Sitting of 30 July 1906

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Poole Corporation Water Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
County of Durham Electric Power Supply (recommitted) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Mr. Caldwell.)—(King's consent signified).
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
London Squares and Enclosures Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Buckhaven, Methill, and Innerleven Burgh Extension Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to; Paisley Gas and Water Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
Ground Game Bill, Pontefraet Corporation Bill; Sutton District Water Bill; Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill; with Amendments.
Amendments to—Crediton Gas Bill [Lords]; Kent Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Truro Gas Bill [Lords]; Havana United Railways and Regla Warehouses Bill [Lords]; without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Paisley Roads Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Inverclyde Bequest Order Confirmation Bill; Perth Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; read the third time, and passed.
Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order). Order Read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [24th July], "That the Bill be now considered."
Question put and agreed to.
Bill considered; to be road the third time To-morrow.
Private Bills. Ordered, That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the session.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills to be returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if unopposed) shall be considered forthwith.
Ordered, That, as regards Private Bills returned, or to be returned, by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments (if opposed) shall be considered at such times as the Chairman of ways and Means may determine.
Ordered, That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, a copy of such Amendments shall be
404
deposited in the Private Bill Office and notice given on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

GREAT NORTHERN (IRELAND) AND MIDLAND RAILWAYS BILL.
As amended, considered.
MR. MACVEAGHsaid this was the Bill concerning which this House, for good and sufficient reasons, instructed the Committee to insert a clause providing for open competition for clerkships. That Motion was aimed at the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, and was in no sense intended for the Midland Company; but, of course, as both those companies were promoters, it applied to both alike. When, therefore, the Midland Company appealed to be exempted from the clause, he conferred with his colleagues, who regarded their appeal as reasonable, and under those circumstances he had given notice of the Amendment standing in his name to omit the clause embodying the instruction and the schedule applying thereto. With regard to the Great Northern Company, he had received the following letter from that company—
" General Manager's Office, Dublin,
July 14th, 1906.
Referring to my interview with you in regard to facilities being afforded for the passing of the Donegal Railway Purchase Bill and this Company's General Purposes Bill, when you desired some assurance that the scheme formulated by my directors would be proceeded with, I am authorised to say that the scheme providing for the future appointments to clerkships on this railway by open competitive examination as adopted by the directors, will be submitted as a part of their Report to the forthcoming half-yearly meeting of the proprietors; that the directors will use their best efforts to secure the acceptance of the scheme, and with this view they will use the proxies which may be entrusted to them to carry it and, further, that the scheme, on being passed and accepted by the proprietors, will be immediately put into operation.
I am, yours faithfully
(Signed) HENRY PLEWS."
That letter seemed to suggest that they had considered the advisability of allowing both the Great Northern and Midland Bill and the Great Northern Bill to go through, a course which they had never intended. In order to clear up this matter the Parliamentary agents and

405
the Great Northern Company had addressed to him the following lotter:—
"July 17th, 1906.
Referring to our interview with you this afternoon, as we understand the matter, the arrangements with reference to the Donegal Purchase Bill are independent of any action which you and your colleagues may think fit to take with regard to the company's own Bill, and we do not understand that there is any agreement on your part not to oppose the latter either now or at any future stage.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed) DYSON & Co."
The position as regarded the Great Northern Bill was that it had been postponed until October 24th. He therefore held it as a hostage until after the half-yearly meeting of the Great Northern Company. In these circumstances and having regard to the anxiety of the Members and the people of Donegal that this Bill should go through, they did not see that any good object could be served by further delaying a Bill in which the people of Donegal had so much interest. He had received another letter from Mr. Plews, stating that there was no moral doubt that competitive examination would be established by the meeting of the shareholders. He moved that Clause 49 and the Second Schedule be omitted from the Bill.
Amendments made.
Bill to be road the third time.

PETITIONS.
  CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORTATION).
  Petition from Llandyssul, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES)BILL.
  Petition from Strelly against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL [LORDS].
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
  Paper [presented 28th July] to be printed. [No. 291.]
  RAILWAY RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of the Capital, Traffic, Receipts, and Working Expenditure of the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL STATISTICS.
  Copy presented, of Statistical Tables relating to British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates. Part XXIX., for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS(IRELAND).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th July; Mr. Ginnell]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 488 (Gold Coast, Annual Report for 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY REORGANISATION.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War on Army Reorganisation, dated 30th July, 1906, [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (PAY, NON-EFFECTIVE PAY,AND ALLOWANCES).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the Army Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances sanctioned during the year 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Copy presented, of Further Regulations relating to the Militia [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (RESERVE).
  Copy presented, of Further Regulations relating to the Army Reserve [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Copy presented, of Further Regulations relating to the Imperial Yeomanry [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Fiftieth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Seventy-fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with Appendices, for the year ending 31st March, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INLAND REVENUE.
  Copy presented, of Forty-ninth Report of the Commissioners, for the year ended 31st March, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended March 31st, 1906, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold Civil Employment or profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 292.]
  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Copy presented, of Return of the amount payable on January 5th, 1906, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Sixty-first Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3684 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (EXCEPTIONS TO KING'S REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Non - effective Pay, and Allowances
  408
  during the year 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Chamber of London, Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London for the year 1905 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 293.]
  BURMAH (OPIUM.)
  Address for "Return of the amount of Indian Opium annually consumed in Burmah during the last thirty years." —(Mr. Allen Baker.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Purchases for the National Gallery.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in recent purchases of works of art for the National Gallery, the trustees have obtained the aid of outside expert advice in fixing the prices paid by the Nation.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the trustees have not paid for outside expert advice as to the prices of pictures, but have on occasions asked for and received such advice unofficially.

  Reports of Parliamentary Debates
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the reason why, in the official Reports of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament, the speeches of Members of the Upper House are invariably reported in the first person, whereas this, with few exceptions, is not the practice in reporting the proceedings of this House; whether the speeches of Members of the Upper House are reported verbatim, and, if so, what is the extra cost involved; and whether steps will be taken to have a uniform method adopted in the Reports of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I understand that it is not the invariable practice to report all speeches delivered in the House of Lords verbatim, but both because the Debates in that House

  409
  are usually shorter and because greater facilities for hearing them are afforded to the reporters, it is only natural that the Reports of the proceedings there should be fuller than of those in this House. Under the existing contract, which does not expire until December 31st, 1907, the contractors are permitted to exercise their discretion as to the fulness of the Reports, subject to an obligation to report verbatim all Questions addressed to a Minister with the Minister's reply, and to report no speech at less than one-third of its length as delivered. I do not see how an opportunity for reconsidering this arrangement can occur until the expiration of the existing contract.

  Board of Education Regulations.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Education when he will be able to submit to the House the regulations of the Board of Education referred to in Clause 4 (1) (a) of the Education Bill.

  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As I stated in the House last Wednesday, I propose to publish some draft Ballot Regulations as a Parliamentary Paper before the House rises this week. These draft Regulations will not represent in any way the final determination of the Board of Education on the matter, and I shall be most glad to receive practical suggestions on the subject from any quarter.

  Speed Indicators on Motor Omnibuses.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that drivers of motor omnibuses find it difficult to regulate the speed to the limit specfied under the Act owing to the vehicles not being provided with speed indicators; and will he consider the expediency of communicating with the proprietors of those omnibuses on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The adoption of speed indicators is not required by law, and the Royal Commission on Motor Cars state in their Report that they cannot recommend that it should be. In these circumstances I do not at present see my way to act on the suggestion of my hon. friend.

  Persons with Defective Eyesight and Motor Licenses.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that persons of defective vision are unable to judge distances accurately; and whether, in view of the public danger in the case of persons driving high speed motors in crowded thoroughfares, such as are common in the Metropolitan Police area, will he take such steps as may be necessary to prevent licenses being granted to persons of defective vision.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) So far as licenses under the Motor Car Act to drivers of motor cars are concerned, there is no power to require any test or qualification before they are granted. So far, however, as relates to licences under the Metropolian Public Carriage Act to the drivers of omnibuses and hackney carriages in the Metropolitan Police District, I understand that the police authorities satisfy themselves as to the general soundness of the driver's sight before a license is given. If any defect appears a closer examination is made.

  Metropolitan Asylums Board—Children's Convalescent Homes
  MR. TOULMIN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the Report for 1905 of the Children's Committee of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, in which regret is expressed at the want of appreciation, by metropolitan boards of guardians, of the homes and schools provided by the Board for certain special classes of children in the guardians' care, viz., those with ophthalmia or ringworm, defective children, or convalescent children needing sea air; and at the failure to secure that every child falling within one or other of the classes in question, shall be promptly removed to the institution suited to its requirements; and whether he will urge on boards of guardians the duty of giving to the children in their care, who need them, the advantages of these special homes.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has been drawn to the passage in the Report referred to in the Question,

  411
  and I propose to address a circular to the metropolitan boards of guardians on the subject to which it relates.

  Boarded out Poor Law Children.
  MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland,): To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will consider the advisability of issuing an amended Within the Union Boarding out Order, under which a voluntary committee to supervise the children boarded out within the union shall be compulsory, and power be given to pay, where necessary, 5s. per week per child instead of 4s. as at present, thus bringing the Within Order into line with the amended Without Order of December, 1905, and preventing such boarding-out from being a form of out-relief.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Yes, Sir, I am giving consideration to this matter.

  Delay in Sanctioning Appointment of Longford Petty Sessions Clerk.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland the cause of the delay in sanctioning the appointment of Mr. E. Daly McCann to the clerkship of Longford petty sessions, to which office he was elected by a large majority on June 14th; and will his appointment be now sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr Cherry.) A question has arisen as to whether Mr. McCann is within the prescribed limits of age, and until this question has been decided it cannot be stated whether or not the appointment will be sanctioned. It is not anticipated that there will be any undue delay in dealing with the matter.

  Bermuda Dockyard Extension.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that no vessels classed as armoured ships in the list of effective ships have been docked in the new floating dock at Bermuda since its arrival on August 8th, 1902, he will state what armoured ships have been docked in the old floating dock since August 8th, 1902; and whether he can state how much of the £600,000 provided for Bermuda dockyard extension remains still unexpended?
  412
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) H.M.S. "Hotspur" is the only armoured ship that has been docked in the old floating dock at Bermuda since 8th August, 1902, but during the same period six unarmoured vessels ranging up to 6,250 tons have been docked there. The sum of about £40,000 remains unexpended on the Bermuda dockyard extension item.

  Withdrawal of Grant from Kilsyth Academy.
  MR. SMEATON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the withdrawal of the grant of £130 a year enjoyed by the Kilsyth Academy for eight years,after having been duly certified by the Scottish Education Department as qualified to receive grants for secondary education, and of which it was deprived without warning or cause shown, is in pursuance of the policy of the Government to remove higher grade instruction from the parish schools; whether he is aware that the Kilsyth Academy is the largest school in Stirlingshire providing education largely elementary but in part secondary, to a population of about 10,000 in an isolated part of the county; and whether, in view of the proviso in Section 67 of the Statute of 1872, which lays down that the standard of education in the public schools of Scotland shall not be lowered, he proposes to take any and, if any, what, steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The policy of the Department is to encourage the establishment of higher grade schools or departments wherever possible, and is directed generally to the improvement of education in the public schools of Scotland. The amended scheme of the Stirlingshire Secondary Committee for the year 1904 did not provide for payment of a subsidy to schools of the class to which Kilsyth Academy belongs, that is to say very large elementary schools in which some secondary instruction is given. The alteration of the scheme was duly advertised in December, 1903, in the local newspapers in accordance with the Department's regulations. If the school board will submit proposals that would justify the Department in recognising the academy as a higher grade school, there is no reason to think that the county committee would not be prepared to regard it as a suitable centre for secondary instruction.

  Prosecution of Mr Hoey of Belfast
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the prosecution of Mr. Hoey, of Victoria Street, Belfast, for blending on his own premises patent still whiskey with pot still whiskey; and to the statement of defendant's counsel that had defendant blended the spirits in a bonded store no legal offence would have been committed; whether under the circumstances he will remit the fine imposed upon the defendant; and whether he will take the necessary steps to prohibit by legislation the blending of patent and pot still whiskey in bond as well as out of bond.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Mr. Hoey committed a serious breach of the Revenue regulations by tampering with spirits in transit under bond from one Customs warehouse to another, and I am unable to recommend the remission of the fine imposed by the magistrates. The blending of spirits is legal either in bond or out of bond, provided that the regulations made for the protection of the Revenue are not infringed, and I see no reason for altering the law.

  Payment of Members of Parliament.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will introduce a Bill to give effect to his promise to provide funds to carry out the Resolution of this House as to the payment of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not aware that I ever made any such promise.

  Indian Civil Servants and Private Work Madras Government Architect.
  MR. SEARS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether there is a Government order to the effect that no Government servant shall engage in private work whilst serving under their orders; whether the architect to the Government of Madras is allowed to undertake private work; and whether the Director of Public Instruction is in the habit of referring to the Government architect to pass and recommend for the education grant plans prepared by himself, thus placing him in the position of passing his own designs for a grant; will he state what salary the Government
  414
  architect receives, and whether there is a retiring pension attached to the office: will he cause a Return to be made of the private works undertaken by this public official contrary to Government regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) There is a rule to the effect that no Government servant may engage in private work without the previous permission of the local government. I am not aware whether such permission has been given by the Government of Madras to their consulting architect, nor what conditions may have been attached to the permission, if granted; but I will inquire. The present consulting architect is a superintending engineer in the Public Works Department, with a salary of Rs.2,000 a month, who is eligible for pension under the rules applicable to officers of that department.

  Indian Schoolboys Expelled for Attending Swadishi Meeting.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of schoolboys belonging to a Government school at Noakhali, in Eastern Bengal and Assam, have been expelled for attending a Swadishi meeting; and whether, having regard to the fact that orders have been issued for the unconditional reinstatement of schoolboys who had been expelled on so-called political considerations, he will issue instructions that these orders shall be made general in their application to the whole province.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The attention of the Government of India is closely engaged on these matters, and I cannot say more at present.

  Cancer in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether any statistics are now available in regard to the prevalence of cancer in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand that, in the forthcoming Report of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, certain statistics as to the occurrence of cancer in India, derived from the information supplied by Indian medical officers, will be published.

  Hours of Labour of Women in Bombay Cotton Mills.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, seeing that he has called for a Report in regard to the hours of labour of women and young people engaged in the Bombay cotton mills, will he include in that inquiry women and youug girls engaged as bricklayers and stonemasons' labourers at Ahmedabad and other places in the Bombay Presidency.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The inquiry is confined to labour coming under the Indian Factories Act, and I do not propose to instruct the Government of India to enlarge its scope; but 1 will call their attention to the subject of my hon. friend's Question.

  The De Salis Estate.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-tenant of Ireland can he say whether as yet applications to carry out the sale to the tenants on the part of Count De Salis, around Grange, Loughgur, and Knockroe, county Limerick, have been made to the Estates Commissioners; is he aware that on this estate there are close on 400 acres of untenanted land, hold until lately by Mr. Dickson and Mr. Chatterton, on which labourers, evicted tenants, and poor farmers' sons could be quartered; will he and the Estates Commissioners take precautions that no extensive tenants already holding largo farms get this untenanted land by fine for the tenant right; and, if so, that no sale of the estate be sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no application in respect of the sale of this estate has yet been made to them. In the event of the estate coming before then the Commissioners will consider the matters indicated in the Question.

  Sale of Mr. Delmage's Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant o Ireland, can he say how matters stand at present as regards sale and purchase between the landlord and tenants on the property of Mr. Delmege around Garry-spillane and Knocklong, county Limerick
  416
  is he aware that there is a tract of untenanted land on the estate, formerly worked by the Boltons: and will he instruct the Estates Commissioners not to sanction the sale should any persons take the tenant right of those untenanted lands, which according to the spirit of the Land Purchase Act of 1903 should be given to labourers, evicted tenants, and other landless people.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements in respect of an estate of Mr. Stafford Delmege were lodged in 1905. The estate has not yet been inspected. The Commissioners will in due course make inquiries as to the untenanted land on this property referred to in the Question.

  Sale of the Dunraven Estate—Lord Dunraven and Mr. Spearing.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that, when the tenants of the Earl of Dunraven purchased their holdings on his Lordship's estates around Adare and Croom, one tenant, named George Spearing, refused to purchase, on the grounds that, since his judicial rent had been fixed, Lord Dunraven had constructed fish hatcheries, raising the water flowing by the farm in the River Maigue so as to flood eleven acres of Spearing's land; also that he was unwilling to give away to the landlord his sporting rights and his claim to sand, gravel, and quarry, so that, with his farm depreciated in value, he could not agree to pay twenty-three years purchase; is he aware that Lord Dunraven offered £28 compensation for the construction of the fishing weir; that Lord Dunraven and his agent, Mr. Peter Fitzgerald, have harassed the tenant by writs from the King's Bench and law costs; and will the Estates Commissioners be instructed to interpose and try to fix a fair purchase price between Lord Dunraven and Mr. Spearing.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the estate referred to was purchased by them under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1903. The holding in question was inspected by the Estates Commissioners' inspector who estimated the price of it at £842, representing a reduction of 25 per cent. on the judicial rent. The purchase

  417
  money of the holding has been paid to the Earl of Dunraven. The Commissioners have no knowledge as to the compensation offered to the tenant for the construction of the fishing weir, nor as to the legal proceedings which may have been taken for the recovery of rent previous to the purchase of the estate by them. The Commissioners intend to consider Spearing's case, together with others on the same estate, with a view to dealing with them pursuant to Section 19 of the Act.

  Orange Disturbance at Raphoe, East Donegal.
  MR. MCVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a disturbance which took place at 10 p.m. in the town of Raphoe, East Donegal, on the 12th July, (during which Orangemen used firearms, to the danger of the inhabitants, discharging sixteen shots in the Diamond, wounding two Catholics, one going home with his wife, the other standing in his own door, and afterwards, when passing the Catholic church, they again used firearms, and used language calculated to cause a breach of the peace; seeing that there were twenty five police in the town, will he state why they did not quell the disturbance or since take steps to bring these men to justice; and will he say if the district inspector will have an opportunity of explaining his conduct on the occasion.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that on the occasion in question the Raphoe Orangemen, upon their return from a demonstration, paraded the town. A drunken man staggered into the procession when passing through the Diamond, and was knocked down. A scuffle ensued between a few Orangemen and Nationalists, but no one received serious injury. Twelve policemen who were present succeeded in restoring order within ten minutes. During the disturbance about a dozen shots were fired on the outskirts of the crowd, but no one was injured by the shots which appeared to be blank cartridge. I am informed that no shots were fired, or provocative language used, when actually passing the Catholic church; but at a little distance past the church two shots
  418
  were fired in the air from a car. The district inspector had not returned from duty at the demonstration referred to. The police at Raphoe were in charge of a head constable, who took prompt measures to restore order. Several persons who were concerned in the disturbance obtained summonses against each other, but I am informed that they have all agreed to drop proceedings and to live on better terms in future.

  Refusal of Loans to Andrew Gallen of Laught, County Donegal.
  MR MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Andrew Gallon, of Laught, Killygordon, East Donegal, was, by the Board of Public Works, refused a loan of £40 to improve his farm, whilst the adjoining farmers obtained a similar loan on application; whether he is aware that Gallon satisfied the Board that there was no encumbrance on the holding; that the secretary made a demand for 10s., an unusual thing, which Gallen sent him; that an inspector came down who said he did not understand farming, and that he inspected the improvements Gallen desired to make; and will he say why the loan was not granted.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the loan was refused because the Board of Works, after considering their inspector's report, came to the conclusion that the annual value of the benefit to be derived from the expenditure would not be equal to the amount of the annual instalment in payment of the loan. All applications for loans, I understand, are dealt with on this principle, and no exception was made in Gallen's case; if adjoining farmers obtained loans it was because they fulfilled the general conditions, which he did not. The Board were satisfied of his title, and believe that there is no incumbrance on the holding. The charge of 10s. is a regular charge made in every case towards the preliminary expenses, which it does not fully cover. The Board's inspector who visited Gallen's holding has both theoretical knowledge and practical experience of farming, and I feel difficulty therefore in supposing that he could have made the statement attributed to him.

  Extension of Labourers Act to Small Holders in East Donegal.
  MR. MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are men in East Donegal who occupy holdings under £3 valuation and who are daily labouring with the adjoining farmers and cannot got the benefit of the Labourers Act from the fact that they are the holders of these patches of bog; and, if so, will he take steps to have the provisions of the Labourers Act extended to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that no complaints to the effect mentioned have been received by the Local Government Board. I would refer the hon. Member to the definition of agricultural labourer contained in Section 4 of the Labourers Act of 1886, and to the extension of the definition contained in Section 93 of the Irish Land Act of 1903. The provision in the latter section, which excludes persons who are in occupation of land exceeding one quarter of an acre from the definition, applies only to persons who work for hire at other than agricultural work. The limitation as to the quantity of land which may be occupied does not apply to a person who does agricultural work for hire.

  Extra Police at Ballybofey, East Donegal.
  MR. MACVEIGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the drafting of 112 extra police and two officers into the peaceable town of Ballybofey, East Donegal, on July 12th; and, if so, will he give the names and state on what Report and by whose authority this extra force was quartered in Ballybofey, or if a breach of the peace occurred; and, if so, how many were injured, how many are now in hospital, and how many in gaol; who is to pay the expense of bringing this force from distant counties, or if the expense incurred by their visit will be made a charge on the rates of East Donegal, and if not out of what fund will the expense come, or can he say during the last six years how many extra police were drafted into Ballybofey on the 12th July each year, and what special duties were performed by them to warrant the annual increase in their number.
  420
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) On July 12th an extra force of 105 men and two officers was drafted into Ballybofey for the preservation of the peace in connection with a large demonstration at that place. This force was assembled on the authority of the Inspector-General and with the approval of the Government. It is, happily, the case that no breach of the peace occurred, but precautions were required. Sixty men of the extra force were drawn from other counties, and half of the cost of these will be chargeable on local rates, the other half being-borne by the Constabulary Vote. During the previous six years no extra police from other counties wore drafted into Ballybofey on the 12th of July, but in 1898, which was the last occasion on which a large Orange demonstration took place in that locality, a force of 80 extra police was brought into the adjacent town of Stranorlar.

  Endowment of Schools on the Clifden and Annally Properties.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners were aware, when sanctioning the advance for the purchase of the Clifden and Annally properties, county Kilkenny, that the schools on those properties were in receipt of endowments out of the same; whether those endowments have not now ceased, so far as the Catholic schools on the property are concerned, and are continued to the Protestant schools; and whether anything will be done to put the Catholic schools on an equality with the Protestant schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the majority of the sales on the estate of Lady Annally have been completed. No question as to the endowment of schools on the estate arose when the sales wore being effected, nor would the matter appear to be one in which the Commissioners could exercise any control. The Commissioners are unable to identify any proceedings for sale in respect of the Clifden Estate.

  Religious Persuasion of Magistrates in County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he

  421
  is aware that in 1905–6 four magistrates viz., three Episcopalians and one Methodist, in 1905 nine Episcopalians, and in 1902 twelve Episcopalians, one Methodist, and one Catholic, were appointed in county Cavan; was the last Catholic appointed so far back as October 24th 1899; will he say what are the approximate percentages in this county of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Society of Friends, Unitarians, Roman Catholics, and other religious denominations; and what percentage the magistrates appointed bear to the different religious denominations.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) As I informed the hon. Member on Monday last, full information as to the religious persuasion of magistrates appointed for county Cavan in the years mentioned will be found in the Parliamentary Papers which I then indicated. In like manner the number of persons belonging to the several religious denominations in the county Cavan will be found in the last Census Return, and from these the percentages can be obtained. I have already stated, on the Lord Chancellor's authority, that a number of appointments to the magistracy in Cavan will shortly be made.

  Evicted Tenants of the Cusack Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will, with a view to giving the evicted tenants of county Longford a chance of obtaining portions of the Cusack Estate untenanted land, direct an inquiry into their applications for reinstatement with a view to some selection being made.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they will, when distributing untenanted land which they may acquire in county Longford, duly consider the applications for reinstatement received from evicted tenants in that county.

  Delay in the Sale of the O'Brien Estate, North Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will he state the reason of the delay in the sale of the O'Brien Estate, at Comakelly and Corglass, North
  422
  Longford; what is the cause of the present standstill in the proceedings, and who is to blame; and when may the tenants expect this sale to go through, in order to obtain relief under The Land Purchase Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before them. I understand, however, that the estate is in the Land Judge's Court, and I will have inquiries made from the registrar of the Court.

  Section 7 Irish Land Act and North Longford Estate.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Section 7 of the Land Act of 1903 is being applied in the case of the sale of the King-Harman (Ballinamuck), Galbraith, and Archdale Estates in North Longford; and when a definite decision on these cases may be expected:
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that no proceedings for the sale of the King-Harman Estate arc before the Court, and no order for sale has been made in the case of the Galbraith Estate. The provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1903 are, therefore, not applicable to these estates, Proceedings in regard to the Archdale Estate are before the Land Judge's Court, but no proceedings under Section 7 have been taken.

  Sale of the Kilcogy Bog Estate.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether negotiations for the sale of Kilcogy Bog Estate of Quintin Dick and others, county Cavan, have resulted in the tenants agreeing to purchase this bog through trustees; when was the purchase agreement filed; when did the inspector visit the bog; has the sale been refused, and on what grounds; and will this matter be reopened by the Estates Commissioners with a view to securing to them this bog, which is now the only unsold portion of this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the trustees for the tenants signed

  423
  two agreements for the purchase, at £640, of forty six acres of turbary on this estate for the benefit both of the present tenants and of those who had purchased their holdings on the estate under the previous Land Purchase Acts. The purchase agreements were lodged on the 1st February 1905, and the inspector furnished his report on May 14th 1906. The Estates Commissioners decided that the bog referred to should be excluded from the estate as they considered that it does not afford security for the advance applied for. The matter will be again brought before the Commissioners for their further consideration.

  Clearing House Banking Returns for Irish Cities.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask.the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state for what Irish cities clearing house banking Returns are issued; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the figures for the years 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are informed that the only Irish clearing house which issues Returns is that of Dublin. The figures of the clearing house may be found in the journal of the Institute of Bankers in Ireland. These figures have been published in Dublin since 1899, and are as follows:—

  Dublin Clearing Returns.

  £

  1899

  130,066,508

  1900

  133,177,812

  1901

  133,809,420

  1902

  137,669,745

  1903

  139,751,292

  1904

  144,778,629

  1905

  152,536,416

  Percentage and Population Paying Income Tax.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-tenant of Ireland whether he will state what is the percentage of the population of Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales liable to pay Income Tax as set out in the last available Return.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) There are no data on which the suggested computa-
  424
  tion could be made, the number of Income Tax payers not being known.

  Return of Irish Imports and Exports.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when the long delayed Return of Irish exports and imports for 1902, promised by the right hon. Member for Dover in 1903, will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have already stated that it is not now intended to publish the statistics as to the imports and exports of Ireland for any year prior to 1904, as the Returns which it was found possible to obtain were not of sufficient completeness to justify publication. Information of a more complete character has been collected for the years 1904 and 1905, and will be published as soon as possible.

  Longford Congested Districts.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that almost the entire barony of Longford, comprising the parishes of Killoe, Drumlish, and Ballinamuck, Dromard and Cullumbkille are congested areas, the laud of which is mostly mountain and bog and the valuations of the holdings of which are small; whether he is aware that portions of county Leitrim which lie along this barony, and are scheduled, are, in places, better land than the lands of the parishes mentioned; and, with a view to relieving congestion and helping a thrifty class of peasants to better conditions of living, will he take care that evidence from this part of county Longford will be heard before the Commission on congestion just appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have no information as to the condition of the districts referred to in the Question. The Royal Commission on congestion is prepared to consider any application which may be made to them as to taking evidence from any particular district, or holdings sittings in any particular place.

  Sale of Grazing Farm, Cahertrim, County Galway.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any communication

  425
  has reached the Estates Commissioners regarding the sale of the grazing farm, Cahertrim, Ardrahan, county Galway, belonging to Mr. Edwin Martyn, Tylara, Ardrahan, to a large agricultural farmer named Diviney, living several miles distant; and whether, seeing that the farm is surrounded by small cottier tenants, will the Commissioners inquire into all the local circumstances before this sale is sanctioned.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to trace the receipt of any communication with regard to the farm referred to, and no proceedings for the sale of this property have been instituted before them.

  Division of Untenanted Land at Loughrea.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at what time do the Estates Commissioners propose to divide the untenanted lands at Rareddy and Granna on the Beetson Persse estate, the Grallagh farm on the Burke estate, Marble Hill, the Doon and Cox's Town farms on the O'Farrell estate, Daly's Town, the Ben more and Moyleen farms on Dominick Burke's estate, the Killimonday, Gurteen, Kiltulla, and Cahernakelly farms on the William Daly estate, the Raford, Ballykeerin, Bullawn, and the Attymon farms on Colonel Daly's estate, all of which have been purchased by the Commissioners and are in the immediate neighbourhood of Loughrea.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they expect to deal with the untenanted lands of Rareddy and Granna about November 1st next, when they also propose to deal with Doon, on the O'Farrell estate. The Commissioners have not yet acquired the Burke estate, Marble Hill, but negotiations are proceeding. The Commissioners are unable to identify the lands of Cox's Town without further particulars. The untenanted lands on the estates of Mr. William Daly and Colonel Daly have already been divided. The estate of the representatives of Dominick Burke is not yet ready to be dealt with, the application for sale having been lodged in February last only.

  Mr. Sydney Smith and the Inspection of the Countess of Kingston's Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware of the dissatisfaction created amongst the tenants on the Countess of Kingston's estate by the selection of Mr. Sydney Smith to inspect and report upon this estate, seeing that the inspector is a near neighbour and personal friend of the agent of the estate, concerning whose methods of obtaining purchase agreements from the tenants several complaints have reached the Commissioners; and whether the Estates Commissioners will consider the advisability of a change of inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge whether the facts are as stated in the Question, but will have full inquiries made into the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will decline to sanction advances for the purchase of the two portions of the Countess of Kingston's estate, the inspection of which may be completed before October next, until a complete inspection and report upon the estate, as a whole, has been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they will consider the hon. Member's suggestions when the report of their inspector comes before them for consideration.

  Sligo Sawmills Company and the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the trustees of the gift of £10,000 by Mr. Bourke Cochrane, for the benefit of industry in Sligo, invested the money in the formation of the Sligo Sawmills and Joinery Company, Limited, and invited the public by the prospectus they issued in the formation of this company to subscribe for shares on the faith of a statement that the company had been formed under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction; and will he say

  427
  whether this statement was published with the knowledge and by the authority of the Department; and whether, in view of the fact that the entire sum of £10,000, together with the capital subscribed by the public, has been lost, the Department will return to the subscribers the amount of the capital subscribed by them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The facts are not quite as stated in the Question. Mr. Bourke Cochran offered to invest a. sum of £10,000 in an industry to be selected by some friends of his, who happened to be connected with the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. The Department was not officially concerned with the investment and had no responsibility in connection with it. It appears that the company issued a prospectus in which it was stated that the company had been formed under the auspices of the Department, but I am informed that this statement was not published by the authority or with the knowledge of the Department. The matter was brought under the notice of the Committee of Inquiry into the organisation and working of the Department, and it is understood that the solicitor for Mr. Bourke Cockran is preparing a full statement of the facts for submission to the Committee.

  Allowances to Army Recruiters.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the present allowances to recruiters; is he aware that non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff of the Militia, especially in Ireland, have often to make journeys of twenty or thirty miles in a day to attend fairs and markets, and are allowed nothing except railway fares; and whether, seeing that the recruiters have to provide themselves with food during the day, will he take steps to have allowances made in accordance with the distance travelled and the number of hours they are separated from their families.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No complaints on this subject have reached the War Office. It does not appear that the emoluments of recruiters are in any way insufficient.

  Army Good-conduct Medal—Suggested Reduction of Qualifying Period.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the length of the qualifying period for the good-conduct medal as now granted in the Army, the medal, in most cases, not being actually issued to the recipient until he has nearly nineteen years' service; and will he consider the advisability of reducing the qualifying period to sixteen years; and will he issue instructions for the gratuity of £5 to be issued with the medal, and not kept until discharge to pension takes place, as is done at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This medal is granted for long service as well as good-conduct, and the existing qualifications have been advisedly adopted. It is not proposed to carry out the suggestions now made.

  Exports from United Kingdom, United States, and British West Indies.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total exports to the United Kingdom and the United States of America during each quinquennium ending 1904, 1899, 1894, and 1889 from the British West Indian Islands; how much of such exports were of sugar and molasses; how much were of fruit (fresh and dried), coffee, cocoa, chocolate, and tobacco; and the proportions for each such period going to the United States of America and the United Kingdom, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) If the hon. Member will move for a Return giving the particulars asked for in his Question it shall be granted.

  Improved Train Service in County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the Belturbet Urban District Council praying for a better train service in one of the most populous districts in county Cavan from Belfast and Dublin on the Great Northern Railway; and will he give the matter his consideration.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have received from the hon. Member a copy of

  429
  the resolution referred to, which is addressed to the railway company. The matter in question is not one in which the Board of Trade have any statutory powers, but I have communicated with the railway company thereon and have received a reply of which I am sending the lion. Member a copy.

  Production and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish a Return in continuation of memoranda and statistical tables, showing the production and consumption of alcoholic beverages in various countries (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 345, Session 1904).
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) It is the practice to issue this Return triennially. The next issue will accordingly be published next year.

  Preservatives in Food.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to proceedings taken at Brentford with reference to the presence of boracic acid in potted ham; and whether, in view of the uneasiness existing in the public mind with reference to canned foods, he will make inquiries upon the subject, and give information to the House as to the view of his Department on the use of preservatives in food.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings mentioned. Inquiries with regard to canned foods are being made by officers of the Local Government Board. The whole question of preservatives in food has received the attention of the Board. It has been investigated by a Departmental Committee appointed by them, and recently they have issued a circular with regard to preservatives in milk. Other branches of the subject are now under their consideration.

  Oxford Pupil Teachers' Centre.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if the pupil teachers' centre at Oxford has been condemned because of the lack of laboratories and deficiency of accommodation; was a scheme for the center
  430
  to work in connection with higher elementary schools prepared by the chairman of the Oxford Education Committee, but discouraged by His Majesty's inspector, on the ground that the policy of the Board was the abolition of centres not directly connected with secondary schools; is he aware that in one of the schools to which the pupil teachers are to be sent there is no laboratory accommodation whatever; and whether, in pressing for the closing of the centre, the Board of Education has taken any steps to see that suitable employment for the displaced staff has been supplied.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In answer to the first paragraph of the Question, the two reasons named were the principal reasons involved, and to the second paragraph, the scheme there referred to was criticised as being in certain respects not the best that could be devised, and in particular that it failed to bring the pupil teachers and intending pupil teachers into secondary schools. Regarding the third paragraph of the Question, the Board have not yet definitely recognised any particular schools for the purpose, but have discussed with the Education Committee the new proposals which have now, I understand, been adopted by the City Council. Laboratory accommodation is being provided in the only one of the proposed schools which, so far as I know, possessed none. In answer to the fourth query, it was impossible for the Board to do otherwise than require the discontinuance of the central classes, conducted as they were in a manner ineffective for the growing needs of the city, in three class rooms in a public elementary school, wholly inadequate for the purpose and without any provision for science, except certain unsuitable and overcrowded laboratories some distance away in another building. I should greatly regret it if the local authority were unable to find alternative employment for any efficient teachers unavoidably displaced through changes that were unquestionably rendered necessary by the need for improving the education of the future teachers of the city.

  Postcards—Fines for Affixing Stamps the Wrong Side.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General

  431
  whether his attention has been directed to the fines imposed on the public for affixing stamps on postcards on the back in place of the address side; whether there is any justification for his officers obliterating with stamping machines the stamps so affixed in addition to fining the receivers of the postcards; under what rule or postal regulation fines are imposed for stamps so wrongly affixed; and whether there is in the rules any penalty for affixing stamps on the backs of letters in place of the address side.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No penalty is imposed for affixing stamps to the backs of letters; but the sender of a postcard has the privilege of sending a letter for a postage of a ½d., and it has been thought reasonable, therefore, to impose certain conditions in the case of postcards. One of these conditions is that the stamp must be affixed to the address side, and as it is just as easy to affix the stamp on the right side as on the wrong, I do not propose to alter the rule.

  Russian Refugees and the Aliens Act.
  MR. LEVY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the fact that immigrants who left Russia to escape from religious and political persecution have recently been refused permission to land at the port of London; whether he can state why Moses Enigorn, Zalman Wein, Susicha Zusman, Reisel Sedlitzky, on board the "Schwalbe, "Itzig Levin, Sarah Kamisar, Yankel Truse, Jacob Pollack, on board the "Adler, "were refused permission to land, seeing that each was in possession of not less than £5; who was the immigration officer who refused permission; who were the members of the Immigration Board before whom the appeals were held and upheld; and whether he proposes to take steps to insure the Aliens Act being administered in the spirit intended by Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am not aware of the fact suggested in the first sentence of the Question. The alien immigrants named were refused leave to land because neither the immigration officers nor the Board were satisfied that they had the means of supporting themselves decently, I must
  432
  repeat that the mere possession of the sum of £5 or a little more is no proof of means if there is any reason to suppose that the money is not bona fide the immigrant's own. That is a question for the officer and the Board to decide. I think it right to say that the newspaper statements on which the Question is apparently based omit all reference to the inquiry and investigation to which the stories set out therein were subjected by the officers and the Board, and by which it was shown that many of their salient features were incorrect. Further, in one case in which it is stated that a woman with a little girl was sent back sorrow stricken to Russia, she was, in fact, given leave to land in the United Kingdom. No useful purpose would be served by giving the names of the immigration officers or of the members of the Board. I may remind my hon. friend that the meetings of the Board are open to the Press, and I think that if the Press had attended these meetings the statements on which the Question is founded would have been of a different character.

  Illegal Conviction of Mr. D. O'Connell—Compensation for Costs.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask Mr. Attorney - General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Dennis O'Connell, of Dianville, Mourne Abbey, who was sentenced by the magistrates sitting at a petty sessions court held in Mallow last January to pay a fine of £4 or an alternative of two months imprisonment for alleged salmon poaching on the River Clyda; whether he is aware that, on appeal to the Court of King's Bench, the judgment of the magistrates, two of whom were fishery conservators, was quashed, but no order made as to the costs, amounting to £22, incurred by Mr. O'Connell in prosecuting his appeal; amd whether, seeing that Mr. O'Connell was illegally convicted, there is any public fund from which his costs can be obtained.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) I am informed that the facts are generally as stated in the Question. The conviction was quashed without costs. There is no public fund from which the defendant's costs could be paid.

  Hours of Labour, etc., of House of Commons Kitchen Staff.
  DR. COOPER: To ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether his attention has been directed to the long hours of work the waiters, attendants, kitchen porters and attendants, still-room maids, and others engaged by the Kitchen Committee are now working; whether he will give, for each class, the usual hour of commencing and leaving off work, the rate of pay of each class, and whether paid by the hour, day, or week; whether any, and, if any, what, classes are required to be in attendance if the eleven o'clock rule is suspended; whether any pay is given for this extra duty, and on what scale; whether any emolument is received besides pay; and whether the employment is permanent or for the session only.
  (Answered by Mr. Jacoby.) The information asked for by the hon. Member will be more conveniently supplied by a Return than by an Answer to a Question. If the hon. Member will move for a Return I will consult with the Kitchen Committee as to the desirability of supplying the information. The suspension of the eleven o'clock rule being temporary, no purpose can be served in replying to the details contained in the hon. Member's Question. As regards the extra late hours, the Kitchen Committee has made provision for their staff to meet the case of overtime.

  Grants to English and Irish Boards of Agriculture.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the sums paid to the Irish Board of Agriculture and Technical Education and to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in furtherance of the interests of agriculture in Ireland and England respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I would refer my hon. friend to the details supplied in the Estimates for these Departments. Information regarding the endowment fund placed at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland), under the provisions of Sections 15 and 16 of The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, will be found in
  434
  the Annual Report of that Department [Cd. 2929].

  Railway Transit on North Western State Railway of India—Damage to Trade of Karachi.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that the amount of wheat arrived at Karachi for export in the month of June, 1906, was only 155,426 tons, as against 175,728 tons in June, 1905, and 186,873 tons in June, 1904; that this decline in the Karachi export trade is owing to the deficiency of rolling stock and of locomotive power on the North Western State Railway; and whether he will cause steps to be taken to prevent this injury to the prosperity of Karachi, as a commercial port, occurring again in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The arrangements for dealing with the grain traffic to Karachi were personally investigated last year at Karachi by the Railway Board in conjunction with the manager of the North Western Railway. The provision of a large amount of additional rolling stock was sanctioned, including 125 locomotives and 1,600 wagons. In the calendar year 1905 the expenditure on rolling stock for the North Western Railway was £257,000, and the expenditure this year will probably amount to a much larger sum.

  Refusal of Gun Licence to Mr. T. Flanagan of Glanquin.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state why a gun licence is refused to Mr. T. Flanagan, Grlanquin, county Clare.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that it is the fact that Mr. Thomas Flanagan's application for a licence to carry firearms has been refused. The power of granting such licences is vested in the resident magistrate of the district, and it would be entirely contrary to practice to state the reasons which influenced the exercise of his discretion in any particular case.

  Charles McCabe and Tenancy of Cottage at Dalystane.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  435
  of Ireland, to state the reasons why Charles McCabe, of Clough, is kept out of a cottage in the Dalystane Electoral District, Granard (No. 1) Rural District, to a tenancy of which he was appointed two years ago; and will he direct the Local Government Board inspector to inquire into this case immediately.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The cottage in this case was authorised by a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board in 1901, and, according to the contract entered into with the council, it should have been built by October 13th, 1903. Right of entry on the lands was, however, refused by the owner, Mr. Daly, and although the council lodged the compensation awarded for the plot in the Bank of Ireland in 1904, they have failed in their subsequent legal proceedings to obtain the owner's ejectment. From information recently received by the Local Government Board it appears that after signing a deed of conveyance of the plot to the council, the former owner sold a farm, including the plot, to Mr. Daly, who has been registered as owner of all the lands, and that at present the council are taking steps to have the register amended. The matter, therefore, appears one for the council themselves to deal with.

  Salary of Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland—Monthly Payment of Teachers' Salaries.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the annual salary and emoluments of the Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland, and if that salary is paid monthly; what is the annual salary of a junior assistant mistress in an Irish national school; and whether, in view of the fact that such salary is paid quarterly, he will take steps to secure that such salaries shall be paid monthly in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The salary of the Resident Commissioner of National Education is £1,500 per annum, payable in monthly instalments. The maximum salary of a junior assistant mistress is,£24 per annum, payable quarterly. As regards the question of making monthly payments to teachers, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to his similar
  436
  Question on June 28th. The matter is entirely for the Commissioners.

  Allotment of Land in County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Congested Districts Board before handing over holdings on the Ross Lodge estate, county Galway, to outsiders took into consideration the condition of the people in the townlands of Bealanagurrane, Curilane, Derrymore, and Ballinapark; and what action the Board took with reference to the representations made to them on behalf of tenants in these town-lands by the Reverend M. Heaney, P.P., Caherlistrane.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have given possession of five new holdings in the parish of Cahirlistrane, county Galway, on the Hon. R. A. Nugent's estate, lately purchased by the Board, to five tenants from another parish; and if he can state on what grounds were the applications of Thomas Kyne, Patrick Neil, Richard Lawless, and Patrick Jennings, of Bealanagurrane, and Michael Levelle, Curilane, for five holdings on the Ross Lodge estate refused, although these five tenants offered to give up their present holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The function of the Congested Districts Board is to assist the people of the scheduled congested districts, and the Board purchased the Nugent or Ross Lodge estate with the object of providing holdings for persons to be migrated from congested districts. The five persons who obtained holdings were occupiers of uneconomic holdings who were brought from such districts. The townlands mentioned in the Questions are not scheduled as congested, and the Board were, therefore, unable to provide for the wants of the people resident in them.

