopted in other countries, and especially in Germany, to ensure the carrying out of a system of general military training and service. Yet I ask myself whether it might not, after all, be a great advantage if we in this country had more perfect vital statistics, more perfect knowledge of the numbers and whereabouts of our people, of their physical condition, and of all those important facts which a nation which relies on its whole manhood for its defence is obliged to collect. I do not think it is fair to cast a stigma upon all such in themselves desirable statistics and regulations and to brand them all as "police espionage." They are necessary and useful for other purposes besides ensuring that men should come up to serve when their time for service arrives. If a system which is adopted by every other great European nation and by the one nation of Asia which has attained a great position as a world Power, which was adopted by our own ancestors and by all the free nations of antiquity, is to be regarded as a system

  687
  unworthy of a free people, I would ask myself how does it come about that none of the great nations of Europe which have adopted it shows any serious signs whatever of departing from it? I believe the prevalence of this system is not merely due to its importance to the military strength of a nation, but also to a consciousness of its value as a means of physical and moral education. I know there is nothing more unpopular with regard to proposals for general military service than the example of Germany. I um aware that in that country the military system is carried to a point and is enforced in a manner which would never be tolerated—and I am glad to think it never would be tolerated—in this country. But it seems to me an entire fallacy to suppose that because we adopt the same principle, the same national idea which is adopted by all other European nations, which has inspired the greatest nations in the world's history at their greatest periods, therefore we are obliged to follow in all its details any particular foreign system. Naturally we should work out the principle according to our own national genius and according to our own special requirements. Therefore it does not seem to me that the objections to national military service as it exists in Germany are in any way an argument against the adoption, I do not say of exactly the same system, but of a similar principle, in England; and even with all its defects I venture to think that the German people are largely indebted, not only for their military power, but for their commercial and industrial progress and greatness, to their military system, and that under no conceivable circumstances will they depart from the principle underlying it.
  When we are considering the cost of such a system, do not let us forget that there are many ways of wasting money upon military preparations— waste to which a nation that has some uneasiness about its own military weakness is particularly liable. There is the waste of money involved in constant changes, in foolish, spasmodic expenditure, often followed by equally spasmodic and foolish retrenchment. If you add together all the losses in which this country has been involved by con-
  688
  tinually changing its military system: by its continual unpreparedness for war losses which perhaps quadrupled and quintupled the cost of the last war in which we were engaged, I think i1 may be doubted whether a system of universal military training, however costly, would not, if only from the sense of security it would give us, make up for the sacrifices it would entail.
  I am sure of this, that there is one form of military expenditure which in any case is not lost. I mean expenditure in developing the manhood of the nation. You get it back in vastly improved physique—one of the most serious problems, I believe, which faces this nation at the present moment—in the development of certain qualities of discipline, order, method, precision, punctuality, and, above all, in a great development of public spirit. The money which is spent in the physical and moral development of your men you get back in peace as well as in war. At the risk of wearying your Lordships, I would in conclusion quote, from among the mass of quotations I could bring forward from competent and trained observers, what has been said with regard to the effect of the German, military system, with all its faults, upon the progress of modern Germany by a very able and careful inquirer, and one who is especially distinguished by the total absence of any of that bias, which so often attaches to sociological experts, against their own country. The following is a passage from a book on "Industrial Efficiency " by Dr. Shadwell—
  " Under the German military system the liability comes just when a lad has learned his trade and undoubtedly forms a break in his civil career, but I have not met with two opinions about its educational value to the individual and its industrial value to the nation. Perhaps the most striking fact is the physical benefit derived from the exercises, the drill, gymnastics, and a regular life. It turns a weedy anæmic lad into a well-knit upstanding man, with sound organs mid well developed limbs. It further teaches him cleanliness, discipline, order, authority, self-respect, and respect for others. The effect in the workshop is visible at every turn. It is not too much to-say that military service has been in a great measure the making of industrial Germany."
  That is the opinion of many men who have studied carefully the effect of the military system of Continental nations

  689
  not so much from the point of view of their military strength as from that of their social organisation and industrial efficiency. For my own part I venture, however paradoxical it may seem, to express the conviction that the nations who, like the Germans, adhere to the principle of universal military training are perfectly right, and that in the long-run the peoples who are prepared to undergo the toil and face the danger of personal service will outstrip, not only in war, but also in the competitions of peace, the peoples who shrink from it.
  LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Earl the Under secretary of State for War a Question with regard to what Lord Milner described as a fantastic calculation. I am quite unable to follow the noble Earl in the calculation he made on the question of the expense of training, and—
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: The figures I quoted in regard to conscription are from a Return drawn up in 1904, which had the signature of the late Secretary of State, Mr. Arnold-Forster.