  Grant-in-aid in the Lavally District,County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Congested Districts Board have refused to give any grants-in-aid in the Lavally, county Galway,

  437
  district, although a number of surrounding parishes have been receiving grants for a number of years in connection with the erection of out-offices and general improvements; and, if so, can he state the reason for such refusal on the part of the Board.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board have declined to make a grant to the electoral division of Lavally for the purpose of a parish committee scheme. The number of occupiers eligible for assistance is understood to be small, and the Board do not consider it desirable to establish a committee to administer the very limited grant which the electoral division would be entitled to receive for improvement purposes. A further reason which has compelled the Board to limit their grants is that the available funds are practically exhausted.

  Congested Districts in Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if there is any possibility of the townlands of Bealanagurrane, Curilane, Derrymore, and Ballinapark, county Galway, being scheduled as a congested district; and what steps would be necessary in order to have these townlands so scheduled.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The power to schedule any additional areas as congested districts has lapsed since 1892. The Royal Commission on Congestion is to inquire, among other things, what areas, if any, outside the districts now scheduled as congested require to be dealt with as congested, so that the Question raised by the hon. Member can be considered by it.

  Examination in Irish, for Clerkships in Irish High Courts of Justice.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the inclusion of Irish as a subject of examination for clerkships in the High Court of Justice in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The subjects of examination for clerkships in the High Court of Justice in Ireland are, in pursuance of statute, to be determined by
  438
  the Lord Chancellor of Ireland with the concurrence of the Civil Service Commissioners. I am informed that the whole scheme of the examination is under consideration, and the Question of the inclusion of Irish as an optional subject will be carefully considered at the same time. No decision upon the latter point has yet been arrived at.

  Erection of Police Barracks at Tuam, County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to acquire land in Tuam, county Galway, in connection with the erection of a new police barracks there; and whether it will be possible to do this without buying land on which occupied houses stand from which it would be necessary to evict tenants who have been in occupation for a number of years past, and who will suffer hardship if dispossessed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector General informs me that it has not yet been decided that it will be necessary to build a new police station at Tuam. If, however, the necessity should arise, it is not proposed to acquire a site upon which any existing houses stand.

  Grants by Irish Agricultural Department to Irish Agricultural Organisation Society.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how much money was granted by the Department of Agriculture during the last financial year to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; is any account available showing how the money so received was expended; whether any of the money was given by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society to the Irish Agricultural Wholesale Society; and, if so, will he say how much.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In reply to the first part of the Question I beg to refer to my Answer to the Question of the hon. Member for East Mayo, which shows that a grant of £2,000 was made for certain specific organisation work during the twelve months ending February 28th, 1906. An account is available showing how the grant was expended. No portion of it was given to the Irish Agricultural Wholesale Society.

  Construction of a Ferry between Kilbeg and Knockferry.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the memorial presented to the Congested Districts Board with reference to the construction of a ferry between Kilbeg and Knockferry on Lough Corrib, county Galway, has yet been considered by the Board; and, if so, can he state what decision the Board has arrived at with regard to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) On the 16th instant the Congested Districts Board decided to make a grant of one-third of the cost of the proposed ferry across Lough Corrib, subject to the conditions that such grant shall not exceed £300, and that the work shall be carried out by the county authorities in accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by the Board.

  Prison Medical Officers.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that prison medical officers appointed under 7 George 4, chap. 74, sec. 72, were permanent officers, and as such entitled to pensions under the Paid Officers Super annuation Act; and, seeing that, since the passing of the Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, prison medical officers in Ireland are appointed as temporary officers, and thereby deprived of right to pension and of independence in the discharge of their duties, whether he can state the reason for this change.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative. Since the passing of the Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1877, such prison medical officers as do not devote their whole time to the service are not entitled to pension. The fact that these officers are appointed for temporary terms does not affect the question of pension, which depends upon the principle now generally recognised throughout the public service that those persons only who devote their whole time to the service of the State are entitled to pension. Prison medical officers in Ireland are appointed for recurrent periods of three years, and no case has occurred in which the appointment has not been renewed at the
  440
  expiration of the term of three years. There is, I am informed, no ground for the assumption that these officers are not independent in the discharge of their duties.

  Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland).
  MR. HICHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland); who appoints them, and under what authority; and under what conditions they hold office, both as to emoluments, expenses, and dismissal.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland are a body corporate established under the Acts 7 and 8 Vic, c. 97, and 24 and 25 Vic, c. 111. There are two ex-officio Commissioners, namely, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Baron of Ireland, and eleven Commissioners appointed by His Majesty in Council by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. All the Commissioners are removable by His Majesty in Council by similar Warrant. The Commissioners do not receive any emoluments. The expenses of their office are provided by Parliament. Details will be found at page 210 of the printed Estimates for the current financial year. The names of the existing Commissioners are as follows:—

  The Right Hon. Sir A. M. Porter, Bart. (Master of the Rolls).

  The Right Hon. C. Palles (Lord ChiefBaron).

  His Honour Judge Carton.

  The Right Hon. H. E. Chatterton.

  Henry Perry Goodbody, Esq.

  The Right Hon. Mr. Justice Johnson.

  The Most Rev. Archbishop Walsh, D.D.

  Charles Kennedy, Esq.

  The Right Hon. Mr. Justice Boss.

  The Very Rev. J. H. Bernard, D. D.

  The Hon. Gerald Fitzgerald.

  F. C. Pilkington, Esq.

  The Most Rev. Nicholas Donnelly, D.D.

  Members of Irish Local GovernmentBoard.
  MR. HICHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the names of the

  441
  members of the Local Government Board, Ireland; who appoints them; and under what authority and under what conditions they hold office as to emoluments, meetings, expenses, and termination of office.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board for Ireland was established by the Act 35 and 36 Vic. c. 69. The Board consists of a President, being the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant for the time being; the Under Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant for the time being; a Vice-President and two other Commissioners, one of whom is a Medical Commissioner. The permanent Commissioners are appointed by the King, and hold office during the pleasure of His Majesty, subject to retirement on attaining 65 years of age. The two ex-officio members of the Board receive no salary as such. the Vice-President receives an annual salary of £1,500, increasing to £1,800. The remaining two members receive each an annual salary of £1,000, increasing to £1,200. When absent from headquarters on duty the members receive their actual expenses of locomotion and a subsistence allowance of 21s. a night. The Board meets daily. The names of the existing appointed members of the Board are as follows:—
  The Right Hon. Sir H. A. Robinson, K.C.B., Vice-President.
  W. L. Micks, Esq.
  T. J. Stafford, Esq., Medical Commissioner.

  Poor Law Commission—Irish Medical Representative.
  Mr. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will avail himself of the vacancy in the Poor Law Commission, caused by the death of the O'Conor Don, to appoint an independent Irish medical gentleman, acquainted with the needs of the Irish Poor Law medical service, to a seat on the Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to the Answer given by the Prime Minister to a similar Question on 16th instant, namely, that he could not see his way to adopt the suggestion. The matter does not fall within my province.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Retirement of County Inspectors.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he could give a Return showing the dates on which the several county inspectors Royal Irish Constabulary attain the age for retiring: and showing how many hours each week for the year ending 30th June last each county inspector devoted to the duties of his office; and whether, having regard to the reduction in these duties in recent years, he will consider whether one county inspector could in future discharge the duties for two or more counties.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It does not appear that any useful purpose would be served by furnishing such a Return as the hon. Member desires. According to statute, county inspectors are not eligible for retirement on pension until they have attained the age of 60 years and have had 40 years' service. Upon an average about three per annum thus qualify for retirement. There is no regulation requiring county inspectors to keep a record of the exact number of hours occupied by their duties. I understand, however, from the Inspector-General that the time of county inspectors is fully occupied by their duties, in which there has not been a reduction as is suggested in the Question. The existing statutory law requires that there should be a county inspector for each county, and no change could be made without legislation.

  Sale of the Dickson Estate, County Leitrim—Tenant's Right to Turbary.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in ordering the sale of the Dickson Estate, situate at Tawley, near Tullaghan, county Leitrim, the Land Judge gave instructions that each tenant should be secured in his right to turbary as heretofore; and will he explain why an attempt is being made to interfere with this right.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the Dickson Estate is being sold in the Land Judge's Court under the fortieth section of the Land Act of 1896. I am informed by the Registrar of the Court that the learned Judge's order was that a scheme should be prepared applotting

  443
  turbary to the tenants entitled to it. A scheme has now been prepared as the result of which every tenant will have turbary to last at least twenty-five years. The scheme will come before the Judge next term for confirmation.

  Tobacco Growing in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will forward to the Member for East Clare the result of the negotiations between the Treasury and the Irish Agricultural Department as to tobacco growing in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I will in due course inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Unsanitary Schools in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many non-vested national schools there are in Ireland, how many have been reported to the Commissioners of Education by their inspectors as being unsanitary; and what would be the probable cost of putting such schools into proper condition; and what steps, if any, does he propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the number of non-vested schools is 4,930, but they are not at present in a position to say how many of these schools have been reported as insanitary, or to give an estimate of the cost of putting them in a proper condition. I have recently announced that an increased building grant has been arranged, and that it is hoped that the work of building and repairing schoolhouses may now proceed without delay.

  Delay in Sale of Estate of Abraham Evans, County Leitrim.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the cause for the delay of the sale to the tenants of the estate of Abraham Evans, situate in the barony of Dromahaire and county of Leitrim, final notice for sale having been served by the Land Judge's Court on December 19th, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's
  444
  Court that the estate for sale comprises the townland of Lisnagowan and part of the townland of Killooman. The tenants in the latter townland have declined to purchase All the tenants, except one, on the townland of Lisnagowan have signed agreements to purchase, but the sale has been delayed with the object of endeavouring to bring about a sale to the tenant who has not yet agreed to purchase. The case was to have been brought before the learned Judge on Thursday last, but owing to his illness has had to be postponed till next sittings.

  Elections (Meetings in Schoolrooms)Bill—Government Facilities.
  MR. ESSEX: To ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Elections' Meetings in Schoolrooms) Bill [Lords]; and whether he will give facilities to secure the early passage of this measure.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Government are favourably disposed towards this Bill, but I must abide by the rule I have laid down and abstain from giving any promise of facilities at present.

Reservists of Disbanded Battalions.
SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the number of reservists connected with the battalions which he proposes to disband.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Reservists are not ear-marked as coming from and belonging to any one battalion of a regiment, but are available for the regiment as a whole. The number of reservists of the regiments concerned are as follows:—Northumberland Fusiliers 1,364, Royal Warwickshire Regiment 1,534, Lancashire Fusiliers 1,449, Manchester Regiment 1,169.
SIR CARNE RASCH: Will all the reservists of the disbanded battalions be treated in the same way as of those not disbanded?
MR. HALDANE: Yes.

The Egyptian Garrison.
MR. F. E. SMITH; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what effect he proposes to give and when to the recommendation of Lord Cromer that the Egyptian garrison should be reinforced.
MR. HALDANE: Effect was given to the recommendation of Lord Cromer that the Egyptian garrison should be reinforced at the time that the recommendation was made. The permanent reinforcements consisted of a regiment of cavalry, a battery of Royal Horse Artillery and the four companies of a Line Regiment stationed in Egypt which were transferred from Crete.

The Coldstream Guards.
SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the condemned battalion of Coldstream Guards is to sail for Egypt in October; and whether the Government intend that the whole of the exceptional expense, which will be necessarily incurred by married officers, non-commissioned officers, and men, owing to moving for one year, is to fall upon the battalion, or whether the Government is prepared to contribute towards this exceptional expenditure.
MR. HALDANE: This battalion will go to Egypt on September 29th. No decision has been come to, to treat this battalion in respect of the expenses of their move differently from other Infantry battalions.

Potted Meats in Regimental Canteens.
COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Messrs. Dickeson, who were recently convicted of selling potted moat, not of the quality that nature demanded, in the canteen of Hounslow Barracks, have a monopoly for the sale of groceries and other commodities purchasable in those barracks; whether ho can state the number of similar monopolies held by this firm, and the amount paid annually in respect of each; and whether any steps are taken by the military authorities to secure for soldiers and their families, who use regimental canteens, the benefits and protection afforded by a system of co-operative trading.
MR. HALDANE: In barracks when any firm is the canteen tenant, that firm has the monopoly of the sale of supplies within barracks, but this monopoly does not extend to the supply of messes, of officers, sergeants or soldiers. The number of contracts held by them is not known at the War Office; the amounts paid in the form of rebate are approximately 3s. 6d. per month for each soldier and 5 per cent, on their purchases for married soldiers. As regards the last part of the Question, the choice of system is left to Commanding Officers under the supervision of the Brigade Commander. I may add that Messrs. Dickeson were not convicted of soiling potted meat unfit for human food, but of having sold potted meat containing respectively eighty grains and 129 grains of borax per lb.

Government Ammunition.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the difference between small-arms ammunition Mark IV. and Mark V., and between Mark V. and Mark VI.; will he state when the manufacture of Mark VI. began; and what quantities have been manufactured, either by the Government or by contractors, of Mark V. and Mark VI. respectively, specifying the quantities produced in each year.
*MR. HALDANE: The difference between Mark IV., V., and VI. cartridges lies in the bullets, which in the case of the two former have a hole in the head, and in the case of the two latter have a hard lead core, Mark IV. having a soft core. The manufacture of Mark VI. commenced in 1903. The following millions of cartridges Mark V. and VI. have been manufactured:—

Mark V.

Ordnance Factories.

Trade.

1899–90

19¼

24½

1903–04

5¾

—

1904–05

—

—

1905–06

—

—

Mark VI

Ordnance Factories.

Trade.

1899–90

—

—

1903–04

2

—

1904–05

24½

30

1905–06

31

45

Army Promotion.
*SR. ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether as a sequel to the abolition of the appointment of Second-in-Command by Army Order 154, 1906, he will make such regulations as will ensure a minimum number of majors doing regimental duty, in view of the present system of appointing captains in the place of majors holding staff appointments.
MR. HALDANE: It is not considered expedient to make regulations on this subject, but my hon. friend can rest, assured that the point will not be overlooked.

The Irish Guards.
*SR. ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will give the annual difference in expense if the Irish Guards were disbanded instead of the 3rd Battalion Coldstream Guards, taking into consideration the cost of the regimental staff and band and depÔt and recruiting establishments, which have to be maintained for the single battalion of the former regiment.
MR. HALDANE: The saving would be increased by about £17,000 a year and the strength of the Army further diminished by four officers and some.300 men, if the Irish Guards had been selected for disbandment in lieu of the 3rd Battalion Coldstream Guards.
*SR. ROBERT HOBARTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken or would take into consideration the length of the service of the officers and non-commissioned officers of the two regiments.
MR. HAL DANEsaid the Irish Guards had got a very strong battalion, and the War Office decided, after a very close and careful consideration of the matter, that they should be retained in preference to the 3rd battalion of a regiment that had got two other battalions.

Army Reorganisation.
SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue a Paper showing the details of his scheme of Army reorganisation as
448
effecting each separate branch of the Regular and Auxiliary Forces.
MR. HALDANE: I am at present, considering this matter.

Winter Training for the Militia
SIR. J. DICKSON POYNDER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what Militia battalions he proposes to mobilise for winter training; to what places they are to be stationed what is to be the effective strength of each battallion; and how many months these battalions are to be under training.
MR. HALDANE: The twenty battalions of Militia Infantry selected for extended training are as follows: —3rd Batt., The Buffs (East Kent Regiment); 5th Batt., The Royal Warwickshire Regiment; 7th Batt, The Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regiment); 4th Batt., The Prince Albert's (Somersetshire Light Infantry); 3rd Batt., The Bedfordshire Regiment; 3rd Batt., Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own (Yorkshire Regiment); 6th Batt., Lancashire Fusiliers; 4th Batt., The Cameronians (Scottish Rifles); 3rd Batt., The Oxfordshire Light Infantry; 3rd Batt., The Loyal North Lancashire Regiment; 4th Batt., The King's (Shropshire Light Infantry); 7th Batt., The King's Royal Rifle Corps; 3rd Batt., The Prince of Wales's (North Staffordshire.Regiment); 3rd Batt., The York and Lancashire Regiment; 3rd Batt., The Gordon Highlanders; 3rd Batt., The Queen's Own Cameron High landers; 4th Batt., The Royal Irish Rifles; 5th Batt., The Connaught Rangers; 3rd Batt., The Royal Minister Fusiliers; 4th Batt., The Royal Dublin Fusiliers. The recruits will be trained for six months at the headquarters of their units except in the case of battalions which have been accustomed to carry out preliminary drill immediately before annual training and are given the option of continuing this practice. The annual training of the battalions will under present arrangements be for forty-one days and will take place as usual in the summer. I cannot undertake to foretell what their effective strength will be. I may add that the training is experimental only and we shall watch the results very closely. It may be possible to shorten the period in future years.

Ballincollig Canteen Contract.
MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether ho is aware that.an order, signed by Major M. F. Halford, dated July 9th, was issued at York, to the effect that in consequence of the unsatisfactory conditions of the contracts between the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, Limited, and the units in command dealing with the society, the General Officer Commanding - in- Chief directed that no fresh contracts should lie entered into with this society, and that all existing contracts should be terminated as soon as other arrangements could be made; is this the same Canteen and Mess Society which was fined £10 and costs at Bailincollig, county Cork, potty sessions, on June 4th last, for having sold margarine not marked or branded as such in the military canteen at Ballincollig; and is he aware that this same company are supplying civilians with drink and other goods at Ballincollig in contravention of a War Office order strictly forbidding this practice; and will he see that immediate arrangements are made whereby a company, guilty of malpractices alleged in this Question, shall not be allowed to continue in control of the military canteen at Ballincollig.
MR. HALDANE: As regards the first part of the Question, I am aware of the order alluded to, and the matter is receiving my attention. As regards the second part of the Question, no information has reached the War Office, but the attention of the General Officer Commanding will be drawn to the points raised in the Question.

Norwich. Barracks.
LORD CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the War Office, in August, 1904, communicated to the citizens of Norwich the approval of the Army Council to the scheme for building new barracks there, he will say whether the decision of the Army Council not to build new barracks there has yet been communicated to the citizens of Norwich.
MR. HALDANE: No decision on this Question has been formally announced by the Army Council, but it has been publicly
450
stated that it is not at present proposed to go on with the scheme of building the barracks in question.
LORD CASTLEREAGHinquired whether land was not given on condition that barracks should be built, and whether the War Office did not accept the gift under those express conditions.
MR. HALDANE: I understand that there was a transaction between my predecessor the Member for Croydon and the citizens of Norwich. I am very sorry that the citizens of Norwich should be disappointed, but of course I cannot be bound by that decision of my predecessor on a question of military training in which the interests of the Army as a whole have to be looked to.
*MR. LEHMANN: What was the promised contribution of Norwich, and what was the estimated cost of the barracks?
MR. HALDANE: L believe that the value of the ground presented by the citizens of Norwich was about £5,000, and the cost of the barracks would be from £150,000 to,£200,000.
LORD CASTLEREAGH: Are the Army Council entitled to change their minds and policy?
*MR. HALDANE: The Army Council are entitled to change their policy whenever they get larger lights.
LORD CASTLEREAGH: Are not the Government bound to carry out their promises?
MR. HALDANE: Really, does the noble Lord suggest that we should set aside the whole question of the brigade training of the cavalry in this country for individual convenience?

The Artillery.
MAJOR MCMIOKING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what beneficial results will be obtained by changing the terms of enlistment for the Horse and Field Artillery from three years service with the colours and nine with the reserve, to six years with the colours and six with the reserve.
MR. HALDANE: The terms of service for the Horse and Field Artillery are to be changed from three yours colour service and nine years in the reserve to six years colour service (with the extra year if serving abroad) and six years in the reserve, in consequence of the difficulties of finding drafts for the Artillery in India and the Colonies. The terms of service were changed in the Infantry from three years colour service and nine years reserve service to nine years colour service and throe years reserve service two years ago in consequence of the break-down in the provision of the drafts in that arm, owing to the disinclination of the men to extend their service in sufficient numbers. The same situation is now reproduced in the case of the Artillery, the number who extend not being sufficient to ensure the provision of drafts. In the case of the Colonies we are already unable to provide drafts from the extended men, and this will become true of India also. To send out men who do not extend and return in a year is not very costly, but does not tend to efficiency. The term decided upon is the shortest term that will provide the necessary reserves on mobilisation whilst ensuring the provision of drafts in India and the Colonies. On account of draft difficulties—as it was in the case of the Infantry—it has now become necessary to increase the term of colour service from three to six years. Moreover, there are other advantages in the change proposed. Reservists after six years with the colours are superior to reservists who have been only three years with the colours, and under the new scheme it is hoped that we shall have a reserve of additional trained Artillery officers from the new source.

The Bewaarplaatsen.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bewaarplaatsen is still in possession of the Transvaal State to the same extent as before the war; and whether any mining operations are now being carried on under these reserved areas.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The Secretary of State has not yet received
452
a reply to his telegraphic inquiry as to the exact position.

Kilindini Port, East Africa.
*SIR. C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any, and, if any, what steps are being taken to improve the facilities for landing and shipping goods at the Port of Kilindini, East Africa.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has carefully considered this Question, and, having consulted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he authorises me to say that the construction of a deep-water pier at Kilindini at a cost not exceeding.£80,000 will be proceeded with as quickly as possible. The scheme provides for a pier which will allow a ship 450 feet in length and drawing 27 feet of water to lie afloat and to load and unload cargo alongside at low water of spring tides with safety under all circumstances of wind and weather.

Preservation of African Fauna.
*SIR. C. HILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for;he Colonies what action the Secretary of State for the Colonies proposes to take to give effect to the views of the deputation which recently waited upon him in regard to the preservation of the fauna of Africa; and whether, in view of the fact that a sum approaching £10,000 a year is received from the operation of the East Africa Game Regulations, ho will undertake to allocate a sum not loss than.£1,000 in next year's Estimates for that Protectorate towards the efficient policing and protection of the Nor thorn or Lake Rudolf Reserve.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is communicating with the authorities of the different colonies and protectorates in West and East Africa with a view to giving effect, as far as practicable, to the recommendations of the deputation. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the Secretary of State is instructing the Commissioner of the East African Protectorate to bring forward the question of making better provision for the protection of the reserves when the Estimates for next year are submitted, but he cannot undertake to say at present whether it will be possible to allocate a sum as desired.

Kaffirs in the Transvaal Gold Mines.
LORD CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what has been the increase or decrease in the number of Kaffirs employed in the Transvaal gold mines during the last six months.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The number of Kaffirs employed in the Transvaal gold mines on December 31st,1905, was 93,831, and the number so employed on the 30th ultimo 90,882, being a decrease during the six months of 2,949.

Orange River Population.
LORD CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the respective population of Dutch and British in the Orange River Colony.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The census does not distinguish, and I cannot undertake to make an estimate.

British Central Africa Protectorate.
*MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the proposed establishment of a Legislative Council for the East Africa Protectorate, the Government propose to take action of the like character in respect of the British Central Africa Protectorate.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has for some time had under consideration the expediency of the change which my hon. friend's Question suggests.

Malta.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the precise nature of the promises made by the British Government to the Roman Catholic Church in Malta, and referred to by the Roman Catholic Archbishop in his letter to the Governor, dated May 6th last.
*MR. CHURCHILL: I have to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar Question by the Member for the Wells Division on June 19th.
MR. T. L. CORBETT: I fail to see that that was any Answer to this Question
† See (4) Debates, clxi.,35.

Gambling in the Federated Malay States.
MR. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the practice in the Federated Malay States for the Government to farm out the gambling establishments to the highest bidder; and, if so, whether he can state what means, if any, are taken to restrict the growth of gambling amongst the Chinese mining population.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The exclusive right of keeping public gaming-houses and of issuing licences for gaming is farmed out. I am not aware whether the highest tender is always accepted, but, doubtless, as a rule the Government accepts the most favourable terms. The right is subject to certain regulations and restrictions, the principal of which are: that the existing accommodation for gaming shall not be increased without the written sanction of the resident; that the resident may prohibit the issue of licences for private gaming in any district; that public gaming shall only be permitted with certain specified hours; and that no wages of miners or other labourers shall be paid within the precints of a gaming-house. I may add that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to review the general character of the regulations in the Federated Malay States when other public business of a more pressing character has been disposed of.

Sokoto and Hadeija.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to lay upon the Table Papers dealing with the recent military operations in Sokoto and Hadeija.
*MR. CHURCHILL: So far as I know, the only promise given has been to lay Papers with regard to the Munshi country; but I see no objection to giving Papers about Sokoto and Hadeija at the same time, and they will be laid when ready.

Restrictions on Protestants in Malta.
MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state when the negotiations between his Department and the Governor of Malta in reference to the

455
removal of certain restrictions imposed upon Protestants will be complete; and will the whole correspondence be laid upon the Table of the House.
*MR. CHURCHILL: I have to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Saturday to a similar Question by the Member for North Down.†
†See col. 212
MR. SLOAN: This is the Question I was advised by the Speaker to give notice of. Cannot the hon. Gentleman give the House some approximate idea when the correspondence will be completed and laid?
*MR. CHURCHILL: I daresay it will be laid before we meet in the Autumn. It will certainly be completed before the House re-assembles, and as soon as it is completed the Secretary of State will consider and decide what part, if any, of it shall be laid.

South African War Claim.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that Dr. Chweiback, whose claim for restitution of property taken from him during the South African war has been only in small part met, was admittedly engaged in the Rod Cross medical service, and seeing that the claim, after being rejected, was officially admitted to have real foundation, he will consider the advisability of the case being re-examined on international grounds and in the interests of the general maintenance of the voluntary Red Cross service during war.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State does not consider that the circumstances stated by the hon. Member afford a ground for reopening the case in the absence of frosh evidence.

Canadian Emigration Bounties.
MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received from the Canadian Government the particulars he undertook to ask for with reference to payments to shipping agents in Ireland on the part of the
† See col. 212
456
Canadian Government in connection with emigrants from Ireland to Canada.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The particulars have not yet been received from Canada. I will communicate them to the hon. Member when they arrive.

Outrages by Chinese Coolies in the Transvaal.
SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that a committee appointed by the Government of the Transvaal to consider means for the prevention of outrages by the Chinese labourers, after hearing evidence from farmers and others, recommended that the area in which Chinese with leave-permits are permitted to roam should be contracted from an area of about 1,600 square miles to one of about 160 square miles, he will say whether this Amendment, which met with the approval of every section of the Transvaal population, was negatived by His Majesty's Government.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member will see from the telegram of June 11th, printed at page 124 of Cd. 3025, that His Majesty's Government wore not prepared to agree to contract the area for all leave-permits by legal enactment. His Majesty's Government have accepted a number of the committee's recommendations which, it may be anticipated, will ensure more satisfactory control.

Opium in the Federated Malay States Mines.
MR. A. ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under - Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the truck system, which prevails in certain of the mines in the Federated Malay States, the Chinese minors receive part payment of their earnings in opium; and whether he will consider what steps can be taken to put an end to this.
*MR. CHURCHILL: I have no information on the point, but the High Commissioner will be asked for a Report.

Opium in the Transvaal Mines.
MR. BAKER: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what stops, if any, have boon taken to

457
restrict the sale of opium to the Chinese coolies in the Transvaal; and whether such restrictions have been successful.
*MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State, has approved the recommendations made by the committee which inquired into the conditions of Chinese labourers on the mines and printed at page 84 of Cd. 3025. I am not aware whether the Transvaal Government is satisfied that the control will be effective without further legislation, but inquiry will be made.

Europeans in the Egyptian Service.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of British and other Europeans in the service of the Khedivial Government; and whether the principle of open competition is in any degree applied to their selection.
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVEKNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUN-CHMAN, Dowsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The last return of the number of European officials in the service of the Egyptian Government will be found in Blue Book, Egypt No. 3, 1899, page 47. For the principle governing the selection of British candidates, I would refer the hon. Member to Lord Cromer's Annual Report for last year (Egypt No. 1, 1906, page 57) where the method of selection is fully explained.

Cretan Reforms.
MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for.Foreign Affairs whether the decision of the four Powers with regard to the reforms to be introduced in Crete- has been formulated; and whether he is in a position to communicate the details of the scheme to the House.
MR. RUNCIMAN: It does not scorn necessary to publish the Note separately as a Parliamentary Paper, but a summary has already appeared in the newspapers.

Cost of the Egyptian Garrison.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the amount of Egypt's contribution to the maintenance of the Army of occupation in Egypt: what is
458
the proportion of that to the whole cost; what are the respective increases of cost, British and Egyptian, in consequence of the reinforcement of the army of occupation; and what the strength of the force is now to be.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The present contribution is £100,000 a year, which represents approximately the extra cost of the force in Egypt, before the recent increase, over its cost at homo, which would be about =£275,000. The future strength of the force will be about 5,700, but the future contribution is at present under consideration.

Entry into the Consular Service.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether candidates with actual commercial experience have been nominated to compete for two only of the ten vacancies which have occurred in the general consular service since the adoption of the now scheme based on the recommendations of the Committee of 1903; and whether this proportion will be increased in the future.
MR. RUNCIMAN: There have boon two examinations for five vacancies each since the adoption of the new scheme. For the first examination, which was hold in July, 1905, it was decided that the fairest course was to take the candidates from those who had long been expecting a nomination under the old regulations. At the second examination, which has just been hold, two vacancies out of five were reserved for candidates with actual commercial experience. The number of candidates for nomination of that class was, however, very small, though every effort was made both by advertisement and private inquiry to obtain more competitors.

Chambers of Commerce and the Consular Service.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution adopted at the recent Congress of Chambers of Commerce of the Empire to the effect that the British consular service should be strengthened on lines calculated to make it more effective for the promotion of the commerce of the British Empire: and

459
whether he proposes to take any action in this direction.
MR. RUNCIMAN: The resolution has not boon communicated to my right hon. friend, and he does not know what the practical suggestions wore which gave rise to it. Changes have been made recently on the recommendations of a committee summoned by Lord Lansdowne to effect the object in view.

Appointment of Magistrates.
MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he would use his influence that recommendations for county magistrates of gentlemen who possess the present necessary qualifications should be dealt with with more consideration than has been done during the period his Government has been in office; and whether he is aware that in the county of Shropshire, out of about 250 county magistrates, with the exception of about ton, the whole number are members of the Unionist Party.
*SIR. C. HILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, might I ask whether he is aware that about a month ago the vacancies in the magistracies of the borough of Shrewsbury wore filled by the appointment of seven gentlemen of whom six are well-known supporters of his Party?
MR. HENRY: My Question refers to the county and not to the borough magistracy.
THE SECRETARY OK STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Perhaps the House will allow me to make a somewhat full statement in answer to my hon. friend. Exclusive of Lancashire, there are 222 boroughs with separate benches of justices in England and Wales, and in addition there are separate county benches in all the counties of England, Scotland and Wales, most of which are divided into Parliamentary divisions, and each division is sub - divided into different districts for magisterial purposes. In all they number many hundreds. The Lord Chancellor is quite aware that there is a great preponderance of Conservative justices in most of those districts and considers it a great evil. It
460
impairs the confidence that ought to prevail, and causes a legitimate sense of injustice. Up to the present date fresh appointments have been made in 113 out of 222 boroughs, and out of the ninety-eight counties and liberties in England, Scotland and Wales, frosh appointments have boon made or a provisional list made out in forty-five. It is quite impossible for this business to proceed with greater rapidity. Experience has shown that it is necessary to make inquiries in regard to all the names recommended, though in nearly all cases the Members of Parliament have done their best to help with the information at their disposal. Had it not been for the cordial assistance of almost all the Lord-Lieutenants with whom he has been in communication, the Lord Chancellor would not have accomplished all that has been done. The Lord Chancellor wishes to secure a fair balance of classes and opinions on the bench, but he is not prepared to treat this office which is concerned with the administration of justice to the poorest classes as a prize for political services and the process must take time. Nor is he prepared to withdraw from still more important business a greater portion of his time. With respect to the county of Shropshire itself, it is believed that there is a great disparity though not so great as assumed in the Question. It is the same in other counties. It is impossible for the whole of this vast business to be treated at one time, and the numerous cases must proceed in order.
MR. SLOAN: In view of the Lord Chancellor's opinion that the Unionist magistrates are a great danger, is it intended to withdraw their commissions?
*MR. GLADSTONE: I said that the disparity was a great evil.
MR. LAMBTON: Arising out of that Answer, I beg to ask if we are to understand that it is the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that in recent years magistrates have been improperly appointed; and whether he will issue instructions to Lords-Lieutenant that in future they are to appoint magistrates on political grounds and not on the ground of merit.
*MR. GLADSTONE: That Question must be addressed to the Prime Minister, on whose behalf I replied.
MR. LAMBTON: It is a most important Question.
MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend his generous hand to Ireland, where 75 per cent, of the magistrates are Unionist?
MR. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is as easy to approach the Shah of Persia for a recommendation as a Lord-Lieutenant of an Irish county?

Mr. Findlay's Despatch.
LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the despatch of Mr. Findlay to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of July 5th, 1906; and whether any further "deplorable effects" have ensued from the utterances of the hon. Members therein referred to.
*MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information beyond what has been officially published.

Kilburn Tradesmen and Motor Traffic.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware I that, at a meeting of Kilburn tradesmen on the evening of the 23rd instant, the menace to local trade caused by motor omnibuses was discussed, and a resolution carried declaring that the present service of motor buses along the High Road, Kilburn, was dangerous and distasteful, and expressing the opinion that the speed should not exceed seven miles an hour; and will he state what action it is proposed to take in regard to this and any other similar resolutions.
*MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen a report of the mooting at Kilburn. I fear I can only refer my hon. friend to the Answer which I gave to his Question respecting accidents on the l9th of this month, in which I stated that under existing powers stops have been taken and are being taken to mitigate the nuisances complained of.

Miners (Eight Hours) Inquiry.
MR. RAPHAEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the promised inquiry into the question of an eight hours' day for minors will be told; the nature of the body to whom the inquiry will be entrusted; and the names of those who will conduct the inquiry.
*MR. GLADSTONE: I have, in accordance with the promise I gave during the debate on the Second Reading of the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill on May 11th, appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the probable economic effect of such a limitation to the hours of labour. My hon. friend the Member for Gloucester has, I am glad to say, consented to be chairman, and the members of the Committee are Sir Andrew Agnew, Mr. Cox, Professor of Mining at the Royal College of Science, my hon. friend the Member for Kincardine, Sir Robert Giffen, Lord Glantawe, and Mr. Redmayne, Professor of Mining at Birmingham University. The Committee will, no doubt begin their inquiry after the holidays.
MR. LEIIMANN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the terms of reference?
*MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, they are as follows:—To inquire into the probable economic effect of a limit of eight hours to the working day of coal miners, both when calculated from bank to bank, and when otherwise calculated, upon (1) production; (2) wages; (3) employment; (4) the export trade; (5) other British industries which might be affected thereby: regard being had to the different conditions obtaining in different districts, seams and collieries; and also into the probable effect of such a limit upon the health of the minors, and, if they think necessary, to extend their inquiry to metalliferous mines.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether anyone representing the working miners had been appointed, and, if not, whether it was intended to include such a representative.
*MR. GLADSTONE: No. I consulted with some of my hon. friends, and it was settled that this being an inquiry of an economic nature the out-and-out advocates or opponents of the eight-hours system

463
should not be on the Committee, but that the inquiry should be limited to the economic aspect of the question.

Prison Discipline.
MR. BAKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department how many convicted prisoners were certified to be unfit for prison discipline in the years 1904–5; and whether, seeing that persons so certified are constantly returned to prison, he will consider the advisability of some better way being found of dealing with them.
*MR. GLADSTONE: In 1903–4 the number of convicted prisoners received in prison was 190,791, and the number certified unfit for prison discipline was 345, the corresponding figures for 1904–5 wore 198,710 and 412. It is a difficult question what should be done with persons unfit for prison discipline who commit serious crime, or who are persistently guilty of minor offences. Those physically unfit for discipline are treated in the prison infirmary; those unfit through mental weakness are placed under the care of the medical officer and receive special treatment suitable to their condition. I hope that the Royal Commission on the Feeble-minded will be able to make recommendations which will be of material assistance in dealing with the latter class.

Epileptic Prisoners.
MR. BA KER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of convicted prisoners who were found to be epileptics during the years 1904–5; and if he will consider the advisability of steps being taken to ascertain the existence of epilepsy before conviction, and thus prevent such irresponsible sufferers being convicted as criminals.
*MR. GLADSTONE: The numbers are as follows:—1903–4, Epileptics certified insane, four; Epileptics certified unfit for prison discipline, twenty-seven. Total thirty-one. 1904–5, Epileptics certified insane, five; Epileptics certified unlit for prison discipline, sixteen. Total twenty-one. When these are compared with the total number of persons received in prison on conviction it will be seen that the total number of cases in which persons were convicted and afterwards
464
found to be epileptic is very small. As the law stands, it is for the defence to raise at the trial the question of insanity; but it must not be assumed that all epileptics are insane or irresponsible. On the contrary, many persons subject to epileptic fits are in normal conditions perfectly sane and responsible, and it would be neither just nor practicable to class them with the insane.

Reduction of Light Dues.
MR. W. K. RE A: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the accumulated surplus in the hands of the authorities concerned, he is yet able to announce any concessions in regard to the light duos charged on shipping.
THE PRESIDENT OV THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): Yes, Sir, I am glad to be able to announce that the state of the funds will permit of a further temporary reduction of 7½ per cent, (making a total reduction of 20 per cent.) in the light dues charged on shipping, for a period of three years, beginning April 1st, 1907.

Royal Commission on Canals.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements have been made to add a member to the Royal Commission on Canals in respect to the Irish portion of the subject which is being inquired into: and when will this appointment be made and the name of the now Commissioner announced.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The name of an additional member of the Royal Commission on Canals with special knowledge of the Irish portion of the subject is being submitted to the King and will be announced as soon as His Majesty's approval has been signified.

British Guiana Mail Service.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what stops he is taking to arrange for a renewal of a direct and regular mail service between this country and the Colony of British Guiana; whether he is aware of the effects upon trade which have been caused by the action of the Imperial authority in breaking with the Royal 'Mail Company

465
and providing no alternative service; and whether he can explain why no regard has been paid to the protests of the local legislature, and to their offer of a subsidy of £5,000 towards a mail service.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Steps are being taken to improve the present arrangements for the conveyance of mails to and from British Guiana.

Postage Rates on Literature for the Blind.
MR. BUCKMASTER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now state the actual reductions that he proposes to make on the postage of literature for the blind; and any regulations he proposes to promulgate with regard to that matter?
MR. SYDNPIY BUXTON: Acting on the authority given by the Bill that has just passed the House of Commons, I propose to give the following concessions, and to introduce the following regulations, in reference to the postage on literature for the blind. The books, magazines, etc., printed in type for the blind will be included in the letter and newspaper mails, and not under the parcels post. There will be a limit of weight of five pounds, and the usual limit of size, viz., two feet, by one foot, by one foot. These limits will, however, as I understand, permit any volume of blind type to receive the privileges of reduced postage. The lowest rates by which such literature can now lie sent, where it exceeds two ounces are, under the parcel post, as follows:— Up to one pound in weight, 3d.; up to two pounds in weight, 4d.; rising to 6d. for a package weighing five pounds. In future bond. Fide literature for the blind will pass at the following rates:—For packages weighing up to two ounces, -½d.; for packages up to, and not exceeding two pounds, 1d.; for packages exceeding two pounds and not exceeding five pounds l½d. That is to say, the charge on an ordinary single volume in Braille type weighing, say, 2 pounds, will be reduced from 4d. to 1d., and if it weighs between three and four pounds, which is the common weight, the charge instead of being 5d. to 6d. will be only l½d. Each packet will have to bear a printed label marked "Blind Literature," and will have to be packed so as to facilitate inspection of the contents. The new rates and regulations
466
will come into force from the 1st September.

Delay of Press Telegrams.
MR. GEORGE WHITE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether complaints have reached him regarding telegraphic delays taking place at Terrington, Norfolk, on messages being handed in at Birmingham, Sheffield, Cardiff, and Newcastle on-Tyne; and whether, in view of the repeated official statements that the telegraph work of the country is diminishing, and that the staff is in process of being reduced, he will state the reason of the delays.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No such complaints have reached me, and nothing is known of the matter at the local Post Office.

Teachers' Register.
MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what is the number of teachers at present on the register; whether it is proposed in the event of the abolition of the register to return their registration foes; and, in that case, what will be the amount to be refunded by the Treasury.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): The number of names on Column B on July 27th, 1906, was 5,686 men and 5,763 women, or 11,449 in all. It is impossible to say with any accuracy how many names are supposed to be on Column A of the Register. The Board of Education originally supplied some 80,000 names of Certificated Teachers, from Departmental records, to the Teachers' Registration Council, and have since added some 10,000 more names to their list of Certificated Teachers. But neither the Teachers' Registration Council nor the Board of Education have ever possessed the moans for keeping an accurate list up to date, owing to difficulties in regard to changes of name on marriage and to persons leaving the profession, or dying, without the Board receiving information. There is no registration fee for Column A, but the i fee for Column B is one guinea, so that; I some £12,000 would be refunded.
LORD BALCARRES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of renewing the Register and putting it on a more satisfactory basis?
MR. BIRRELL: Yes, Sir, I hope to be able to do so.

Watford Secondary School.
MR. MICKLEM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has under consideration a scheme promoted by the Herts County Council for building a now secondary school in Watford at a cost of £10,000, to be settled upon denominational trusts in perpetuity corresponding with the denominational trusts upon which the Watford grammar schools are now hold; what proportion of the sum of,£10,000 and the future costs of maintenance of the schools it is proposed to throw upon the rates of Watford and the county respectively; and whether, seeing that the Watford Urban District Council and other public bodies have protested against the scheme, he will refuse his sanction to the scheme so far as it proposes to create a new denominational school endowed with public money.
MR. BIRRELL: A public inquiry has recently boon hold in regard to the matter referred to in the Question. I have not yet received the Report of the Commissioner who held the inquiry, and I cannot, therefore, yet make any statement upon the case.

Watford Grammar School.
MR. MICKLEM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a public inquiry was held at Watford, on July 24th, by Mr. W. C. Fletcher, under the authority of the Board of Education, for the purpose of inquiring into the foundation of the Watford grammar schools, including the question of the need of a higher elementary school at Watford, and that at such inquiry Mr. Fletcher refused to allow counsel for the Watford Urban District Council or any members of the public to raise any questions or give any evidence as to the funds and endowments of the said foundation, or as to the proposed expenditure on new buildings and maintenance; and whether the President
468
of the Board of Education will refuse or delay his sanction to any new scheme for the said foundation until after a further public inquiry has boon held, and the views of the Urban District Council of Watford and the inhabitants of Watford ascertained.
MR. BIRRELL: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer I have just given to his previous Question, to which I cannot at present add anything, beyond stating that I understand that the disallowances are not quite accurately stated in the Question.

West Ham Schools.
MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the overcrowding of two schools under the control of the West Ham Education Authority, viz., Hermit Road School, in the boys' department (capacity 480), in which there are now 588 on the roll; in the girls' (capacity 480), on the roll 600; in the infants' (capacity 610), on the roll 640; Star Lane School, boys' department (capacity 480), on the roll 527; girls' (capacity 480), 590 on the roll; and whether the Board of Education propose to compel the West Ham Education Authority to build additional school accommodation to prevent the overcrowding in the schools mentioned.
MR. BIRRELL: My attention had not been called to the matters referred to until I saw the hon. Member's Question two days ago, and the shortness of notice of the Question has not permitted me to give that consideration to the case which is needed before I could properly make any official pronouncement upon it in reply to the hon. Member. I may say, however, that according to figures obtained for mo so recently as Friday last, the overcrowding seems to be not so serious as would appear from the figures in the Question; the average attendance of the boys' and the girls' and the infants' departments at Star Lane being, I am told, 507 and 478 and 534, respectively, with accommodation (on the 10 feet basis) for 480 and 480 and 596 respectively, and on the 8 square feet basis, of course, for considerably more. But I will have the matter investigated.

Free Education.
SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education under what statute, or by what authority, a parent has now a right to demand free education for his child in a public elementary school, inasmuch as Section 5 of the Free Education Act of l89l was repealed by the Education Act of 1902.
MR. BIRRELL: When Section 5 of the Elementary Education Act of 1891 was repealed, there was substituted for it an equivalent provision in Paragraph 5 of the Third Schedule of the Education Act of 1902. I think the hon. Member will find that this fully safeguards the right in question.