  LORD LOVAT: I should like to ask the noble Earl whether there is any company in any regiment which has five warrant officers for the training. I am aware that in no branch of the Auxiliary Forces is there a company which possesses five warrant officers for training. I am not in favour of compulsory service; I am a firm believer in the voluntary system, but am unable to agree with the estimate which has been given by the Under-Secretary. The noble Earl stated that there were 400,000 youths attaining the age of twenty every year who would be available. I think that is slightly overstating the case. Again, he has calculated that the in efficient who would have to be deducted would number 15 per cent., but this is not borne out by the experience of the Regular Army, where the rejections are 32 per cent. In the Swiss Army the rejections for inefficiency on physical grounds is something like 50 per cent. If three or four months training is given, surely the warrant officers who would be engaged as instructors would be able to conduct two trainings in the same year? As I have
  690
  stated, I have not risen in the interests of compulsory service, because I am a firm believer in the voluntary system, but simply in the interests of accuracy.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, everything that falls from the noble and gallant Earl who initiated this debate on military matters must, of course, receive the careful and respectful attention, not only of this House, but of the country. I cannot help feeling, however, that this debate would have been more interesting as well as more valuable if it had followed instead of preceded the statement which is to be made in the other House two days hence by the Secretary of State for War. We all listened with the greatest care and attention to the noble and gallant Earl, and it seemed to me that in putting forward his arguments he rather shrank from stating in clear language the conclusion to which they obviously led. Lord Milner did not so shrink. Though at first he repudiated the ascription to him of the advocacy of conscription, his whole speech was one continued advocacy of that system. He said it had never been properly defined, but, at all events, he showed clearly enough that he meant by conscription compulsory military service of one kind or another. I think that is what is meant by all advocates of conscription, though they shrink from putting it into clear language. The nation understands by conscription compulsory military service, and personally I think it is evident that the nation does not intend to submit to compulsory service at present.
  The noble and gallant Earl who initiated this discussion fell back upon a most extraordinary paradox—namely, that our predominance at sea was due to our military successes on the Continent. I listened to hear how he would make that out, and I think he entirely failed to establish the statement. The downfall of Holland was due to the fact that it was attacked over its land frontier by overwhelming forces and had no means of resistance. An attack on the far-away Indian frontier need not lead to the downfall of England in the same way as that attack led to the downfall of Holland.
  With regard to conscription, what case has been made out by the noble and

  691
  gallant Earl, or anybody else, for increasing the armed forces of the Crown? The noble and gallant Earl contends that our armed forces are no more prepared for war now than they were in 1899. By " armed forces " we are to understand that the noble and gallant Earl means the Auxiliary forces. But surely, when we are discussing whether the nation is properly prepared for war, we cannot possibly leave out of consideration altogether the question of the efficiency of the Regular Army. If the Regular Army is thoroughly efficient—and I did not gather from the noble and gallant Earl whether he thought it was or not—then the nation cannot be said to be in a state of unpreparedness for war. Again, how will the Auxiliary forces be affected by conscription? Is conscription wanted for home defence or for service abroad? General Kelly-Kenny has said—
  " We must have a voluntary array for our work in India and the Colonies, and we should also have a conscript army; but I doubt very much whether with conscription we should ever be able to keep troops for three years in South Africa or in Afghanistan."
  It is difficult to argue this question until we know what this Army recruited by compulsory service is to do. Lord Milner stated that it was to be recruited first of all for service at home, and that it would undoubtedly volunteer for service abroad in case of need. Therefore it is evident that the noble Viscount wishes to employ our conscript army for service abroad in the long run.
  VISCOUNT MILNER: Yes, in case of emergency.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: Is it necessary to alter our whole military system in order that we may get volunteers in cases of emergency for service abroad? Can we not rely on getting sufficient volunteers for service abroad when necessary under our existing system? There were 124 battalions of Militia at the time of the Boer war, and of those only four—three Irish battalions and one Scottish—did not volunteer for service abroad. I think the record of the Militia is about as satisfactory as it could be. We also got a large number of volunteers from the Yeomanry and the Volunteer forces. These volunteers were sufficient to carry us through the most serious emergency which has
  692
  arisen since the Napoleonic wars. The evidence before the Commissions shows that it was largely due to the assistance which the Regular Army received from volunteers that the Boer war was successfully carried to a conclusion. Under our present system we obtained all the aid we required. If we had needed more aid we would have received it. Why, then, upset the whole of our military system to fasten on the necks of the people of this country compulsory service to which they are profoundly opposed, when you thereby get no superior result in time of emergency than you are able to secure under our present system?
  A stronger case must be made out in favour of conscription be lore the country will agree to it. Lord Milner contemplated two armies, and the quotation which has been read from General Kelly-Kenny shows that it is admitted we must have a voluntary army for service in the Colonies and India. If we go to the nation and say that every man is to be compelled to serve in some military capacity, where are we going to get a voluntary army? The working men would then say, " We have done our duty by our country, and you cannot call upon us any more." The voluntary army would then be depleted just in the same manner as the introduction of enlistment for three years depleted your long service men. When enlistment for three years was proposed nearly all the recruits chose three years, and we were face to face with a great difficulty in India owing to the lack of long service men to fill up drafts. If this country offered an easier alternative it is certain that that alternative would be embraced, and we should not get a voluntary army in sufficient numbers to serve abroad.
  It seems to me that in all these military questions the balance must be struck between three elements—our requirements, the number of men available, and the money that the country is able to spend. Of these the only constant is the number of men. Whatever system is established—and, Heaven knows ! there have been many systems tried and many schemes put into operation which have had abortive results—the number of recruits upon which we can rely is from

  693
  35,000 to 40,000 a year. In any system of Army reform we must build up from these recruits, and the, reason that so many schemes have failed is that it has been assumed that the recruits will come in as they are wanted. Experience has shown that they do not come in as they are wanted. There is also the question of money. Noble Lords on the other side have practically ignored the question of money. The expansionists always quote the returns of our growing trade, our increasing incomes, and our larger assessments for property tax. Therein they find themselves in singular collision at times with the Tariff Reformers. How they intend to reconcile their figures as to the prosperity of the country with each other will remain to be seen. But for the moment the expansionists seek to make out that the country is in a state of overwhelming prosperity and can afford to spend more money on the Army. They ignore the Navy. They ignore the fact that our Navy is now up to the throe-Power standard, and the fact that for home defence a large Army is not required. They ignore the economic situation. They ignore the fact that during the last six years our gross liabilities have increased by £200,000,000, and that our expenditure has increased by £40,000,000 a year. They ignore also the political situation. Owing to the wise and statesmanlike policy of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, which has borne such admirable fruit all over the world, the political situation is not what it was ten years ago, and must be taken into consideration when you are asking for large sums of money for the Army. The Navy is ignored, the economic situation is ignored, and the political situation is ignored, and, having ignored these three things, it is said that because the income-tax is expanding we can spend more money on the Army. But I ask noble Lords who favour an increase of the Army whether they are also in favour of an increased income-tax. If the scheme of the National Service League is to be carried out it will mean an income-tax of Is. 6d. in the £, and under any scheme of conscription the income-tax would have to be screwed up to 2s. in the £. That is what conscrip-
  694
  tion means; and even admitting, as I do admit, a great deal of what Lord Milner said as to the effect it would have on the physique of the nation, I contend that a case has not been made out for largely extending the Army and certainly not for introducing compulsory service into this country. Lord Milner said the nations abroad were still satisfied with their system of compulsory service. I must say that I think close observers of what is taking place on the Continent at this moment have not come to that conclusion. In France they have reduced their term of military service to two years. Germany would like to do the same. The forces that are growing on the Continent are not the forces that make for war, but the forces that make for peace; and, despite the statements of sensation mongers, I venture to say there never was a time when nation was less inclined to rise against nation and when nations were more disposed to enter into friendly relations one with another.
  The curse of war and its losses have been brought home to all nations, and they are less inclined than ever to give of their youth and strength and money to the exacting demands of universal military service. That being so, I do not think that this, at all events, is the time for us to alter our voluntary military system, a system under which we have achieved all the objects upon which we have set our hearts. In this House it is, perhaps, unpopular to resist any increase in the Army. It is too often assumed that those who advocate such an increase are animated by more sincere patriotism than we who resist it. I do not think that can be maintained for one moment. There is no monopoly of patriotism. It is not less patriotic on our part to resist the piling up of a huge military budget than it is on your part to advocate a scheme which would lead to the depletion of the national resources. I think that before the noble and gallant Earl can convince the country that more money is needed for military purposes he will have to make out a better case.