Cooper School, Marston Sicca.
MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Report upon the Cooper School, at Marston Sicca, Gloucestershire, stating the date or dates of the foundation of the trust, the terms of its deeds, the present condition of the properties held under the trust deeds, and the proposals, if any have been made, affecting the future of the school.
MR. BIRRELL: As the Question was only on the Paper on Saturday morning there has not been time for me to go adequately into the case referred to by the lion. Member. I think it would hardly be worth while to go to the labour and expense of asking Parliament to print and issue all the various documents about this one school, as seems to be suggested by the hon. Member. But if he will let mo know by letter the precise points upon which he desires information I shall be happy to furnish him with it to the best of my ability. No decision will be made by the Board of Education upon the case for some time to come.

Encroachment on Crown Lands in the New Forest.
SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the attention of His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests has been drawn to the proceedings of the
470
deputy ranger of the New Forest, in causing the destruction of certain wooden buildings belonging to a working man, named Purkis, on the outskirts of Lynd-hurst, on the alleged ground that they were an encroachment on Crown lands; whether full compensation will be awarded to Purkis for the injury done to him; and whether instructions will be given to the Crown authorities to refrain from such action in the Now Forest on all such future occasions.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): It is the duty of the deputy surveyor to prevent encroachments upon forest lands by private owners. I am informed that in the present instance lie was careful to satisfy himself by investigation on the spot that an encroachment had been made and was gradually being extended. After persuasion had failed and duo warning been given the shod was removed. The attention of the Commissioner in charge of the Now Forest was recently drawn to the case and he also personally inspected the place and satisfied himself that an encroachment had been made.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: What was the reason for making forcible entry on this poor man's property instead of taking legal proceedings in the usual way?
MR. MCKENNA: I think the circumstances stated in my Answer justify the course taken.

Parliamentary Employees and Pensions.
MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that Government employees in the lighting and ventilating department of the House are not entitled to pensions by Section 17 of the Superannuation Act of 1859, he will consider the possibility of allowing such employees to qualify for pensions by obtaining certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners, it being understood that they would present themselves for examination in the usual way.
MR. MCKENNA: The position of these men is similar to that of a great number of the employees in public Departments.

471
The terms of their employment made it clear that they would not be entitled to pension, and I do not see on what grounds I could make the concession asked for by my hon. friend.
MR. ALDEN: Are these men when engaged made to understand they will not be entitled to a pension?
MR. MCKENNAreplied in the affirmative.

Regent Street.
MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that His Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests, in their design for the rebuilding of Regent Street, have proposed the reduction of space above the ground floor to the extent of 2,638 feet; and whether he can see his way to prevent any diminution of the existing area in this thoroughfare.
MR. MCKENNA: I am informed that no complete design has boon settled for the rebuilding of Regent Street other than the Quadrant, but, as the houses in the whole street will be rebuilt in the near future by degrees either singly or a few at a time, a general building line for the whole street has been agreed between the Commissioner of Woods and the London County Council. I believe a reduction of 3,400 feet in the area at present occupied is contemplated, but as the upper storeys of many of the houses will be built further out than at present, I understand that there will be no loss in cubic contents, and it is not expected that the Land Revenue will be adversely affected. On the other hand, the street will be widened.

Rex v. Adcock.
MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a nolle, prosequi has been entered in the case of Rex v. Adcock, in the trial of which, at the last session of the Central Criminal Court, the jury failed to agree; and, whether, if a shorthand report was taken of the trial, lie will have the notes published and presented to the House.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): My right
472
hon. friend the Home Secretary has asked mo to answer this Question. I should like to say that before the matter came under my consideration the learned Judge who tried the case expressed the strong opinion in public that the prosecution ought not to continue, and the accused ought not again to be put on his trial. After this judicial pronouncement, obviously it would have been impossible to retry the case with any prospect of securing a conviction. The result, having regard to the evidence, was not to me a matter of surprise.

Parcels Post Delays in Limerick.
MR. O'SHAUUHNESSY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is necessary that parcel post from Rathkeale and Adare for cross channel destination should be left twenty-four hours in Limerick; whether he is aware that butter sent from these places to England per parcel post is frequently kept more than twenty-four hours in the Limerick post office, that is, between the arrival of the afternoon train in Limerick at 3–30 o'clock until 4 o'clock on the following day; and that complaint on the matter has been made to the Post Office authorities without avail; and whether', in the case of butter, he will take steps to have an immediate improvement in delivery effected.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that parcels from Rathkeale, reaching Limerick at 3.30 p.m., are kept until 4 o'clock the following day. On Mondays and Wednesdays such parcels are despatched in a direct parcel mail to Dublin at 3.55 p.m.; on other days when the number of parcels is too small to warrant a direct mail they are forwarded to Dublin at 11 p.m. the same day. I have now under consideration the question of improving the parcel post service between the South of Ireland and England by making use of the new Rosslare and Fishguard route.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman mention the case of Adare? I have received a letter from a constituent there informing me the facts are as stated in my Question.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Member will forward me any actual

473
complaints I will cause inquiry to be made.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I put it in my Question. I will forward the letter.

Limerick Learners.
MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he authorised the sending of a. paper to the Postmaster of Limerick which asked if any of the learners at that office would accept a transfer as a paid learner to any English office, with the stipulation that the inquiry did not imply any promise of an appointment, but prospects of obtaining an established appointment would be bettor in England; if so, will he explain how such an offer was commensurate with the position of these learners, some of whom have almost four years service.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Answer is in the affirmative. The object of the offer was to improve the position of the learners by giving thorn a bettor prospect of early appointment.

Limerick Staff Grievances.
MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what are the considerations which govern the selection of sorting clerks and telegraphists for relief duties at head and sub-post offices, and by what process is the suitability of the man tested; will he say whether a sorting clerk and telegraphist on the postal staff at Limerick was, contrary to precedent, selected for special telegraph duty in connection with the recent naval manœuvres; and is he aware that the Limerick telegraph staff petitioned the Postmaster of Limerick on the subject; and will he say why this officer, who returned to his headquarters on July 22nd, after having been five weeks absent on the duty above referred to, was again selected from the whole of the Limerick staff" for relief duty on July 23rd.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Officers chosen for relief duties outside their own offices are required to be fully qualified in all respects to perform the relief duties in question. In making the selection, moreover, it is necessary to consider what officers can be spared from their ordinary duties with the minimum
474
amount of inconvenience. I am not at present aware of the circumstances which governed the choice of the officer who was sent from Limerick in connection with the recent naval manœuvres, but I am having inquiry made on the subject.

Rathkeale Post Office.
MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Town Commissioners of Rathkeale asking him to build a new post office there, and also that it be made a head office and whether, considering the importance of the town and the want of a suitable office, he will do as requested.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have received a resolution in the sense which the hon. Member mentions, and I am sorry that I cannot comply with the wishes of the Town Commissioners of Rathkeale. The new Sub-Postmistress will, as is usual in towns of the class of Rathkeale, provide the office, and care will be taken that the accommodation is adequate.

Unasked Question.
MR. JAMES O'CONNORasked the Speaker whether it was in order, for the right hon. Gentleman the representative of Trinity College to put on the Paper a Question containing a number of untruthful allegations and then not ask it in the House, so that hon. Members could hear the reply?
*MR. SPEAKER: It is not very courteous to say the Question contains a number of untruthful allegations. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have been here if he had not been detained by his professional duties.

BUSENESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J.BALFOURasked for information as to the business arrangments for the week.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST' LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir II. CAMPBELL-BANNEUMAN,)said that to-morrow the Colonial Vote would be taken, and on Wednesday, when

475
Report of Supply would be brought to a close, the Home Office and Foreign Office would be put down. On Thursday the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill would be taken; and on Friday the Trade Disputes Bill. That Bill would be taken again on Saturday in the event—which he did not wish to anticipate—of its not being finished on Friday. On Saturday there would also be taken the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, the Motion for the adjournment, and one or two minor Bills.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is rather a largo Saturday programme.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BUNNERMANsaid that there might be no business at all on Saturday except the Third Heading of the Appropriation Bill and the adjournment Motion. He regarded the possible prolongation of the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill over Friday as an unpleasant hypothesis.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked whether the adjournment Motion would cover the order and conduct of business for the autumn session, or would it merely fix the date for the re-assembling.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that it would include both; and that he would make a statement to-morrow.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the statement of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies as to the now Transvaal Constitution would begin the discussion of the Colonial Vote, and whether, if the Committee stage of the Trade Disputes Bill wore not concluded by eleven o'clock on Friday, the House would be kept sitting until that stage was concluded. He suggested that the undertaking given by the Prime Minister as to not carrying the Friday sitting beyond eleven o'clock did not apply to next Friday.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that the Under-Secretary's statement would open the discussion of the Colonial Vote. he was not aware of having given any pledge as to the duration of next Friday's sitting.
PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Seventh Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEW BILLS.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
"To grant money for the purpose of certain Local Loans out of the Local Loans Fund, and for other purposes relating to Local Loans," presented by Mr. McKenna; to be read a second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 333.]

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL
"To further amend the Law relating to the settlement of the Poor in Scotland," presented by Sir Thomas Glen-Coats; supported by Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Menzies, Mr. Smeaton, Mr. Dundas White, and Mr. Younger; to be road a second time upon Thursday 25th October, and to be printed. [Bill 334.]

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Order for Third Reading road.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. WALTER LONGmoved that the Bill be read a third time on this day throe months. He said that the President of the Board of Education had shown unfailing courtesy and untiring patience in the conduct of a very difficult measure; but that was all that could be said of a satisfactory character in regard to the passage of the Bill. The net result of prolonged discussion was that the Bill had not been amended in any way satisfactory to the Opposition. Nothing had been done to make it loss objectionable There had been no demand for the measure in its present form. The methods of the Bill wore clumsy and the machinery extremely cumbersome. Its effect on local government generally would be disastrous; and its operation on the Church schools monstrously unjust and cruelly oppressive. He had never known the passing of any Bill to leave so extraordinary a record as this had done. Important Government Amendments were frequently put down on the day on which they came on for discussion. On Clause 4 there were forty lines of Amendments in the name

477
of the Government, and next day other Amendments were put down by the right hon. Gentleman. Important Government Amendments, exhibiting all signs of haste in preparation, were frequently put down shortly before the day for discussion (under the closure) of the clauses concerned. Thus, upon the Friday preceding the Monday upon which the debate upon Clause 4 began more than forty lines of Amendments were found upon the Paper in the name of the Minister for Education, involving important questions of principle and detail including the State-aided schools. The Government declared that these Amendments had been very carefully considered. But the next day three new Government Amendments to those Amendments appeared. Further, upon the Friday preceding the Monday upon which the Report Stage of the Bill was begun over twenty Government Amendments to the same clause appeared. So prominent a Radical educationist as Lord Stanley of Alderley had stated with reference to some of these proceedings upon Clause 4, that—
"The Government Amendments had been flung on the Paper quite unconsidered. Justice could not be done in the limited time assigned to the clause, to the immense new problem before them."
There wore many points in the Bill upon which the House and the country knew absolutely nothing. With regard to the "facilities" which were supposed to improve the treatment of voluntary schools the House was left in complete ignorance. The same remark applied to finance. By the operation of the closure the finance of the Bill had been passed not only without explanation, but without discussion. Although a very large sum of public money was to be set apart for purposes under the Bill, no information had been given how it was to be spent. Extraordinary inconsistency of statement had been exhibited by members of the Government. The Solicitor-General had made statements inconsistent with those of the President of the Board of Education, and then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education lectured the Cabinet Ministers who had spoken earlier. In fact, the discussions on the Bill had been conducted in such a way as to deprive the measure of any title to support or confidence, either in the House or in the country. It was said
478
that the Act of 1903 tore up the settlement arrived at in 1870. The Act of 1870 was intended not to supplant and destroy the great voluntary schools, but to supplement them by providing schools out of the rates where the voluntary schools had failed. Then difficulties arose in country districts where there was keen competition between the Board schools, who were able to dip deep into the pockets of the ratepayers, and the voluntary schools, who had to support themselves. So came the demand for the Act of 1902. The present Bill, its promoters claimed, was necessary in order to give popular control, but voluntary schools, except in the one matter of religious instruction, were managed by the local authorities now. Upon this point he would quote the opinion of a gentleman who did not share the views of the Opposition. In an interview reported in the South Wales Daily News of April 4th, 1904, a Mr. D. P. Williams, a devoted and leading supporter of the President of the Board of Trade in his work in Wales, who was Chairman of the Carnarvonshire Education Committee, said—
" Wales will not compromise on this question. We might have done so twelve months ago, before we knew by actual experience what the extent of the ' powers of the county council under the new Act' really was. Now that we do know it we shall certainly not compromise. It would be simply surrendering in the very hour off victory. The policy we have systematically pursued has made the position of the denominationalists in the country practically untenable. The clerical manager has been dethroned. Outside the one matter of religious instruction he has practically nothing left for him to do in connection with the school. We determine the salary, qualifications, and terms of engagement of every teacher. We arrange the curriculum and time table; decide upon the subjects to be taught, what text books to be used, and when and how each subject is to be taught. We pay the teacher his salary from the Central Education Office, we supply him with all school requisites, we determine the term of his engagement."
The real reason for this Bill was that the passive resisters declined to pay rates for any education of a denominational character. These people had worked themselves into a curious frame of mind. From 1870 to 1902 they paid out of taxes for the very same denominational teaching which they subsequently refused to pay a fraction for out of rates. The passive resisters demanded

479
this Bill; but, having got it, were they satisfied? [Cries of "No."] At a recent meeting at Caxton Hull presided over by Dr. Clifford the following resolution was passed—
"That the Education Bill Vigilance Committee solemnly registers its protest against the acceptance of the Education Bill of 1906 as a settlement of the question, and expresses the profound conviction of large numbers of Liberals and Nonconformists that it leaves several of the greatest wrongs inflicted on the country by the Act of 1902 unredressed; that while still further subsidising all the old denominational schools, in many cases it strengthens their sectarian character; that it fails to secure the teachers of of such schools in three-fourths of the population against the imposition of sectarian tests; that it does not secure full and free control in all publicly maintained schools; that it enormously increases the confusion and complexity of an elementary school system by multiplying the number of different types of schools."
At the same meeting Mr. Peach said—
" If this Bill were passed into law, its operation in the urban districts would be reactionary and evil,"
and Mr. Hollowell denounced the Bill in very violent terms. The hon. Member for the Louth Division was reported to have said at the same meeting—
"That the feeling against the Bill in the Wesleyan Conference was extremely strong."
*MR. PEEKS: I did not speak at all at that meeting.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the words he had read appeared in the report as having been said by the hon. Member. Might he take it that the hon. Member repudiated that view altogether?
*MR. PEEKSsaid that he declined to speak at the Caxton Hall meeting, but he entirely agreed with the terms of the resolution quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not think the accuracy of the report would be questioned. He certainly believed that the hon. Gentleman's views were in conformity with those expressed in this House and out of it by other's with whom the hon. Gentleman was associated. It was a matter of small importance whether the hon. Gentleman held the view which was attributed to him or not. It was an important matter that the hon. Gentleman who was a leading representative of
480
the Nonconformist body shared the view that this Bill ought to be described in the terms which he had quoted. If it was the case that the Bill offended all Churchmen and did them a great injury, and if at the same time it merited, as it had apparently received, the vehement criticism and the strong opposition of those in whose interests it was introduced, then he thought his Motion for its rejection was amply justified. Where were the friends of the Bill? Were they quite sure that they were on the Government bench? The history of the Bill was somewhat peculiar. When the President of the Board of Education introduced it he read textually from a copy of the Bill. But it was found afterwards that by some mysterious process the text had been altered and that the Bill, as published, did not agree with the Bill as quoted by the Minister for Education. That indicated, if it indicated anything, that even on the Ministerial bench there was some division of opinion. But, after all, Ministers were the parents of the Bill. Where else were its friends to be found? From the point of view of popular control, save in regard to the appointment of the teacher, there was no need for the Bill; and if the object. was to satisfy the passive resistors, there was abundant evidence not only that they were not satisfied, but that in their opinion the Bill created fresh grievances, even worse than those under the Act of 1902. The machinery of the Bill was most clumsy and cumbersome. Whatever the Bill might do in regard to education, it would undoubtedly plunge our local governing bodies into a hopeless and bitter controversy over the religious question. The discussion and decision of the question of facilities ought never to have been thrown upon the local authorities at all. If Parliament chose to lay down the principle that all the schools ought to be made county council schools, and that the claims of the denominations ought to be met by a facilities clause, then Parliament ought to have taken upon itself the responsibility of deciding the question and ought not to have imposed upon the local authorities a burden which he believed would paralyse and destroy the local government of the country. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had promised that the regulations which were to be issued would be

481
placed on the Table of the House before they parted company with the Bill. The words the right hon. Gentleman used were—
" His right hon. friend had distinctly stated that the regulations for the ballot, the whole machinery to be adopted, would be placed on.the Table of the House before the Bill left the House of Commons."
Last Wednesday the Minister for Education stated that he had found the preparation of the regulations a difficult matter, and proposed before the House rose to lay them upon the Table in draft form for the advice and assistance of the Opposition. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman said Clause 4 was regarded as a concession, though not an entirely satisfactory concession, to the Roman Catholic Church. It was certainly not a concession to the Church of England, and he believed in practice it would be found very difficult indeed to give full effect to the clause. He doubted whether Clause 4 would prove to be as satisfactory a relief from the bitterness and oppression of this Act as some anticipated. However that might be, there was no doubt that in regard to the great mass of Church of England schools Clause 4 would have no operation at all. How could the Government possibly defend the application of one set of principles to children in urban areas of upwards of 5,000 population and of a totally different set of principles in rural districts? The Minister for Education had expressed his belief in "the fairness of our local authorities, and thought that in the main they would apply the Bill with justice and a desire not to do injury. He thought there was great truth in that. But the Government did not give the local authorities discretion to apply the Act as they thought best in their own areas. Moreover, the local authorities were now to be exposed to religious controversies, A county council might be anxious that things should remain as they were at present, and everybody in the district, including the parish clergyman and the schoolmaster, might also desire this; but the Government said "No" and refused in such a case to let the i local authority do what they desired. That was startling legislation to come from the Liberal Party, who boasted that they were the Party of progress and
482
freedom. He maintained that the Bill was unjust in itself and unjust to the Church of England. The Government imposed on the local authorities a duty which would involve them in the religious controversy at every election. The Church of England had done a great educational work for more than 100 years, had opened the doors of her schools to all who came, had spent vast sums of money, and had been loyal in the spirit as well as in the letter to the Act of 1902, which had imposed very heavy burdens on her. Clause 4 was intended to meet and did meet to a certain extent the Roman Catholic case.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: No.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he understood that it met the Roman Catholic demands in some respects, although the conditions were so difficult of fulfilment that the Bill would not have any immediate effect. He knew that the greater number of the Roman Catholic schools were in the town districts and Clause 4 would have its effect in these urban areas. But the great majority of the Church of England schools which were in the country districts were excluded from any share in Clause 4, even though the provisions of that clause were not very wide-reaching. If this Bill passed our national system of education would disappear. The Bill was wholly unsatisfactory to the supporters of the voluntary school system, and there was abundant evidence that it was regarded with suspicion and dislike by those who represented undenominationalism as well. Among both he believed the Bill had caused the maximum of irritation. It had very few friends, it had aroused feelings of bitter and just resentment, and many people in the country would sympathise with their view that the Bill was undesired and bad in itself. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word ' now,' and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day three months ' "—(Mr. Walter Long.)
Question proposed, "That the word ' now' stand part of the Question. "
THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): It is always an inevitable risk under any form of official closure that the whole of the multifarious provisions in a measure such as this should not each receive, perhaps, an exactly due proportion of discussion. But I think that nobody who has followed even superficially our long and protracted debates would deny that the main and governing principles of this Bill have been minutely and laboriously canvassed, and that they are now clearly, and I may say universally understood. If I intervene it is not because I have any ambition or hope of being able to contribute any novelty to the discussion, but I do think it desirable, now that we are about to part with the Bill, at any rate in this House, to state in a few sentences what I, and I believe my colleagues in the Government, conceive to be its actual scope and effect, in the shape in which the measure now leaves this House. In the first place, by the operation of Clause 1, which I venture to think has received a disproportionately little share of attention— we make an enormous step in advance in the sphere of administrative reform. After January, 1st 1908, if this Bill passes into law, every public elementary school—by which, of course, I mean every school maintained both out of the rates and the taxes—will become a provided school, and will be under the exclusive management and control of a representative public authority. That means that so far as management is concerned we are to put an end by this Bill to the dual system created by the Act of 1902. In the next place, no teacher appointed and paid by the State is to be appointed hereafter subject to the condition that he is to give religious teaching, or that he is to belong to any particular religious communion, or any religious communion at all. The effect of that is that we emancipate the teaching profession and that for the first time it becomes in all its stages from bottom to top a perfectly open career. Thirdly, in every public elementary school under this Bill provision may be made, subject to the permission of the local authority, for the religious teaching of the children. I use the word "may" advisedly. In other words, the House has
484
definitely and decisively rejected what is called the secular solution, by which I mean a form of elementary education which would prohibit the local authority from allowing any religious teaching to be given to the children by its own teachers. And, lastly, except in the case of the schools which come under Clause 4—as to which I shall have something to say later—the only religious instruction which can be given by the- State teachers is that simple form of religious instruction common, as we believe, practically to all denominations of Christians—[OPPOSITION cries of "No "]—which does not offend, against the Cowper-Temple clause. That, I venture to say, once you have rejected the secular solution, is the only practical scheme. What is the alternative? The only practical alternative that has been suggested is the unlimited right of entry of the sects. I admit that that is a perfectly logical proposal. I admit further that at first sight it has a very taking appearance. But I think the majority of the House feels, as I certainly feel myself, that it is exposed to three obvious and quite insuperable objections. In the first place it is not wanted or desired by the great bulk of. the people concerned namely, the parents of the children. Secondly, it would inevitably land us, in the conduct of the schools, into something like administrative chaos. In the third place—and this surely is an argument which should appeal to those in favour of religious education—it leaves us without any real security for the genuine or systematic religious teaching of the children. If I am right in saying that this is a correct summary of the constructive provisions of the Bill—so far as what is called the religious difficulty is concerned—I venture to say that they embody in a legislative form the very principles which we of the Liberal Party made the bases of our criticisms of the Bill of 1902 and proclaimed to the country. It establishes popular control, abolishes religious tests, and secures, as an integral part of our national system of education, simple religious instruction of the children, subject to the two conditions of a conscience clause and the wishes of the locality as expressed through its representative and responsible local authority. That is the constructive side of the

485
measure. But there is another side. Speaking for myself, and I think for the great bulk of those sitting on these benches, I say quite frankly that we should not be doing justice to the pledges and promises we have given if in establishing—as we think we do establish by this Bill—a real national system of education we did not take care that those changes were carried through with a full and equitable consideration for all existing interests both material and moral. By material interests I mean the interest of the denominations who have invested capital in the fabrics of their schools. By moral interests I mean the interests of parents who demand that in the schools so provided some arrangement should be made for the continuance of the special religious teaching which has been given in these schools. We cannot ignore the fact that the majority of the elementary schools of the country are denominational schools. Those of them in what are called single-school areas are the only schools really available for the whole population. In other districts they are side by side and more or less in competition with the provided schools of the various local authorities. Of course you might by a gigantic act of compulsory expropriation have got rid of the whole of this denominational system. Or you might have made the whole of those schools—whatever the circumstances of their foundation—on the terms of paying adequate compensation, the property of the State. But that is not a course that you could recommend to practical statesmen, and certainly it is not the scheme of the Bill. Within the conditions which we have accepted there is practically no compulsion. I admit fully, as the Minister for Education has admitted more than once, that in our new system there are two possible gaps, gaps which, were they not only possible but probable, would constitute a serious hiatus. On the one hand, you might have an owner of a school, not imbued with the spirit of common sense and the sense of public duty which animate owners of property in this country, who would refuse to transfer his school to the local authority even on the very equitable and liberal terms, both as to the maintenance of the fabric and the granting of ordinary facilities for religious teaching, provided by Clauses 2 and 3. On the other hand,
486
you might conceivably have a local authority so fanatic or perverse that rather than accept the transfer of the school under the conditions prescribed they would go to the extent of building a new school at the cost of the rates. I do not believe for a moment that either of these is a practical contingency against which it is necessary to legislate. Is it likely that an owner such as I have described would prefer the alternative either of closing his school or carrying it on without State assistance to transferring it to the local authority on the terms provided by the Bill? Or is it likely that a local authority, responsible to those who elect them and whose money they spend, would prefer the alternative of throwing a heavy and grievous burden on the rates rather than accept the transfer of the school on the terms provided by the Bill? I do not believe it. My right hon. friend the Minister for Education, in deference to the objections of the other side, quite logically said—
" If we are to deal with this matter by way of compulsion at all, it must be bilateral."
And he offered a clause to that effect which was not accepted by the House. For my part I do not regret its rejection in the least. But I fail to see how it is possible to contend that if compulsion is to be applied at all you are only to fill one gap and leave the other gap entirely unprovided for. At all events I venture to say that as regards the common case, the case of the denominational school in the single-school area, the Bill offers the strongest possible inducement, short of absolute compulsion, both to the owner and to the local authority, to come to an arrangement which will be just alike to the denomination and to the community. Upon the material side the local authority takes upon its shoulders the burden of the payment of the rent and the maintenance of the fabric, and as regards the teaching of religion, the admitted blot on the Act of 1902—admitted even by the authors of that measure—that in many parishes the Nonconformist parent had no alternative between submitting his child to sectarian teaching in which he did not believe and withdrawing it from all religious teaching whatever, is removed, while the denomination retains under the two days facilities power to continue

487
that, religious instruction upon which they set so peculiar and high a value. I I have always felt and always expressed the most sincere admiration and gratitude for the unselfish and self-denying services of the Churches, and especially of the Church of England, to the education of the people. I believe also, and have always consistently maintained, that in any scheme of this kind no injustice and no shadow of injustice should be done to any of the interests concerned, because I am satisfied that any settlement, any so-called settlement, that is founded on injustice, is a settlement based upon sand. That is not an admission at all. Of course one conscience is as much entitled to respect as another conscience. From all these points of view I give it as my deliberate opinion, to which I ask the House to subscribe, that the bargain proposed by this Bill, so far as the single school area is concerned, is a bargain, which would be easily sustained before any tribunal governed by the rules of equity, justice, and fair play. But that does not exhaust the matter. If we stopped there we should not have fully carried into effect the intentions which we have expressed. We should still have to deal with that class of schools where the vast majority of the parents desire the continuance of the special religious denominational teaching carried on in the schools. While that applies in a special degree to the schools of such communities as the Roman Catholics and the Jews, I agree that it applies to a considerable number of Anglican schools also. Many of my hon. friends on this side view this clause, and they include such as my hon. friend the Member for Louth, with unfeigned and obtrusive repugnance. But I think, when they come to consider the matter carefully, they may be reassured on the subject. The safeguards we have set up for the protection of the public and of the minority—though I do not admit for a moment that they are over strict—seem to me adequate for the purpose. On the pecuniary side let my hon. friends remember that no rent is to be paid for any of these schools, and the special religious teaching is not to be given at the expense of the local authority. What is much more important, careful provision is made by the ballot and by the local inquiry for
488
ascertaining the genuine opinion of those whom I may call the genuine parents. And, what is most important of all, if there be a minority, however small, if it be only the parent of one child, the extended facilities are only allowed in the case where there is an accessible and alternative undenominational school to which these parents can send their children. Only in those circumstances do the provisions of Clause 4 come into operation at all. I heard an ironical cheer from the benches opposite when I said that these safeguards were adequate for the purpose. I know that on the other side it is said that perhaps the safeguards are too severe, and that the whole of this provision may be rendered nugatory because they are left entirely to the-discretion of the local authority. That is not the case. It was so when the Bill was originally introduced, but my right hon. friend in the fifth clause has conceded quite rightly an appeal to the Board of Education, because it is the desire of the Government that this clause should be an operative clause, and in my opinion, speaking not without experience of these matters in the Courts of law and elsewhere, that appeal to the Board of Education is a far more valuable safeguard to those who are interested in the working f these schools than the mere substitution of "shall" for "may." If you made the clause simply a mandatory clause in the first instance you would have to go, wherever the local authority refused facilities, straight to the Courts of law. The questions here involved are very unfit for the application of legal rules and principles, and you might have found yourselves in difficulty in enforcinga mandamus. But the Board of Education, which knows all the local circumstances, and has means of informing its mind and conscience which, though of an informal kind, are far more satisfactory and authentic than any that can be found by an ordinary Court of law, will be in a far better position—assuming, as you must, that it is animated by an honest desire to see the Act of Parliament carried out both in the letter and in the spirit— than any Court of law to see that genuine effect is given to the intention of the legislature. If I were interested as a trustee, or parent, or subscriber, in these four-fifths schools, and wished to see them

489
really effective, I would far rather trust the mandatory power in the last resort to the Board of Education than in the last resort to any Court of law in this country. I regard these two Clauses 4 and 5, in their substance, as essential to the Bill. Without them it might be plausibly open to the charge of conscience wounding and uneven dealing. With them, it seems to me, it presents a scheme which deals fairly and honestly with the actual facts and conditions of our educational system as we know it and have to act with it—a scheme which, worked as it will be in the main by local authorities animated by good sense and good feeling, controlled in the last resort by the Board of Education, will, I believe and sanguinely hope, be a practical solution of what has hitherto been a most baffling and embarrassing problem. I am simple enough to believe that in course of time the country will come to see that the other parts of this Bill are of much greater importance than the first part. I will not say anything about the Welsh clause, or anything more than a word. Not because I am afraid of dealing with the subject, but because I do not think it of quite the importance that has been attached to it in some quarters. This clause undoubtedly has been modified more than once, but always in the direction of conciliating hon. Gentlemen opposite, not of enlarging or strengthening but diminishing and contracting, the power given to the new authority. In the form in which it now stands I must say it seems to me, so far from savouring of some dangerous adventure of autonomy or Home Rule, to be a most modest experiment, on lines already operative in Wales in regard to intermediate education, in the direction of administrative delegation. I really think the most timid Unionist—one of those gentlemen whose slumbers are from time to time disturbed by the disembodied ghost of nationality in some shape or guise—when he remembers the powers given by this clause on the one hand to the Board of Education and on the other to the Treasury, might go to sleep in peace without any opiate to secure his undisturbed repose. It was not of the Welsh clause I was thinking, however, when I said that other clauses were of
490
greater and more lasting importance than the first part of the Bill. I think Clauses 15 and 24 are worth as much as the whole of the rest of the measure. Just let me remind the House that in the Act of 1902 there were, as we think, two great administrative blots. In the first place there was the dual management of the unprovided school? and in the second place there was the excessive centralisation resulting from the wholesale abolition of the school boards and the unwieldy area with which many of the county councils have now got to deal. Clause 15, which requires county councils to prepare delegation schemes, will, in my opinion, infuse new vitality and efficiency into our whole system of local administration. Finally, Clause 24 gives much-needed powers and duties to all these local authorities, which will make a great difference not only to the happiness but the intelligence of the children, and the duty which is imposed upon them of providing for medical inspection, and the power given to them to attend to the health and physical condition of the children, is an even more necessary supplement to the statutory equipment of those local bodies. I do not think, when all these considerations are taken into account, that the House has wasted the time and energy which have been given to the discussion of this Bill, in debates which will always be remembered for the untiring patience, unfailing tact, wide knowledge and sympathy, and above all the pacifying and reconciling humour of my right hon. friend; that I can do less than venture at least to claim this for the Bill—that while it is an honest and practical attempt to deal with the religious difficulty which is at present a curse and a reproach to our educational system, it will at the same time greatly enlarge the provision which we make for the health, the intelligence, and the character of the children for whom— though we often forget it—and for whom alone we build and maintain our schools.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Whatever may be thought in various quarters of the House with reference to the greater part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think

491
there will be found in any quarter anyone who will not cordially agree with him in the tribute that he paid to the Minister in charge of the Bill. Speaking for myself and my colleagues on these benches, although we are dissatisfied with the result of these debates, I may say that we do not attribute blame to him, and that we unanimously acknowledge his conciliatory attitude and his manifest and outspoken sympathy with the principle for which we are contending. No one more fully recognises than I do that the opportunity for real debate, for genuine discussion and agreement and procedure with reference to the Bill has for the time being passed away; and for my part, so much do I regard any argument upon this Bill now as beating the air that I intend to confine my remarks to very narrow limits indeed. Every one knows that at eleven o'clock to-night, under the operation of the guillotine, the Third Reading of this Bill will be carried by a large majority— but not by so large a majority as would have been the case if pledges and promises had been more fully carried out in Committee, and not so large a majority as if a more tolerant consideration had been given to the religious convictions of all sections of the people of this country. This Bill will go up to another place with the sanction of a large Party majority. I take leave to say that as an attempt at a national settlement of this education question, and above all as an attempt at the settlement of this portion of the education question, the Bill will go up shorn of that moral weight and authority which alone would be obtained by the satisfaction or at least by the acquiescence of the religious minority in this country. I had hoped all through these debates in Committee that it would have been possible for my colleagues and myself to vote in favour of the Third Reading of the Bill. I did so hope in the interests of a real national settlement of this question; but the Bill as it stands now, instead of ending the sectarian controversy is about to make it an issue at local elections all over the country. I had hoped to vote for the Third Reading as an offer of justice and protection to the poorest section of the people of this country, aye, and I will say the most generous section, because out of its poverty it
492
has spent millions of money in erecting schools for the imparting of religious and secular teaching. But as the Bill stands at the present moment it absolutely condemns one half of the schools of the Catholics of this country either to absolute starvation or else to the acceptance of a form of religious teaching which is abhorrent to the consciences of the parents of the children. I confess I was surprised, after the discussions that have taken place in this House, and after the repeated declarations made by my colleagues and myself upon this point, to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Cowper-Temple system of religious teaching is satisfactory to all Christians in this country. He certainly said that, and I think he must have spoken thoughtlessly. Of course I am only speaking for the Catholics, and I state to-day what I have said over and over again, and what we have all said—and what surely if anything is known about the religious portion of this question must be known to all—namely, that the Cowper-Temple system is not merely not satisfactory to us, but is in our judgment the teaching of Protestantism, and whether we are right or wrong in that belief, that being our belief, I must say that it is to my mind nothing short of religious tyranny to say to half of the Catholic schools "either you must accept a system of religious teaching against which your conscience revolts or you must starve." And with reference to the remaining half of the Catholic schools, their fate is in the first instance at any rate at the whim and caprice of local authorities, left to be the battle-ground of local politics. Now I had hoped further that my colleagues and I would have found ourselves in line with the Liberal Party in resisting any unreasonable interference by the House of Lords with a great popular measure of reform; but now we find ourselves in this position, that we are told, and told by men going to vote for the Third Reading of this Bill, to look to Amendments made in the Bill there for the safeguarding of our claims for justice. Under these circumstances I think no one will be surprised if we entertain on these benches some of the bitterness of disappointment with regard to this Bill, especially when it is remembered, as it ought to be remembered by everyone

493
listening to me, that we are sincerely anxious to help in building up a great national system of education, that we are anxious that our schools should be part of it, and that we moat sincerely desire to remove from the shoulders of the Nonconformists the injustice which was placed upon them by the Act of 1902— an injustice which we in our poor wav did our best to prevent during the discussion of that Bill; when also it is remembered that we did not in the attitude we took up quarrel with the broad principle of local control, that we did not ask you to enforce religious tests, and that our own clauses to meet our own very limited and special case are few and moderate, and quite consistent with the great principles to which I have alluded— when you remember that, no one will be surprised at our disappointment. The two limits in Clause 4—the 5,000 population limit in the urban districts and the four-fifths limit —drive half our schools outside the operation of that clause. That has been disputed. I make the statement on the best authority I can obtain, namely, the statistics furnished to me by the responsible heads of the Catholic Church. According to the statements which they have made to me, there are a little over 1,000, or under 1,100, schools altogether, and of these I am informed that over 500 will be exempted by the operation of these two limits. I know the right hon. Gentleman answers a portion of my statement, with reference, that is to say, to the four-fifths limit, by saying that in all probability the Protestants in these Catholic schools will vote for extended facilities. I hope they will. I am sure many parents of Protestant children in these schools are broad-minded. At the same time, I think it is a little unfair to be putting upon them that burden, and it is a little unfair to say to us that the chance of our schools coming in at all under the clause depends upon Protestant parents voting in favour of Catholic children. If they do not, then I repeat my statement on the authority I have mentioned, that out of under 1,100 schools—I think it is 1,040 —over 500 will be absolutely excluded from the operation of Clause 4. What are you going to do with these 500 excluded schools? If 500 Church of England schools are excluded they will have, no doubt, a good reason to com-
494
plain; but after all, it is not the same kind of grievance that we have, because they can, without violating their conscience, at any rate, no matter how dissatisfied they may be, accept the Cowper-Temple teaching. But we cannot, and we will not, and the alternative, therefore, to these 500 schools is starvation. There, is not even a proposal to enable these schools to contract out. Let me say a word on the question of contracting-out. I am against contracting-out on educational grounds, but if you afford us the means of carrying on our schools by giving us sufficient grants to carry them on, then, if you choose I have no objection to contracting-out. But there is no system of contracting-out, wholly or partially, with reference to these 500 schools. I therefore say that no one can in justice speak of this as a Bill dealing fairly and justly with the Catholic schools of this country, when half are about to be put in the position of being either left absolutely to starve, or else accept a form of religious belief which is abhorrent to their religious convictions. Let the limits in Clause 4 be altered so as to include, I will not say all our schools, but most of our schools; I do not say all, because I want to make an exception of the single school areas, and whatever the hardship might be of exempting the single-school areas in order that the grievance of Nonconformists is removed, we are prepared to meet it. We do not therefore ask you to do anything about the single-school areas; but what we have pressed on the House is that the limits of population and the four-fifths limit should be so extended as to include, as they easily could be made to include, the great majority of our schools. If that were done then very small additional changes would make Clause 4 practically satisfactory to us. We have never taken up the position of maintaining the principle of religious tests. I think there was a division on the point, and that I and my colleagues all voted in Committee for that portion of the Bill which prohibited the calling upon the teacher to subscribe to any religious test. All that we have asked is that the voice of the parents should at any rate be heard, that they should in some degree be associated with the local

495
authority in the selection of teachers. It is a wrong way of putting it to speak of religious tests in this matter. It is not a question of religious tests, but a question of the qualification of teachers, and all that we want to safeguard against is the manifestly ridiculous absurdity of a Christian being sent into a Jewish school to teach Jewish doctrine, or a Jew being sent into a Catholic school to teach Catholic doctrine. I say, therefore, that, if the limits in Clause 4 were made right, and if this limited concession of giving a consultative voice even to the parents in the selection of teachers were granted, then we would care very little for the "may" and "shall" question. I have come to the conclusion that, if these other provisions in Clause 4 were satisfactory we could quite safely accept an appeal to the Board of Education instead of making the clause mandatory. But the position we are in at this moment is that these other provisions in Clause 4 have not been made satisfactory, and worse still, that the appeal to the Board of Education which the right lion. Gentleman has given to us has coupled with it a contracting-out provision of a most monstrous and unjust character. It is not a contracting-out at all. It is giving the Board of Education the power to kick the schools out of the system, and under circumstances in which they will only receive, as was shown by the lion. Member for North Camberwell, about half of the cost of the schools. We cannot conduct our schools if we have to provide half of the cost in addition to paying our full share of the rates for the teaching of Cowper-Templeism in other schools. The right hon. Gentleman has taken away the rent. If Clause 4 were made satisfactory to us otherwise I would not spend one single moment in speaking of the rent. I think the taking of the rent away is a rather mean and small proceeding, and coupling with it other things it is an additional injustice; but if Clause 4 were made satisfactory to us in the way I have indicated none of us would stop to make any complaint about what we regard as a comparatively paltry question, the question of rent. Now, Sir, these demands which I have indicated again are few and they are I think moderate. And let me impress upon hon. Members that they are
496
consistent with the great principle o this Bill. They are consistent with Clause 1, with your principle of popular control, they are consistent with your principle about tests for teachers. We make no demand inconsistent with these. The demand we make is this. We stand in an entirely different position from any other sect except the Jews in this country. And when you are establishing a great educational system for Protestant England, we say you ought to make your exceptions, designed to give justice to Catholics, a reality and not a fraud. Let me say in conclusion that it is my firm belief that this Bill in its present shape will never pass into law and my colleagues and I to-night by outvotes will show that, so far as one large section of the population of this country in concerned, we repudiate it as a settlement of this national education question, and we resent and condemn it as an injury.
*MR. FRANK EDWARDSsaid he noticed that when the hon.. Member for Waterford referred to the rights of parents and alluded to Roman Catholics and Jewish parents there were loud cheers from the Opposition, and when he said he would help the Ministeralists with regard to the grievances of Nonconformists the Members of the Opposition were dumb. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had stated that there was no demand in the country for this Bill. On the contrary, he (Mr. Edwards) asserted that there had been a clear and distinct demand for the abolition of the state of things set up by the Act of 1902. There was no question about that. The right hon. Gentleman had been very severe on the Bill and had spoken of it as monstrously unjust and cruelly oppressive to the Church schools, It was amazing that it never occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that Nonconformists regarded the Act of 1902 as monstrously unjust and oppressive. It was that injustice and that oppression that they sought by this Bill to put an end to. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the settlement of 1870 being destroyed. But successive Conservative Governments from 1876 to 1897 upset that settlement. Nonconformists

497
had objected to pay taxes for Church schools, but their objections were not carried to the same point as they were when rates were added. The right hon. Gentleman had also condemned the Welsh part of the Bill merely because it had been altered. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, the alterations were made at the request of hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool moved a series of Amendments which the President of the Board of Trade accepted. By doing that the President of the Board of Trade showed a conciliation of spirit, and it was amazing to him that the Leader of the Opposition should have so fiercely attacked alterations that were made to carry out the wishes of the Party opposite. As a Welshman he welcomed that part of the Bill, and he was sure the people in his country welcomed it gladly. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been angry about Clause 4, and had asked why they should treat town children differently from country children. The conditions were different. In towns these schools were side by side, but they had not got them in the country. It would be an advantage to the towns that this clause should be passed. The right hon. Gentleman had said there were a greater number of schools outside Clause 4 than inside. Yes, but these were single school areas, in which there were a great number of Nonconformists, especially in Wales. It was those schools the Bill should safeguard. He asked to be allowed to join in the congratulations to the Minister of Education for the way he had conducted the Bill through the House. It had been a hard fight, not always against hon. Members on the opposite side. Sometimes it was against Members on the Ministerial side of the House. He had no doubt that if the House had had a free hand the measure would have been different in some important particulars, but whether it would have been a better measure was quite another matter. They could not have all they wanted in this matter, and for his part he had supported the proposals of the Government in the belief that much of the opposition to them was based upon fears that would never be realised. Wales might be said to have
498
led the opposition to the Act of 1902, yet it was Wales alone which admitted a concordat that prevented strife under the provisions of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover said this Bill would turn the country into a howling wilderness. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, it was a Unionist Government that applied to secondary education in Wales the same principles which this Bill contained applied to elementary education, and it did not turn the country into a howling wilderness. On the contrary, sectarian dispute was conspicuous by its absence in the control and management of secondary schools in Wales. Could any reasonable man say that principles which had proved so successful in the working of secondary schools were likely to be disastrous to elementary schools? He thought a good deal of controversy in regard to elementary education had arisen because the country had decided against a secular system, while at the same time a large majority of the people were also determined that no clergyman or minister of religion should have what was called the right of entry into the elementary schools. The result was that a logical solution of this difficult problem was quite impossible. But it might be that an illogical system would work well in practice. The country had really pronounced against a secular system. Clause 7 provided that denominational religious instruction must be given out of school hours, and it might be that hon. Members thought that was equivalent to a secular system; but it merely showed that the Government believed that the parents who desired their children to have religious instruction would see that they would attend school to receive it. He knew hon. Members opposite professed the same belief; but they did not show much faith in the parents when they wanted to compel them to do that which he believed they would do without compulsion, in country places at any rate. The provisions of Clause 7 were very much required in country places. They were told it would not work well in the towns. If so, the distinction made in Clause 4 between schools in towns and schools in country might perhaps be extended to apply to

499
Clause 7. If it was difficult in towns to get parents to send children to schools for religious instruction, what became of the claim of hon. Members opposite that the one thing a parent desired was to have his child given religious instruction? In the villages a great deal depended upon the school teacher. Where the teacher was moderate and reasonable there was very little friction or difficulty. He was talking to a Nonconformist friend recently and referred to the Bill passed by the late Government with regard to children not being obliged to attend schools from 9 to 9.45 a.m. while religious instruction was being given. His friend had children who went to an elementary school, and he asked him whether he had taken advantage of the Bill. His friend said no. Why was that, he inquired, and his friend said—
" Well, you see the master is a very good fellow. I like him, he looks after the children well. We get on well together, and he sees that no harm is done to the children, and I send the children to school because I think they are better there than in the street."
That would happen wherever they had a moderate and reasonable master. But they could not always have a reasonable master any more than they could always have a reasonable clergyman, and therefore it was only right to protect Nonconformists as was done in the Bill. The Bill was denounced as a refusal of fair play to Church schools. Those views were, however, not generally held in the country. What wrong did the Bill do to Church schools? It insisted that schools maintained almost entirely by public money should be under popular control and that no religious tests should be applied to the teachers, who were as much Civil servants as any members of the staff of a Government Department. Was that contrary to fair play? It paid special regard to the opinions of the managers of denominational schools in regard to the question of schools in large areas. That did not seem to be contrary to fair play. On the contrary, he thought the Bill treated denominational schools with great consideration, in view of the fact that the great majority of the Members of this House of Commons had been returned pledged to the abolition of tests in elementary schools. He spoke as a churchman in this matter,
500
although he represented a county in which there was an enormous majority of "Nonconformists over Churchpeople. In the Report of the Commission which was appointed to inquire into the question of Welsh education two facts stood out clearly. One was an intense desire on the part of the people of Wales to secure the education of their children. The other was that they deeply reseated the dogmatic teaching which was part and parcel of such education as was then open to those children. Unfortunately the fact of that resentment had been ignored by Churchmen. Instead of frankly realising these religious antipathies, they had gone on blindly supporting the policy of working into a national system of education schools which were partly built and largely maintained out of public funds, in which the prime object was the education of the children in the doctrines of the Church of England. It was unfortunate that political memories were as short as they were. Their opponents' main point, as they had heard from the hon. Member for Waterford, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin and from other Members opposite, was that they pushed to the forefront the doctrine of the rights of the parents. That was an admirable doctrine. Had the country forgotten the debates on the conscience clause in the Education Act of 1870? That was an invidious concession to the rights of parents, but it was only secured after strenuous resistance on the part of a large body of the clergy and laity of the Church of England. What efforts had the Church made since 1870 to meet the rights of Nonconformist parents in any one of the single school areas in those cases when she had it in her power? Had she ever moved a finger to give facilities to the Nonconformists? She never did so, and he thought that was a great blot on the Church. Those who denounced this Bill as unfair to churchpeople were always praising the Act of 1902. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that the only disability attaching to Nonconformists was in the single school areas. It seemed to him that hon. Members who thought so did not seem to have understood the main difficulty of the Nonconformist position. It

501
was that their sons and daughters were excluded from the teaching profession in these schools. A large majority of the children in Radnorshire were Nonconformists, two-thirds of the schools were Church schools, and three-fourths of the children in these two-thirds of the schools in that county had been excluded from, the teaching profession. That was a Nonconformist objection. It was not surprising in view of what had happened that many people asserted that this Bill dealt more generously with the Church of England than the Church of England had dealt with Nonconformists in the past. The provisions for the transfer of schools and the giving of facilities were in his opinion an attempt to deal fairly with privileges which ought never to have found a place in any system of education which claimed to call itself national.
*MR. BUTCHERsaid the Bill as it now stood was hardly different from the Bill when it first saw the light. There were two Amendments which made it rather less onerous to the voluntary schools, bat in all essential particulars the Bill was unchanged. The debates had not been entirely thrown away. They had not extorted concessions from the Government, bat they had served to bring out the meaning and spirit of the Bill. He would distinguish between the spirit of the measure and the spirit of its author. They all recoginsed the humanity, humour, and kindly toleration of the Minister for Education, and had nothing but praise for his courtesy, tact, and good temper in the conduct of the Bill, all the more striking when contrasted with the spirit and the hard sectarian intolerance of the Bill itself. The Bill was penal and vindictive in its character [Cries of "Oh! "] He was stating his own perhaps mistaken, but quite honest impression. The Bill sought to redress a real but a limited grievance by a wholesale injustice. He would
502
merely touch upon one or two of its broad features. He acknowledged what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had emphasised, namely, that Clause 1 was the cardinal clause. One might say, roughly speaking, that Part I. consisted of Clause 1 followed by a series of exceptions, these exceptions being so many reluctant admissions of the principles of toleration, and of the fact that all persons and all consciences were not made on the Nonconformist plan. The concessions to the rights of conscience were scanty and grudging and what was given with the one hand was taken away with the other. Each concession was occompanied by some set-off, some check, which almost neutralised its value. He was not attacking the principle of popular control. It was quite true that popular control was not in itself inconsistent with perfect religious freedom and toleration. Popular control and religious freedom had been, reeoncilcd in Scotland, Germany, Canada, and elsewhere. The Bill might have been drawn on such lines. Various solutions had been open. All had been rejected. The result was a finely graduated scale of rights of conscience, and at the lowest point of the scale always stood the Church of England. How did the Bill deal with religion itself? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that provision might be made everywhere for religious teaching. But it need not be made anywhere. In no single school in England or Wales could a parent henceforth claim the legal right of having religious instruction given to his children. The change was a momentous one, because hitherto there had been some 14,000 schools in which the right was guaranteed under the trusts. He did not say there would at once be any marked and visible change. It was a revolution which must work itself out slowly in time, but it was none the less a revolution. If the voluntary schools were to be swept

503
away there ought to have been some compensatory provisions to make up for the teaching hitherto guaranteed under trust to the nation. First, religious teaching in conformity with the principles of the Christian faith ought to have been made obligatory in every school. Secondly, parents' rights should have taken the place of trustees' duties, which were abolished. Thirdly, provision should have been made for the inspection of religious instruction in every school. Fourthly, and he laid great stress on this, no teacher ought to be authorised to teach religion who had not a certificate of training and religious knowledge. The test of knowledge, let it be marked, was an entirely different thing from a test of conviction. Moreover, while there was no security under the Bill that religion should continue in the schools, there was ample security that a religious atmosphere should prevail in the council rooms, a heated atmosphere of conflict and controversy. Every vexed question would there be fought out. The principle of local option under now conditions would impart sectarian strife into all municipal elections. The injury to local government would be as great as the injury to religion itself. There was one other point—not a minor one, but a matter of principle—and that was the condition as to giving special religious instruction under Clause 3. The teacher of the staff was debarred from giving this instruction. All were agreed that this was educationally indefensible. The disability was placed on the person best fitted to teach and best fitted to keep order. What was the ground of the disability? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the clause was necessary for the emancipation of the teaching profession; but it seemed to him that in the name of freedom they were imposing a tyrannous constraint. For one conscience they spared, there were a hundred which were wounded. They started from the principle, "no one shall be compelled to give special re-
504
ligious instruction if he objects; "they worked round to the position, "no one shall be permitted to give it even if he desires." Never were the principles of freedom more perverted. Again, let them observe the inconsistency of the Government. When the Opposition asked for freer access for religious teaching to be granted to all denominations in all schools: they were met with the answer: "No, that would bring into the schools a mob of amateur teachers; discipline would be impaired."then when they asked that they should anyhow have the services of the regular teachers, the Government turned round and said, "Oh, no; you must bring in outsiders — untrained volunteers."the difficulty about the teachers was to his mind very largely artificial; but so far as it was real it arose from the wavering and contradictory attitude of the Bill towards religion itself. Religion was admitted, but under protest, and every form of Religion which deviated at all from the new Act of Uniformity was treated as some insidious disorder against which precautions must be taken. This Bill did what no Bill had ever done before. It brought into conflict the interests of the teachers, and the interests of education; or rather he should say the interests of the teaching profession from its trade union side and the interests of education. There was no one in the House who did not wish to open up the teaching profession to all qualified persons; but he reminded the House that the teacher's claims were not the only claims. If there must be a conflict and antagonism, then he maintained that the claims of the teacher must give way before paramount claims of the rights of the parents, the welfare of the children, and the interests of religion. The only permanent solution of the difficulty was the granting of equal facilities to all denominations. He believed that the difficulty of granting

505
equal facilities to all denominations had been greatly exaggerated. Of one thing he was certain, and that was that there must be equal facilities to all or none. In the long run the country would insist on religious equality. He hoped that before the Bill finally left this House the Government might find it possible to lift the measure out of the region of penal politics and so to amend it that it might become a settlement of controversy, and not the beginning of fresh strife.
*MR. BELLOCsaid that as the only Catholic Member in a largely populated district in South Lancashire where the Catholic vote was so large and tenacious, it would be unjust to his constituents and to some of his colleagues if he were to remain silent at the close of this debate, although it was with a certain amount of diffidence that after his remarks in Committee he rose to repeat them now on the merits of the Bill. The Catholics as a whole voted Radical at the last election, and in his opinion that general determination of the Catholic force on English politics was not likely to be easily disturbed. Speaking for himself and also for some of those whom he represented he said that they were at first, not only in sympathy with the beginning of the democratic feature which had been displayed, but they were in favour of the principles of the Bill. They knew the general temper of the English people, and although between the different sect of Protestants there were differences of opinion rather than differences of faith, they recognised that there was a national demand—he would not say mandate— for a final settlement of the education difficulty. The Catholics were, as were the Jews, an exception, and the Government had to meet them and no doubt they did all that they thought was fair to meet their claim. He entirely recognised that they did so, and from the Front Bench they had had no rancour, no spite, and not any considerable misunder-
506
standing. Nevertheless, this Bill would leave this House that night for another place in a condition in which, he would not only say no Catholic could accede to it, but one in which no man who was pledged to maintain the Catholic schools could vote for it. He had not heard anyone explain why the chances of a Catholic child maintaining his religion should be favourable, if there were 5,000 people living in the place where it was born and unfavourable f there were only 4,999. It was a thing so illogical and false that he wondered how it came to be in the Bill at all. He was too young a Member to suggest what forces might have been at work — the English political Parties depended upon Party funds—but he would not insist. He would return to the clause as it now stood. Under it 25 per cent, of the Catholic schools were necessarily doomed. In the particular case of his own county two towns stood near to each other. The one, Protestant (even in the 16th century), would retain its Catholic schools; the other, with a strong Catholic tradition and a large Catholic population, would lose its schools. For the first had 12,000, the last under 5,000 population; nay, in the latter case a great Catholic landlord would be compelled to hand over rates not only for the support of the local Protestant school, but in order to make a school built largely out of his own money Protestant. It was possible that an act of otherwise incomprehensible folly had been committed as an incident of Party tactics. When the Bill went to the Lords no doubt a politician would say to himself, "We must give them something to bargain with. If we give them this they will let us have that." Catholics, however, did not understand those political tricks. All they would see was that one-quarter of the Catholic schools would be wiped out. And when that had permeated into the artisan constituencies of this country the promotion of the Bill would have seriously weakened the popular basis

507
upon which the present Government stood. He did not think the position of the Liberal Party had been strengthened by the retention of such a principle as that in the Bill. If it was thought that it would be forgotten in the lapse of time hon. Members had a totally false impression of the nature of the faith of Catholics. Everywhere by that fatal error the Government had made enemies. The momentary distaste for Liberal policy would not, however, cause Catholics to throw themselves into the arms of the Conservative Party. There was a newer force arising in this country and it was already represented in the House. It was there that they would find the Catholic vote, which was not only a numerical but a moral force, represented in the future. In conclusion he must add that it was not alone as a Catholic that he expressed these views. Even if he did not hold his faith and if he wanted to represent those who sent him to Parliament he would condemn and vote against this Bill as it stood.
MR. PAULsaid before this Bill passed its Third Reading and went to another place he would like in a few words to say what he thought of it as it at present stood. He could not help thinking something further might have been done to meet the wishes of the Catholics. He did what he could, it was but little, to procure an Amendment to Clause 4 in the sense desired, and in doing so he happened quite innocently to say he was not priest-ridden. As a result he had received an anonymous communication in verse informing him that the proper person to ride him was Balaam. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin who moved the rejection of this Bill in so moderate and fair a speech had professed himself unable to understand why men whose conscientious convictions did not interfere with their payment of the taxes for teaching other people's religion should object to the payment of rates. He would have thought that it might have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman, that there was a plain and broad distinction between the two cases. For the payment of taxes there was an equivalent received in
508
the control of the central governing Education Department responsible to this House and the country, whereas for the payment of rates there was no equivalent whatever. The ratepayers had no paramount and controlling voice in the management of the schools to which they contributed the money. The right hon. Gentleman addressed the House not merely as a Conservative but as a Churchman. There was no doubt a great and important difference between the right hon. Gentleman and himself. The right hon. Gentleman was a very eminent and educated Gentleman. He himself was very humble and obscure, but in every other respect he was quite as good a Churchman, as the right hon. Gentleman. That most innocent of God's creatures the-Bishop of London, as innocent morally as mentally, had formed for himself a phantom church which was unanimously opposed to this Bill. There were more Churchmen on the Liberal side of the House than on the other. There were many bishops upon the Episcopal bench, many clergymen throughout the country who held very much the same opinions on the Bill as he held himself. The main ground on which he supported the Bill had nothing to do with either the Church of England or religion. He supported the Bill chiefly because it rendered a great and important service to the elementary education of this country; because it insured that in the future the standard of the worst schools should be brought up to the level of the best; that the standard of the best school now should be the standard of the worst school in the future; and that in years to come the only particular in which this country was behind its neighbours—its want of a sound and scientific education system— would be finally swept away. But while be believed that substantial benefits like those would long outlive the ephemeral disputes on ecclesiastical and theological matters on which so much time had been spent, he confessed he could not take leave of those controversies without a lingering regret. If it were not presumption he would like to say they had been conducted with a fairness,

509
good temper, and knowledge, and laudable if not always successful attempts to be mutually intelligible which must enhance the reputation of this Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in replying to him (Mr. Paul) the other day, when Clause 4 was being considered on Report, with a grave courtesy for which he took this opportunity of expressing his thank, asked whether the Government and the Liberal Party agreed with his (Mr. Paul's) theory of State religion. It was not his theory. He should have thought it might have occurred to an intelligence much less acute than that of the right hon. Gentleman that there could not be an Established Church without a State religion. He was not in favour of a State religion, because he was not in favour of an established Church. He held in this matter that any connection between a State Church and religion in schools was politically unexpedient and morally wrong. Even in this House they could not always ignore the facts. That was a state of things that existed, and was likely to exist, at all events for some years to come. That there was a State religion in elementary schools he respectfully denied. The right hon. Gentleman and most of his fellows were in the habit of talking of some form of Christian religion which they called Cowper-Templeism. There was no such religion. Mr. Cowper-Temple was not the founder of the Christian religion, he was the author of a negative clause in an Act of Parliament, and there was no religion that could be called by his name without manifest and flagrant absurdity. The noble Lord the Member for Maryle-bone, who always spoke with the courage of Lord Hugh Cecil's convictions, in answer to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said he would allow the parents of the children who lived in the slums, however degraded, to have the controlling voice in the religion their children should be taught. That was very sound and democratic opinion, but he would like to know how far hon. Gentlemen would go in carrying out their favourite theory that the parent should say what religion his children should be taught at the public expense. Were the children of atheists to be taught the

510
fallacy of the belief in God, and if not why not? Were the children of Mahomedans to be taught the advantages of polygamy, and if not why not? It might be said there were not many instances of that kind. If that were so he would take a fairly numerous, well-known, and highly-respected class consisting of educated and conscientious men, who held and believed that in all ultimate subjects it was impossible to obtain any positive knowledge. They called themselves agnostics. They had children and paid taxes; were their children to be taught at the public expense the paramount moral duty of religious scepticism? Was it not more reasonable and politic to say in this country there were simple religious truths in which all Protestants agreed, that those were truths which many Free Churchmen and most English Churchmen had no objection that their children should be taught, and that subject to the conscience clause those common truths of religion should be taught in the schools? He quite recognised and accepted the fact that as the authors of this Bill they were bound to give some special treatment to Catholics. In saying that he spoke of real Catholics, and not the sham Catholics who wanted to introduce into the English Church what Lord Halifax called the Mass in English and Lord Beaconsfield called the Mass in masquerade. He believed that even as it stood, with an appeal to the Board of Education, this Bill would give substantial security to the immense minority of Catholic schools in this country. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that it was better to have an appeal to the Board of Education than to a Court of law, he could not help asking who in the last resort was to enforce the decision of the Board of Education. There was another clause in this Bill which had nothing to do with Catholics and which so far as he could see served no useful purpose. He referred to Clause 3, the ordinary facilities clause. When the hon. Member for East Mayo said that clause was no use to the Catholics several hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite said "nor to us." Me had some difficulty in understanding what they meant by "we" and "us," but upon that particular occasion he understood they were identifying themselves with the

511
denominational schools. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Oxford University, than whom there was no higher authority, described Clause," as cold comfort, and High Churchmen were, he was sure, never comfortable when cold. What had the clause done? Had it limited the loquacity of the curate? Had it made any Bishop feel he had done less well by being angry? It was a clause that gave no relief to anybody, and he would willingly have sacrificed it in order to make the fourth clause give what the Catholics of this country desired and had a right to obtain. The Bill had its blot. Not merely had Clause 4 not been made compulsory, but Clause 6 should have been either omitted or so altered that religion should be made part, subject to the conscience clause, of the teaching of every child. If that had been done and Clause 3 omitted, the Bill would not only have rendered a great and solid service to the cause of elementary education, but it would also have done completely what to some extent it did now—it would have rescued little children from the clutches of the dogmatists and allowed them to grow up as they had hitherto done, in humble reverence of Christ's teaching and in dutiful obedience to God's laws.
MR. LAMBTONsaid the question he wished to argue with the hon. Member for Northampton was in regard to Mahomedans and Agnostics. The hon. Member said that if they were to be logical, why should not it be ordained that Atheists and Mahomedans should receive that teaching in our schools which was acceptable to them in the same way as it was given to other denominations. Early in the session the House determined by a very much larger vote than in 1870, that the people of this country desired to have religious teaching in the schools. In passing that vote for religious education it did not intend to include the fantastic notion of the hon. Member for Northampton, that religious instruction meant teaching for Mahomedans, Agnostics and others. He was one of those who did not entirely follow with favour the Bill of 1902, because he felt that it inflicted some injustice on Nonconformists, and he endeavoured to remove that injustice.
512
He did not accuse his right hon. friend the Member for the City of London of injustice, nor any Member of that side of the House, but he was certain that a sense of injustice existed. But the reason why he opposed this Bill was that it inflicted greater injustice than the Bill of 1902. He did not impute any conscious injustice to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill or to any of his colleagues, although on that point he was not quite so certain. He did not think there was any Party in the House who wished to inflict injustice upon their opponents, but he thought that on the present occasion they might evolve some light and that religious peace which they all desired. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House thought Cowper-Templeism worse than no religion at all. Hon Members opposite would not allow Roman Catholic schools that liberty which they certainly deserved. He asked the hon. Member for Northampton to consider whether logic was entirely a matter on which they could depend. They were dealing with the case of little children, and he was sure that hon. Members had not brought up their children in logic, and many Members, especially those below the gangway, would maintain that to be logical in elementary education we must have a secular system. He denied that that was logical. Logic was worth nothing unless the premisses were sound. What were the premisses in this case? The State ordained that the child should have education and the parent must send his child to school. In the opinion of the majority of the people of this country education without religion was worthless. They could not leave out religion from true education any more than they could mathematics or writing. The one reason why he objected to this Bill more strongly than any other was that it placed religion outside the school hours. He thought it would have the result of banishing the Bible from the schools. There were some who advocated secular instruction and the banishment of the Bible because they thought it would get rid of the religious difficulty. Mr. Forster in 1870 said that if we banished the Bible from the schools the irreligious difficulty which

513
would be created would be even greater than the religious difficulty, and he expressed a hope that the time would come when all parents would be able to agree as to the religious education to be given to their children. He (Mr. Lambton) ventured to express the same hope in 1902. It was perfectly astounding in the 20th century there should be such differences between Church of England Christians and Nonconformist Christians that they could not agree as to the teaching to be given to little children. He was grieved to think that the present Bill did not remove those differences. That might be owing perhaps to misconception on both sides, and he was convinced it was owing in some degree to the fact that Cowper-Templeism was looked upon with suspicion by so many hon. Members on the Opposition side, and owing to action like that of the hon. Member for Louth, who so persistently objected to any concession to denominationalists. Lord Shaftesbury in 1870 said that denominational teaching was founded on the assumption that these little children were persons of mature age. He quite agreed. He believed that a modus Vivendi was attainable, and would be attained in this country. What stood in the way? Perhaps a few proud prelates or arrogant doctors of divinity. He was only a layman, and it was not for him to suggest to them what they should do; but he was quite convinced that no man, not even the hon. Member for Northampton, would say that they should banish religion from the schools on that ground. He did not think that even in the name of Science that could be done, because if they asked the question, "What is religion?"there might be a thousand answers but to the question, "What is science? "there was only one answer. Science was the true understanding of nature, and it had not solved the mystery of the human soul. The human soul was always asking for religion, and it was not for man or Parliaments to deny the spiritual cravings of nature. Therefore their endeavour must be to afford the children such teaching. If the leaders of the Churches stood in the way of that happy consummation all that they could do was to ask them to remember the
514
words of our great Master, "Suffer little children to come unto Me and forbid them not." But here they had only to hold even the balance of justice which was the only chance of peace in this question, and he did hope when this Bill came back from another place they would continue this discussion in a friendly and peaceable spirit. They might fail, but at all events let them determine not to use the souls of little children as counters in the political game.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields),who was indistinctly heard, said the hon. Gentleman had made one statement which he thought he would be disposed to modify on reflection. It was said that this Bill would create more injustice than it would remove. The Government had endeavoured to place definite denominational teaching upon a voluntary basis. That was the real characteristic part of the Bill. The Opposition described the Bill as a Bill for secularising the Church schools, in effect for the benefit of Nonconformists. If that were true it would be a very serious reflection not only on the Bill but also upon Nonconformists. He ventured to ask the House to look at this proposition a little more critically and fairly. What was the effect of this Bill upon Church schools? He was asking what was its practical effect. He was not asking what some sensitive person might believe to be a possibility under this, that, or the other clause, but what was likely to be the real result of this Bill in actual working. Looking at the matter in that way could anyone doubt that the denominational teaching which Churchmen desired would go on much the same as before? The old custom of the Church of England schools, speaking generally, was to have two days a week for Catechism teaching, and three days a week for the simple Bible teaching and prayer that made up the elements of Cowper-Temple teaching. Was there any reason why all this should not go on in substance as it had always gone on? Would Churchmen have any difficulty in getting volunteeers to give Catechism instruction on two days a week?, He could not believe they would. They who did a great work before 1870, and to their honour had maintained a great burden

515
—though a rapidly diminishing burden —since, would find no difficulty in providing Catechism instruction in their own schools on two days of the week, especially when they were being relieved in so many other directions. Even now the Church of England was left in a position of very substantial privilege. It would possess the very special right of entry to its schools, and it would have them maintained free of cost, with the payment of rent by way of contribution to the cost. In other words, Churchmen under this Bill would have the right of entry in what had now become State buildings and State property. He asked hon Members to put to themselves fairly and squarely this question: Did that look as if the promoters of the Bill had been animated by any special spite against the Church of England? He thought not. It was also said that after all the Bill was for the benefit of Nonconformists. Again, he would invite hon. Members opposite to consider a little the position of Nonconformists. Nonconformity was spoken of as if it had no doctrines or form of religion, and was giving nothing up, and that the Church must receive some special compensation because Cowper-Templeism was peculiarly favourable to Nonconformists. The body of doctrine among Nonconformists was so deep, so complicated, so far-reaching in the lives and conduct of men that they would not allow the State to touch it. Could it be supposed, therefore, that Nonconformity was giving nothing up from the doctrinal point of view when it consented that the State should give non-dogmatic, non-denominational teaching instead of taking money from the State to teach its own doctrine? He was sure hon. Gentlemen would realise that, if they would use, not their reason, but their imagination for a moment, and just think what would be the effect upon their own feelings if Nonconformists were really to claim doctrinal equality. Supposing that there had been no Cowper-Temple clause, and the Nonconformists had carried a great many school areas and had placed them under their own doctrinal teaching. What would be the feeling of hon. Members opposite if they saw Nonconformists having a privilege in State schools in any parallel to their own? They would
516
think it a hardship and a bitter grievance. Supposing they went into a council school and heard the teacher paid by the State telling the little ones that even baptism was an absurdity and apostolic succession an error. Would they like it if they could hear the teacher to whose support they must contribute taking one by one every doctrine they held dear and pointing out that it was an imposture? They would conceive, and rightly so, that they were grossly injured as a Christian community. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen not in any angry controversial spirit, because he knew he was dealing with Christian and fair-minded men, subject of course to the fog that controversy so often introduced between disputants, but he asked them to consider the picture he had put before their mind. Let them reflect upon the deep feeling of indignation and of wrong that would permeate their Church if they were put under precisely the same system as the Nonconformists had been placed under. It was not fair to say that Nonconformity was getting the benefit; it did not seek it. There was only one respect in which anything like equality could be said to be established even now between the Anglican and Nonconformist Churches, and that was that distinctively dogmatic teaching was placed on a voluntary basis. But that seemed to be the very grievance of the Church, and their policy corresponded to their grievance. What was the policy of the Conservative Party? It would be no injustice to say that it was still the policy embodied in the Act of 1002. The noble Lord the Member for Maryle-bone was beginning to have his doubts about the Act of 1902. The noble Lord had not yet reached the stage of giving them very emphatic expression, but he was not quite comfortable when he was on the Act of 1902. Who was? His fear was not that the noble Lord would not go far enough for them, but that he was going too far. Up to 1902 the theory of Parliamentary grants was that laid down in the speeches and legislation of 1870— namely, that those grants represented a gift by the State in aid of secular education. But under the Act of 1902 a different state of things came into being. Then the Leader of the Opposition took

517
the rates in order to supersede the subscriptions. He took the teacher who had hitherto been paid partly by the denomination and put the whole cost of the teacher's salary, covering the cost of religious instruction, on the rates. The Leader of the Opposition had the distinction therefore that he definitely, avowedly, and explicitly put the cost of distinctive dogmatic teaching on other backs than those of the denomination who wanted it. That and nothing else was the policy of 1902, and a grievance was undoubtedly created among Nonconformists which must be dealt with in some form. Now, what was the means by which it was to be met? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already drawn attention to it, and he should like to say a few words upon it. The Conservatives put forward what was called the right of entry, or all round facilities in every school. That undoubtedly looked a most admirable solution. But had hon. Members opposite seriously considered what that proposition involved? It was the Conservative alternative to this Bill. But he wanted to know how they proposed to deal with a grievance that they admitted, because it must not be forgotten that the grievance Nonconformists complained of was indisputable. It was a grievance which had been mentioned again and again by the Leader of the Opposition, and that made more serious the responsibility of continuing it. What had been suggested throughout these debates was that the grievance was met by giving the right of entry to all sections to enter all schools. He had not seen that there had been any definite or intelligible policy put forward to meet the Nonconformist grievance except the right of entry. How else did hon. Members propose to deal with the Nonconformist grievance, which they admitted? No plan but the right of entry had been suggested, and that involved above all things the neutrality of the State teacher, because one denomination could not in such a scheme be allowed to annex the j teacher. It would be preposterous to talk of giving equal rights to all denominations in the schools, and yet allow one denomination to annex the teacher. The right of entry had got controversial advantages. It did homage to the principle of equality, and. that was a
518
principle to which they were always bound to do homage. But there would be little equality, indeed there would, be injustice, if in some schools a denomination was to have exclusive rights in its own schools and yet have the right of entry in other schools. Therefore, he took it that the essential condition of the right of entry which was put forward by so many hon. Gentlemen was that the teacher should be neutral. What did the Leader of the Opposition say in regard to the position of the State teacher? It was not quite clear what hon. Gentlemen opposite thought, for in the same breath while they demanded the right of entry to all schools, they protested against anyone but a State teacher giving religious instruction. The Leader of the Opposition went down to Cambridge and drew a picture of a teacher sitting silent while someone else perhaps better instructed and of a more theological spirit came in to give the lesson which the teacher had been accustomed for generations to give. The right hon. Gentleman called that a great atrocity, and he, still thought it an atrocity that the State teacher should allow anyone else, even a clergyman, more highly cultivated and instructed, to come in and give the, religious lesson.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was not the atrocity. What I called an atrocity was pre venting a man who had been accustomed to give the religious teaching from doing so, if he were competent and willing.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid that under the right of entry scheme, "the teacher would sit silent." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Church schools were to retain all their exclusive advantages? What the right hon. Gentleman said at Cambridge was this—
" Henceforth the teacher is to sit silent and hear the religious lesson which he has been accustomed to give to generations of children with general approval given by no doubt an equally instructed and even more highly cultivated person, but one who is not by training as well qualified to give that same lesson as the teacher who has done so year by year. Is not that a great atrocity? "
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not the opinion I expressed.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he had no desire to ascribe to the right hon. Gentleman an opinion which he repudiated, but he must have some opinion—he did not care what it was. He might take it, at all events, as being the fact that in the schools where the teachers had been accustomed to give the religious lesson for many years it was an atrocity for anybody else to come in and give it. [An HON. MEMBER, "No."] He did not need to go back two months for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. Only two days ago the right hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion on the subject and he hoped that opinion had not undergone any great change. At the National Union of Conservative Associations the right hon. Gentleman said—
" Everybody admits that if you are going effectually to give religious education, that work must in the main be carried out by the ordinary teachers of the school."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he was on firm ground now. In that case what became of the right of entry of all denominations into every school? The equality offered to the Nonconformists under that arrangement did not exist unless the State teacher stood neutral. Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds which of these opinions they did hold. He had ascribed to their words what appeared to be the ordinary meaning, but he appeared to have been wrong. He hoped that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would take the opportunity of re-stating their views, and let the House know in plain terms what their remedy for the Nonconformist grievance was. Did they mean each denomination to give religious teaching by its own officers at its own cost? When they gave the House a little further instruction on that point he dared say they would be able to deal with them again. There had been two remarkable developments in this debate. The first was the attack made on simple Bible teaching which had been spoken of as subversive of Christianity itself. The second was the enunciation of the doctrine that to make a child a Christian it was necessary to attach the child to some denomination. That meant that denominational schools
520
must, if their religion was to be effective, seek to proselytise. He was sure that I hon. Members opposite and most Members of the Church of England would repudiate with indignation any idea that they used their schools for the purpose of proselytism. But let him ask hon. Members to consider what was involved in the doctrine which had been so clearly laid down that it was necessary to attach a child to a denomination. That was a very serious position for Nonconformists whose children were put into a Church "atmosphere" by compulsion. They were allowed when they got there to relieve themselves of the religious lesson by means of the conscience clause. He thought it was a great misfortune that in the schools the alternative lesson should be arithmetic. It was used as a punishment in many of the schools. It was a misfortune that the children of Nonconformists should be driven into the atmosphere which was indicated by the attacks on Cowper-Temple teaching, and that they could not get any religious teaching unless they were attached to a denomination. There had been really no defence of an injustice of that kind put on so many of our fellow citizens. There had really been no answer to the most essential part of the Nonconformist case presented by this Bill, namely, that the Nonconformist community of the country must be relieved of the burden of having to pay for the teaching of doctrines contrary to their faith. It was said that this Bill was prompted by dislike of the Church of England. He confessed that he could not listen to that charge without deep resentment. If Churchmen admitted, as they did admit, the injustice done to other Christian communities by the system which the Government were seeking to modify, they might go a step further and admit that the effort to remove the injustice was not necessarily dictated by hatred or spite. Let them search their own hearts, and see with what sentiments they regarded the members of those other great religious communities which they had driven from the communion of the National Church. Perhaps they did not want reconciliation, and, for his part, he doubted whether reconciliation was

521
possible. But there might be some approach to sympathy and a better understanding amongst Protestant communities, and the absence of any desire for such was one of the most fateful elements in the religious life of to-day. This internecine conflict amongst those who preached the Gospel of Peace had the effect of turning men's eyes altogether away from unity, and if they could not have reconciliation they might, at any rate, try to lessen the feelings of repulsion. This education question helped to focus the attention of the great Christian communities away from unity and upon the fact that the most powerful and most wealthy of them all had imposed upon its fellows an act of great injustice. That was a terrible indictment, and the Government ought to be given credit for the effort they were now making to free the Church of England from the shadow of that great accusation.
MR. MASTERMANsaid that while he found his objections to the Bill melting before the kindness and courtesy of the Minister for Education, the Solicitor-General had succeeded in arousing every controversial fibre he possessed. He was not making any complaint against the hon. and learned Gentleman's method of controversy, but he could not accept in any degree his description of the Bill. What was the good of the Solicitor-General saying that under Clause 3 denominational teaching would go on in the same way that it had been going on for thirty or forty years? The House had deliberately decided that the Church teaching which had been going on in the village schools of England by the teachers was no longer to be given by those teachers, even outside school hours and at their own expense. People would ask why this teaching which their children had been receiving for so many years was now suddenly to be regarded as poison. He did not agree that the right of entry implied the neutrality of the teacher. He, however, had no objection to neutrality if neutrality were made equal all round. This Bill did not give religious equality. The soundest thing said by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford was that
522
the day for argument had gone by; and therefore he would not use further argument. But he might say that they had been debating this Bill for four months and some of them had been trying to make it a just, equal, and final settlement of the education question. Some of them had pressed for what they were convinced was the only proper solution of the problem: that the State should withdraw altogether from teaching or creating a religion. They were beaten; they accepted defeat and only wished to safeguard the interests of minorities. Every kind of concession which they advocated had been refused—not altogether by the wish of the Minister for Education, but because of the cry of "No concession" from the Ministerial benches. From an educational point of view he believed that it would have been much better to have built new schools all over the country than take over the non-provided schools where one religion would now be taught at the expense of all others. There was a misty and shadowy feeling about Clause 4. What was asked for was a poll of the parents. Now it was decided that the souls of children in an area with a population of 5,000 were more valuable than the souls of children in an area of under 5,000. And they were reduced to the alternative of contracting out or kicking out. Their objections had not been answered and for the first time in history a Government calling itself Liberal was definitely enacting that one kind of religious teaching and one kind only should be subsidised by the State. They had heard eloquent speeches against that religious teaching, but he had nothing to say against it except this, that however admirable, however sound it might be, the fact was that an appreciable minority in this country refused to accept it. They had heard a repudiation of that form of religious instruction by an hon. Member who spoke for 2,500,000 Roman Catholic citizens of this country, and there were a large number of others who objected to that form of religious instruction. This, therefore, was rather a forlorn position for a Liberal Government to take up. He regretted that this Bill should go to another place in this forlorn condition. They were sending the Bill to another place knowing that large changes would

523
be made there and were prepared to accept at least a certain number of those changes. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members dissented now but he ventured to say that in six months' time his hon. friends would probably find themselves more in agreement with him upon that point. He regretted every kind of concession that they made to another place, because what might have been given out of magnanimity was given grudgingly and of necessity and would not bring back those Liberals who had been alienated by this Bill. Still more deplorable was the fact that every concession they on their side received from the Upper House weakened the general democratic appeal against the constitution of that Chamber. It was sad to think that this great democratic movement which some of them looked upon as the dawn of a new day should have as one of its first results the fact that 2,500,000 Catholics and a more indefinite number of Liberals were saying "Thank God for the institution of the House of Lords."To exercise a giant's strength like a giant was to be guilty of tyranny, and he thought they should have been more magnanimous in dealing with this subject. After saying this, however, he hoped it would not be considered as a weakness on his part if he said that he intended to vote for the Third Reading of the Bill. No incident in his short and in glorious political experience had caused him so much trouble as that fact. He should vote for the Third Reading of the Bill because it established popular control and because he thought there was much in the contention of the hon. Member for North Camberwell that 1906 was born of 1902. After the injustice born of 1902 it was perhaps rather too much to expect from human nature anything like a permanent and satisfactory settlement, but he believed that every unfair Bill passed by either side helped forward the day when the nation would accept the secular solution of the problem, because it was a solution which was equal and therefore Liberal; because it was compatible with giving the highest religious education to every child in the country. He felt convinced that in the end the country would find one solution and one solution only which was capable at
524
the same time of making for educational progress and religious equality.
*MR. PERKSsaid he wished to express his absolute dissent from the views to which the House had just listened. He did not think that secularism would in consequence of the passing of this Bill be any nearer of introduction into the elementary schools of this country than it was to-day. He thought therefore that that fear might be set aside as an idle one. Passing on to more practical matters, he would like to say one or two words from the point of view of the Nonconformist, and he did not object to being called an extreme Nonconformist. Before he did so, he wished to pay a tribute to the very tactful and delicate way in which the Minister for Education had handled this subject, and if in coming months the Nonconformists had to say some strong things about Clause 4 he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think that they did not appreciate the ability, zeal, and good temper which he had shown in the conduct of this Bill. It was true that prominent Nonconformists in the country were very deeply disappointed with some of the clauses of this measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in the day had referred to Clause 4, and said it was the clause of all others which the Government considered to be vital to their Bill. He indicated, although he did not say so in so many words, that that was the corner stone of the measure and the foundation upon which the Government built. But that clause, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have known if he had been informed of the opinions of the great Nonconformist Churches of the country, was the clause against which every Free Church in the country had directed its censure. Indeed he did not know of a single religious community of any sort outside the Church, of England which had not called upon the Government either to withdraw this clause altogether or to alter it so that it would not bring about what the Government desired. Therefore he learned with regret that the Government intended to stick to this objectionable clause. The right hon. Gentleman had twitted him with his obtrusive opposition to this clause, but he could assure him that what little

525
opposition he had given in the House was nothing to the opposition which would be given to it by prominent Nonconformist communities from one end of the country to the other. Nonconformists were disappointed with the Bill because, while it started with a very bold declaration of what it meant to do, it had not really done what it contemplated. It was all very well to say they intended to secure for every school popular control under a unified system. Schemes of great intricacy had been introduced for setting up a multitudinous number of sectarian schools, and in many cases unquestionably involving a sectarian test for the teacher. Nonconformists were sometimes told that they had submitted no alternative. He quite admitted that the principle of the right of entry was bad and impracticable. It had been tried and had signally failed. But there was another alternative, and one which might be adopted if this Bill did not become law. He was not very sanguine of the Bill becoming law, and, personally, it certainly would not break his heart if it did not, so long as Clause 4 remained in its present shape. The alternative was to re-establish the old school boards and cover the whole country with them. He would create school boards in the rural districts of manageable dimensions, and he would turn over to these popularly elected ad hoc authorities every elementary school in the country as well as the control of every department of public education of all grades. In doing this he certainly would not confiscate anybody's property. The million provided in the Bill would be amply sufficient to set up all over the country these board schools and for erecting new schools where desired. Voluntary schools could be purchased where there was a desire to sell. He ventured to suggest that it might not be undesirable to see if they could not devise some scheme by which the Roman Catholic difficulty could be met. He entirely agreed, with some words that fell from the Solicitor-General in which he said the Catholics could, not be expected to receive the Protestant Bible as the common book of instruction for the children of Catholic parents under a Cowper-Temple system of religious in-
526
struction. But he did not think it could be so stated and resisted so far as the Church of England was concerned. There was in his mind a vital distinction between the two cases. He was anxious that no school in this country should be used for the purpose of proselytising the children of other religious communities. He did not understand that the Roman Catholic Church desired to educate Protestant children in their Catholic schools. He would far rather that no Protestant child should receive his instruction at Roman Catholic schools. But there was a strong and he thought a reasonable feeling on the part of the Catholics of this country that it was unfair that their children in these schools should receive Cowper-Temple instruction. The Nonconformists had no desire that the children of any sect should grow up in insanitary buildings, under such conditions that both physically and mentally they were not fit to discharge the proper duties of citizenship, and if the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church desired to meet the loaders of British Nonconformity in order to see if some agreement could be arrived at, speaking only for himself, he would go a very long way indeed in conference with the Roman Catholic Church in this country to try and meet the special difficulties of the case.
SIR CARNE RASCHsaid it was not fair to test the accuracy of the anonymous assertion to which the hon. Member for Northampton had alluded. He would only say that the animal to which the hon. Gentleman was likened, was a professor of short speeches which he was afraid the hon. Member was not. As he had not ventured to offer his views on this question on the Committee stage perhaps the House would allow him to say a few words on the Third Reading. He did not pretend to be an expert. He was only a humble agricultural Member —he had even been called by a Vice-President of the Council "Tony Lumpkin," and had been told that the agricultural Members knew more about the difference between oats and barley than about education. That right hon. Gentleman also said that if they had their way they would rather have the money proposed to be spent upon education

527
laid out in artificial manures. He could only say that so far as he was concerned the right hon. Gentleman was correct. He had only risen to say how much he regretted the way in which four months had been wasted over this Bill. He was sorry the Government did not take the advice he offered them when the Bill was first brought in. Had they done so they might, have turned the flank of half the Amendments that had been put down and got rid of them without doing any harm to the Bill or to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who put them down. The advice he had ventured to offer to the Government was that they should take a leaf out of the Army List, and do what had been done in the Army for many years past with tolerably good effect. When he was in the Army, when a man joined he was asked whether he would like to be told off as a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, or a Persuasionist, or in other words a Nonconformist, and there was never any difficulty. When a man went to school a priest went in at one time and gave instruction, at another time the Nonconformist minister, and at another time the Church of England parson. They never had any difficulty about religious teaching and everything went merry as a marriage bell. Why should not there be some arrangement such as that in the council schools? Since the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had two months ago shown some benevolent sympathy in respect to a matter to which he need not further allude he had some sort of respect for the right hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite—though, of course, he could not vote with them. One had to draw the line somewhere, hut he was glad to see them getting through their difficulty and time of trouble, although it would have been reduced by half if they had taken his advice. So far as he was concerned, he had voted against every Education Bill that had been introduced into this House, and he proposed to do the same on this occasion.
*MR. MASSIEsaid that in bidding a short farewell—and to the Minister for Education surely not an unwelcome one—to this Education Bill, in speeding the parting guest, and the
528
returning guest (but in what shape returning, who knew?) it was of no use to blink the fact that this Bill was not the Bill for which most of them on the Liberal side of the House had hoped and worked. Yet, perhaps, and probably, it was the best kind of Bill that, in the circumstances, could be passed just now. They had hoped for a national system that would unite rather than continue to divide them, and for a public education in things in which they should agree, not in things in which they should differ. But their differences were being perpetuated, their unification was being postponed. True, in the council schools their differences did not intrude themselves, or they intruded themselves insignificantly: but in the schools to be newly taken over and to become provided schools, denominational differences were to find entrance by facilities: and what was more distinctively separative, schools wholly maintained by public money, and by public money wholly kept in repair, were to be frankly denominational, and were to drive forth the minority children to find some other home. Then there were to be sectarian schools, schools of the order of the "last resort," as they might be called, which, though not assisted by the rates, were to be almost entirely maintained by the State while retaining their private management. These divisions were said to be the price of peace. It remained to be seen from the way in which these divisions worked whether the peace would be peace at any price or not. Anyhow, two sides remained: on the one side were denominational privileges, on the other, public right. Strong educational points might be made against these denominational privileges, but when they were in view, educational points must clear the way. For example, denominational privileges often spelt small schools, and small schools wore costly and inefficient: they often cost quite £1 a head more than the larger schools, and they could not be properly staffed for all the standards; yet for the sake of the denominational privileges the small schools must stand. So the Bill was not one of principle, but one of compromise; yet it was an honest compromise, honest in its inception, and honest in its execution. Let him

529
also pay his tribute to the Minister who had had this Bill in charge. Through his patient, unwearying, invariably good-tempered, open-minded and altogether masterly conduct of the Bill, his praise, like that of the "brother" was or ought to be in all the churches. So far as the Bill was one of principle, it was one of principle applied with exceptions, and it altogether depended how the exceptions worked out whether the exceptions proved the rule or became the rule. It was held by some to be quite possible that the bulk of the public education in urban areas would, in twenty years, be denominational. Lord Hugh Cecil once wrote that the 4th clause would turn out to be far more favourable to the Church of England than her enemies (by whom he meant the friends of a national system) desired. These friends of a national system could only hope that the sectarian heat and denominational burden of the day would not be too much for them. Meanwhile, it was, as he said, a Bill of compromise. This could be gathered from the general quietness of its supporters, though they had steadily voted for it, with certain exceptions on notable occasions. A compromise might be necessary, but a compromise quelled enthusiasm. Hence their support had been rather a voting support than a vocal one, not always from lack of will but sometimes from lack of opportunity. And from some deficiency in acclimatisation to the atmosphere of this House, while the spirit had sometimes been willing, the flesh had sometimes been weak. Still they had voted for the Bill, and he for one intended to vote for it to-night, though he felt that the concessions had gone quite far enough. They would hardly gather that it was a compromise from the tempestuous wrath of some of its opponents. But they were men of like passions with other men; they were fighting for the power, the patronage, the privilege which were slipping from their grasp because they could not keep afloat without public maintenance. In their arguments it was interesting and suggestive to notice they always ignored this public maintenance; they always threw a veil over the quid pro quo that was due from them. If he could not congratulate them, he could felicitate them on the
530
salvage they had secured from the wreck. He felicitated them on the £1,000,000, or the part of it, that was to come to them. He once hoard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham say in 1870, when Mr. Forster's Bill was before the country, that the old Church rate had been for the repair of the Church fabric, the new Church rate was for the repair of the Church formularies. In this Bill the rates looked after the repair of the fabric, the rent looked after the repair of the formularies. He felicitated them. He felicitated them on the amount of oil apparently required to lubricate the machinery, and on the ransom that had to be paid for the fragments of equality rescued from captivity. It was a better bargain than denominationalism would over make again. Their best friends should advise them to take it and be thankful. It was alleged to be the price of peace. But was it peace? The answer was—there could never be peace so long as one Church was determined to be master, so long as—according to the phrase of one of the most unreticent of the bishops—she was determined not to be put on a level with the other denominations. The Bill was going before a tribunal whose jurisdiction was based on constitution and antiquity and on these alone. Possibly that tribunal might share the view of certain leading Conservative journals that public control and abolition of tests were inevitable. If so, they might respect the independence of the teacher and his reputation for impartiality, and might refuse to hand him over to those who would introduce a test by a side wind. They might keep Clause 8, the charter of freedom for the teacher. They might also show regard to the will of the parent, and in that case they would refrain from compelling him to send his child to the religious instruction. They might show their respect to religion as having a power to look after itself, and not contravene its genius by imposing constraint. In a word they might keep Clause 7, the charter of religious freedom for the parent. They could not respect the parent's will and at the same time compel him: they could not have it both ways. And he hoped that the Government, now that that clause had

531
been carried in open House by a forty-seven majority, would remember that it was their own child, and after having exposed it to the discordant elements, would take it up again and cherish it. As for the eighty-five Liberals who voted against the clause, he could only say that if he had stood on the various platforms in his constituency during the contest and had said that he should, vote against the only democratic clause in the Bill, the clause that made religious freedom real, and should help to rehabilitate the fusty futilities of the conscience clause, he suspected that he would not have been in the House of Commons to vote at all. The root of the compromise in this Bill was that the State was still dabbling in religious education, and still patronising and controlling religion. And the root of that policy was that the bulk of the English people would have it so, because they were not yet accustomed to believe in the power of religion or to leave the spread of godliness to the godly. Whether the people would long remain in the same stay depended on the answer to the question, "Will there be peace?" By this he did not mean whether the squabble of the sects, as it was called, could be made to cease, but whether a stop could be put to the cause of that squabble, the self-assertion of one sect. Till that time came, until there was a sense of equality not only on the paper of an Act but in the temper of a Church, there was no prospect of a settlement except on a secular basis, and for which basis that Church temper, and it alone, must bear the responsibility.
MR. HUNTsaid it appeared to him from the speeches that had been made that nobody—not even hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House—liked this Bill. The Labour Party and the Irish Party were opposed to it. The hon. Member for Blackburn in a speech at Stockton said—
"The Bill pleased nobody but the Nonconformists. In their joy at being offered the chance of having Nonconformity established as the State religion in the schools the Nonconformists have forgotten all the resolutions of their councils and conferences, and are embracing a measure which will inflict a conscientious outrage on the majority of the people of the country and increase tenfold the bitterness of the sectarian conflicts in every locality in the land."
532
That was the opinion of the hon. Member for Blackburn about this measure. The Nonconformists were always talking about their objection to tests for teachers, but he would read to the House a quotation showing how they carried out this principle themselves. At the Nonconformist College at Bishop's Stortford a teacher was dismissed for no other reason than that he was a Catholic, and a letter from the headmaster stated—
" I regret that I have no option but to ask you to retire from holding a mastership here at the end of this term."
MR. GEORGE WHITE: Is that a college maintained by public funds?
MR. HUNTsaid it was. The school from which this teacher was dismissed because of his religion had had grants from the Hertfordshire County Council amounting to £550. He would give the hon. Member who had interrupted him another specimen of a Nonconformist parson. At a meeting held in reference to a dispute about a school in Flintshire the Rev. Dr. Evan Jones said—
"He detested the idea of a compromise. He would more willingly agree to divide the world with the devil than to divide the schools with the Roman Catholics. He had known them both personally, and he had known Rome. He would rather be responsible for the building of the school himself than go shares with the Roman Catholics. If they compromised with the devil they knew where they were, but with the Catholics they never knew what the end would be."
Under this Bill Catholic children might be taught by Jewish teachers, and Nonconformist children might be taught by Catholic teachers, or by teachers of any or no religion at all. And those teachers would be called upon to give religious teaching that they did not understand, and which they did not believe in. No man or woman could give religious teaching that they did not believe in or understand. They might as well appoint a man to teach writing who could not write himself and who did not believe in teaching children to write. The Minister for Education had said that minorities must suffer, but in this case it was the great majority of voluntary schools built by the Church of England, the Catholics and the Jews, in order to secure for the children definite religious teaching, who were to surfer.