  As to the Auxiliary Forces, I was delighted to hear from the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War that it is proposed to establish a large territorial army. Mr. Arnold-Forster

  695
  wanted to merge the Militia into the territorial army. He had an extraordinary dislike of the Militia and wished to abolish it, but, fortunately, the country was not of his opinion. Surely the disadvantages the Militia have had to contend with must be well known. Hitherto, the Militia, like Tony Lumpkin, Lave been " snubbed in spirits and snubbed out of spirits." They have been depreciated, they have been condemned, they have been deprived of their best officers, and skimmed for the benefit of the Regular Army. They have been subjected to such treatment that it is a wonder they exist in their present state of efficiency. If the Militia are treated well they will form a territorial army sufficient for all purposes of defence. If you enlist local patriotism on behalf of it, your local army will grow, and the number of men forthcoming will be sufficient to discharge all the purposes the conscriptionists have in view. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State has made a satisfactory statement on that point, and I think those who believe in entrusting the defence of these shores to citizens who give their services voluntarily will be abundantly justified by the results of the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rose in my place a few moments ago only because, as far as I was able to see, the debate was on the point of collapsing, and because it seemed to me hardly respectful to your Lordships that it should close without a few words from this Bench showing how deeply we appreciate the gravity of the question which has been raised by the noble and gallant Earl on the Cross Benches. I listened with attention to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for War and it seemed to me that the most conclusive passages in it were those in which he put in a very reasonable plea to be excused from entering into details with regard to the intentions of His Majesty's Government. An important statement dealing with Army organisation is to be made shortly, and I therefore think the noble Earl is justified in suggesting that any discussion of these questions would meanwhile be carried on at a consider-
  696
  able disadvantage. The rest of the noble Earl's statement was directed to a dissertation on conscription and to a somewhat vague and rather exuberantly worded sketch of the treatment which the Auxiliary Forces might expect at the hands of his Majesty's Government.
  As to the question of conscription, I should like to remind the House that the word was not mentioned in the notice of the noble and gallant Earl, which is the subject of debate, nor in the speech which he delivered to the House, nor did the report of the Elgin Commission on which the noble Earl rested his case, contain any reference to the question of conscription. I agree with the noble Viscount who spoke with so much effect just now, that we are apt to brand too hastily as schemes of conscription all schemes which contain any trace or vestige of compulsion. Let me illustrate my meaning. We now require the youth of this country to learn certain things when at school. We might project our minds into a future when the education of an English boy would not be considered complete unless he had had some instruction in the use of the rifle, Well, my Lords, a proposition of that kind would stop very far short of what we generally speak of as conscription.
  Although I am not always able to agree with the whole of the proposals put forward by the noble and gallant Earl in regard to resort to compulsion, I think he was justified in bringing this matter again before the House. He seems to me this evening to have taken up a position which it is not easy to assail. In the first place, the noble and gallant Earl tells you that history shows that neither this nation nor any other nation in the past has been able to rely for its safety on the possession of a navy alone. That is a view which I believe is shared by every Member of the House. Certainly the Government of which I had the honour of being a Member, never for a moment admitted that the strength of our Navy afforded any justification for the neglect of the land forces of the Crown, and all the naval schemes of defence for which we were responsible postulated the existence of a sufficient land force.

  697
  The next proposition of the noble Earl is that we should look outside the Regular Forces for those reinforcements which in a case of great national emergency we should unquestionably need. On that point I am entirely in accord with the views expressed by the Royal Commission presided over by the noble Earl opposite. Our experience during the South African War demonstrated the truth of that proposition. It was a war which we undertook under the impression that the forces upon which we could already count would be amply sufficient for our purpose. But our experience taught us in a very short time that we had to go outside the limits of those forces; and the result was that we were obliged to take men who were absolutely without any military training and who went out to South Africa without any knowledge of drill, discipline, or of the use of the rifle. The noble and gallant Earl very properly desires that we should profit by this lesson, and that we should do something to train the youths of this country in such a manner as to supply them with some knowledge of these things. The only other proposition to which, I think, the noble Earl committed himself was the great importance of a reserve of officers. Personally I have never discussed these questions with any military authority without finding that this question of the dearth of officers is one of the most formidable difficulties which military reformers have to consider.