533
The President of the Board of Trade had declared that clericalism was the enemy, and he supposed when he said that he did not mean the Nonconformist ministers but the Church of England parsons and the Roman Catholic priests. This Bill was little else but an attack upon the Church of England. Nonconformist ministers were, unfortunately, very jealous of the Church of England parsons, and they particularly disliked them from the fact that they were not in the same social position. [Cries of "Oh, oh! "] He was very sorry for this, because the effect of it was to turn Nonconformist ministers into tremendous Radicals. Under this Bill the supporters of voluntary schools would have more justification for passive resistance than the Nonconformists had under the Act of 1902. The Catholics would still have to pay rates and taxes for religious teaching in other schools of which they totally disapproved and at the same time they would have to pay for the religious teaching in their own schools. Catholics had no objection to the popular control of secular education, and they would be quite willing to pay for their own religious instruction if other denominations did the same. They insisted, however, upon having Catholic teachers in Catholic schools, and there was no security for that under the Bill. To a great majority of English Churchmen the Bill was preposterous, and he wondered the Government did not drop it, because even their own supporters did not want it. He represented one of the strongest Protestant counties in England, and the opposition to this Bill in his constituency would surprise a good many hon. Gentlemen opposite. He hoped English Churchmen would fight shoulder to shoulder to get fair play. He thought he was justified in saying that the Liberal Party never got a popular mandate for this Bill, and if it was forced through the House against the wishes of a great majority of the parents the supporters of denominational teaching would be compelled to adopt some form of resistance on a gigantic scale under which it would be found impossible to work the Education Act of 1906.
MR. MACLEANsaid he desired to point out to the House how the Bill would act in his own constituency. Bath was full of Churchmen and Catholics. There was scarcely any variety of religious belief which was not represented in Bath. There were Nonconformist temples, Church of England shrines, and Roman Catholic places of worship. There was no doubt at all that the Church of England dominated Bath from the religious point of view. There were only four provided schools, with accommodation, roughly speaking, for 2,000 children. The non-provided schools numbered eighteen, with accommodation roughly speaking for 6,000. Amongst the non-provided schools there were two Roman Catholic schools with an average attendance of about 242. He took it as pretty generally agreed that there were two points which were fairly settled between all Parties in the House, and that was that they were at last going to give full and adequate popular control of the schools, and that there were to be no religious tests for teachers. The point left practically to deal with was, what was the religious difficulty? What would be the religious difficulty in Bath if this Bill passed? The Wells Diocesan Syllabus was taught in the council schools in the city. The only alteration they made was that instead of calling it a religious syllabus they called it a Biblical syllabus. What would happen to the non-provided schools, which he assumed would be transferred to the local education authority? For three days in the week the religious instruction would consist of their own diocesan religious syllabus, and for two days of the week they would have the teaching of their own catechism. He wanted to know where the complaint of English Churchmen came in. In the course of that afternoon's debate they had heard criticisms, amounting almost to invectives, poured on the Bill in respect of its injustice to Churchmen. The teaching in the Bath schools had been of a most excellent description for years past. What grievance would the Roman Catholics in the City of Bath have under the Bill? Obviously their two schools would come within the four-fifths clause and therefore they would practically go on as at present, with the

535
exception that there would be full and adequate control and the teachers in them would not be subject to religious tests. The local authority would have due consideration for the children attending these schools, and they would appoint Roman Catholic teachers in them. The whole thing would be most adequately and fairly dealt with. The Church of England, in addition to having all advantages under this Bill, would have a fair and adequate rent given to them for the use of their schools. Every night in the week and all Sunday the Church would have the use of its schools, so that the rent amounted to an additional endowment of the Church of England. He was absolutely aghast when he read that morning a poster which had been issued by the Church Schools Emergency League. He gave an excerpt from it—
" Dare we professedly Christian people support a Hill which derides religion, dishonours the Word of God, and defrauds the little ones?"
When he spoke outside the House on the Bill he had to exercise considerable restraint with regard to the invectives used by the gross misrepresentations of the advantages conferred by the Bill. There had been some lukewarm support for the Bill from the Government Benches sometimes. For his own part he most heartily and thoroughly supported the Bill as a most generous attempt to meet a most difficult situation, and above all to carry out the mandate of the people that there should be no secularisation of our national schools. He would say to those who did not entirely approve of this measure, "Take care that you don't go farther and fare very much worse." If the present generous offer was not accepted they would have very much worse terms. The Bill had the support of the representatives of the Free Churches, and it was the last attempt to settle this most difficult question. If it did not settle it they would be thrown back on a solution which he shrank from, and that was the abolition of the teaching of religion from the schools. He most earnestly hoped that in whatever form the Bill came back from another place it would never leave the Houses of Parliament unless it was substantially in accordance with the Bill as it left the House to-night.
*MR. REMNANTsaid that one could not but be glad at the admission with which the hon. Member for Bath concluded his speech. He hoped that in the division on the Third Reading they would have the hon. Member on the side of those who were fighting for the retention of religious teaching in the schools. This Bill offended against every Liberal principle. It abolished religious freedom by penalising the Church in favour of Nonconformists; its clauses were complicated and mutually destructive, for while it abolished religious tests it imposed them in the four-fifths schools. The Bill struck not only at the roots of morality, but also at the formation of sound character. The root fact which the Nonconformists must learn to appreciate was that large masses of their fellow-Christians regarded a system of undenominational religious instruction devised by the State as derogatory to religion, and would not submit to a law which imposed it on them, whether in elementary schools or otherwise. This view was clearly set forth by the late Mr. Gladstone twelve years ago. He pointed out that it would be very easy to frame an undenominational religion much to the liking of certain fragments, of the Christian body, but divested of many salient points needful in the view of historic Christendom for a complete Christianity, and the State might be tempted to authorise such a scheme by law in public elementary teaching, and to arm it with exclusive and prohibitory powers as against other and more developed methods—
" It is in this direction," he wrote, "That we have recently been moving, and the motion is towards a point where a danger signal is already lifted. Such an undenominational religion as this could have no promise of permanence. None from authority, for the assumed right to give it is the negation of all authority. None from piety, for it involves, at the very outset, the surrender of the work of the Divine Kingdom into the hands of the civil ruler None from policy, because any and every change that may take place in the sense of the constituent bodies, or any among them will supply for each successive change precisely the same warrant as was the groundwork of the original proceeding. Whatever happens, let Christianity keep its own acts to its own agents, and not make them over to hands which would justly be deemed profane and sacrilegious when they came to trespass on the-province of the sanctuary."

537
These words were as true now as they were twelve years ago. If the followers of the Government who were going to vote for the Third Reading were left free to vote according to their consciences the majority of the Government (which was only sixteen on a recent important occasion when the question was left an open one) would disappear, and the Bill would be relegated to the position in which it ought to be. Again, in a letter to a political supporter on the London School Board election in the same year, Mr. Gladstone wrote—
" An undenominational system of religion framed by or under the authority of the State, is a moral monster."
Whatever English Nonconformists might think of this view, they ought to acquire sufficient breadth of mind to take it into account. For good or for evil, the attempt of the last Parliament to maintain the two systems of provided and non-provided schools on something approaching equal terms was to be upset. "What ought in justice to be substituted? Certainly not a system which conferred exclusive privileges at the expense of all upon so-called "undenominational" teaching, which satisfied only some and was loathed by others. The only system consistent with the elementary principles of civil and religious liberty was one which recognised the duty and right of parents to determine the religious instruction of their children.
*MR. P. BARLOWsaid he had the honour to represent a constituency which, if he might use the expression, had education as its main industry. The borough of Bedford had been possessed of an educational trust fund between 300 and 400 years, which starting from an income of about £40 a year had now at its command about £16,000 per annum. The one small schoolhouse of the early days had now grown into four of the finest schools in England, in which were educated 2,000 children of both sexes. He might be told that this was a matter of secondary education only, but he would point out that until a short time ago the Trust had elementary schools under its control, and that even now they had a system by which children, by the aid of scholarships, could pass from the elementary to the
538
secondary schools and afterwards to the University, without any expense to their parents. He had made it his duty to inquire into the kind of religious education which was given to the children in those schools, and he found that it was of the Cowper-Temple type; and for forty-five years not the slightest objection had ever been made by the parents of the children to that kind of religious teaching. They had heard a great deal about the extreme views which some Nonconformists had taken on this subject of religious education. He ventured to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite could not throw many stones at Nonconformists about their extreme views, because some of the most extreme views expressed both inside and outside the House on the subject of religious education had not been put forward by Nonconformists; while Members of the Opposition had put upon the views of Nonconformists a construction which they had no right to impute. Speaking as a Quaker who owed no allegiance to any priest, parson, or minister, he maintained that Nonconformists as a body were too fair-minded, and too deeply in sympathy with the principles of religious freedom to share the opinions expressed by some of those who had taken the lead in this agitation whether inside the House or in the country. While the great body of Nonconformists desired to have the burden removed from their own shoulders, they did not wish to place a burden on the shoulders of any other denomination. In supporting this Bill heartily he would point out that the very best evidence of its justice was the fact that it had been opposed by extremists on both sides. The Bill was a good Bill, and he believed that in a very few years it would work beneficially for the whole country.
*COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid he could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that there were many Members of the Church of England on the Opposition side of the House who fully appreciated every word that he had said.. They quite reciprocated, too, the opinions expressed in many of the passages of the speech of the Solicitor-General, as to the desire for the need of unity between Christian people of all churches and denominations.

539
The conclus on of the Solicitor-General's speech was, however, rather lame. He said that the burden on the Nonconformists was a blot upon the Church of England, and that blot the Bill was intended to remove, so that after all the Bill was aimed at the Church of England. He ventured to say that the last speaker could not have paid close attention to the debates, because there was a very large section of fellow-Christians who did regard the transfer of the burden from Nonconformists as putting a very serious burden on Churchmen. There were a good many inconsistencies as well in the phrases of the speech of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman alleged that it had often been said that Nonconformist doctrine would be benefite by the passing of this Bill. He, for one, had never said that; on the contrary, he held that it had always been the claim of Nonconformists that they did not want their particular doctrines to be taught in the national elementary schools. But the Nonconformists wanted nobody else's doctrines to be taught in the elementary schools. They said, "We do not want denominational teaching for our own children, and therefore we will not have denominational teaching given to other people's children," and this Bill carried that out. The doctrines of Nonconformists were not benefited by it, but their wants were satisfied. The Solicitor-General went on to speak about neutrality all round, and the annexation of teachers. By whom were the teachers to be annexed? By the Church of England, or by the Roman Catholics, or by the Nonconformists? What a pitiful thing it was that the great Liberal Party could not pass an Education Bill without saying to the finest body of teachers in the world that they must muzzle their consciences, and when they entered the schools, no matter what their religion was, they must not show it. When they came to know what real freedom was and how it could be brought about they would not talk of annexing teachers, Then the man would teach what he believed, and in his judgment it was no use a man teaching anything except what he believed. They ought to give
540
a man or a woman the right to teach what they believed, and that was the foundation of a sound religious and moral education. Therefore he hoped that they should not hear any more about the annexation of teachers. It must be left to the man or the woman to teach what he or she believed to be truth. An hon. Member had alluded to the case of Bath, and said that no harm had resulted there from adopting the diocesan syllabus of Bath and Wells. The hon. Member forgot to mention, however, that that was the system which had been thought out by religious people in the diocese and had not been imposed by the local authority, or by the county council. The case exactly illustrated what they had been fighting for, viz., that the religious instruction should be, he would not say dictated, but superintended by religious people. [An HON. MEMBER: The syllabus was adopted by the Bath Education Authority.] That was his point. It was an exceedingly unfortunate instance to give. What he wanted to know was where we stood to-day in the educational history of this country. Did hon. Members really look upon this Bill as a new and potent factor in the religious education of the children? He was, as hon. Members knew, not concerned with the fact of whether it was Church of England or Nonconformist teaching, but he was concerned that it should be Christian teaching. Every year a new generation of children come forward to be brought up, and unless they were brought up in the doctrines of Christianity this country would fall behind as other countries had who had done without Christianity. [An HON. MEMBER: How about Japan?] Japan had been successful because she had tried to copy England and her morality was one founded upon Christianity. For many years the nation was satisfied to pay for education and not trouble itself about by whom it was given, and under that system many schools were built by the Church of England, by Nonconformists (and at one time there were many Nonconformist schools), by Roman Catholics, and others, but the Liberal Party in 1870 put an end to a system under which half the children of the country were educated. The Act of 1902 opened

541
28,000 school teaching-places to Nonconformists under fair conditions, but this Bill seemed to show that it was the policy of the Liberal Party to continue to supply education to the children against the will of the parents. Freedom would necessitate that if there were only thirty people in England who wanted it those thirty should get religious teaching for their children if it could be given to them. It now came to this, that the Government was going to say that the teaching was not so to be given. The Bill was now going to another place, and he would not care if it never came back. But what about the responsibility of the House of Commons in this matter? To him it was a grievous thing, as an Englishman, and as one who was sincerely desirous that Christianity should grow in England, that there should go from this House a Bill which was stifling education and one under which it was said that, however much religious education was desired, it could not be obtained.
DR. MACNAMARAsaid that during the four months which had elapsed since the House first commenced to discuss this Bill three thoughts had strongly impressed themselves upon him. The first had been expressed by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day much more forcibly than he could express it, and that was the splendid candour, the grim purpose, and the delightful good temper with which the President of the Board of Education had conducted the Bill through the House. He had watched the right hon. Gentleman day by day with growing respect and admiration. He was indeed the—
" One strong man in a blatant land
Who could act and dare not lie."
The second thought was the remarkable change that had come over the temper of the Opposition as the debate proceeded. It began with fury and passion and frantic thumping of the drum ecclesiastic: but it had steadily moderated its tune and tone, until to-day it was a half apologetic pianissimo. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had roared for the rejection of the Bill, but he roared '' as gently as any sucking dove."
542
The Leader of the Opposition, speaking at the Albert Hall on May 2nd, said—
"the Government have introduced a Bill which has lit a flame of indignation from one end of England to the other, and which, if it passes —as I will never believe it can until I see it— will not merely be a monument of intolerant folly, but will light the fires of religious bitterness in every parish and every local authority throughout the kingdom."
That impressed him very forcibly, as the right hon. Gentleman's utterances always did, but he went the other day to Bodmin and to Cockermouth, but he saw no flames and fires there. Then the Bishop of Manchester also went to the Albert Hall and denounced the Bill and said—
" It insulted their Church, outraged their sense of public morality and threatened their religious liberty, and they would not have it."
He believed there had been some anxiety about Clause 13, however, which contained a million of money, but let that pass—
"they would reject it all from the first line to the last, and hid Mr. Speaker take it to the Terrace and pitch it into the Thames."
He hoped Mr. Speaker when he received that order would adjourn the House in order that they too might go to the Terrace and see the interesting feat performed. He would submit this adaptation of a text to the Bishop—
" Cast thy Bill upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days."
At the outset the Bishop of Manchester raised a cry of confiscation, and hon. Members opposite adopted that cry, but then suddenly it dawned upon them that perhaps after all the local authorities might not want to take over these schools. Then they came down with tears in their eyes and begged the Government to compel the local authorities to confiscate their property— to use the absurd phraseology of opponents. That sharp change of front alone stamped the great bulk of the opposition to this Bill as hollow and insincere. The attack on Bible teaching— he absolved the Leader of the Opposition, who admitted that it was good and; wholesome—had also signally failed. There remained the gibe that this was not an Education Bill. As to that, it was a Bill to restore to the settlement of 1870 those principles so flagrantly violated by the Leader of the Opposition in 1902. By

543
putting the appointment of the teachers in the hands of a majority of managers not responsible to the public the principle of popular control where rate aid was given was violated. The Government had restored it, and they had done more. They had given facilities for denominational teaching never given before in a rate-aided school; and all their difficulties had arisen from an endeavour to meet the denominationalists and to extend the principles of 1870 in their interest. Had the right lion. Gentleman come down with a simple Bill to restore the principles of the agreement of 1870 his path would have been easy. He would have had an enthusiastic Party behind him. All the right hon. Gentleman's trouble and anxiety had arisen from his desire to meet the denominationalists and extend the settlement in their favour. He (Dr. Macnamara) made no complaint about that endeavour; indeed he would have gone further. He would have met the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford and the hon. Member for Salford, and it was a little ignominious that they might yet have to meet the demands of those Gentlemen when the Bill was brought again to them from another place. So far as he was concerned he would have endeavoured to have met them in their own House. On the First Reading of this Bill he characterised it as an honest and painstaking endeavour to solve an almost insoluble proposition. He still said so, and he thought that with one exception—he entirely disagreed with the hon. Members for West Bam and South Dublin—every Amendment that had been made had made the Bill a better Bill. That exception was the "contracting out" Amendment. He should say that he had not noticed anything in the nature of obstruction to the Bill. There had been a big fight for principle on the part of the Opposition, but at the same time a most painstaking effort to improve the character of the Bill. He deeply regretted the Amendment providing for contracting out. It had been characterised by all as educationally reactionary, and it was wholly illiberal and against the principles of Liberalism to take a school, maintained as to seven-eighths of its income from public funds, out of popular control. There was nothing to prevent a
544
Tory Government, by increasing the grants to these schools, from setting up again that Dual system which the Liberal Party was returned to destroy. He was sure it would be watched with the greatest care, and that no school would be allowed to contract out unless the managers gave a guarantee that they had enough money to carry on the school as efficiently as it would be carried on if taken over by the authority, He rejoiced at another Amendment that had been made, providing for the medical inspection of the children. That was worth the whole of the rest of the Bill put together, enabling them as it would to make an anthropometrical survey of the whole of the children in the country. He was also very grateful to both the Government and the Opposition for the generous manner in which they had associated themselves each with the other in the endeavour to provide something in the shape of an allowance for the teachers whose schools would be closed. But two things had not been done which ought to have been done. The denominational training colleges ought to have been thoroughly overhauled. It was perfectly monstrous that institutions which got all their money from public sources should be allowed to set up a denominational ring fence round their seats, and that a grievous injustice should be inflicted on young people who had gained their King's scholarship with great success but could not get on without a strong temptation being put in their way to change their faith. He ventured to say that that question could not remain in its present position. The Government would have at an early date to tackle the whole question in the interests of real freedom in the matter of teaching. They had not raised the age for half-time factory labour in this Bill. It had been said to-day that this Bill would be thrown out in another place. He did not think so, and never had thought so. There would be Amendments in another place; there would have to be a conference between the Houses, and give-and-take; but the Bill was going to pass into law. It would not be a settlement of the education question—that was too big a question to be settled in the course of one session—but it would go a long way

545
towards a settlement, and he congratulated the Minister for Education on the great privilege of having contributed in so material a degree to the work of making the citizens of to-morrow fit for the great national heritage which would in due course fall into their hands.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down congratulated the Minister for Education on the privilege—the deserved privilege in the hon. Gentleman's view—of introducing into and carrying through this House an Education Bill. I do not know what the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education may be, but it is a privilege which I have enjoyed in my time—I do not know that it is a privilege that I want again, and I am not absolutely sure that the Minister of Education, however we may differ in other matters, will greatly differ from me in that. The hon. Member for North Camberwell seems to think that our opposition to this Bill on its introduction was more vehement in its character than it is now, that our protests have weakened, if not in logical force, at all events in the energy with which they are delivered, and that we now find ourselves in a more acquiescent mood. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member. I admit that in hot weather it is difficult to give the same vigorous expression to one's feelings as in different climatic conditions. But I believe there is a more important cause for the change which the hon. Gentleman finds in our debates. I think most of us have begun to feel that the real discussion of this question is not now in this House and has not been for some time; the real discussion must be elsewhere; and everybody is perfectly reconciled to the fact that another place is going to deal with large tracts of the Bill which we have not found time even to touch upon, and, whatever the opinion of various Gentlemen may be, it is in the highest degree improbable that the Bill will come back in the shape in which it leaves us. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down controverted a prophecy of mine that this Bill would never pass. Does he think this Bill will ever pass? I do not think he or anybody else does.
*DR. MACNAMARA: I am not a believer in verbal inspiration like the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The fact is, as two or three hon. Members have said to-night, the time for argument in this House has not only passed, but has long been passed. We felt that the Government were determined to send the Bill up in a certain shape from this House. My conviction is that the House on both sides has long resolved that, if there are to be further changes made in this Bill, they are to be made elsewhere, and that fact must militate against the reality of our debates. At the same time, do not let it be supposed that the aversion with which we regard this Bill has at all altered either in character or in quality. The criticisms which were passed upon it months ago are criticisms to which we still adhere, and are prepared to fight for either in this House or in the country. I do not wish, of course, to traverse the whole field of our debates. It would be impossible in the time at my disposal and. if possible, it would be improper. But may I touch upon one or two salient points in this afternoon's discussion? The Government bring this Bill forward as a solution of the education question. About that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell and I, who have fought this education question for many years, are perhaps less sanguine than the relative novices on the Treasury bench; we at all events take less sanguine views. They think, at all events, it is a solution of the question, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made a rare incursion into our debates this afternoon, told us that, unless this Bill was founded on equality and justice, the settlement proposed by it was one that could not by any possibility last. Let us consider whether this Bill does do justice and does provide equality between the contending parties in the matter of religious education. May I say in a parenthesis that at this stage, owing to the limitations of time, I will touch on nothing except the religious aspect of the question, but, though I do not touch on other points, it does not follow that I am indifferent to them. The Chancellor of the 'Exchequer says that,

547
unless this Bill embodies justice and equality, it is not an arrangement that can stand. Does it embody equality? Does it embody justice? I take first the ordinary Nonconformist view as distinguished from the passive resister's view. What does this Bill do for them? What grievance of theirs does it remedy? The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor-General told us there was an admitted grievance on the part of the Nonconformists, but they differed as to what their grievance was. One grievance was that the Nonconformists had to pay rates for denominational education, but another was that the Nonconformists could not get under the 1902 arrangement for the children the religious education they had a right to demand. In the first place, let me observe that, if the 1902 Bill differed from the previous settlement with regard to the religious education of Nonconformists, it differed in every single respect for the better. The hon. Gentlemen mentioned a number of things that were part of the arrangement of 1870, as that half the cost should be borne by the denomination, and that, if there was to be any rate-aid given, there should be full public control. I do not admit that that was part of the arrangement of 1870, but, however that may be, if you are going back to the speeches of 1870, part of the arrangement was that a 3d. rate should exhaust all the cost of the schools. If you are really going back to the obiter dicta of Ministers of that day—
DR. MACNAMARA: No, the text of the Act.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say anything about the text of the Act, but fundamentally and essentially what the Act of 1902 did, was to leave the two great classes of schools in existence and efficient which were recognised by the Act of 1870, and they could not be left in existence and efficient under any other arrangement than that of the Act of 1902. [" Oh, oh ! "] Every change in the Act of 1902 was a change in favour of the Nonconformists, and, no one knowing the circumstances can contradict the statement. It is the irrefutable truth in every particular. What is the Nonconformist grievance
548
as regards the education of Nonconformist children?
A LIBERAL HON. MEMBER: What about the single area schools?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Act of 1902 did not make that grievance. It found that grievance and, did a great deal to remedy it.
ANOTHER HON. MEMBER: It put the schools on the rates.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What has that to do with the education of the children? I am dealing with the point of the education of Nonconformist children, and does the hon. Member not know that the Act of 1902 made it possible for the first time for local authorities to provide schools out of public money and religious teaching out of public money wherever they thought the conditions of the district required it? The Act of 1902, as far as Nonconformist teachers and, education are concerned, was an improvement on the settlement of 1870. It was an improvement, because it allowed every teacher, except the head teacher, notwithstanding the trust deeds, to be a Nonconformist, because it allowed alternative schools to be built at the public cost, because it provided that every pupil teacher should be selected irrespective of creed. [" No, no ! "] In every particular, so far as the grievance referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, the Act of 1902 was an enormous improvement upon the Act of 1870. I do not deny, in spite of all these improvements, that the condition of things was not left perfect by that Act either as regards Nonconformists or Churchmen, or other denominations. Consider exactly what the educational grievance is. The Government have made professions at short intervals throughout the whole of the three months discussion, which, in effect, come to this—that the schools are, after all, to go on under the new Bill very much as they did under the old Bill. Is that profession true, or is it not? Does the Bill carry it out? If the Bill does what the Government says it does, if the schools belonging to the denominations are to go on very

549
much in the same way as before, how does it remedy any Nonconformist grievance? I admit that in single school areas the Nonconformists have not the teaching every day of the week, but they have it three days of the week. They have the tuition they desire. The Government say that the common practice in Church schools in country districts is this—three days a week of Cowper-Temple teaching, and on the other two days the Church catechism. Therefore, on three days a week under the existing system Nonconformist children have exactly the education which Nonconformist parents desire. [" No."] When they are speaking to hon. Members on this side of the House, they say, "We can assure you that the whole thing will go on as before."the right hon. Gentleman tells the Jews that their schools are to go on as before. He tells the Roman Catholics that 75 per cent, of the schools are to go on; and he tells the Church of England that under Clause 3 there would be no change that any one can notice. If that be so, where is the grievance of the Nonconformists? Or, if there be a grievance, how does the Bill remedy it I If the existing state of things does not give equality and justice to the Nonconformists, I am utterly unable to see how the new state of things will improve matters. Now I will come to the case of the passive resister. This Bill is supposed to give equality and justice to everybody, including the passive resister. His theory is this—that, while it is legitimate to require a man to pay taxes, some of which may go to denominational teaching, it is contrary to conscience to pay rates for the same purpose. I do not argue their conscientious objection, I accept their view of what their conscience commands. How does this Bill help them? It unquestionably requires that money shall be paid out of the rates for denominational teaching. It requires it under Clause 4 and under Clause 3, where the school is to be kept going and lighted and warmed out of the rates. Not a great gift, to the denomination, but how about the passive resister? His grievance is not determined by the mere magnitude of the sums concerned. With him it is a question of principle; and a single shilling, out of the rates spent on denominational education
550
wounds his conscience as much as if it were £1,000. Then this Bill does not help him. Personally I think that this talk about, the amount contributed to education is exaggerated. Considering that in the ordinary school there is only an hour and a half a week devoted to denominational education, will any one say that a fair consideration for the use of the buildings of a voluntary school is not enough to pay for that teaching I But if the ratepayer pays under the existing system, he pays under this Bill. You do not relieve the conscience of the passive resister. Then how is the local authority benefited? Under the Act of 1870 and under the Act of 1902 the local authority was not required or permitted to concern itself with these religious and denominational controversies. But under Clause 3 of the present Bill this authority has to determine in the first place whether it will take over the denominational school, and then at what hour the denominational education shall take place, and the number of hours in the week to be devoted to it. Not more than two hours a week to any given child, but the number of actual hours per week of denominational teaching is to be handed over to this unforunate local authority. Under Clause 4 you also require the local authority to determine who the teachers shall be. Hon. Members below the gangway who are specially interested in Clause 4 say it is hopelessly inadequate at present to carry out the intention of the Government, which is that the local authority shall find Jewish teachers for Jewish schools, Roman Catholic teachers for Roman Catholic schools, Church teachers for Church schools, and, for anything I know to the contrary, Wesleyan teachers for Wesleyan schools, though that may be repudiated by some Wesleyan representatives in this House. Clause 4 schools have to be staffed by the local authority in accordance with the character of the school. That is not in the Bill, but it is in the speeches of the Government. Have the local authority much to thank you for in requiring them to fulfil these delicate and difficult tasks? I think it is right they should carry them out, but if you make the local authority find the teachers you should make them appoint' teachers so as to suit the religion desired

551
by the parents of the children. While you require the local authority to do all these things you do not give it liberty or free it from the Cowper-Temple clause. You bind it in one direction; you free it in another. Do you treat the parent better than you treat the local authority? The Government have boasted of their kindness to the parent. As a matter of fact, they do recognise the parent in Clause 4, but do they recognise him anywhere else? If you are going to deal with this religious situation in a final manner and upset all the arrangements of 1870 and of 1902, it must be upon a parental foundation. You say the parents in this country want only Cowper-Temple teaching. You may be right, but give the parents the chance of saying so. Give them an opportunity of saying how they want their children taught. Then we shall know where we are, and I for one shall not protest against any system whomsoever it may favour— Roman Catholic, or Church of England, or Wesleyan, or Agnostic, or any other sect—so long as the parent is allowed to decide what religion it shall be. You do not do justice to the parent; do you do justice to the Church? The learned Solicitor-General appeared to think that the Church was the aggressor in all this matter. I do not get up in this House to speak in favour of any particular denomination. My view is that it is a parental question before any other, and this House and this Parliament have made cause with the Church which, I think, they should recognise. The Church before 1870 bore the great burden of education; since 1870 it has been asked to continue to bear that burden, and since 1902 it has expended vast sums in carrying out educational purposes. How do you propose to reward the Church? Almost every Member on your side who has spoken in favour of the Bill has indicated that, while he regards the consciences of Roman Catholics and Jews as consciences to be respected, he thinks that he has in his own keeping the consciences of members of the Church of England. I call that grossly unjust; I call that grossly unequal; I call it a violent interference with every principle of religious equality. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that Nonconformists made great sacri
552
fices in order to accept Cowper-Temple teaching. That is not the statement of the Nonconformists. They tell us that it is the teaching they like; that it is the teaching they desire for their children. It is quite fair, and so far as parents belonging to the Church of England agree with them let them have Cowper-Temple teaching. I do not quarrel with that; I approve of it. But there are parents who do not want that teaching. By what principle of common justice, by what principle of equity, by what principle of accepted Liberalism are you going to force upon them a kind of teaching which they do not want? The effect of this Bill is that it carries out no principle, that it embodies no coherent theory. It is neither based upon an historical foundation like the Act of 1902, nor does it embody any rational principle whatever. Its authors do not pretend to like it, those who are going to vote for it to-night largely vote for it in the hope that it will be altered in another place; and, though I do not deny that you may find scattered about its incoherent clauses here and there the principles upon upon which an ultimate settlement may be based, and might be based, I say it will require profound modification before out of this Bill you can manufacture anything in the nature of a final and coherent settlement. Its authors, and they are many, have not thought out the scheme they have brought before us. They are not prepared to defend it. It is denounced by some of their supporters on that side of the House; it is universally denounced by their supporters on this side. For my part if I did not believe, as I firmly do believe, that no Bill of this kind can possibly become law without the profoundest modification. I should look forward to to-night's division with a seriousness of apprehension which I must honestly confess I do not entertain on the present occasion.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): With singular unanimity almost every speaker who has taken part in to-night's debate has agreed that the time for argument has gone by. Nevertheless to the best of his ability he has gone on arguing and unfortunately half an hour has been left to me—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Thirty-five minutes.
MR. BIRRELL: I wish it were only half an hour—to proceed on the same sad path. It is barely four months ago since I stood here, a highly nervous figure I admit, asking leave to introduce, not, indeed, this Bill—to say that would be to insult the utility of this House, even under the closure, as a consultative and deliberative body—but nevertheless a Bill which in all its main features and dominant characteristics was identical with the Bill that is now before the House. But although the time is short, a good many things have happened to me since then, and I am reminded as I stand here tonight of a famous passage of Shakespeare in which he contrasts the difference in appearance between a barque as it leaves port on its outward-going voyage, like a prodigal youngster, with the same vessel, still seaworthy but with "over-weather'd ribs and ragged sails," which makes its way to rest for a brief season in its desired haven. The over-weather'd ribs and ragged sails I take to be a poetical and therefore a highly exaggerated account of Clause 4 as amended, and these State-aided schools which excite the warm dislike of my hon. friend the Member for North Camberwell and, I freely admit, of myself also. However, this Bill has, I think, during our discussion become much better understood, and certainly the torrents of abuse with which it was received, and which, I own, for a few weeks well-nigh overwhelmed me, have entirely ceased, and I do not suppose there is even a prelate—a proud prelate, to use the language of a Gentleman opposite —who would recommend either this House or another place to treat this Bill with the ignominy and contempt which they then alleged it deserved. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has adopted, as indeed have many of his supporters, a somewhat curious attitude. They have said sometimes that this Bill does really nothing for the Nonconformists, and yet they have said that it is a Bill conceived in a spirit of deadly hatred and animosity to the Church of England—an odious imputation which I for one most entirely repudiate. I think when we consider the clauses of this Bill I am entitled to
554
say that such an accusation ought nit to have been brought against either me or the Government of which I am a Member. Now the right hon. Gentleman has asked what this Bill does for Nonconformists. We have had very little attention paid in these debates to Clause 1, which has been almost unchallenged and has passed almost undiscussed It has occupied a very short time indeed, and its authority has been very little challenged either in the House or in the country. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh ! "] Well, it does not live in my memory as that part of the Bill which was subjected to the most searching criticism at the hands of the Opposition. A great number of them have said in the House and country that after the last general election some such clause as Clause 1 was inevitable. Anyhow, there Clause 1 is, unaltered and unamended, and so it will go to another place. It secures for every Nonconformist in every village throughout the country an undenominational school within his reach. Clause 1 is what I called it once before, a charter of freedom to the village Nonconformist, and a Bill which contains that clause cannot truthfully or properly be said to be a Bill which did not relieve, did not entirely remove, the grievance which the right hon. Gentleman admits he found staring him in the face when he took up the problem in 1902, and which he left staring him in the face after he passed the Act. I say, therefore, that Clause 1 has relieved the Nonconformist grievance. Clause 7 has also relieved the teachers, set free the teachers' conscience, a matter of some importance to a vast and honourable profession. These two clauses taken by themselves fulfil pledges and work a mighty reform. I am not here to find fault with the Act of 1902, having administered it, as it has been my lot to do, for some months. I recognise, as indeed many of us have recognised, that it contains some admirable provisions. But the right hon. Gentleman failed, and he has admitted that he failed—I do not blame him, with his allies and his supporters he found it impossible. I know something of the difficulty of allies, and even the most powerful Minister, even a Prime Minister, seldom has all his own way, and I, therefore, being the humblest of Ministers, could not expect to have

555
all my own way in this matter. Therefore, I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for having been unable to deal with the grievance which he admitted he found, and which he left for us to deal with. I think, therefore, that Clauses 1 and 7 are very considerable achievements and very great reforms. Then there is the religious difficulty with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt. I have never been among those who quarrelled with the existence of the religious difficulty. I regret, of course, that it should exist, we all must; but I do not wonder that it does exist, nor am I angry, if you can imagine such a thing, with my fellow-countrymen for attaching the great importance which they do to this subject. I have been told by many Gentlemen below the gangway and on this side of the House, "Oh, think more,"they say, "of the children; think of them and them alone. Consider the doctor, secure compulsory medical inspection, see that nurses are employed, bind up their wounds, and attend to their minor ailments, look after their playgrounds, organize their games, sec to their vacation." All excellent things, things that are done in this Bill, with, I gladly admit, the universal support of the whole House, and not least with the support of Gentlemen who are sitting immediately opposite me. We have done these things, but they do not go the whole way. I would venture to say to Gentlemen below the gangway if they say, "Think only of the child "—" Yes, but what is the child, whence came it, whether goeth it?" Conscience, sin, immortality, are you going to drive all those things out of the ordinary curriculum of the school life? Are you going to leave these things as if they were of no account? Were this House disposed to do so, which by an overwhelming majority it showed it would not, the parents of the children would not let you do it, nor would the children themselves, at all events for a good many generations to come, and I appeal to hon. Gentleman below the Gangway in this matter, not to throw themselves readily or eagerly into the path of those who advocate purely secular education. I would urge them of all men, they who dreams and see visions of a good
556
time coming, when the condition of the poor and the miserable will so poison the existence of the rich and the comfortable as to make all society combine to do all that it can to redeem that lot —I ask them to remember, in that great effort, where are they to look for the leverage which is to accomplish that mighty revolution? Where are they to find the alkahest which is to transmute the base metal of selfishness into the pure gold of altruism? I say they will find Christianity to be the potent force which will ever be the best friend of the poor and helpless man. Were it said, "All that may be struck out and handed over to the purely voluntary efforts of those great organisations we compendiously call the Churches, I do not think that can safely or properly be done, and it has been the main object and the passionate desire of this Government to do what it can to secure throughout this country as an ordinary rule and principle of our school life that religious education should be given. And how is it to be done? We believe, we may of course be quite wrong, but we have turned this matter over in a thousand different ways, we have considered all the difficulties and all the obstacles that meet anybody who advocates religious education in this country, and we have deliberately come to the conclusion—and nothing has shaken my mind since first I began to think night and day of this subject—that the best way of doing that is to make undenominational teaching of the kind authorised by the Act of 1870, which has behind it the experience of thirty-six years, the ordinary rule of all the schools. We are told that this is unfair. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, who made many interesting and powerful speeches on the Bill, has read the syllabuses, and says he finds nothing in them to make a child attached to the Church of England. But let him look into the actual facts of the case. I was speaking the other day to a Member of the House who knows about board schools and Church schools, not as things to be supported, but as places where to send his children. He was blessed with five daughters, three of whom were

557
educated in board schools, and two in Church schools.
"the three who were educated in board schools,"
said he,
" are confirmed and communicating members of the Church of England, and the two who were educated in Church schools are stern and unbending Nonconformists."
I am not going to treat the five daughters of my hon. friend so rudely as to build any theory upon them, but I commend their case to the noble Lord. I do not believe that this education which has been given for six and thirty years in our board schools has in a single instance proved hostile to a child joining with heartiness, comfort, and joy either the Church of England or any other religious denomination. The fact is that in early life, the capacity of children being limited, denominational differences do not cut so deeply as some suppose. I agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury that religious instruction is very badly given. I have heard it given again and again in board schools and in Church schools, and I very seldom heard it given otherwise than badly. That is a criticism not of the system, but of the teacher. Others things are also badly taught. I went the other day to a board school and hoard a French lesson, and, though I make no pretence of being a French scholar, I was in the school more than ten minutes before I knew what the lesson was about. These are criticisms of methods, not of principles. The well trained teacher is the thing we want. A good teacher can teach Cowper-Templeism so as to make it beautiful, charming, and most interesting. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I quite agree with much of what the hon. Member for Waterford has said. I have never disguised my sympathy with the cause he represents. But I cannot agree with him that Cowper-Temple religious instruction is a thing perfectly hateful to Roman Catholics. Many strange things come to the knowledge of a Minister for Education. I know that many parents of Roman Catholic children who attended the board schools have admitted that their children have received advantage from the simple undenominational teaching which is given in those schools. There
558
are in those old board schools also many scores of Roman Catholic teachers, devoted men and women, who give CowperTemple religious instruction every day of their lives, and they find it no injury either to their faith or their passion for the church to which they belong. While we admit the differences that divide us, let us not, for Heaven's sake, exaggerate them, and make them out to be more serious. We had to grapple with the religious difficulty. We grappled with it in a certain way. We knew the opposition we should meet with from various quarters. But our object being to secure the maximum of religious instruction in the greatest number of schools, we came to the conclusion that it was only by adhering to the system of undenominational teaching that we could secure a wide system of religious instruction which excludes the formularies distinctive of religious sects, but which allows the teacher to put the whole force of his religious character into his religious teaching, a character without which his teaching would be vain, no matter to what denomination he belongs. If he has not got it it does not matter what he calls himself; if he has the teacher's gift, then, indeed, even through the so-called "dry bones" of this Cowper-Templeism, he can impart to the children who fall under his influence all the elements of sound religion and deep-rooted piety. We have kept our pledges. We have secured popular control. The right hon. Gentleman says, what is the value of it if you put all sorts of burdens on the local authority? So it will. That is the look-out of the local authority. I have never known a local authority which despised new duties or shirked new administration. We have secured popular control; we have secured through all the villages undenominational schools for the children of Nonconformists. Then, it is said, that in doing this we have inflicted grievous wrong and injury on the Church of England. I do not believe it. I should be very sorry if I thought that any action or word of mine had done any harm to the Church of England as a spiritual body. I care nothing for it in any other capacity. I believe that this Bill, so far from doing it any harm, as a spiritual organisation, will remove and disperse a black cloud of

559
suspicion and dislike, which for 200 years and more has hung over it in the matter of education. So far from doing injury to the Church of England, this Bill, if properly carried out, if due effect is given to its provisions, will strengthen the Church of England and make it far more popular in the country districts than it has been in the past, and relieve it from a cloud of suspicion, dislike, and sometimes, I am afraid, of actual hatred. I therefore claim that this Bill will not substantially injure the Church of England. It will secure, in the first place, where the schools are taken over, their catechetical teaching, the rent for their premises, which will enable them to obtain, if necessary, such outside assistance as they require. They may give it in the school, or under Clause 6 they may give it in the church. They may take away the child altogether during the three-quarters of an hour of instruction. This freedom will be restored to them, the power and the control of the clergy, the loss of which they resented so bitterly in 1902, when it was taken from them, will to some considerable extent be restored to them. I say that as a spiritual instrument their position, so far from being worse, will be better under the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps it is better they should not know the feelings entertained towards the Church of England by many a poor Primitive Methodist and Nonconformist. These things cannot go on during long years of
dominancy, handed down from father to son. [A laugh.] Oh, yes; it is easy to laugh and sneer. I have not spent my life among Nonconformists for nothing. The dominancy which the Church has exercised in the matter of education for many a decade this Bill will remove, and it will not injure by one jot or tittle the catechetical knowledge or the Prayer Book knowledge of any child of future days. I say to the lovers of education and to the lovers of religion that I believe that this Bill will aid and abet both these great causes. The Bill leaves us to-night. It goes elsewhere. Many have spoken of what is going to happen elsewhere. I have no such knowledge. I indulge in no speculation on the subject. Their responsibility rests with thorn, and with thorn alone. They can do whatever they choose to this Bill. In parting with the Bill I have to thank the House for the great kindness and invariable courtesy with which they have received me, inexperienced in those matters, from first to last. I am not sorry that my first efforts in trying to pass a Bill through this House should have been one connected with a subject which, after all, whatever our opinions may be, goes deep down into the very vitals of the future of our people.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes,369; Noes, 177. (Division List No. 284.)

AYES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bell, Richard

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Agnew, George William

Benn, SirJ. Williams(Devonp'rt

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Burns, Rt. Hn. John

Alden, Percy

Berridge, T. H. D.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Bertram, Julius

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Armitage, R.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Byles, William Pollard

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Billson, Alfred

Cairns, Thomas

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cameron, Robert

Astbury, John Meir

Black. Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Atherley-Jones L.

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bottomley, Horatio

Causton,Rt.Hn. Richard Knight

Baker, Joseph A. (Finstmry, E.

Boulton. A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cawley, Frederick

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brace, William

Chance, Frederick William

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Channing, Francis Allston

Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

Brigg, John

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barlow. Percy (Bedford)

Bright. J. A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barnard, E. B.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Barran. Rowland Hirst

Brodie, H. C.

Clarke, C. Goddard

Beale, W. P.

Brooke, Stopford

Cleland, J. W.

Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourn

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

Clough, W.

Beaumont. W. C. B. (Hexham)

Brunner, Sir JohnT.(Cheshire)

Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Bryce, Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Marnham, F. J.

Cooper, G. J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hedges, A. Paget

Massie, J.

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Menzies, Walter

Cory, Clifford John

Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Henry, Charles S.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Cowan, W. H.

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

Mond, A.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Montagu, E. S.

Cremer, William Randal

Higham, John Sharp

Montgomery, H. G.

Crombie, John William

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Crooks, William

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Crosfield, A. H.

Hodge, John

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, William J.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morrell, Philip

Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

Holland, Sir Wiliam Henry

Morse, L. L.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hope,W. Bateman(Somerset,N

Myer, Horatio

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Horniman, Emslie John

Napier, T. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hudson, Walter

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

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

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholls, George

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Idris, T. H. W.

Nicholson, Chas.N.(Doncast'r)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Norman, Henry

Duckworth, James

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jackson, R. S.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nuttall, Harry

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Jenkins, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Partington, Oswald

Elibank, Master of

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Paul, Herbert

Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward

Jones, Sir D.Brynmor(Swansea

Paulton, James Mellor

Erskine, David C.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Essex, R. W.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Pearee, William (Limehouse)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Jowett, F. W.

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Everett, R. Lacey

Kearley, Hudson E.

Perks, Robert William

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Kekewieh, Sir George

Philipps, Col.Ivor(S'thampton)

Fenwick, Charles

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

Ferens, T. R.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Kitson, Sir James

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Laidlaw, Robert

Pirie, Duncan V.

Findlay, Alexander

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Pollard, Dr.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lambert, George

Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk, E.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lamont, Norman

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Langley, Batty

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

Fullerton, Hugh

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Radford, G. H.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Leese,Sir, JosephF. (Accington

Rainy, A. Rolland

Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford,S.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich

Rea, Russell, (Gloucester)

Gill, A. H.

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Levy, Maurice

Rees, J. D.

Glendinning, R. G.

Lewis, John Herbert

Kendall, Athelstan

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Renton, Major Leslie

Gooch, George Peabody

Lough, Thomas

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th

Grant, Corrie

Lupton, Arnold

Richardson, A.

Greenwood, G. Peterborough)

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Rickett, J. Compton

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lynch, H. B.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Grove, Archibald

Macdonald,J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Robertson, Rt.Hn.E.(Dundee)

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Gulland, John W.

Maclean, Donald

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robinson, S.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

M'Arthur, William

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Callum, John M.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Hardie, J.Keir (MerthyrTydvil

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

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

Rose, Charles Day

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

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

Rowlands, J.

Hart-Davies, T.

M'Micking, Major G.

Runciman, Walter

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Mallet, Charles E.

Russell, T. W.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

562

563

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Summerbell, T.

Waterlow, D. S.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L. |

Sutherland, J. E.

Watt, H. Anderson

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Weir, James Galloway

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Tennant, SirEdward(Salisbury

Whitbread, Howard

Sears, J. E.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

White, George (Norfolk)

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Shackleton, David James

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Thomasson, Franklin

Whitehead, Rowland

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

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Tillett, Louis John

Wiles, Thomas

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Tomkinson, James

Wilkie, Alexander

Simon, John Allsebrook

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Toulmin, George

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Ure, Alexander

Williamson, A.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Verney, F. W.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Snowden, P.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Vivian, Henry

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)

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

Stanger, H. Y.

Wallace, Robert

Winfrey, R.

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Walsh, Stephen

Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk,Mid

Steadman, W. C.

Walters, John Tudor

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

Woodhouse, SirJ.T. (Huddersfd

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Yoxall, James Henry

Strachey, Sir Edward

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southamptn

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

Pease.

NOES.

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

Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

Houston, Robert Paterson

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hunt, Rowland

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Doughty, Sir George

Joyce, Michael

Ashley, W. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Balcarres, Lord

Du Cros, Harvey

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Baldwin, Alfred

Duffy, William J.

Keswick, William

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

Duncan,Robert (Lanark, Govan

Kimber, Sir Henry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

King, SirHenrySeymour(Hull)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

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

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Fardell, Sir T. George

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

Beach, Hn.MichaelHugh Hicks

Fell, Arthur

Long, Col. Chas. W.(Evesham)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

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

Boland, John

Ffrench, Peter

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bowles, G. Stewart

Field, William

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lundon, W.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Burke, E. Haviland-

Fletcher, J. S.

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

Macpherson, J. T.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Forster, Henry William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ginnell, L.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Cave, George

Glover, Thomas

M'Kean, John

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Haddock, George R.

M'Killop, W.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Halpin, J.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Hamilton, Marquess of

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hammond, John

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Clancy, John Joseph

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Meagher, Michael

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

Harrington, Timothy

Meehan, Patrick A.

Cogan, Denis J.

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mooney, J. J.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hayden, John Patrick

Morpeth, Viscount

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hazelton, Richard

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Cox, Harold

Heaton, John Henniker

Murnaghan, George

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

Helmsley, Viscount

Murphy, John

Craik, Sir Henry

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Crean, Eugene

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

Cullinan, J.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Nield, Herbert

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hogan, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Delany, William

Hornby, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

564

565

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Sullivan, Donal

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

O'Doherty, Philip

Reddy, M.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Thornton, Percy M.

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

O'Dowd, John

Remnant, James Farquharson

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

O'Grady, J.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

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

O'Hare', Patrick

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

O'Malley, William

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

O'Mara, James

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sheehy, David

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend

Smith, AbelH.(Herftord, East)

Younger, George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Percy, Earl

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk

Viscount Valentia.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Starkey, John R.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Question put, and agreed to.

CORPORATION OF LONDON (BLACKFRIARS AND OTHER BRIDGES)BILL. [BY ORDER.]
Lords Amendments considered.
Lords Amendment in page 9, line31 (leave out Clause 15), the next Amendment, read a second time.
*MR. BARNARDexplained that the clause which gave protection to the Metropolitan Water Board had for some years past been inserted in the tramway Bills of the London County Council. He pointed out to the House that his Motion to-night was not contrary to the dictates of good taste in spite of the action which Lord Welby had taken in another place, because the action was taken under a misapprehension. It must be remembered that this clause was placed in the Bill when it went through Committee of the House of Commons, and it passed its Third Reading in the House without alteration. After that it went through Committee of the House of Lords with the clause inserted. The Lord Chairman subsequently struck it out, and on the discussion on Third Reading on Lord Welby's Motion to reinsert the clause the Lord Chairman quoted precedents to show that its insertion was contrary to precedent. On those statements of the Lord Chairman Lord Welby withdrew
566
his proposition. He now understood from the advisers of the Metropolitan Water Board that the Lord Chairman was misinformed and the conclusion which had been come to was to invite the House to reinsert the clause. With regard to the position of the Board of Trade in the matter he could only say the Board of Trade last year not only allowed similar propositions to go through dealing with other subjects, but took upon itself the responsibility of proposing and carrying them in a provisional order. It might be said that the Board of Trade regulations in regard to this subject were ample and sufficient for the purpose. All that he could say was that they were practically no safeguard, even if the regulations were acted up to, to any other persons beyond those interested in the electric current. This protection had been granted in electric power Bills on more than one occasion. If it were granted in the case of electric power Bills, it appeared to be very strange that it should be withheld in connection with a tramway scheme. There were other precedents in addition to the London County Council Tramways in which a similar protective clause had been inserted, viz., the South Wales Electric Power Distribution Company's Act, 1900; the Sheffield Corporation Tramways Act, 1901; the Clyde Valley Electric Power Act, 1901; the Dublin St. James's Gate Brewery Tramways Act, 1901; the Manchester Southern Tramways Act, 1903; the Exeter Corporation Tramways Act, 1903; the Brighton Corporation Tramways Act, 1903; the Preston, Chorley, and Horwich

567
Tramways Act, 1903; the Somerset and District Electric Power Act, 1903; the North Western Electric Power Act, 1903; the Lothians Electric Power Act, 1904; the Altrincham Tramways Provisional Order, 1904; the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company's Act, 1905. The Water Board had about 7,000 miles of pipes in London and were practically responsible for the water supply of 7,000,000 people. They served out on a busy day some 250,000,000 gallons of water. It was therefore essential that proper protection should be given. It was not merely a money question, but the safety of the water supply of London, which he could not help thinking would be seriously imperilled. It was a reasonable insurance that the clause provided. It had been passed by a Committee of this House, by this House itself, and by a Committee of the House of Lords. A big question was opened up as to whether on the dictum of the Lord Chairman they should accept the position without considerable investigation.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Mr. Barnard.)
MR. LUPTONseconded.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)said first of all he should like to point out the historical aspect of the matter. In 1893 a joint committee, presided over by Lord Cross, went exhaustively into the whole subject, and the result of the deliberations of the Committee was that a set of model clauses was drafted. Those model clauses were adopted and had been inserted in all Bills since. They were in this Bill, and under the clauses the promoters were bound to comply with the Board of Trade regulations, which were adequate to protect all interests. The regulations had been in force for thirteen years, and during the whole of that time there had not been one single case brought to the attention of the Board of Trade of any ill results from electrical contact.
LORD R. CECIL: Was there not a case at Leeds?
MR. KEARLEYsaid no evidence had ever been produced to show that the corroding of the pipe to which the noble Lord alluded arose from electrical action. At any rate, the electrical adviser of the Board of Trade denied that it could be established. The Board of Trade regulations had been revised several times and were again under consideration. It could not, therefore, be said that they were not up-to-date. The Board of Trade objected to the insertion of this clause, because an arrangement had been arrived at whereby for some years they had secured uniform procedure in Parliamentary practice. They objected to the clause because it was unnecessary and because it created the impression, undeservedly, that the model clauses of the Board of Trade were not adequate.
*MR. MORTONsaid he desired on the part of the Corporation to say that they were entirely satisfied with the protection which the House of Lords had given them by striking out the clause referred to. The Corporation, for the sake of peace and quietness agreed, to the insertion of the clause, and not because they believed in it as being necessary at all. In this matter they were merely bridge-wideners and they ought not to be troubled, even if it were necessary, by any such clause as this. Moreover, they were told on good authority that the Board of Trade regulations were quite sufficient for the purpose. The Corporation hoped to have the works in progress soon after the Autumn session, and he trusted the House would agree that this clause was not necessary, and that the Corporation had acted fairly and even generously in voluntarily finding from two to three hundred thousand pounds to enable the tramway to be taken over Blackfriars Bridge.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division; but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Speaker declared the Noes had it.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL)(BY ORDER).
*MR. BARNARDsaid that although it might be true that the Board of Trade regulations were sufficient to carry out the object of the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper, his complaint was that they were not carried into effect. To show that the Board of Trade were not altogether consistent in their policy he would point out that in the case of the Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Bill of last session, a Bill which was very well known, this clause was inserted by a Select Committee of the House of Lords after evidence had been called and the matter fully gone into, and the Bill passed through all stages in both Houses of Parliament without objection being taken to this clause by the Board of Trade, but the Bill however, failed to receive Royal Assent through want of time. He would not press his objection any further, and he would not move.

NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE,1904–5.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1905, and the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz:—

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £415,439 18 s. 8d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Navy Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £449,539 13 s. 1d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule, so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Navy Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £34,099 14 s. 11 d.;

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Grants for Navy Services fell short of
570
the total estimated receipts by the sum of £80,479 6s. 10 d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule, while the receipts in aid of other Navy Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £70,198 8s. 9d., as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule, so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Navy Services fell short of the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £4,280 18 s. 1d.

(c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

455,107

18

8

Total Deficits

425,289

1

10

Net Surplus

£29,818

16

10

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Navy Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the Estimated Appropriation-in-Aid, in respect of the same services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned: "—(Mr. McKenna.)
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked why there had been an excess of expenditure over the estimates of £4,280 for Navy Services.
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,)replied that those figures related to matters which happened two years ago. There were many precedents for the course they were now taking.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he was aware that there was a considerable number of precedents for Resolutions of this kind, but nevertheless this course was exceedingly objectionable. The real meaning of it was that in the

571
Navy sums had been spent to the extent of £415,000 over and, above the amount voted. There was an item for £279,000 for contract work which had not been carried out, the expenditure for which had, been authorised by the House. He would, like to have some explanation on that point. Hon. members who were now on the Government side had denounced this system of book-keeping when they were in Opposition. It was absolutely bad and, unsound. One would have thought after the protests made in former years that hon. Gentlemen opposite would, not have come here to do the same sort of financial juggle. He was very much ashamed, when this practice was followed, on his own side, but they made no fantastic attempts to pose as financial purists. Now that great financial reformers had obtained control of affairs this was the sort of thing they did.
MR. BOWLESsaid he wished to associate himself with the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. This was a kind of Resolution which was highly undesirable. The accounts showed, that Vote after Vote in the Admiralty Estimates for the year 1904–5 had. been wrong. [Cries of "Oh!"] He could, assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that he had not the slightest Party motive in making these remarks. His sole concern was to get some assurance from the Government that this matter would have their attention. Vote after Vote showed bad estimating. He knew perfectly well that the Treasury was empowered by the Appropriation Act to do as was now proposed, but he desired to point out that it was a method, which defeated the control of this House over finance.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Resolution is merely carrying into effect the Act of Parliament. The hon. Member is not entitled to criticise the Act of Parliament.
MR. BOWLESsaid he quite agreed. He was endeavouring to point out the effect of the Resolution they were now asked, to pass. It was a system which weakened, the control this House ought to have over expenditure. He hoped, they might look forward to something being done for the mitigation of the
572
admitted abuses under this system of finance.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,)said the hon. Gentlemen had correctly stated, that what was now being done was in accordance with Act of Parliament. In order to allay the alarms of which the hon. Gentleman had spoken let him remind, the House that all these surpluses and excesses were dealt with in detail by the Public Accounts Committee, and. that the accounts were not presented to this House until they had been so considered. The Public Accounts Committee was satisfied that this procedure was good procedure. Personally he did not think it was a bad system, and in the interest of economy it was an admirable system. Every item in the accounts now before the Committee had already been considered, and he submitted that it was unnecessary to occupy the time of the Committee in going into them in detail.
SIR E. CARSONsaid there was an item of £279,000 in the accounts described as a surplus over the estimate for contract work. Supposing he was of an inquisitive turn of mind, how was he to find out the particulars of that item?
MR. MCKENNA: From the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
LORD R. CECIL: Has that Report been issued?
MR. MCKENNA: On this particular point it has not been issued.
LORD R. CECILreferred to the items on page 23 of the Accounts and asked whether the House had really any control whatever over them.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the control consisted in the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General who was an officer of this House. He reported to the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee had expressed their satisfaction with every item of these accounts.
LORD R. CECILasked whether it would be possible for any Member of the

573
House who disapproved of any of these items to move a reduction.
MR. MCKENNA: No.
LORD R. CECILsaid the House had no real effective control over the policy of the expenditure of these sums. That was the point to which they desired to address themselves. On the face of it the system appeared to be a very bad one.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid that it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that they should have all sorts of statements made as to this expenditure.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he had already stated that it was done according to Act of Parliament.

Schedule.

Number of Vote.

Navy Services, 1904–5. Votes.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid.

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure.

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, &c, of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines

67,474

12

8

—

27,310

2

9

—

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

—

4,869

8

7

—

13,100

9

4

3

Medical Establishments and Services

—

11,525

9

9

1,689

19

2

—

4

Martial Law

—

1,094

17

11

3

17

10

—

5

Educational Services

—

12,944

6

2

—

3,310

8

11

6

Scientific Services

4,167

15

5

—

—

8,634

10

5

7

Royal Naval Reserves

—

26,290

0

8

669

9

2

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

Sec. 1

Personnel

—

23,824

18

8

—

803

14

6

Sec. 2

Materiel

224,212

8

9

—

—

26,823

8

1

Sec. 3

Contract Work

—

279,759

11

0

37,273

4

9

—

9

Naval Armaments

—

11,028

19

9

—

19,155

8

7

10

Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

—

78,202

1

1

—

4,367

19

8

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

82,854

11

5

—

3,912

19

0

—

12

Admiralty Office

1,751

7

1

—

—

2

9

3

13

Half-Pay, Reserved and Retired Pay

5,584

1

3

—

4,103

10

6

—

14

Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances

5,604

12

10

—

5,436

16

9

—

15

Civil Pensions and Gratuities

22,235

13

11

—

79

6

11

—

Amount written off as irrecoverable

2,054

15

4

—

—

—

415,439

18

8

449,539

13

7

80,479

6

10

76,198

8

9

Net Surplus, £34,099 14 11

Net Deficit, £4,280 18 1

Whereas it appears by the Army, Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1905, and
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he would like to point out that the system would not tend to purity of administration—
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman was not in order.
LORD BALCARRESasked if they were to understand that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury approved of this system.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked whether this House or a Committee of the House had ever authorised the expenditure of this £224,212 for material.
MR. MCKENNAsaid that powers were given to the Treasury by Act of Parliament to spend that sum.
the statement appended thereto, as follows, viz. —

(a.) That the gross expenditure for certain Army Services exceeded the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £256,367 3s. 3d., as shown in Column No. 1 of the Schedule hereto appended; while the gross expenditure for other Army Services fell short of the estimate of such expenditure by a total sum of £365,574 5s. 6d., as shown in Column No. 2 of the said appended Schedule; so that the gross actual expenditure for the whole of the Army Services fell short of the gross estimated expenditure by the net sum of £109,207 2s. 3d.

(b.) That the receipts in aid of certain Army Services fell short of the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £8,475 7s. 10d., as shown in Column No. 3 of the said appended Schedule; while the receipts in aid of other Army Services exceeded the estimate of such receipts by a total sum of £383,643 16s. 2d. as shown in Column No. 4 of the said appended Schedule; so that the total actual receipts in aid of the Grants for Army Services exceeded the total estimated receipts by the net sum of £375,168 8s. 4d.

(c.) That the resulting differences between the Exchequer Grants for Army Services and the net expenditure are as follows, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses

701,636

8

5

Total Deficits

217,260

17

10

Net Surplus

£484,375

10

7

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application, in reduction of the net charge on Exchequer Grants for certain Army Services, of the whole of the sums received in excess of the estimated Appropriation-in-Aid, in respect of the same services, and have also temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to cover the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—(Mr. McKenna.)
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he gathered from the so-called explanation given by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Public Accounts Committee had investigated these items and made a Report. In these Army accounts there was a sum of £256,367 which had been spent without the authority of this House or of a Committee of this House. Then there was one item consisting of £12,562 spent upon the Volunteers. He wanted to know on what branch of the Volunteers that money was spent. He wanted some explanation also about the expenditure for provisions, forage, and other supplies, of £115,062. Why should that money be spent before authority had been received from this House to spend it? The Public Accounts Committee said two years ago—
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee two years ago was not before the House. Besides, it could have no bearing on the question before the Committee.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that with deference to the Chairman he would like to read an extract to show that this practice was objected to by the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the practice was enjoined by Act of Parliament.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that if this particular Resolution was imposed when there was a war going on, or when they were winding up a war, then he could understand it. There were circumstances under which this kind of practice might be resorted to; but there was no emergency now.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that he had already ruled two or three times that the hon. Gentleman was out of order.
SIR E. CARSONcalled attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee had not published their Report in reference to this matter.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid it had been pointed out that this expenditure was controlled in two ways—firstly, by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and, secondly, by the Public Accounts Committee. It was clear that the Public

577
Accounts Committee had not rendered to the House of Commons their Report on the matter, and as the House was deprived of this safeguard he begged to move to report progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progres; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said this matter had been investigated by a Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Derbyshire, than whom, he ventured to say, there was no more trusted Member of this House. He wished to know from that right hon. Gentleman whether the only reason why the Report had not been published was that one of the members of the Committee was ill, and that had delayed the publication of their Report. He would also ask whether these items had not been investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Was the suggestion that these items were new when they were part of the accounts of 1905–6? As to the amount required in regard to provisions, forage and other supplies, the Comptroller and Auditor-General pointed out that the number of soldiers on the establishment during the current year was in excess of what was estimated for, and further provision had to be made which amounted to £59,000 out of £119,000. There were also a number of mules which had to be provided for.
MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid it was most unfortunate that they should have to take this appropriation prior to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, but owing to the illness of an official they were compelled to do so.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDobjected to passing these proposals without the protection of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. He supported the Motion to report progress.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Gentleman might take it from him that the Public Accounts Committee had passed every one of these items.
SIR E. CARSONinquired if there was any precedent for passing these Resolutions before the presentation of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.
MR. MCKENNAcould not say whether there was or not, but at all events he pointed out that the Committee had before it the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid a similar point was taken against these Resolutions last year by the then Opposition.
MR. CLAUDE HAYthought the Committee should agree to his Motion to report progress.
Question put.
The. Committee divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 252. (Division List No. 285.)

AYES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Courthope, G. Loyd

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Chas Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Balcarres, Lord

Dalrymple, Viscount

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Starkey, John R.

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

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

Beach,Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Forster, Henry William

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Bottomley, Horatio

Hamilton, Marquess of

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Younger, George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lane-Fox, G. R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Claude Hay and Mr. Bowles.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Barnard, E. B.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Bertram, Julius

Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Billson, Alfred

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Beale, W. P.

Black,Athur W. (Bedfordshire)

Astbury, John Meir

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Boland, John

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury,E.)

Beck, A. Cecil

Brace, William

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devopn'rt)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

Brodie, H. C.

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

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Norman, Henry

Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nuttall, Harry

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Buxton, Rt.Hn.Sydney Charles

Hazleton, Richard

O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

Byles, William Pollard

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Doherty, Philip

Cheetham, John Frederick

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

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Henry, Charles S.

O'Dowd, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

O'Grady, J.

Clancy, John Joseph

Higham, John Sharp

O'Hare, Patrick

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Malley, William

Clough, W.

Hodge, John

O'Mara, James

Cogan, Denis J.

Hogan, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

Paul, Herbert

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Philipps,Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n)

Cooper, G. J.

Hudson, Walter

Pirie, Duncan V.

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hyde, Clarendon

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

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

Illingworth, Percy H.

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Jardine, Sir J.

Radford, G. H.

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Jenkins, J.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Crean, Eugene

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Raphael, Herbert

Crooks, William

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Redmond,John E. (Waterford)

Crossley, William J.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Cullinan, J.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Rees, J. D.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jowett, F. W.

Rendall, Athelstan

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Joyce, Michael

Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

Delany, William

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Laidlaw, Robert

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Duckworth, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Robinson, S.

Duffy, William J.

Lambert, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lamont, Norman

Russell, T. W.

Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

Scott,A.H.(Ashton underLyne)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lehmann, R. C.

Seely, Major J. B.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Levy, Maurice

Shackleton, David James

Elibank, Master of

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Erskine, David C.

Lough, Thomas

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Essex, R. W.

Lundon, W.

Sheehy, David

Everett, R. Lacey

Lupton, Arnold

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Farrell, James Patrick

Lyell, Charles Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Fenwick, Charles

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Simon, John Allsebrook

Ferens, T. R.

Maclean, Donald

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Ffreneh, Peter

Macpherson, J. T.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Field, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Findlay, Alexander

M'Callum, John M.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Flavin, Michael Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Stanley,Hon.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

M'Kenna, Reginald

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Killop, W.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Fullerton, Hugh

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

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Micking, Major G.

Sullivan, Donal

Gill, A. H.

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Sutherland, J. E.

Ginnell, L.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Tennant, Sir E. (Salisbury)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Toulmin, George

Glendinning, R. G.

Meagher, Michael

Ure, Alexander

Glover, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Verney, F. W.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mond, A.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Gooch, George Peabody

Montagu, E. S.

Walsh, Stephen

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Montgomery, H. G.

Walters, John Tudor

Gulland, John W.

Mooney, J. J.

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Morse, L. L.

Watt, H. Anderson

Halpin, J.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Hammond, John

Murnaghan, George

Weir, James Galloway

Hardie,J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

Murphy, John

Whitbread, Howard

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, George (Norfolk)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Nicholls, George

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Harrington, Timothy

Nicholson, Chas.N. (Doncast'r)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Nolan, Joseph

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Whitehead, Rowland

580

581

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Wilkie, Alexander

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Winfrey, E.

Pease

Williamson, A.

Wodehouse,Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

Bill read the third time and passed.

Original Question again proposed.
MR. CLAUDE HAYdrew attention to the item of £39,458 excess over estimated gross expenditure on War Office salaries and miscellaneous charges, and asked the Secretary of State for War if he would give some explanation. He also expressed the hope that this very large figure would not reappear in the Estimates, because if such a large excess were allowed to arise on this item there must be even worse organisation at headquarters than the House had been led to think.
MR. HALDANEsaid if the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble he could easily have ascertained the cause of this excess. The late House of Commons resolved to reorganise the War Office and for that purpose appointed the Esher Committee, which made certain suggestions as to departmental changes, the carrying out of which required new

Schedule.

Number of Vote

Army Services, 1904–1005. Vote.

Gross Expenditure.

Appropriations in Aid

Excesses of Actual over Estimated Gross Expenditure

Surpluses of Estimated over Actual Gross Expenditure.

Deficiencies of Actual as compared with Estimated Keieipts.

Surpluses of Actual as compared with Estimated Receipts.

1.

2.

3.

4.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s

d.

l

Pay, &c, of Army (General Staff Regiments, Reserve, and Department.)

—

166,856

6

11

—

7,751

1

11

2

Medical Establishments: Pay, &.

—

223

19

2

—

5,037

6

7

3

Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c.

—

58,279

1

9

2,527

15

9

—

4

Imperial Yeomanry: Pay and Allowances

—

46,175

10

3

—

770

11

2

5

Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances

12,502

16

5

—

—

567

5

8

6

Transport and Remounts

—

2,777

12

6

—

269,809

12

1

7

Provisions, Forage, and other Supplies

115,062

16

11

—

—

15,128

14

8

8

Clothing Establishments, and Services

—

22,939

19

10

—

1,968

3

8

9

Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair

10,285

12

6

—

—

31,117

2

3

10

Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Coat, including Staff for Engineer Service

—

33,771

18

3

—

22,350

11

8

11

Establishments for Military Education

2,211

14

11

—

4,527

10

8

—

12

Miscellaneous Effective Services

7,617

12

3

—

—

2,647

11

9

13

War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges

39,458

7

8

—

1,357

7

8

—

14

Non-effective Charges for Officers &c.

—

24,735

1

8

—

10,133

15

7

15

Non-effective Charges for Men, &c.

35,675

15

9

—

—

16,361

19

2

16

Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances

—

4,814

15

2

62

13

9

—

Balances irrecoverable

33,492

6

10

—

—

—

256,367

3

3

365,574

5

6

8,475

7

10

383,643

16

2

Net Surplus £ 100,207 2 3

Net Surplus. £375,168 8 4

Resolutions to be reported this day.
offices and a fresh staff. The cost was nearly £40,000. The changes were directed to be made by the late Government, and were provided for by transfers which the accounts now regularised.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought the right hon. Gentleman was rather unfair to his hon. friend, who, of course, was not receiving a salary in connection with the Department. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain how the sum of £33,492, balances irrecoverable, came about.
MR. HALDANEsaid the Appropriation Account for 1904–5, which was accessible to every hon. Member in the Library, showed on page 112, details of the balances irrecoverable and claims abandoned or insufficiently accounted for during the War in South Africa.

COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
Order for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That the Bill be now read a second time."
LORD R. CECILsaid this was a Bill of real importance, and it was not his fault if it came on at a quarter to one in the morning. The proposal in the Bill was that a marriage with a deceased wife's sister celebrated in a Colony where it was legal was to be treated in this country as legal. With that proposition he did not quarrel. It was a reasonable concession to make. He ventured to ask the Government whether they could see their way to extend the provisions of this Bill generall to all the marriage laws of the Colonies. The larger question of the Deceased Wife's Sister's Bill did not appear to arise in this case, but with regard to the suggestion he had made he would like to have the right hon. Gentlemen's views.
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,)said the noble Lord was quite right: the general Question of the deceased wife's sister did not arise in this Bill in any way. The argument for this Bill was solely the Colonial argument. It had been brought to the notice of the Colonial Office on previous occasions that there was a real grievance connected with marriages of this class contracted in the Colonies. Great pain was caused to people whose marriage was quite legal in the Colonies, but who, when they came over to this country found themselves under a social and almost a moral stigma, and who were in addition to that exposed to a disability in respect of inheriting real estate. That the Government desired to remove. Our Colonies would cordially welcome the removal, and it would be regarded throughout the Empire as a graceful and wise act on the part of this House. His noble friend, whose view on this point he himself shared, asked why not make it more general? Why fix it to one particular degree. The Government were very anxious to do that because the principle upon which the Colonial Office acted in this question was to make the procedure
584
of the marriage laws of the Colonies legal in this country. But upon investigation, great difficulties were discovered of an indefinite character. It would be going somewhat beyond the limits to which they were prepared to go to say that real estate in this country should change hands in pursuance of any law of marriage that should be made in the Colonies. That would be going beyond the principle the Government admitted. He hoped this explanation would enable the House to come to a decision upon this matter.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDonly desired to emphasise what the hon. Gentleman had said. When he was in Australia in the previous year he found there was a very strong feeling about this matter. There was a perfectly unanimous feeing in favour of this Bill, which would be received in the Colonies in general, and in Australia in particular, with general satisfaction.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid he could not help thinking it was unfortunate that the Government had not thought fit to adopt the larger view on this question which would have covered the Colonial question. By this Bill the Government had established a principle in favour of the rich as against the poor.

SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS(IRELAND) BILL.
As amended by the Standing Committee.
MR. CULLINANsaid he understood an arrangement had been made between the promoters and the opponents of the Bill, which would save the House a prolonged contest on this occasion.
MR. SLOANsaid he was in charge of this Bill and he knew of no arrangement having been made beyond

585
the compromise made in the Committee upstairs. With the compromise he had nothing to do. He was prepared to accept it, but said that under the circumstances, as he had not been consulted in any way, he should reserve to himself the right to oppose the Bill at its further stages. For any other arrangement he took no responsibility whatever. So far as he was personally concerned the arrangement or compromise originally made had been accepted reluctantly by some in order to get the contents of the Bill as now amended and he trusted the Bill as amended would now be passed without any other compromise being entered into.
MR. CULLINANsaid under those circumstances he begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word 'until,' to the end of the clause, and insert the words 'the thirty-first day of December, one thousand nine hundred and ten and no longer unless Parliament shall otherwise determine, and on the said day all the provisions of any Act now in force regulating the hours of opening or keeping open of any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and shall come into operation and take effect as if this Act had not been passed.' "—(Mr. Cullinan,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the hon. Member for Belfast had correctly explained what had occurred. The compromise was unanimously accepted by the Standing Committee. It was quite true that the hon. Gentleman did not approve of it, and that a great many of his temperance friends did the same thing, but there it was. Within the last hour he (Mr. Russell) had had some conversation with certain of his friends and with some of the opponents of the Bill, who were prepared to let it go through if the limit for bona fide travellers was made five miles outside the five exempted cities instead of six. Having regard to the period of the session and with the prospects of a stormy night before him— because he remembered twenty-eight
586
years ago when the House sat up all through the night to pass the original Bill, and when Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright specially sat up to assist in carrying it—he consulted the right hon. Member for South Dublin, the right hon. Member for Trinity College, the hon. Members for East Clare, the hon. Member for West Meath and others. The hon. Member for South Belfast was not in his place, or he would also have consulted him. Looking at the period of the session and believing as he did that there was not very much difference between making the limit five, and making it six miles, so far as the five exempted cities were concerned, he had consented to that arrangement. He was willing to accept the compromise. While he was perfectly willing to accept the arrangement come to, he could bind nobody but himself. It rested with his hon. friends opposite to say what they thought about the matter.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to appeal to the hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, the hon. Member for South Belfast, to fall in with the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. After all, this was a great opportunity for dealing with a question which had been very warmly discussed for the last twenty or thirty years. He thought this was an opportunity that ought not to be thrown away. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone had said, the Bill as it now came before the House was a compromise. They knew perfectly well it was impossible by a compromise to please everybody. There would be extremists on both sides, who would declare themselves quite unsatisfied. The hon. Member for South Tyrone and others had been attacked for accepting this compromise by the extreme temperance party in Ireland, and those interested in the licensed trade in Ireland had been assailed for having consented to the compromise. They could not possibly please everybody, and the only thing they could hope to do was to satisfy the great bulk of people upon both sides. It was quite true to say that this Bill represented a compromise which had the support of the great

587
bulk on both sides in this question in Ireland. The only thing which had occurred that night was that a further extension of the compromise had been proposed by those who still opposed the Bill. That further extension demanded the reduction of the limit for the bona fide traveller around the large cities in Ireland from six miles to five miles. As the hon. Member for South Tyrone had said there were a great many districts in the country where the bona fide traveller question was not a strong one. When it was proposed in Grand Committee to reduce the original limit from seven miles to six miles it was objected to from both sides. There were those who got up and said that six miles was too small a limit to fix, and others got up and said that six; miles was too great a limit. So that it was impossible to do more than arrive at a figure which commanded general support all round. The figure six was in the Bill, and it was now proposed by those Gentlemen who still opposed the Measure, and whose opposition was entitled— although it represented a minority—to the greatest possible respect and attention —that the compromise should be further extended by making the figure five instead of six. The Member for South Belfast had said he did not like the compromise at all. In Belfast the extreme temperance reformers bitterly attacked the compromise, and the only large public meeting held in reference to the Bill was held by the extreme temperance Party, who protested against the compromise, In view of these circumstances he thought he might appeal with great confidence to the House not to allow that opportunity to pass of doing something which was really desired by the vast bulk of the Irish people. There were extremists on both sides, those who thought the Bill went too far and those who thought that it did not go far enough; but taking the general mass of public opinion in Ireland, represented in this House and outside of it, and judging it by every test they could apply, the vast bulk of the Irish people did ask for this Bill. He would earnestly appeal to the hon. Member for South Belfast, in view of the time of the session and the extreme difficulty of dealing with matters of this kind, to further extend the compromise so as to allow the Bill to leave the House
588
and go to the people of Ireland with the unanimous assent and approval of the different Parties concerned. He admitted that the good effect of the Bill would be spoiled if it left the House after heated discussions and after some recriminations had been indulged in. This was a genuine and honest attempt to deal with what had been regarded as a need in Ireland. An opportunity was given of having an unanimous decision, and he appealed earnestly to the hon. Member for South Belfast to accept the compromise, to recognise that it was the general sense of the House and to make the best of it. The hon. Member for South Belfast and himself did not agree on many other questions, but on this question they did agree, and he again asked his hon. friend to join with him in promoting in Ireland a genuine measure of reform.
MR. SLOANsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had made a very strong appeal to the House, and especially to himself as being technically in charge of the Bill, to agree to this compromise. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, when this Bill was in Committee, had regarded with the utmost contempt any suggestion of making the limit five miles instead of six. The Committee agreed to the limit of six miles, although one or two Members protested against it. They had been fighting for this Bill for thirty years. Two Royal Commissions had approved of the Bill, which had passed the House of Commons on two or three occasions and had also passed the House of Lords. It was desired to get Sunday closing in the five exempted cities under the Act of 1878, to get nine o'clock closing on Saturday night in those cities, and to have the bona fide traveller limit extended from three miles to six miles. If the hon. Member for South Tyrone was correct in what he stated that the bona fide traveller did not matter very much in the country districts, why was it that the hon. Member for East Clare was anxious to have the country towns exempted from any extension under the Bill? The present limit was three miles, and his hon. friend wanted it to remain that. The Grand Committee agreed to the compromise arranged between the licensed trade

589
and the Member for South Tyrone, and in that form the Bill had come down to the House. Three hours ago there was not in this House a stronger opponent of any further compromise to the bona fide traveller than the hon. Member who had just sat down.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that he was prepared to stand by the arrangement made in Grand Committee, and he was prepared to do so still if necessary, but he recognised that it was an important thing for the future of the Bill and its good work-that it should leave the House if possible with the unanimous assent of all parties. He thought he was promoting a good spirit and doing a good work in making this further concession. He asked his hon. friends not to send the Bill to Ireland from this House after it had caused heat and discussion.
MR. SLOANsaid he was sorry the hon. Member for South Tyrone held him guilty of recriminations.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said recriminations would serve no purpose.
MR. SLOANsaid he was not guilty of recriminations, but at the same time he wished to point out that they who were in favour of the whole Bill had sacrificed a considerable part of it. Although they did not care for the Bill as amended they accepted it in the spirit in which it had been given. They were not prepared to make further concessions at two hours notice, and if these concessions were made they would break down the original compromise. He asked those hon. Members who were prepared to do their best to support him to give him what was reasonable and fair. He asked the House to consider, in view of this further compromise, the great concessions they had already made, and having made these concessions they should certainly get the Bill without any further compromise or any further concessions. He was sorry he could not give way to the strong
590
appeal by the hon. Member for East Clare, but on the ground of principle he could not do it.
MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid that as one of those who led the opposition to the Bill when it was first before the House he was willing to withdraw his opposition in view of the compromise arrived at. As to the suggestion that there was to be-no finality in this question of temperance-legislation, he thought the time had arrived when a proper trial should be given to the compromise arrived at here before any other legislation of the character suggested by the hon. Member for South Belfast was attempted. He was therefore prepared to accept the compromise referred to by his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone-and on his part to withdraw further opposition to the Bill.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he would only interpose for a moment or two. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for South Tyrone had said, that that hon. Gentleman was good enough to approach him in regard to a compromise. Since then he had heard from time to-time what had been the negotiations in progress. He could quite sympathise with his hon. friend the Member for South Belfast in the view he took, namely, that after many years of hard labour, with a very clear perception in their minds of what they wanted, the hon. Gentleman and his friends had got, as they believed, within reach of their goal; and now they saw that under the compromise, if they accepted it, they must consent to take-something less. He therefore quite sympathised with him in the view he took, that he was unable at present to agree to the suggestion before the House. Might he point out to him that there was no question upon which legislation proceeded so entirely by compromise as this question of temperance legislation? Going back in memory twenty-five years to the legislative proposals made in this House in regard to temperance legislation affecting England, he ventured to say that the advocates of temperance would have been wise if they had accepted the

591
compromise that might then have been made instead of rejecting it because it did not go the length they desired. What was the position at the present moment? If his hon. friend, in the desire to get all that he wanted, refused to accept this compromise, and invited the House to a prolonged contest which night be wasted, he would abandon and render fruitless all the work which had been done up to the present time, and for what? After all, the concession was not a very great one. He believed it was quite true to say that the bona fide traveller question was only really important in the towns. The difference of one mile was not a very serious difference, and he would appeal to his hon. friend to consider whether, in the interests of the cause of which he was an advocate, and on behalf of which he had laboured so hard, it would not be better to take only half a loaf—even if he regarded it so—than to reject it, and to leave the question where it was; which possibly meant a postponement for two or three years, or even more, before they got any satisfactory settlement.
MR. SLOAN: We have already taken the half loaf.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid his hon. friend remarked that he had already taken the half loaf, but he had not, because if the concession was not agreed upon now the half loaf would have to be thrown aside. But if he made that concession he would pass this Bill, which still went very far, and would be a great deal better than nothing. It was to take upon himself a great responsibility if he rejected this proposal, which had been made in the interests of peace, and in the interests of temperance. It was better to compromise, and to make that large advance in the cause in which many of them were interested, and which certainly in Ireland occupied a position, quite different from that which it occupied in. England. There was much more general agreement there, and there was, he believed, a general consensus of opinion that they ought to proceed on the lines now proposed.
MR. CULLINAN,on behalf of those who had very strongly opposed
592
the Bill, desired to say that they had given way to a great extent and they had been anxious, if possible, to meet their opponents half way in an arrangement of this kind, with the object that had been explained by the hon. Member for East Clare, namely, that this question might be se tied in a manner to make for peace. Under these circumstances he begged leave to withdraw the Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CLANCYmoved, "Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end to add 'notwithstanding anything in any public or local Act."' He said he proposed this Amendment really to give effect to the intentions of the promoters. That intention, as expressed in the Bill, was that this first clause should extend to the whole of the metropolitan police district, and the clause actually said so. It said that this Act of 1878 should extend to the whole of the metropolitan police district. The intention there was perfectly clear, but unfortunately the words chosen did not carry out that intention. The reason was that a local Act, passed for Dublin in the year 1900, contained a section which excluded a small area then added to the City of Dublin from the law regulating the rest of the City of Dublin. What he proposed to do was simply to repeal by implication the section to which he had referred, and thus to put the whole of the metropolitan police district upon the same footing. If that Amendment was not carried a very great anomaly would be created. They would have two different laws regulating two different parts of the City of Dublin—two different laws within the same municipality. He hoped that, after this explanation, his Amendment might be deemed a fair and reasonable proposition.
MR. CULLINANseconded the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In page 1, line 8, at end, be add not-withstanding anything in any public or local Act."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLmoved—
"In page 2, line 2, at end, to add the words, ' nothing in this Act shall in any way interfere with the rights of any licensed person who is the owner or lessee of a theatre, music hall, or other place of public amusement; and all such persons shall have the same rights and privileges as they now have under the existing licensing law, as if this Act had not been passed.'"
MR. MOONEYseconded the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR. COGANmoved to Insert—
"In page 2, line 10, after ' person,' ' residing or lodging in the metropolitan police district of Dublin, and the cities of Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and Belfast.'"
MR. CULLINANseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 12, to leave out ' six ' and insert 'five.' "—(Mr. Cogan.)
*MR. BARRIEsaid he hoped this Amendment would not be persisted in. Knowing the strong feeling there was in Ireland in favour of Sunday closing—a feeling not confined to the north of Ireland—he had ventured to put down an Amendment reinstating the clause relating to Sunday closing. In view, however, of the approaches made to him by hon. Members below the Gangway, and being anxious that the passing of this Bill into law should not be Jeopardised in any way, he consented to withdraw the Amendment which stood in his name on the understanding that they would have the help of their friends below the Gangway in adhering to the compromise which was unanimously arrived at upstairs. He ventured very respectfully to submit to the House that that compromise should be loyally adhered to. It was a unanimous compromise. Those in Ireland who were anxious for Sunday closing felt that the country was ripe for it, but they
594
decided to waive their objections, and withdraw their Amendments, believing that the Members below the Gangway would loyally adhere to the arrangement made upstairs. He therefore submitted, as a matter of fair play, that these Amendments should not be persisted in, and that the Bill as approved and amended upstairs should be accepted by the House in the same spirit as prevailed in Grand Committee. He would only say further that he and his friends believed the real gain of this Bill, as originally framed, was total Sunday closing. All the other gains, which they were now getting were very small, comparatively speaking, but they accepted the arrangement made in view of the compromise, and in the spirit of that compromise, and for these reasons he did very sincerely hope that the Amendment would not be persisted in.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was delighted to find that the hon. Member was so strongly in favour of the Bill in the form in which it had been left by the Standing Committee. There were great differences of opinion in Ireland upon the subject of the five or six miles. He did not like it. He would have liked the original Bill. But none who had spent twenty years in this House could fail to learn one lesson, namely, that he could not get everything that he liked. It was one of the finest places for smashing or destroying ideals to be found in the whole world. He had given way that night and consented to substitute five miles for six in order not to jeopardise the Bill. He had done it because he thought a man who would travel five miles for a drink on Sunday would travel six, and that the difference would not be much, after all. He was told it would cover frequented places round Belfast, it would cover nearly the whole of those round Dublin, and it would cover the other exempted cities. At all events, under the arrangement they would get something, and they had previously got nothing for the past twenty-eight years. When they consented to this compromise, it was also agreed that there should be a round table conference during the autumn, at which every outstanding question of temperance

595
legislation should be discussed between the temperance party and the trade, and that if possible an arrangement should be come to that would permit an agreed [Bill next session. That was a very great matter to anyone interested in temperance reform, and he thought, upon the whole, the reformers would be able to meet their friends in Ireland. Probably they would agree with him before they were much older that the best thing had been done under the whole circumstances of the case.
MR. SLOANsaid if the hon. Member's speech were permitted to go without reply it would convey the idea that if he had not accepted this compromise of five miles the Bill would have been wrecked, and that there would have been no hope of its passing.
*MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said jeopardised.
MR. SLOANsaid his opinion was that, if the hon. Gentleman, and those who supported the Bill, had stuck to their guns, those whose support they sought in this House would have been prepared to sit the Bill out, and to see it right through. And therefore it was wrong to say that that compromise was made for the purpose of getting the Bill. He could not understand why his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone had agreed to the compromise of taking a mile of the limit around the large towns, and leaving the country districts alone. He would like some explanation from his hon. friend why the country districts were to be left alone.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had stated that the real difficulty of the bona fide traveller question centered round the largely populated cities. Everybody who knew Ireland was well aware that that was the case. The bona fide traveller was a nuisance wherever he went, but the
596
nuisance was a comparatively small one in country districts.
MR. SLOANsaid his information was altogether different from that. He did not know what the feeling of the House was now after the speeches which had just been delivered. Whether it would be necessary on some other occasion in the future to agitate for the whole Bill he did not know. He hoped the Conference which it was proposed to hold in the autumn would be more considerate to temperance reformers' views than the present compromise.
MR. FETHERSTONHAUGHsaid the limit fixed by the compromise was going very low. He would much rather have the Bill as it came from the Grand Committee, and he was against any further tampering which would tend to weaken the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REPAYMENT).
Committee to consider of authorising the extension of time for the repayment of a loan made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present session, to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the local loans fund, and for other purposes relating to local loans (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—(Mr. McKenna.)
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the July 13th, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes-before Two o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Pontrefract Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Sutton District Water Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [H.L.]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill (No. 185); Paisley Roads Order Confirmation Bill (No. 186); Inverclyde Bequest Order Confirmation Bill (No. 187); Perth Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill, (No. 188). Read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899), deemed to have been read 2a
286
(The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell), and reported from the Committee.
Local Government Provisional Orders Gas Bill. Brought from the Commons. Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill; Bacup Corporation Bill; Cork City Railways and Works Bill; Derby Gas Bill; Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill; St. John's (Westminster) Improvement Bill; Tod-morden Corporation Bill; Tottenham and Edmonton Gas Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION.
  Petition to be allowed to continue to give Church of England teaching in schools; of—
  Teachers in non-provided schools of Higham Ferrers.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Petition against abolition of the voluntary school system; of—
  Inhabitants of Burythorpe.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 488. Gold Coast: Report for 1905.

  CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND).
  Sixty-first Annual Report of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland.
  RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  Returns of the capital, traffic, receipts, and working expenditure of the railway companies of the United Kingdom for the year 1905; with a general report thereon and summary tables for a series of years.

STATISTICS (COLONIES).
Statistical Tables relating to British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates. Part XXIX., 1904.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
Fiftieth Report of His Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners, with appendix.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
Seventy-fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, with appendices, for the year ended March 31st, 1906.
Forty-ninth Report of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Inland Revenue, for the year ended March 31st, 1906.
TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 3684. Muscat.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Thirty-fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1905–1906.
Presented [by Command]; and ordered to lie on the Table.

NAVY (PAY).
List of exceptions to the King's Regulations as to pay, non-effective pay, and allowances, sanctioned by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, with the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, pursuant to the Order in Council, dated December 19th, 1881, during the year 1905–1906.
ALKALI, ETC., WORKS REGULATION ACTS, 1881 AND 1892.
Forty-second Annual Report on Alkali, etc., Works by the chief inspector; proceedings during the year 1905.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD.
Annual Report of the Proceedings of the Metropolitan Water Board, and abstract of their accounts for the year ended March 31st, 1905.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT).
Orders, dated July 24th, 1906, made by the Secretary of State for the Home
288
Department in pursuance of Section 36 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 —
Revoking certain previous orders and granting a special exception for a period of one year as regards the hours of employment of women and young persons in certain classes of factories and workshops.
Revoking an Order of January 12th, 1884, and granting a special exception as regards the period of employment of women and young persons in factories in the county of London in which letterpress bookbinding is carried on.

LONDON CORPORATION.
Annual Accounts of the Chamberlain of London, for the year 1905.
CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Return of the amount payable on January 5th, 1906, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.

SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
Return for the year ended March 31st, 1906, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted under Rule 2 of the regulations drawn up under section 6 of the Act to hold civil employment of profit under public departments.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act); and ordered to lie on the Table.

RATEABLE HEREDITAMENTS.
Return respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to order of May 4th last), and to be printed. (No. 183.)
FATAL ACCIDENTS AND SUDDEN DEATHS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons and Read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 184.)

THE SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
LORD BRASSEYrose to call attention to the recommendations of the Admiralty Committee on Naval Reserves, and to the shipbuilding programme of the present year. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the questions which I have placed on the notice Paper relate to the

289
Reserves of the Navy. I will introduce them briefly in a few general observations. This is no time to disarm. It is a time when every head of expenditure should be narrowly scrutinised. We see everywhere signs of impatience under the burdens of preparations for war. In countries despotically governed it is an undercurrent. In countries democratically governed it finds expression at the elections. In view of recent changes in the position of other Powers, demands for retrenchment are justified, even for the British Navy. We have to take care that retrenchment is carried out in such.a manner as will leave our naval supremacy assured.
Can we reduce the Votes for shipbuilding? Can we reduce the Votes for the manning of the Navy? The answer to these questions must depend on comparisons. We have to consider how we stand as to ships, and how we stand as to manning. In ships ready for service, and more particularly in battleships and armoured cruisers, we hold a commanding position. Measuring progress in shipbuilding by the amounts voted we are equal to a two-Power standard with some margin. In the circumstances of the hour it is possible to postpone the laying down of a battleship. We possess incomparable resources for rapid and extensive building. There is some advantage in delay. The latest ships are the most up-to-date. It gives occasion for reflection when we see that none of the types laid down within the last ten— I may even say the last five—years are included in the programme of shipbuilding this year submitted to Parliament. It is not chimerical to hope that if we show ourselves in earnest in a policy of reduction our example may be followed. If other Powers continue to push forward construction we shall be bound to meet them. We shall do so with reluctance. In the enlargement of programmes of shipbuilding we have not been the aggressors. In the last two years we have cut down Navy Estimates by £5,000,000 and the Estimates for new works by £4,000,000. I will not pursue the point. Your Lordships are awaiting a statement from Lord Tweedmouth.
I turn from shipbuilding to manning. In manning, as in shipbuilding, we measure
290
our requirements largely by comparisons. In the Estimates of the present session Parliament is asked to vote 129,000 men for the active ratings of the Navy, as against 52,000 for France and 40,000 for Germany. In fixing the numbers required for the manning of the Navy, we have to look, not only to comparisons but also to the list of our effective ships. If we take all the ships now on the list, and add all the ships we are likely to build in the next ten years, and if, further, we assume that, while all skilled ratings would be drawn from j the permanent men, complements may be partly filled up from well-trained Reserves, it is evident that the permanent force is excessive in proportion to the number of effective up-to-date ships. We have relied too much on permanent men for manning the Navy in an emergency. In Reserves we are below both France and Germany.
Impressed with the necessity for dealing with the Reserves upon a comprehensive plan, the Admiralty in 1902 appointed a Committee, with Sir Edward Grey as chairman. It is to their recommendations that my questions refer. The Committee recommended that the Reserves of all classes should be reinforced —the stokers, the skilled ratings of electricians and signalmen, and the Reserves in the Colonies. They recommended that a force should be raised as a reserve to the marines. When Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, Sir John Fisher delivered a lecture showing how the Army might be utilised as a reserve for the manning of the Navy, and I should like to hear that something has been done on the lines advocated by Sir John Fisher.
Passing to the officers of the Reserve, various regulations have recently been approved, having for their object to secure a higher standard of efficiency. The officer of the mercantile marine has none of the advantages rightly afforded to cadets at Osborne and Dartmouth. The Admiralty should take up this important question. Every Reserve cadet should receive such an education as will enable him when called upon to do his duty as a naval officer. The premiums to shipowners for

291
providing instructors for apprentices would be inconsiderable.
I have one more suggestion. The Reserves are growing beyond the administrative power of one central office. The admiral superintendent of the Reserves should be represented at the chief commercial ports by an officer of standing in the service, who, with the aid of a small staff, should keep in touch with shipowners, as to appointments to commissions and as to recruiting for Reserves of every class. My main purpose is to insist in general terms on the possibility of combining economy in the expenditure on manning with wider powers of expansion. I do not look for a reply from my noble friend on details, but I should be glad to have an assurance of his general concurrence. In conclusion, I may say that in creating Reserves for the Navy we achieve a double purpose; we are training up officers and men of the best stamp and quality for the mercantile marine; and there is a general testimony that they are needed.
EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down appears to divide itself into two parts, the latter part dealing more with the Reserves than the other questions of interest to-day. Your Lordships perhaps will pardon me if I pass away from the question of the Reserves, and deal with what appears to me to be the most important question we can have to discuss in this session of Parliament. I refer to the Shipbuilding Vote and the shipbuilding programme of the Government of the day. Though I do not wish for a moment to suggest that the question of Naval Reserves is not one of great and vital importance, I do suggest that the Shipbuilding Vote overshadows and surpasses it in importance.
It is very desirable that in the first instance your Lordships should appreciate quite clearly exactly the position of to-day with respect to the shipbuilding programme. I therefore make no apology for detailing it to your Lordships, and I will do so in as few words as I can. In November last, and again in March last, when the Naval Estimates were
292
laid before the country, the minimum programme that was thought necessary in shipbuilding was as follows. We were to have laid down this year four battleships of the "Dreadnought" type, five seagoing torpedo boat destroyers, twelve coastal torpedo boat destroyers, and twelve submarines. In July, what do we find? We find that instead of four battleships we are to have but three; instead of five seagoing torpedo boat destroyers we are to have but two; and that instead of twelve submarines we are to have but eight. That makes a diminution in the shipbuilding programme as far as battleships are concerned of 25 per cent.; a diminution as far as-those valuable sea-going torpedo boat destroyers are concerned of no less than 60 per cent.; and a diminution as far a8 submarines are concerned of no less than 33 per cent.
The Secretary to the Admiralty has told us what the programme for the year 1907–8 is to be. In 1907–8, instead of four battleships of the "Dreadnought" type which were to have been laid down, we are to have but two. The conditions with respect to the programme of battleships in 1907–8 are, I think, a little peculiar. We are to lay down two battleships instead of four, but we are not to lay down even those two battleships until quite late in the year. And for what reason? In order that we may emphasise the good faith of the British people, in order that we may induce foreign countries to believe, what apparently the Government do not think they would otherwise believe, that the people of Great Britain are in earnest in a desire for a reduction of armaments. I had never realised before that the good faith of the people of Great Britain needed bolstering up by such a scheme as that. And then we are told that if the proposals laid before The Hague Conference prove abortive we are to lay down the third battleship. That seems to me to be an extraordinary procedure with regard to what is supposed to be an amicable consideration of possible arrangements for the diminution of armaments.
I venture to think the proceedings of His Majesty's Government with regard to

293
The Hague Conference are a little complicated, and, may I say, a little contradictory. I have explained to your Lordships what is proposed to be done with respect to the Navy in order to emphasise the good faith of Great Britain. But what about the Army? Your Lordships will, I am sure, remember perfectly clearly the statement made but a short time ago by the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman stated in another place that while the Government had been able to reduce considerably the cost of the Army, they had at the same time succeeded in increasing its striking efficiency by 50 per cent. Is that to be taken to The Hague Conference as well? Is that to be a method of emphasing the good faith of Great Britain and showing foreign countries a lead in the direction of armaments Is it not an insult to the common sense of the country to tell them things of that kind? What foreign countries look to, and what they care? about, is not what we are saving in cost; they look to what the striking power of this country is abroad. I think that a little less of these theatrical performances as far as the Conference at The Hague is concerned may lead to better results.
There is in one of the newspapers of the day a few words that seem to bear rather upon our idea of immediate reductions. I am alluding to a statement of what took place in January, 1792, when in the Speech from the Throne it was pointed out that the friendly assurances received from foreign Powers induced the King to think that some immediate reduction might safely be made in our naval and military establishments. Mr. Pitt sounded the note of security in language even more assured. He said—
" Unquestionably there never was a time in the history of the country when from the situation of Europe we might more reasonably expect fifteen years of peace than we may at the present moment."
Before the year was out England was thrown into a struggle lasting over twenty years, and terminating only on the field of Waterloo. I merely mention this, my Lords, to show that even the best advised of the greatest administrators may sometimes make a mistake as to the position of Europe and as to the possi-
294
bilities of safely cutting down the armaments for the protection of the country.
There is one other point I should like to press upon your Lordships with regard to the reductions that are now proposed. We are now dealing with battleships of an entirely new type. Every battleship of the "Dreadnonght" type is equivalent, at least, in armament to two of the best battleships afloat to-day. I do not think I am putting it too high, if high enough; and when you talk of striking oil a battleship from your shipbuilding programme to-day you are striking off a "Dreadnought," which is equivalent, as I have said, to two of the best battleships now afloat. I beg your Lordships and the country to bear in mind that what we have got to get ahead in is the last and best fighting battleship in the world. It is no use counting up the number of smaller and out-of-date battleships we have got. We must, if this country is to be secure, be the foremost country in the world, with the strongest battleships. Ten or twelve years hence the country that owns the most "Dreadnoughts," or improved "Dreadnoughts," will be the country that will dominate the sea.
A great deal has been said about the Sea Lords. I venture with great humility to say that I think a great deal too much has been said about the action of the Sea Lords. I think we have been landed in a very evil precedent, by which His Majesty's Government shelter themselves without a shred of explanation behind their skilled advisers. We are told that the Sea Lords have recommended these reductions. I will not go behind that statement made distinctly and solemnly by the Prime Minister. May I quote his words —
"the Sea Lords have had no pressure put upon them in this matter. On the contrary, taking the further survey of the situation as it now presents itself to them they have advised us that what we now propose is sufficient to maintain the strength and preserve all the power that is required for the British Navy. Not only so, but they recommended this to us, and they expressly asked that the House of Commons should be informed that it was their recommendation "—
and then the Prime Minister added—
"In order, I suppose that they might get the credit for it."

295
My Lords, I know the Sea Lords pretty well, but I do not think that statement at the end is a worthy statement for the Prime Minister of this country. I accept, of course, the statement that these reductions were made on the recommendation of the Sea Lords; but knowing the Sea Lords as I do, I decline to accept, what is implied by that statement, that the Sea Lords changed their minds on the old conditions that they had to consider. I believe nothing of the kind. I can quite believe that there may have been fresh reasons and altered conditions which might have induced them to change their minds, but I deny altogether, as at present advised, that they could have changed their minds unless there was some change in the conditions to which they had to give consideration.
As to any change in conditions as far as building carried on by foreign nations is concerned, we practically have no information. We have the sort of nebulous statement made by the Secretary to the Admiralty that there is some reason to believe that there has not been that progress with foreign new programmes which the Admiralty had reason to anticipate. That phrase is practically the only explanation of any change that has taken place in the circumstances held to justify the reduction of twenty-five per cent, in the battleship building this year and of fifty per cent. next. It is impossible that these reductions can be justified upon that statement alone. There must be some further change in the conditions, some further change in the position of affairs as to which the Sea Lords were asked to give their consideration. I want to ask my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty three Questions. I ask him, first, did the Sea Lords, initiate or originate this programme of reductions of their own accord, and if so, when? Secondly, had they submitted to them at any time any more drastic programme of reductions, and with what result? And, thirdly, had they before them at any time any intimation of any change of policy on the part of the Government as to the two-Power standard, and if so, what was the standard upon which they were instructed to work? I may be told that these are unusual questions.
LORD BRASSEY: Hear, hear!
EARL CAWDOR: But the position is an unusual one; it is distinctly art-unusual position. Will the noble Lord, who interrupted me tell me of a previous case in which the Government gave no explanation in another place or in this. House of the reasons for a change in their programme and a grave reduction not only for one year, but for the following; year, and sheltered themselves, without a shadow of an explanation, behind their skilled advisers? The Government have chosen to take that course. The country under these conditions has a right to know exactly what has happened. We have a right to press this matter also because the position is unfair as far as the Sea Lords are concerned, and I think we may claim that the matter should be cleared up.
The last of my three Questions 1 put to the noble Lord in consequence of the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place on Friday last. That statement is so important, that perhaps, your Lordships will forgive me if I quote it word for word. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons on Friday last, said—
" Our opinion is that the Naval Lords are right; and when you talk of a two-Power standard, after all you cannot keep quite out of your mind who the two-Powers are. When we have elaborate calculations made as to what, France and Germany are building, is it really a very likely contingency that France and Germany should be allied and should go to-war with us? I do not object to the two-Power standard as a rough guide, but this is a two-Power standard of almost a preposterous kind. "
My Lords, that is a very momentous statement. I think it will be very difficult to exaggerate its immense importance. It means that the two-Power standard is discarded by His Majesty's; Government. What is the two-Power standard? The two-Power standard, that has been understood until to-day is that the Navy, upon whom we depend for the security of the country, must always be maintained so as to be strong; enough to defeat any possible combination at sea by any two countries in the world. That is the battleship standard. I am not speaking of the cruiser standard. In cruisers, of course, we have to have a great deal higher percentage of force

297
than that for the protection of our commerce and our Colonies. I am speaking for the moment of the battleship standard. We have always had, and always held that we must have, not only exactly a Fleet equivalent to those of any two other Powers in Europe, but that we must have a margin over and above that, and I think we have usually calculated something like ten per cent.
We had attained to that position. We had always under the late Government given instructions that what the Admiralty had to work to was that policy, and we had to assure Parliament and the country that we had attained to it. We have attained to it to-day, and under it I venture to say that the country has been feeling safe; but the Prime Minister in one sentence has cast that all aside. Such a standard in his view is a standard of almost a preposterous kind. If that be the view of His Majesty's Government, it is hardly likely that the instructions given to the Sea Lords since His Majesty's Government come into office were to work upon those lines. They were not likely to have been told to work up to a standard described as one of an almost preposterous kind. If not, surely we have a right to ask, and surely the country has a right to know, upon what standard the Sea Lords have been told to work in securing to us a Navy efficient for the purposes stated to be necessary by the Government of the day. We have no information of any sort or kind.
It seems clear, and I think the country should realise it, from the statement of the Prime Minister, that if an improbable, I admit, but not an impossible combination of foreign Powers was directed against this country, I mean such a combination as was quoted by the Prime Minister himself, a combination of France and Germany—the country should understand and realise that in the event of such a combination taking place the Government of the day are content that we should be powerless to defend our shores. There is no half way in this matter. Either the Navy is to be maintained strong enough to make us absolutely safe against any two Powers —I care not which they are—who might combine against us, or it is not. If you drop below the two-Power standard,
298
what standard are you going to adopt? You must drop down and down. It is no use having half a fleet, and if you have not a fleet sufficient for the protection of the country, you may as well not have a fleet at all. I think we are entitled distinctly and absolutely to an answer from His Majesty's Government as to what standard it is to which they have instructed the Sea Lords to work.
I want to quote one more statement by the Prime Minister. He complained that it had been stated that he was weakening the Fleet. He said—
"How are we weakening the Fleet? It is the old idea that by piling one strength upon another you get a greater result."
My Lords, I should have thought so. There is another old idea that two and two make four, and an old idea that, as far as I know, is generally accepted throughout the world; but I agree that it is quite a new idea, and a new idea started apparently by the Prime Minister himself, that the addition to or withdrawal from our building programme of one or two "Dreadnoughts" does not effect the strengthening or the weakening of the Fleet. I do not know to whom the Prime Minister was really addressing those words. It could hardly have been the House of Commons, and he could hardly have been insulting enough to have addressed them to the electors of this great country.
We are told that peace is best secured by diminishing armaments. Was there, ever such a fallacy? It sounds well, but it is not true. No one, my Lords, doubts that my noble friend who sits beside me, Lord Lansdowne, has done as much as any man in this country in the direction of securing European peace. Does any one suggest for a moment that he would have been as successful as he has been in that line if we had not been strong at sea? These phrases about peace being secured by diminished armaments may sound well in some people's ears. The facts I believe to be that a strong British Fleet is the best safeguard you can have for European peace. I venture to say that "A strong man armed" should be the motto and the position of this country. Preparedness for war is, in our island home, the only real security for peace. Let it ever be remembered that our Navy

299
is not in any sense an aggressive force; it is our defensive force. If you tamper with that, my Lords, you tamper with the security of the Empire.
*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMODTH): My Lords, we have heard two very different speeches to-day on this subject. My noble friend who opened this debate, than whom there is no man more acquainted with the Navy, no man who has given greater attention to it is Letter acquainted with its wants and with the wants of the country, has approved of the policy of His Majesty's Government. The noble Earl opposite, on the other hand, has denounced our policy and has said that it is without precedent, that it is dangerous—
EARL CAWDOR: I did not say the policy was without precedent.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Earl has denounced our policy and has said that it is dangerous, and that it is undoubtedly weakening us in the face of rival nations in Europe. I am qu te prepared to meet that charge and to show that the proposals that are being made by His Majesty's Government are not such as in the existing condition of Europe, and in the existing building programmes of other nations, is dangerous to this country. I feel that I am entering into this contest to some extent with one hand tied behind my back, because I do not believe it to be either wise or prudent or good policy to go into minute details as to the comparative strength of our Navy and other navies, or to set the ships of various classes in our Navy against the ships of various classes in another. I do not think it is wise to brandish the strength of our Navy in the face of the rest of the world. It is not right to use the British Navy as a sort of shillelagh which you are to whirl around and say, "Here's a head, let's knock it."That is not the line that I propose to take. I believe that the Navy is a sharp and keen weapon, a weapon that is kept both sharp and keen, and which is ready for the purpose for which it is required, namely, the defence of our country, and not for aggression on any foreign country.
EARL CAWDOR: Hear, hear !
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Earl has, I think, adopted the course that he condemned in others by also bringing the Sea Lords very much into this discussion. For my part, I shall not do that. I consider that the Board of Admiralty as a whole, the Sea Lords and the civil members alike, are responsible for all that takes place; and for my own part, knowing the grave responsibility that lies upon me, I assure you that in considering these matters during the last few weeks I have given to them my very closest attention. I have had the advantage of the advice of many both within and without the Admiralty, and I am prepared, so far as is possible for one who has only been for seven months at the Admiralty, to take the responsibility on myself of saying that I believe the proposals of His Majesty's Government at this time do not lead to danger, but are perfectly consonant with the best interests of our country.
The noble Lord asked me three questions which he said were somewhat unusual. I think they were. But still I will answer them. He first asked, Did the Sea Lords initiate the new programme of their own accord? My Lords, the Sea Lords, along with their colleagues in the Admiralty, considered the whole situation as it was between March and July, and together unanimously came to the conclusion that they could recommend this particular reduction in the programme. The noble Earl next asked, Had they submitted to them any more drastic proposals? My Lords, they had no proposals of any sort or kind submitted to them. They were asked simply to review the situation and make their own proposals. The question of a change of standard never was brought before them at all. I have said that I do not think it wise to go into the details of the comparative strength either of Fleets or of ships belonging to different countries. I believe all that is necessary can be found in the Dilke Return, and I believe that every man from that Return can judge for himself what the relative strengths of the British Fleet and other fleets now are. But, my Lords, the Board as a whole accept this policy, and

301
think it right to adopt a policy of economy so long as the full sea supremacy of our country can be maintained.
The Board have been very severely criticised, and the Sea Lords most of all, for their decision in July to change the programme which was put forward in March at the time of the statement on the Estimates. Whether the Admiralty was right or wrong with regard to that is a question of the consideration of circumstances. There is certainly neither precedent nor good sense in the idea that because a particular programme has once been put forward there is, therefore, never to be any change from that particular programme; and I say that it is against all rules of economy to say that a great department is obliged to spend up to an estimate that has been made at an early date before all the circumstances of the case had been considered, instead of revising it if it thinks it necessary. That course, after all, has the precedent of previous Boards; it has been the course taken by three successive Boards in three successive years when the First Lords were Lord Selborne, Lord Cawdor, and myself. In the last year that Lord Selborne was First Lord of the Admiralty six armoured ships were included in the programme; one was dropped. In the programme of last year, for which the noble Earl opposite was responsible, five armoured ships were in that programme, and on consideration one was dropped. This year, again, "four armoured ships were in the programme, and after full consideration one was dropped.
I would remind you of this, and it is, I think, an important consideration, that year after year these armoured ships are getting more complex, more costly, and more and more of an experiment. If error there be, there was error with the late Boards as well as with the present Board, for the course they adopted was exactly the same. As a matter of fact, I contend that there was blame with none of the Boards for the course they took. I believe that they all took a wise course, and one that was justified by the change of circumstances. The business of the Admiralty is at the beginning of the year to provide for what seems to be the necessities of the year. I would wish to
302
insist that it is a wise thing to take your programme year by year and not attempt to go beyond the needs and the necessities of the particular year. It is impossible to forecast what the changes and delays in the programmes of foreign nations may be, and it must be year by year the duty of the Admiralty to consider those changes and those delays before they decide on what their own eventual programme is to be. That I believe to be sound.
Now, my Lords, the Admiralty do not desire to spend money unnecessarily, and when they came to consider the great changes and the great delays that had taken place in foreign building during this year they arrived at the conclusion that it was wise and right to reduce the programme as it stood when the noble Earl left office. It was proposed, as the noble Earl said, to build four armoured ships, five ocean-going destroyers, twelve coastal destroyers, and twelve submarines. The outlook then was that France was going to lay down several very large battleships; the United States were going to lay down two new great battleships, besides two that had before been carried. Russia was going to lay down one first class battleship and two armoured cruisers; and Germany was going to lay down two very large battleships and one armoured cruiser.
It was in view of this knowledge that the programme was originally formed. But from week to week and from month to month we got reports of delay in the commencement of this new construction, and of the dropping of these proposed ships. Neither in France nor in the United States have any new keels been laid down. Germany for the first time has failed to fulfil her programme, and the delay in those German essels has been more than four months; and only this very morning I have had information that the first of the two great battleships proposed to be laid down by Germany will not be laid down till the month of September next. The same thing has taken place in the United States. In France, instead of six new battleships to be completed two a year, they are not to be completed until the end of 1912, or at the rate of only one a year instead of two. In Russia there has been a reduction in the

303
proposed vote for new construction of £2,500,000. In consequence it was decided to drop one of our own big battleships and, further, there were dropped three ocean-going destroyers and four sub marines.
But I wish to make it perfectly clear that in lieu of those vessels a new vessel is to be laid down. It is true it is not to be laid down till early next year, but I will give the House a description of it. It is to be laid down at Pembroke Dockyard very early in the financial year 1907–8. It is an improved "Scout," and has been designed after the experience of the "Gem" and the" Scout" class. It includes the turbine machinery of the "Amethyst,'' and full advantage will be taken of the oil-fuel experiences of the last few years in vessels of all classes. The vessel will have a very much increased radius, and will be able to steam over 2,000 knots. She will be a very fast vessel and will have much heavier armaments and a greater radius of action than that of the "Scout," and being designed for the same speed will be much superior to third-class cruisers in this respect. She is to be fitted with a double bottom/and will be fully capable of service on distant foreign stations; so work that is now carried out by smaller types of cruisers will be done by this. That I believe to be a very important vessel.
There is good reason also for the postponement of the ocean-going destroyers and submarines. The complexity and difficulty of the oceangoing destroyers is very great, and the Admiralty desire to have greater experience of their action and work before they lay down so large a number as was proposed. With regard to the submarines also, a new type is now being developed, and it is not thought desirable to start twelve submarines this year. Eight are quite enough with our present knowledge, and we had much better wait until the new type is developed and we have the benefit of the knowledge thereby gained.
But, besides the facts that I have tried to bring before you with regard to the progress of building amongst foreign nations, there is also this consideration. We have proved in the most striking
304
manner this year the great and immediate efficiency of His Majesty's Navy. On three-different occasions we have carried out considerable manœuvres. First, there was the mobilisation in February of the scouts, destroyers, and torpedo boats, 110 in all; they carried out considerable manœuvres and operations in bad weather with the greatest success and with very small defects. There were also the manœuvres at Lagos, which, lasted from February 15th to March 1st, in which twenty-nine battleships and eighteen cruisers took part, and which again proved that the Fleet was ready for action at a moment's notice. Again, we had the grand manœuvres between June 12th and July 2nd, in which no less than 319 ships took part, and which, were remarkable for their success and for the rapidity of mobilisation which it was found possible to effect in the nucleus crews of the reserve ships. Those ships performed a record in mobilisation, for of all those vessels the longest in getting mobilised took only-three hours, and the shortest forty minutes. That, my Lords, gave proof of how ready the Fleet was to go to sea, how quickly it could be mobilised, and how speedily the reserves could be brought on board ship.
I now come to the question of the national advantage of endeavouring in some way to reduce the huge expenditure of this country. That expenditure-has increased by half during the past ten years, and, most of all, the defence service expenditure has increased to something like £61,000,000 a year, without taking into consideration the Works account or the cost of our Army in India. Surely it is a desirable thing, and an object that should be aimed at by all parties in this House and in the country, to reduce these great charges, that weigh so heavily on the people. The noble Earl was rather sarcastic about The Hague Conference.
EARL CAWDOR: Not about The Hague Conference, but only about the operations of His Majesty's Government with regard to that Conference.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think the noble Earl looked upon those who support The Hague Conference, and who think:

305
that something may be got from the meeting of nations at such a Conference, as in the nature of ideal dreamers.
EARL CAWDOR: Oh, no, I did not.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: At any rate, that is an opinion which is held, and t is one against which I protest. The noble Viscount opposite, Lord Goschen, in 1899, before the last Hague Conference, said—
" We have been compelled to increase our expenditure, as other nations have increased theirs, not pressing on more than they. As they have increased, so have we increased. I have now to state on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that similarly if the other great naval powers should be prepared to diminish their programme of shipbuilding, we should be prepared on our side to meet such a procedure by modifying ours."
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Hear, hear !
*LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Viscount continued—
"the difficulties of adjustment are no doubt immense, but our desire that the conference should succeed in lightening the tremendous burden which now weighs down all European nations is sincere. But if Europe comes to no agreement, and if the hopes entertained by the Czar should not be realised, the programme which I have submitted to the House must stand."
Those are words with which I desire entirely to associate myself. It is quite true that it is suggested that for the programme of 1907–8 in the first instance only two battleships should be laid down, and that the third should be laid down if the proceedings of the Hague Conference come to nothing. It seems to me that this country will go to that Conference with a good face and with a good record, for it can show that successive Governments have year by year diminished the Naval Estimates of this country by some £6,500,000, that they have each in their turn done something to reduce the building programme of the Navy, and that they are prepared still further to extend that reduction if other countries are willing to join them and to follow suit. I think we shall be able to put that case very strongly before the Hague Conference, and for my part I hope we shall have some success in the representations that we shall make there.
Let me now turn to the other question that was raised by my noble friend,
306
Lord Brassey—the question of the Naval Reserves. That is a very important and a very intricate subject to deal with. A strong Committee was appointed in 1902 to examine the question, and many of the recommendations of that Committee have since been carried out. At that time the condition of things was very different. There were then an immense number of ships which it was supposed were to be manned in time of war. The number of ships has been greatly diminished, and the conditions, therefore, are very different. Two of the things that Sir Edward Grey's Committee recommended were the strengthening of the Fleet Reserve, and the better training of the Royal Naval Reserve. The Fleet Reserve, which consists partly of men who have-been on the shorter period of engagement in the Navy—they are engaged for twelve years, five years on active service and seven years in the Reserve—has greatly increased since that time. They were something over 5,000 at the time the Committee sat in 1902; they are now upwards of 15,000, and are increasing every day. Sir Edward Grey's Committee also strongly recommended the establishment of Naval Volunteers. There are now 4,200 Naval Volunteers, and they are a very effective body.
The difficulty that arises is that there are two opinions as to the proportion that the Reserve should bear to the active men in the Naval service. Sir Edward Grey's Committee put that number as high as fifty per cent. Naval opinion now takes a very much lower view and talks about fifteen or twenty per cent. I think there is a general agreement that the Royal Fleet Reserve is the best Reserve for the Navy and is the one on which we can best depend on account of the men having received their training in the Naval Service itself. But, after all, the main and most important part of naval seamen must be the men of long service, because the work of a seaman now has become so intricate, so complex, I might almost say so scientific, that it requires long training to ensure success. Consequently the number of men who are at any time in the Navy on comparatively short service or non-continuous service, cannot be a very large one, and, therefore, beyond a certain number we cannot get

307
Royal Fleet Reserve men from this source, but they are increasing. They will increase, and every encouragement will be given to them.
With regard to the Royal Naval Reserve, considerable changes have been made. It was before I became First Lord that the decision was arrived at. They have been given an entirely new system of training. Instead of being trained at shore batteries and on training ships, with the exception of a small number during the next four years which are to be used for men who, having: engaged on the old system, have not completed their term of service, and are unwilling to serve under the new conditions, they will in future be entirely trained on board seagoing ships, and will, instead of doing their fourteen days a year on shore or in the training ships, be trained twenty eight days every second year in seagoing ships, and principally in the nucleus ships in reserve in the various ports round the United Kingdom. Entry into the Royal Naval Reserve has been for the time arrested, but for my part I am strongly in favour of maintaining the Royal Naval Reserve, and so far as I am concerned, I would not be a party to its abolition, though undoubtedly its number must be reduced, and will be reduced, I should think, to some extent by the more strict conditions of service 'which have been imposed. The suspension of entry has now continued for about a year and a half, and a waste is going on at the rate of about 8 per cent, a year. I think that within a very short time it will be possible and desirable to re-open the entries to the Royal Naval Reserve both of officers and of men. I do not.say exactly under what conditions, but with the idea at any rate of increasing considerably the number of stokers that will be available for the Reserve. I think I have answered the questions put to me by Lord Brassey. In conclusion I would say, as I began, that I do feel the responsibility which rests upon me in agreeing and being a party to the reduction that has been made, and I firmly believe that that reduction will not lead to any damage to our country.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will excuse me, if, like my noble friend, Lord Cawdor,
308
I address the few remarks with which I shall trouble the House to that part of the noble Lord's speech which refers to the shipbuilding programme. Although I fully admit the great importance of the question of Reserves, I will defer till some other occasion any remarks I may have to make upon that subject. Anyone who has listened to the speech which has just been delivered by the First Lord of the Admiralty, and who has read the speeches which were made by his two colleagues on the shipbuilding programme in the other House of Parliament, can hardly fail to have been impressed by the difference of tone adopted. In the other House the great question was economy, and what was produced and flaunted before the House was the part which the Naval Lords have played in this matter.
The Naval Lords, by a very unfortunate course on the part of the Prime Minister, were brought out and placed in very clear contradistinction to the other Members of the Board of Admiralty. I need hardly say that that is entirely contrary to the whole theory and practice of the Board of Admiralty during, at all events, the last thirty years. The Secretary to the Admiralty and the Prime Minister were both well aware of this, for they said that they knew it was inconvenient and for many reasons undesirable, and that they only did it because of very exceptional circumstances. To-night the noble Lord took quite a different course. He separated himself entirely from those colleagues. He said, and I am sure that anyone who knows anything of Naval affairs and of the Board of Admiralty will cordially agree with him, that the Board of Admiralty is one and indivisible, and that the First Lord is the person who is responsible to Parliament and to the country for the action of that Board.
How can you reconcile that with what was said in the other House? What was the reason why a totally different statement was made in that House? The Prime Minister said it was an exceptional case. His reason for introducing the Naval Lords was that he wished to throw upon them the responsibility for the reduction which was being made, to assure the country that it was they

309
who were primarily responsible for it, and he went so far as to say that they had asked him to state that to the House of Commons. If the naval Members of the Board of Admiralty made that statement I am sure that the First Lord himself could not have been aware of it, because he knows as well as anyone how improper it is to put forward professional advisers and throw upon them the responsibility for a programme. Those of your Lordships who read the papers on Saturday morning will have seen that it is said, more especially in the Radical Press, that we are perfectly safe because this is the programme of the Naval Lords. I confess that this is rather an undignified and undeserved position in which to place my noble friend.
In the statement we have listened to to-night we have heard a variety of circumstances in justification for the reduction in the programme which were not stated in the other House of Parliament. The noble Lord has stated them in some detail with regard to the naval proposals of two or three other countries whose rogrammes he has learned are very much in arrear. Those who have no official information and who are merely private Members of this House of course accept that statement, and moreover the First Lord of the Admiralty has means of forming a judgment which are not accessible to other Members of this House. At the same time one cannot help reminding him that in cutting off one '' Dreadnought" at a time when we have unfortunately probably lost the '' Montagu "we are weakening the Navy of this country.
Further, I do not understand why the programme of 1907–8 was introduced in the other House. The noble Lord stated to-night that he did not go on any standard, that he gave up standards, and that his intention was to proceed from year to year according to the information he received. If that is so, why was the programme of 1907–8 laid before the other House of Parliament? We remember what the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War said in this House the other day. He said that the mandate was economy, and he reminded us, in speaking on the Army Estimates, that economy and the cutting down of expenditure had been
310
the first principle which His Majesty's Government had observed. Of course, in this way it may have been desirable to promise future economies to the other House, but that is not in accordance with the statement which has been made to us to-night. I do not understand how you can tell now what the circumstances of next year will be. You have the Hague Conference, and you do not even know what the result of it will be. You say that if the Hague Conference proves unsuccessful you will lay down another ship. But can the noble Lord inform us how it is known already that the fourth ship can be cut off?
The noble Lord gave the Hague Conference as one of the reasons for being additionally anxious to spend as little on the Fleet as he could. Does the noble Lord really believe that anything-he spends this year will have any effect on the Hague Conference? Does he-suppose that Germany or France are-going to alter their programme because he lays down one battleship less? In reference to this matter I regret most bitterly the use that has been made of the names of the Naval Lords. I hope my noble friend will point out to his colleagues what an indiscretion, to say the least of it, they have committed. The noble Lord has told us that no pressure of any kind or sort was laid upon them. Does he assure us, too, that these reductions were suggested by them, for that is what the Prime Minister's words come to? The Prime Minister did not mean merely that the Naval Lords acquiesced in certain reductions, but he said that they had recommended them, and that they had expressly asked that the House of Commons might be informed of this, in order, to use the Prime Minister's exact words, that they might get the credit for it. I must say it does surprise me very much to hear that the Naval Lords asked that any such assurance should be given to the House of Commons.
There are many noble Lords in this House who are identified with the Navy, and who have been connected at various times with Boards of Admiralty. I should like to ask whether any of them remember any case in which a Naval Lord ever asked that anything he had done or

311
recommended might be laid before the House of Commons? This statement was made in Parliament and relied upon, and the public rely upon it. The public is relying at this very moment for their safety upon the acceptance of a programme which, as they have been assured, has been laid down by the Naval Lords. One might almost ask that Papers should be laid on the Table. Your Lordships all know that when a Minister relies upon a statement he is bound to prove it if called upon to do so. Of course, it would be absurd in this case to move that any Papers should be laid on the Table, because everyone who knows anything about the Admiralty is aware that it would be contrary to the whole principle and practice of the Admiralty and to public policy to do so; but what I wish to impress upon your Lordships is that the very fact that a statement of this sort has been made which it is impossible for Ministers to substantiate shows how improper it was for it ever to have been made.
*LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, the First Lord of the Admiralty has not convinced me by the reasons he has given for the reductions in the shipbuilding programme that have been made, and I am particularly anxious about the fate of the vessel whose existence is to depend on the Hague Conference. But the chief anxiety that I feel on this question is due to the opinions held by the Secretary to the Admiralty and published when he was sitting on the Commission appointed to inquire into our food supply in time of war. He then expressed the opinion that if all private property at sea not contraband were exempted from capture or destruction by belligerents all the difficulties which that Committee were appointed to consider would disappear and all proposed remedies would become unnecessary. As if food would not at once be declared contraband of war by any nation which found itself at war with us! I confess that when the present Government was formed I was sorry to see a person holding such opinions given a post at the Admiralty. I had hoped that a position would have been found for him inland. The manner in which he has lately dealt with the Sea Lords, as reported in the newspapers, has greatly
312
increased my anxiety. The recent Conference held in the Royal Gallery of this Palace and the Hague Conference are, I think, institutions that have the greatest possible use in preserving peace and in dealing with international law and difficulties which may arise while peace is still existing. But in war their resolutions are of no value.
I think it would be more civil if our newspapers would use the term "protection of our food supply in time of war "Instead of "command of the sea." We do not want the command of the sea in order to threaten or hurt anybody. We merely mean to ensure it for the purpose of feeding ourselves. The majority which the Government obtained at the last election was partly due to Mr. Chamberlain's suggestion for taxation of foreign food. At the present moment we are entirely dependent for our food supply in time of war on our Navy alone. If we have no Navy we shall have no bread. If we have too small a Navy it is as if we had none at all. We are told that if the resolution at the Hague is passed it is to be considered equivalent to a third battleship. It is doubtful what action will be taken on that resolution by foreign Powers. It will probably be used as a blind. In war the Hague Conference resolutions would be of no value. It is true they might be made into paper boats, but are we to fill up blank s in our line-of-battle with paper boats?
Friendly relations with other Powers are not sufficient reasons for reducing armaments. Those friendly relations are chiefly due to the fact that we are believed to be possessed of sufficient power to be able to assist a friend in time of need. We can make a quarrel in a quarter of an hour, but we cannot build a battleship and get her ready for sea in less than fifteen or eighteen months, by which time the war might be over. I hope people in this country will not continue to boast of their ability to beat Germany in shipbuilding. Germany has not yet taken her coat off in this matter, and when she does we may be surprised at the result. The slackening off of shipbuilding on our part will have the opposite effect to that looked for. It will cause other countries to strain every nerve to get level with us. Therefore I submit