  There was one point, and one point only, I think, on which I could bring myself to disagree with what fell from the noble and gallant Earl this evening. He dwelt upon the indifference of the nation to these questions. I doubt extremely whether the nation is indifferent to them. If I may say so, I believe that the nation is not indifferent, but puzzled. The nation has been treated to one scheme after another of Army reform, it has been inundated with Reports of committees and Royal Commissions, and it has really begun to regard these questions with feelings of despair rather than of indifference. It only awaits the discovery of the one great, final, successful measure which is to overcome the difficulties that have been fatal to so many. The present Secretary of State for War
  698
  has commenced his career of office with a great feeling of public confidence behind him; and I am sure that I may say for my friends who sit near me that we are all ready to give his proposals, which we look forward to seeing very shortly, our most dispassionate and certainly not unfriendly consideration. In the meanwhile, I think the House should be grateful to the noble and gallant Earl for having once again impressed upon us, in eloquent language, what is certainly a great national duty.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, as I listened to the speech of my noble and gallant friend on the Cross Benches there came to my mind the recollection of the day on which the late Prime Minister made a very interesting statement of military policy in the other House of Parliament. That recollection has stayed with me throughout the debate, because no word fell from my noble and gallant friend to show that he had any belief in the doctrine which was laid down by Mr. Balfour and which goes by the name of the " Blue Water " theory.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg to protest against that statement. Mr. Balfour never committed himself to what is commonly known as the " Blue Water " theory.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I do not think my noble friend will deny that Mr. Balfour said this country was defended by the Navy to an extent which would render it secure from a great and serious invasion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Throughout his argument Mr. Balfour postulated the existence of a very large force maintained for the purpose of securing the country from attack.
  THE MARQUESS OP RIPON: The theory that the Navy, if it be a sufficient Navy, can afford us security against serious invasion—I am not speaking of raids—has been the theory upon which, for the last twelve months or more the various schemes of Army reform have been founded; and, for my part, I am prepared to accept that theory to this extent, that I believe, in spite of what has been said

  699
  by some very extreme advocates of that theory, that raids are possible and ought to be provided against by the provision of a sufficient military force for the purpose of the defence of this country alone.
  My noble and gallant friend also attacked another doctrine which I thought had been established by the epoch-making writings of Captain Mahan, that the possession of sea power was the most solid basis upon which general political and military power could rest. That did not appear to me to be at all accepted by my noble and gallant friend in the description he gave of past history. One of the most remarkable things in a book by this author was an illuminating description of the real secret of our ultimate overthrow of the power of Napoleon. It was in our Navy; and agreeing in the doctrine that the first defence of this country against invasion —and a perfectly secure defence if we have a sufficient Navy—is to be found in the Navy, I take. I confess, a different view from that which has been taken by many in this debate in regard to the position in which we stand at the present time.
  His Majesty's Government, as the noble Marquess opposite has very justly admitted, are hampered in this discussion, because on Thursday next my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War intends to make what I am sure will be a very important declaration of policy. I am not, therefore, able to enter into any detail with regard to the scheme which the Government propose for the purpose of meeting the deficiencies of our military system, or to follow the noble and gallant Earl into all the points raised. If it should be desired by noble Lords, after Mr. Haldane's statement has been made, that this question should be again discussed, no objection will be raised by His Majesty's Government. My noble friend who has just sat down seemed to take exception to the introduction of the question of conscription into this discussion. I think my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War was entitled to make the remarks he did upon that subject, because, though the noble and gallant Earl did not say
  700
  a word either in his notice or in his speech upon conscription so called, he did propose that there should be compulsory training for every youth in this country after a certain age.
  But the moment you begin to insist upon compulsion you will inevitably end in conscription. No one could have listened to the earnest speech of the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches and not have seen that he, a strong, honest advocate for conscription, was looking to that as the ultimate point at which he desired to arrive. I venture to say, my Lords, that if once we embark on a system of compulsion in any part of our military system a step will be taken upon an inclined plane which will finally lead to military conscription. The noble Viscount asked, " Why is it that you object so greatly to the system which exists in other countries? Why is it that, while all the great military Powers of the world have conscription in some form or another, you alone reject it? " The noble Viscount and others forget the existence of what is called the " Silver Streak." This is an island. Though we are undoubtedly a great military Power we have no land frontiers to guard in this country, and thus we are able, with perfect safety, as I believe, to refuse to follow in the footsteps of foreign countries in this matter, and to refuse to introduce the German system to which the noble Viscount alluded, and which is objectionable, not merely because it forces men to undergo military service whether they like it or not, but also because it is, and must necessarily be, based on a system of police, which I hold would never be endured in this country. This is the ground upon which I venture to enter my protest against any system of conscription. In this matter the true motto for us is Principiis obsta. Let us not take any step which will lead in this direction. I cannot agree with the views of the noble Viscount as to the moral aspect of conscription; and when he tells us to look at Germany and to attribute its industrial prosperity to a system of compulsion, I reply that England has a free system, and to that system I attribute the industrial prosperity of England.

  MOTOR CAR COMMISSION.
  THE EARL or POWIS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government when the Report of the Royal Commission on Motor Cars may be expected.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: I am informed by Lord Selby that the Report of the Commission, which has had forty sittings and examined 120 witnesses, will probably be presented in the course of the next fortnight. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the present Act—the Motor Car Act, 1903—in force for another twelve months by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past, Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.