313
that these reductions do not increase the chance of maintaining peace.
*LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I desire in the fewest possible words to put a question to His Majesty's Government, a question which has the object of removing the uncertainty which I am sure has been left in the minds of my noble friends on this side of the House by the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The burden of the noble Lord's speech was that the reduction of the shipbuilding programme was merely a matter of ordinary annual routine, a thing that has been done in prevous years on more than one occasion. But His Majesty's Government in another place claimed unusual credit for this reduction, and treated it as part of a new policy, a policy of reduction of armaments which was to be an example to other countries.
What we want to know on this side of the House is whether there is a new policy or not. According to the Prime Minister, there is a new policy which is to be an example to the other nations of the world. But according to the First Lord of the Admiralty, as we understand him, there is no new policy; the reductions which have been ordered are merely part of the annual routine, which may be corrected or altered according to circumstances. His Majesty's Government cannot have it both ways. It is on this point then that many noble Lords on this side of the House would like to have a clear answer. Is there a new policy or is there not; and if there is a new policy, what is that policy and how far is the reduction to proceed? Are we to go so far in reduction and setting an example to other countries that we abandon the policy of the two-Power standard, or is reduction to proceed so gradually that the policy of the two-Power standard will be maintained? I venture, with all due deference, to ask His Majesty's Government to give us an assurance on that point.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, when not many days ago we had a debate in this House upon the reduction in the Army and were confronted by the champions of the "Blue-water" school, I did not antici-
314
pate that in a very few days the question would be again before your Lordships— this time, whether the force on that blue water should be reduced or not. Personally I did not believe in the rumours that the Navy was going to be reduced, but we are now confronted by the fact that the shipbuilding programme has been materially curtailed. I hope the noble Lord will clearly answer the question which has been put to him by my noble friend behind me, whether this means a change in policy. We have to look not only at the actual reduction in the Estimates, but also at the speeches in which that reduction was explained in the House of Commons. It was pointed out very clearly just now by my noble friend Lord Camperdown that the tone of the speeches and the course of the debate in the House of Commons were totally different from the speeches and the course of the debate in your Lordships' House to-night. I think I may say, with all friendliness to His Majesty's Government, that they have very much mismanaged the explanation of the reduction. They have mismanaged it in the House of Commons, and they have a difficulty in putting it right in this House.
Why was the explanation which has now been given by my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth not given in the House of Commons? Why did they not explain that it was mainly due to information from other countries with reference to the shipbuilding of those countries? Why was it not explained that it was no great policy but scientific reasons that had actuated the Board of Admiralty in recommending the postponement of three destroyers and a certain number of submarines? So far as I know, Mr. Robertson never hinted at it in the House of Commons. The line he took up was that the Admiralty were determined to effect a reduction, and he gave no explanation. If I had spoken before my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty I had intended asking him why the reductions in these two items were proposed. I think the noble Lord has given a perfectly adequate explanation, but it is a scientific explanation. This is not a great reduction which is to play a great role when the Hague Conference meets; it is because they are not ready with their

315
designs that they have postponed this part of the programme.
Then again as to battleships. A battleship is to be struck off for the reasons which the noble Lord explained, not because we desire to retard the progress of our strength, but because there have been reductions by other Powers. And yet the Government talk about giving a lead. The whole question is involved in a perfect fog, and the difficulties are heightened by the ex-ordinary message said to have been sent by the Naval Lords to the House of Commons. When have officers, naval or military, ever desired to place themselves in communication with the House of Commons? I cannot think of any previous First Sea Lord or Second Sea Lord who would have wished to send a message to the House of Commons that they desired to reduce the Navy Estimates. Did not the First Lord of the Admiralty warn them and say, "It is an unprecedented course. I really cannot convey such a message to the House of Commons." If he did the Naval Lords were severely to blame for requesting such a message to be sent to the House of Commons.
In what a position does the Government statement put the Naval Lords? It is supposed that they, without any pressure, simply out of political considerations and after surveying the field of Europe and the existing conditions, made to the Board of Admiralty a recommendation for reductions.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: We held meetings of the Board at which the whole matter was brought forward. Undoubtedly I brought forward the desirability of making reductions, all the circumstances were surveyed, and all came unanimously to the conclusion announced.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I am glad to have elicited the statement that the Government did put before them the desirability of cutting down Estimates.
LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Of economy. I take the whole responsibility.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: I am grateful to my noble friend for candidly telling us
316
the circumstances. They put an entirely different construction upon what has-happened. It is a matter so important that I do not regret going over the subject which has been dealt with by my noble friends. I do not wish to haggle about a single ship and a reduction that may or may not be justified, but we have to consider not only the reductions, but the language in which that course has been defended by the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman's view as to our naval policy. My noble friend Lord Camperdown has alluded to the absence of any explanation as to the reductions next year. Why should the Government state what they proposed to do in 1907–8 before they know what other Powers are going to do?
It is a new policy deliberately to change the programme with a contingent arrangement for the addition of another ship. There is a vague proposition in reference to the Hague Conference, and two forces appear to be operating upon, the Government—the desire for economy and the desire to be able to claim successfully the position of being first in the reduction of armaments. I am not encouraged to hope much from the Hague Conference, and if the First Lord would give half an hour to a conversation with Sir J. Fisher, an unrivalled expert on naval policy, upon his reminiscences of a previous conference it would be time well spent.
Another question which has cropped up is the two-Power standard, and some doubt has been expressed as to whether the policy of the Government in this respect is being adhered to in the true sense. I cannot believe that the First Lord would depart one jot from it. It would be wrong to work out the system with reference to the strength of two naval Powers merely without reference to all the changes that have taken place in Europe, and the contingencies that might arise. The naval policy of this country must be shaped, not simply in relation to the naval sterngth of any two Powers, but in proportion to the naval sterngth of the world. Not, of course, that our Navy should be equal to all others—that would be absurd— but having regard to the fact that nations, though they might not become our

317
adversaries, might in the event of war prove very uncomfortable neutrals. New dangers beset battleships from mines and submarines, and Japan lost two ships in one day from mines. Such considerations must affect the naval strength of a country such as ours, and such disasters would affect this country more than any other Power in Europe. We run a greater risk, for our national existence depends upon our naval strength.
The Prime Minister has expressed the opinion that the rivalry between nations is a rivalry of grandeur, and he used the word "swagger."the idea that nations are recklessly spending money out of pure rivalry shows ignorance of the true state of affairs. France would be ready enough to reduce her armaments, naval and military, if she only could, but she is not going in the Hague Conference to undertake to do so unless there are developments which she at any rate does not expect. This unfortunate expenditure all over Europe is not caused by any desire for glory or by vanity, but from a consideration of international relationships. Has Austria, for whose misfortunes we have every sympathy, kept up her army for swagger? Her army is being kept up for national exstence, in order to avoid the perils which, Heaven forbid, should assail her, but which are not so far removed from the political horizon that she can herself undertake to reduce her armaments.
With regard to Germany I should like to say a few frank and friendly words. If there is an idea that Germany is arming against ourselves I think it is a mistake; if it is thought that Germany is arming against Prance, or Russia, or any particular Power I believe that is also a mistake. Why does Germany push on her naval expansion, which France will plead compels her to do the same? Not for aggression, but from a settled policy. She requires more territory for her teeming millions. She feels that she must have colonies, that she must expand, as other growing countries must expand, that she must have outlets for her commerce, and that she must have sea power like us to hold her own against every possible effort to limit her colonial expansion or paralyse her action. Her Ministers have no desire for war. But
318
they have an Imperial German policy Is it likely that anything that will happen at the Hague Conference will arrest what they consider to be their mission— what the Emperor considers to be a mission placed upon himself to expand the German power? Those who think so are living in a fool's paradise.
I wish as much as any Member of your Lordships' House, as much as any democratic Member of Parliament, as much as airy of those who dream of universal peace, that I could believe with Tennyson in the time—
" When the war drum throbs no longer and
the battle Hags were flurled
In the Parliament of man, the federation of the world."
At all events, let us look to it that the white ensign of the British Fleet remains without question and without doubt unharmed over that Fleet. I hope it; will not be said when observations such as I have made are placed before the public that they are pessimistic or gloomy Sometimes the cold water of common sense is almost as necessary as enthusiasm. I can admire enthusiasm, and I admire the democrary which, knowing little of foreign diplomacy and the struggles of the nations for supremacy, think that war merely means either the glory of a certain class or heavy taxation, and through ignorance plead for a smaller Navy; but as I said in another debate last week, it is not for the leaders of a Party, not for a man like the Prime Minister to encourage them in Utopian hopes that the mere calling together of a conference will make it unnecessary to continue that steady progress, that building up to a standard, that building up to ail the requirements of the case which I fear for many years must be the fate of this: country.
LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I hope as a newcomer to this House that I may be allowed to address your Lordships on the important subject now before you. I have myself in the past been not infrequently connected with the Admiralty in an official capacity and during the past two years I have taken an active part in pressing a reduction on the Government, and in urging that there

319
should be in consequence a reduction in taxation.
The noble Viscount who has just addressed the House speaks with very great authority on this subject. He was twice at the Admiralty for very long periods, once in the first administration of Mr. Gladstone, when economy was the order of the day, and when the Navy was administered for less than £10,000,000 a year. I was then his colleague at the Admiralty; and served under him. His last experience of the Navy was from 1895 to 1900, when a very different order of things prevailed, and when the expenditure upon the Navy was lavish in the highest degree. I think I am right in saying that while the noble Viscount presided over the Admiralty he added no less than two millions a year to the expenses of administration. I do not propose to find any fault with him. All I wish to do is to call his attention to that period when he was presiding at the Admiralty, and to ask him to consider what has happened between then and now which may tend to a more moderate expenditure.
The expenditure upon the Navy has increased since Lord Goschen presided over the Board by no less than eight millions a year. Expenditure on the Army has increased by no less than ten millions a year; the two together amounting to an increase of eighteen millions a year in the seven years. That is taking the date 1898, immediately before the war in South Africa. Now I invite the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who presided at that time over the Army, to consider the expenditure then and the point which it has now reached, and whether circumstances in the state of Europe have not occurred which would justify a considerable reduction at this moment.
Many things of the greatest importance have happened during the last three years bearing on this subject. In the first place, we have had the collapse of Russia. When I look back at the speeches of Lord Goschen, made between the years 1895 and 1900, I observe that he almost invariably defended the great increases which he made in the Navy on the ground
320
of the increase in the Russian Navy; and I think I may claim also that the great increase in the Army of late years has been due to the fear of Russia. There was the fear of the invasion of India on the part of Russia through Afghanistan. But during the last three years the power of Russia has collapsed. Russia has been defeated in the Far East, her navy has absolutely disappeared, her ships have either been sunk or captured by the Japanese. We have therefore this state of things, that the naval power of Russia has disappeared, and everybody, I think, admits that it must be many years— some people say ten and others a much longer period—before Russia's power can be revived, and before there can be any attempt either to invade India or even to resuscitate her navy.
But other important things have occurred. First among them is that which the noble Marquess opposite has been responsible for, and which I venture to think will be one of his principal claims to fame in history—namely, the Agreement which has been come to with France under which all matters in dispute have been settled, and every difficulty between us and that Power removed. All questions of jealousy as regards our position in Egypt have been removed, as also have all questions of jealousy between our selves and France in Morocco. That seems to me a very important matter, tending to justify a reconsideration of our expenditure upon the Navy and Army. But other important matters still have occurred. There has been the Agreement with Japan, the immediate effect of which has been that our position in the Far East as regards our Navy has been reassured. We have been enabled to recall the whole of the five battleships which were maintained in those waters, and they are now concentrated at home.
Further, there has been a very great and important change in policy in Naval administration, for which I have nothing but praise—the change carried out by Lord Selborne and Admiral Fisher, and under which the whole of our powerful vessels have been concentrated in Home waters or in the Mediterranean or within easy touch of these shores. It was discovered that the cruisers on which we relied to defend our commerce were of no

321
value in time of war as against the more modern armoured cruisers, with the result that the greater part of them were recalled, and the late Prime Minister boasted that by a courageous stroke of the pen they were struck off the Navy List. The result has been that all our powerful vessels have been concentrated at home, and I do not hesitate to say what I think was also affirmed by the late Government, that the strength of the Navy has been nearly doubled by this operation—that is to say, the effective strength of the Navy for purposes of offence and defence against the only Powers which it would be likely to meet at the present time.
There is yet one other important matter to which I do not think sufficient attention has been called of late in the Press, and that is the result of the experiences of the naval war between Russia and Japan as to the comparative value of our Fleet compared with that of other Powers. I think it has been admitted I by every expert who has written upon the subject that the result of the experiences in the late war is to show the very high value which attaches to battleships of large size and great power in comparison with smaller vessels. The battleships of large size proved in the late war to be of the greatest and highest value. The smaller battleships are relegated into the background, and it has been proved that the presence, in a great fleet of battleships, of an inferior type of coast defence vessels was rather an embarrassment to the Fleet than a source of strength.
Let me ask the House to consider what the effect of this experience is upon the value of our vessels as compared with those of France and Germany. The wisdom of our own naval constructors in building battleships of 12,000, 14,000, and 15,000 tons as compared with the very much smaller vessels constructed by France and Germany, has thus been proved. At the present moment you may divide the battleships of the world into two classes—the smaller type of battleship averaging about 11,000 tons, and the larger battleships averaging 14,000, or 15,000 tons. The policy of Germany has been to build small battleships and to arm them with compara-
322
tively light guns and with secondary batteries. The policy of our Admiralty during the last ten years has been to build large battleships armed with the most powerful guns, and the result of that policy is that whereas at the present moment Germany has not a single battleship of the large type over 13,000 tons this country has thirty-seven such vessels averaging no less than 14,800. France at the same time has only four vessels of 13,000 tons and those not quite completed. All the rest of her vessels are under that size, and average about 11,000 tons. I say that this is a condition of things which is very satisfactory to this country. As regards armoured cruisers, the position is even stronger. England has fourteen armoured cruisers of the large size averaging 13,000 tons; France has only four averaging 12,000 tons, and Germany has one with a tonnage of 10,400 tons.
In view of all these facts, it does seem to mo that the Admiralty of this country is wise in holding its hand, and that it is possible to make some reduction in the great expenditure upon our Navy The noble Viscount who has just sat down seems to be averse to any reduction whatever. I think that public opinion during the general election manifested itself strongly in favour of a reduction of expenditure. Although the war in South Africa has been concluded for something like three or four years, we are still under the burden of the taxation which was imposed for the purposes of that war. The income-tax stands at 1s. in the £.—an unprecedented rate, I believe, in time of peace—and all the taxes which were imposed upon tea, sugar, beer, tobacco, and spirits with the intention of making the labouring classes contribute—and very properly—towards the war still remain unrepealed, with the single exception of 1d. upon tea. In these circumstances it does seem to me desirable that the country should consider the possibility of reducing its armaments. I believe it can do so with perfect safety in consideration of the changed circumstances which I have brought under the notice of your Lordships. The noble Viscount opposite seemed to think that the two-Power

323
standard was going to be abandoned. I did not understand from the speeches of my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth in this House, or of Mr. Robertson in the House of Commons, that there was any idea of abandoning the two-Power standard.
EARL CAWDOR: The Prime Minister's speech.
LORD EVERSLEY: The fact is that the two-Power standard at the present moment has been largely exceeded. I believe that never in the history of the country has the naval power of Great Britain been so superior to that of other Powers. My noble friend Lord Tweed-mouth, with great justice, disclaimed the task of making comparisons with other Powers. I think that is a very proper position for the First Lord of the Admiralty to take, but I do not see why those behind him who have not the same responsibility should not express their views upon this subject. For my part I do not hesitate to say, and I am confirmed in that view by many naval men with whom I have discussed the matter, that never at any time has the Navy of this country been so superior to those of other Powers whose navies could be brought against us. I can well understand that the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, should wish it to be understood that they fully and thoroughly assent to the policy of their Board. I did not, however, understand my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth to shelter himself or the Government behind that fact. Although it is undesirable as a general rule that the head of either service should quote his expert advisers, yet I think that in the particular circumstances of the present case it was desirable that this should be done.
My noble friend Lord Goschen also alluded to the Hague Conference. I think that the action His Majesty's Government are taking with regard to that Conference is a wise one. I do not understand that it differs very substantially from the line which the noble Viscount himself took in 1900 with reference to the first Conference at the Hague.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: But I am now guided by the experience of the previous Conference and the difficulties which were encountered. Moreover, we did not reduce before the Conference.
LORD EVERSLEY: I contend that there is no substantial difference between the course which the noble Viscount, then took and the course which the present Government are taking with reference to the forthcoming Conference. I hope that the proposals of the present Government will be successful. I have no doubt very great difficulties will be encountered, especially on the part of Germany, but at the same time I think it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to make these proposals. With one part of the speech of the noble Viscount I fully agree. I do not think we need be under the impression that the great increase in the German Navy is directed specially against this country, We must recollect that Germany has become a great commercial Power with a vast mercantile marine She has ambitions of a colonial Empire in all parts of the world, and I think we may not unreasonably suppose that her Ministers consider a strong Navy a matter of great importance. I do not see the smallest reason for thinking that the German Navy is intended to be a rival of our own; nor do I consider that there is any possible comparison at the present moment between the German Fleet and our own. I am one of those who believe that the strength of the country does not depend on armaments alone. I believe that sound finance and light, taxation, on which credit is founded, are at least as important as the building in large numbers of new ships which experience four or five years hence may show to be obsolete.

IRRIGATION IN CEYLON.
*LORD STANMORErose to move for correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Ceylon on the subject of irrigation works in that island. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is willing to give the Papers which I have asked for, and therefore it is not necessary

325
for me to do more than explain in a few words why I wish to have them.
The great irrigation works which prevailed in Ceylon in ancient times fell into disuse, and when England succeeded to the possession of Ceylon very little attention was paid to them. They were, however, still maintained in a fashion until the year 1833, when a Commission was sent out from England to make recommendations with regard to the government of that island, and among other things they made an unfortunate recommendation which completely upset the whole of the native regulations with regard to irrigation at that time. The Government did not become aware for a long time afterwards of the mischief they had done, but when they did become alive to it they at once set to work to remedy the evil. The work initiated by Sir H. Ward was continued by Sir W. Gregory, and in 1887 a Board was instituted which it was supposed would get rid of all the evils that existed, and the Board has done a great deal of good work during the last twenty years. The Board has now been abolished or is about to be abolished, and I have grave apprehensions that its abolition will restore many of the evils which its establishment was intended to remedy. I therefore beg to move for these Papers, and if they justify the opinion I have expressed I shall take further action in the matter at some subsequent date.
Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of Ceylon on the subject of irrigation works in that island."—(Lord Stanmore.)
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, in replying to the noble Lord I have to say that there is no disposition either in the Colony or in the Colonial Office to overlook the great services which he performed for irrigation during his administration of the affairs of Ceylon. The noble Lord took the matter up at a time when the finances of Ceylon were in a very different state from what they are now, and carried out his policy with a courage which we do not forget.
326
The real reason for the change which has taken place in recent times is that the state of the Colony now, especially in the matter of finance, is very different from what it was then. I believe that the noble Lord at the time would have been very glad if he could have established a department for the management of this matter, but, even if that is not so, at any rate that is what has been done now, and the only reason for the dissolution of the Board which he quite proper established to carry out the work at the, time when he was Governor is that it is now possible to make this an ordinary part of the management of government in the usual way. There is no disposition whatever to do other than carry on the work of irrigation, and the Governor has every expectation that by the present arrangements he will be able to do so. I will not detain your Lordships further, as the noble Lord has stated that when he gets the Papers he may return to the matter later on. I propose to lay a very exhaustive Report on irrigation in the library, and I shall be quite willing to present to Parliament the latest Ordinance on the subject and any despatches bearing upon it.
On Question, Motion agreed, to and ordered accordingly.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER.
The Lords following were named of the Select Committee—M. Cholmondeley, E. Carlisle, E. Lytton, E. Plymouth, L. Stanmore.
The Committee to meet on Wednesday next at Twelve o'clock, and to appoint their own chairman.

POST OFFICE (LITERATURE FOR THE BLIND) HILL.

  SECOND READING
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the object to this Bill is to facilitate the transmission by post of books and papers impressed for the use of the blind. The Bill has already passed the other House

  327
  without opposition, and I sincerely trust your Lordships may see your way to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Granard.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  LECKHAMPTON HILL RIOTS.
  *EARL RUSSELLrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it was proposed to reconsider the sentences passed by Mr. Justice Lawrence on July 6th, at the Gloucestershire Assizes, in connection with the rioting at Leck-hampton Hill. The noble Earl said: My Lords, since I put this question on the Paper I understand that the matter has been mentioned in another place. What I wish is to ask whether these sentences are having the consideration of His Majesty's Government, and, if so, to urge that a speedy decision is desirable as the men have already been twenty-four days in prison.
  I do not know whether the House are familiar with the circumstances, but the dispute arose out of an assertion of a right of way. It was not a case of mob violence or of any desire to destroy property in a wanton manner. There were altogether eight prisoners tried, convicted, and sentenced; and in particular I should like to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to one of them—a man named Barrett. This man, according to the evidence, took no part either in the rioting or in the actual demolition. I am informed that he simply made a speech to the crowd, the object of which was to invite them not to riot but to disperse peaceably, and he himself was not there when the violent proceedings took place. I will quote a few words from the summing up of Mr. Justice Lawrence to show your Lordships the spirit in which this matter was placed before the jury—
  "the Judge, in summing up, said that what irritated him more than anything was the man who got up and made a speech when there was no occasion for it. There were some people who, when they saw an eminence, could not
  328
  help getting on to it like a goat and making speeches. This reminded him of a great statesman who, whenever he stopped at a railway station, could not refrain from getting out of the train and making speeches. Barrett was one of that class of persons."
  I am told that this does not at all represent the attitude of this particular defendant, and if the Home Office on investigation should come, to that conclusion I do urge that they should come to it soon, because the man has been sentenced to four months imprisonment and has been in prison twenty-four days.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the answer to the question put to His Majesty Government by the noble Earl is in the affirmative. The matter is under consideration and representations with regard to it have been received by the Secretary of State. At the same time the noble Earl will not expect me to give him any hint of the decision to which the Secretary of State is likely to arrive. But I may tell the noble Earl that he is now in communication with the Judge who tried the case and hopes to be able to announce his decision before very long. I will see that what the noble Earl has said with regard to the special case of Barrett is brought to the attention of the Home Secretary.

  LOUPING ILL AND BHAXY.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (1) Whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into louping ill and braxy continues to exist for the purpose of further research; (2) If so, who are the members composing the Committee; (3) Where and by whom is the experimental work of the Committee to be carried on;(4) From what source are the expenses of further research or experiments to be met.
  In putting these questions I should like to express the great indebtedness which the North of England feels to the noble Earl and his predecessors at the Board of Agriculture for the zeal that has been displayed in this matter, which is of extreme importance to sheep masters in the North. The inquiry has done something to comfort them, and has

  329
  acted as a makeweight against the very unfortunate treatment they received with regard to sheep scab. I should like to make a small addition to my questions and ask whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give facilities to the tenant farmers for drenches in order that they may test the theory put forward by those who have conducted the inquiry. It is, of course, of great importance that we should be perfectly certain that this remedy is in point of fact a bona fide remedy, and I trust that His Majesty's Government will give all assistance possible to that end.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl (CARRINGTON): My Lords, the noble Duke will remember that the Departmental Committee was appointed in 1901 by Mr. Hanbury, and that it consisted of Professor Hamilton, of Aberdeen University, and others. The noble Duke was kind enough to provide the accommodation and the necessary facilities for the investigation of the disease, and I gladly take the first public opportunity that the Board have had of expressing their thanks to the noble Duke for his generosity in giving those facilities, as well as for the public spirit and liberality that he has shown. The noble Duke asks where and by whom the experimental work of the Committee is to be carried on. The Committee presented their Report in April of last year. It has been printed and laid before Parliament, and it contains a large amount of very valuable and useful information. The Board are also very much indebted to Professor Hamilton for the energy he devoted to the work. I may say that he gave up three years of his time to the investigation of this disease, which has been so often fatal in different parts of England. Their Report having been presented, the Committee technically have ceased to exist; but in view of one portion of the Report, with regard to facilities being given for the universal drenching of sheep, the Board have thought it desirable that arrangements should be made for trials with the proposed drench to be made on sheep suffering from these diseases. We have £100 still left in hand, and it is proposed to offer to Professor Hamilton this sum in order that the tests and experiments
  330
  may still be carried on under his auspices. Up to this moment we have not heard whether he is able to meet us on that point, but if he does he will no doubt wish to have the advice and co-operation of his colleagues on the Committee. As regards facilities for drenching, perhaps the noble Duke will allow me to make some inquiries upon that point, and to send him privately what information I obtain. I can assure him that everything will be done by the Department to facilitate the continuance of these experiments, which we owe entirely to the generosity and the liberality of the noble Duke himself.

  CHARITABLE LOAN (SOCIETIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  REVENUE BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), Committee negatived; Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  Order or the day read for the House going into Committee.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, before the Motion is put I wish to make a protest against the rapidity with which this Bill is being proceeded with. It was read a second time on Friday, and to-day we are taking the Committee Stage, with two pages of Amendments to be introduced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I cannot myself see why, with an Autumn session before us, there should be any need for this very great celerity.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I can assure the noble Lord and the House that there really has been no undue haste in this matter. It is most desirable

  331
  that the Bill should become law before the recess; otherwise there will be considerable delay. The Bill cannot take effect before January 1st next year, but there are a great many technical matters which have to be dealt with by the Board before the Bill can take effect. There is no wish in any way to rush the Bill, but it is in the public-interest that your Lordships should permit it to go through as speedily as possible.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, I wish to emphasise what my noble friend has said as to the desirability of this Bill being passed before the adjournment, but I cannot help at the same time reverting for a moment to what was said in the discussion on the business of the House which was initiated by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition some time ago. Lord Lansdowne on that occasion pointed out that it would be much more convenient for this House if some Bills were first introduced here, and I ventured on that occasion to point out that it would be exceedingly advantageous if some of the Departmental Bills were introduced into your Lordships' House during the early part of the session, when we are by no means over-burdened with business. If this Bill had been introduced in your Lordships' House in the early part of the session it could have been fully discussed and referred to the Standing Committee, one of the most important bodies to which such Bills could be referred. This is a matter of procedure, and I hope that steps will be taken to introduce some Bills of this description in your Lordships' House in the first instance.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I do not think the complaint of my noble friend is quite justified in respect to the period at which this Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. I am informed that it was introduced in that House on March 6th. My noble friend has been in the House of Commons much more recently than I have, and knows quite well the difficulty of proceeding with smaller measures. That, no doubt, is the reason why the Bill has come up to us so late.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: As a matter of personal explanation I wish to say that I did not bring any charge against the Government as to the period at which the Bill was brought up from the House of Commons. I merely said it would have been better if it had been introduced first into this House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1:—
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to delete the words "That is to say, the actual percentage of tribasic phosphate of lime which has been dissolved or rendered soluble." He explained that it was proposed at a subsequent stage to insert a definition of the percentage of soluble and insoluble phosphates.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, to leave out from the word 'phosphates' in line 10, to the word ' insoluble' inline 12."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3: —
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to amend Sub-section 2 (which provides that "an official sampler shall, at the request of the purchaser and on payment by him of the required fee, and may, without any such request, take samples for analysis ") by substituting the words "a sample" for the word "samples."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 16, to leave out the word 'samples' and to insert the words 'a sample.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid a great many of the Amendments which came after turned on the word sample and the way in which the sample was to be sent to the analyst. He thought it would simplify matters if the noble Earl would explain the process to the House.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that the series of Amendments on the Paper were designed to carry out an undertaking given in the Standing Committee, that they would provide in the Act itself for a tripartite division of sample instead of leaving the matter to be dealt with by regulation.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved the insertion of a new sub-section to provide that where a sample had been taken with a view to the institution of any civil or criminal proceedings, the person taking the sample should divide it into three parts and cause each part to be marked, sealed, and fastened up, and should deliver or send by post two parts to the agricultural analyst and one part to the seller.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 21, after the word 'later to insert as a new sub-section:—(3) Where a sample has been taken with a view to the institution of any civil or criminal proceeding, the person taking the sample shall divide the sample into three parts, and shall cause each part to be marked, sealed, and fastened up, and shall deliver or send by post two parts to the agricultural analyst and one part to the seller."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to delete the words "shall divide the sample into two and;" and to insert two new subsections.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, lines 23 and 24, to leave out the words 'shall divide the sample into two and,' and to insert ' (a) if the sample has not been divided into parts and the parts marked, sealed, and fastened up as hereinbefore mentioned, shall send a copy of the certificate of his analysis to the person who submitted the sample for analysis; and (b) if the sample has been so divided into parts.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved an Amendment to provide that the agricultural analyst to whom a sample was submitted should send a certificate of his analysis in all cases to the seller. He said this Amendment was proposed in order to give effect to the promise made in the Standing Committee that in every case a copy of the analyst's certificate should be transmitted to the vendor of the article analysed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, after 'and ' to insert 'in every case to the seller and.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved a proviso to the effect that if the agricultural analyst did not know the name and address of the seller he should send the certificate intended for the seller to the purchaser to be by him forwarded to the seller.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 30, after the word 'analysis, to insert the words 'provided that if the agricultural analyst does not know the name and address of the seller, he shall send the certificate intended for the seller to the purchaser, to be by him forwarded to the seller.' "— (Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 39, after the word ' witness, to insert the words 'provided that this sub-section shall not apply (a) where the sample has been taken otherwise than in the prescribed manner; or (b) where the sample has not been divided into parts, and the parts marked, sealed, and fastened up as hereinbefore mentioned.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  EARL CARRINGTONexplained, with regard to his next Amendment, that it was agreed on the Second Reading in the House of Commons that the Board should not authorise the institution of criminal proceedings except after a second analysis had been made by the chief analyst. An Amendment was to

  335
  be, inserted subsequently to this effect, and the present Amendment was consequential thereon.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 40, after the word 'proceeding,' to insert the words ' other than a proceeding which cannot be instituted until an analysis has been made and a certificate given; by the chief analyst.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I take it that this will refer to every prosecution.
  EARL CARRINGTON: No criminal prosecution can be undertaken except after a second analysis made by the chief analyst. That is a protection which is thought desirable.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid this would add considerably to the delay and expense. The county councils had experienced difficulty in getting agriculturists to avail themselves of the Act, and if before a county council could enter into a prosecution it was necessary, not only to have an analysis made by the official appointed by themselves with the sanction of the Board of Agriculture, but, in addition, to have a second analysis from the chief analyst, the Act would, he was afraid, become a dead letter.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that this provision was agreed to on the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, and he hoped the noble Lord would not persist in his opposition.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he made the more point of his objection in view of an Amendment which he intended moving to Clause 6, deleting the provision that a prosecution for an offence under the section should not be instituted except with the consent of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. He did not think this should be a necessary condition precedent to a prosecution.
  EARL CARRINGTONadmitted that there was a great deal in what his noble friend had said, but as this course had been agreed to in the House of Commons he hoped the Amendment would be allowed.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 26, after ' him ' to insert the words 'or at his request.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,in moving to omit subsection (3), said that this Amendment was strongly supported by the county councils of England, who not unnaturally felt as they had been selected for a great many purposes—for many more than they thought they ought to have been—as the vehicles by which various legislation should be carried out, and as they were the authority to institute prosecutions in the case of the adulteration of food and in regard to false weights and measures, that in this particular instance, where it was only a question of whether or no they should prosecute a person who was selling manure and foodstuffs in a fraudulent manner, it was rather hard that they should be obliged to get the consent of the Board of Agriculture in a proceeding to which there was no analogy. The only case which was at nil analogous was in regard to the Rivers Pollution Act, where, in dealing with manufacturers, they were obliged to get the consent of the Local Government Board before instituting any prosecution. But in that case there was a very marked difference. There was, or might be, not only an enormous interference with trade, but, what was still more objectionable, a partial interference with the trade in one part of the country and not with a similar trade in another part. Under these circumstances it was particularly necessary that the Local Government Board should have some control over the

  337
  prosecutions, but he was unable to see that there was any analogous necessity in the present case. In addition to that, the county councils felt that this provision would cause an enormous amount of delay and difficulty and that anything which would put difficulties in the way of the carrying out of the Act would practically defeat, to a very large extent, the good which they hoped would accrue from the Measure.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out subsection (3)."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.).
  LORD BURGHCLEREhoped his noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture would not accede to the Amendment just moved. This clause had been inserted in consequence of many discussions in the Departmental Committee on whose Report the present Bill was founded. It was inserted at the wish of the traders themselves, and as a guarantee to them to a certain extent that the prosecutions under the Act would not be taken frivolously. It was a matter of the highest importance to the trade of the country that this section should be retained, and he sincerely trusted that the Amendment would not be accepted.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he would not have taken part in the discussion except for a communication which he had received from the county council of Durham, of which for several years he was a Member, asking him to put forward their opinion that this clause should be eliminated for the reasons which had already been given by the mover of the Amendment. The county council of Durham had carefully considered this matter, and had come to the conclusion that as a similar provision was not required in regard to prosecutions for the sale of adulterated human food, they were at a loss to understand why it should be necessary in regard to cattle food. He had no doubt that the President of the Board of Agriculture would explain this point, which at present they could not understand. They suggested that the noble Earl should insert in the place of the present clause a section which they had drafted.
  338
  He could not expect the noble Earl to accept the proposed clause straight away, or to do more than to promise to consider it, but he would read the proposed clause and ask his noble friend to postpone his final decision concerning it until the Report stage. The clause proposed by the county council of Durham was as follows—
  " Prosecutions for an offence under this section may be instituted as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the fertiliser of the soil or food for cattle or poultry was sampled as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed."
  Their object was to be able to prosecute in two places—first, in the place where the article was originally sold, and secondly, in the place where it was retailed. At the present moment it was possible to prosecute only in the place where it was originally sold.
  THE EARL OF MAYOhoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would not accept the Amendment, because there was great danger of frivolous prosecutions being instituted, especially in the country from which he came. There was no doubt that manufacturers must be protected, and it was much better that the central body who really had the care of agriculture and of farmers in their hands, should decide whether prosecutions should be undertaken. Therefore, to avoid frivolous prosecutions, he hoped the noble Earl would be firm, and refuse to accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid that this matter came before him when he was at the Board of Agriculture, and it was then made very clear that there would be grave risk of frivolous prosecutions unless some central authority were empowered to intervene. Having had some experience of the officials of the Board of Agriculture, he did not think that the power of refusing or of consenting to prosecutions could be in better hands than theirs. Therefore, he would vote with the noble Earl against the Amendment.
  EARL CARRINGTON: At first sight there seems to be a great deal in

  339
  what the noble Marquess and the noble Lord below the gangway have said, but I think a little consideration will show that the arguments the other way are so overwhelming that the House will be disposed to leave the clause as it stands. When a similar Amendment was proposed in the House of Commons, the matter was well threshed out, and the Amendment withdrawn without any division being taken. Under the law as it stands, criminal proceedings may be instituted by a person aggrieved, or by any body or association authorised by the Board, and by the Council of a County or borough. Several agricultural witnesses and the trade witnesses without exception made representations to Lord Burghclere's Committee as to the damaging effect which criminal proceedings would have on a trader's credit. Some of these fertiliser merchants are very big men, and have a great reputation in the country, and it would be a dreadful thing if some of them were, by means of a frivolous or malicious prosecution, put into the dock, because it must be remembered that these are criminal proceedings. It would be an uncommonly hard thing to put these men into the dock, possibly as the result of a frivolous prosecution. The traders urged that even if acquitted, great injury would be done to their business, and that therefore it was very necessary that the consent of the Board should be required in all cases. Leading members of the trade—and one must consider them a little—are quite content with the Bill as it stands, and regard it as a fair compromise between the conflicting interests, and their co-operation, I need hardly say, is most important for the efficient working of the Bill. Therefore I most respectfully hope the House will be willing to leave the matter as it stands.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that as the sense of the House appeared to be against the Amendment, he would ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdraw).
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to insert after "Fisheries "In line 3, the words, "And the Board shall not give such consent until the part of the sample re-
  340
  tained by the agricultural analyst has been analysed and a certificate of analysis given by the chief analyst." He stated that the Amendment was proposed in. pursuance of an undertaking which had been given.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 3, after the word ' Fisheries,"To insert the words ' and the Board shall not give such consent until the part of the sample retained by the agricultural analyst has been analysed and a certificate of analysis given by the chief analyst.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 14, to leave out from the word ' Act' to the word ' he ' in line 19. "— (Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to add the following: "But the proceedings may be taken as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the purchaser of the article to which the invoice or description relates, resides or carries on business as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the invoice or description was given." He said that the Amendment was moved in order to obviate any difficulty that might arise owing to a conflict between the English and the Irish jurisdiction.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 9, at the end, to add the words, ' But the proceedings may be taken as well before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the purchaser of the article to which the invoice or description relates resides or carries on business as before a Court having jurisdiction in the place where the invoice or description was given.'"—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as Amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 16, to leave out from the word ' citric' to the end of line 17, and to insert the words 'acid or other solvent of the prescribed strength.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHasked why the words, "of the prescribed strength" were to be substituted for the words, "of the strength to be prescribed."the Bill itself did not prescribe any strength; he took it that the strength was to be prescribed in the regulations.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I can hardly see the difference between "the strength to be prescribed," and the "prescribed strength."
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHthought the expression already in the Bill was better than that now proposed to be inserted.
  EARL CARRINGTON: It is more or less a verbal Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will not object to it. I understand that "prescribed" also means prescribed by the Board of Agriculture. That is always the case.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to,
  Amendment moved—
  "In line 17, after the word 'prescribed' to insert the words ' and the percentage of soluble phosphates and percentage of insoluble phosphates mean respectively the percentage of tribasic phosphate of lime which has been, and that which has not been rendered soluble.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to he received to-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 189.)

  POST OFFICE SITES BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  OPEN SPACES BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order.)
  Clause 1:—
  THE EARL OF MEATHpointed out that the purpose of the Bill was to consolidate the enactments relating to open spaces. Among those Acts was the Local Government Act, 1888, in Clause 1 of which the words "administrative county" were used, and in Clause 31 of which was to be found the expression "county boroughs." He thought it must be by an oversight that the words, "administrative," and "county," had been omitted from the present Bill, because in certain counties there were two or more county councils, and if the words were not inserted, those administrative county councils and certain county boroughs might be excluded from the purview of the Act. He therefore moved the Amendment of which he had given notice for the purpose of ensuring that administrative county councils and county boroughs should not be omitted from the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the first word, ' any,' to insert the word ' administrative,' and after the second ' any' to insert the word ' county ' "—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think the Amendment of the noble Earl is at all necessary. The words were suggested some time ago by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, and they have been carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Board as well as by Parliamentary Counsel, and everybody is agreed that the words in the Bill are in proper form and include the councils of administrative counties. The words are really not necessary. There are, in fact, no county councils except the councils of administrative counties. The term used is the usual one; if appears in numerous Acts, and no question has ever been raised as to the words "admintrative," and "county." It is not necessary or even proper to refer separately to county boroughs, because a county borough is a municipal borough.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid he was not a lawyer, and of course accepted the noble Earl's statement that it was not the intention of His Majesty's Government to exclude the authorities to which he had referred. On that assurance he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2:—
  EARL CARRINGTONmoved to insert after the word "discharged"the words "either absolutely or if the grant was for a term of years or other limited interest during the continuance of that interest." He said that the Amendment was to provide for a case where an open space was leased to the local authority for a limited period, at the end of which it would revert to the trustees or owners. While the local authority had the open space any special rate levied by the trustees under private Acts was suspended, as the local authority would maintain the open space, but when the local authority's lease came to end the trustee's power to levy a special rate must revive. The Amendment was really in the nature of a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 3, after the word ' discharged,' to insert the words 'either absolutely, or it the grant was for a term of years or other limited interest during the continuance of that interest.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 3 to 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14:—
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid that his object in moving the insertion of the words "or acquisition" was to carry out the purport of the Memorandum attached to the Bill, which stated, inter alia, that the purpose of the measure was to remove inconsistencies Under the Bill as it stood, a county council would be able to give money to support or to contribute to the support of open spaces outside their own area, but they would have
  344
  no power to assist in the acquisition of such open spaces. That seemed to be a somewhat ridiculous position. It was very desirable, under certain circumstances, that a county council should be able to acquire as well as to support or to contribute to the support of such open spaces. He might instance, as an illustration, county council A, with a thickly populated district, on the borders of county council B, whose area was thinly populated. Supposing it were necessary to provide an open space for the congested district of county council A, and that county council A had no land suitable for the purpose, while just over the border in the area of county council B a very suitable site came into the market. Under the Bill county council A would, not be able to assist in acquiring that open space which would be largely used by its own ratepayers, and county council B would have no stimulus to do so as very few of its ratepayers would, benefit thereby; whereas if county council A was able to offer a substantial sum towards the purchase price the open space would very likely be secured. This was no hypothetical case. Such an instance had occurred within his own knowledge. Largely through steps taken by the organisation with which he was connected it was possible for boroughs to purchase lands outside their own areas; the power had been used with good results, and they desired to see the same power now extended to county councils.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 8, line 38, after the word ' support,' to insert the words 'or acquisition.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I cannot accept the word '' acquisition "as well as" support.'' The proposal involves a substantial extension of the power given to county councils by existing Acts to contribute to the support of recreation grounds provided by private persons or authorities; it proposes to enable them to find the money for the purchase of such grounds without necessarily having any control over their management. I think my noble friend will see that even if it is desirable in itself, which I do not wish

  345
  now to argue, it is inadmissible on the ground on which other proposed Amendments have been ruled out of order, namely, that it is beyond the scope of a consolidating measure. I have twice stated that I propose that this measure should be a consolidating measure, and that nothing fresh should be introduced into it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17: —
  THE EARL OF MEATHmoved the insertion of the following new paragraph—
  "In the case of the City of London, out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, or out of the consolidated rate of the City."
  He pointed out that under the Open Spaces Act, 1881, Section 12, the Corporation of the City of London were entitled to defray the expenses of carrying out the Act out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, and if this was a consolidation Bill surely those words ought now to be inserted. The City of London, although one of the authorities to which the measure applied, had no power under the Bill of spending a penny, which, he thought, was a very inconsistent position. If it were said that the metage on grain had practically ceased, he would ask what about the words "or otherwise?" Why should the City of London be excluded from all further power of obtaining open spaces? When one remembered what they had done in the past in this direction it seemed very invidious that the City should be precluded from being able to carry on their beneficent work. The House would be aware of the splendid work of the City of London in the purchase of that, perhaps, finest of the parks of the world —Epping Forest—of the magnificent beeches at Burnham, and of large parks such as those at Finsbury and Ham, besides numerous other open spaces. This being a consolidating measure, he thought they were entitled to ask that the words of the Act of 1881 should be inserted, and that the City of London
  346
  should not be treated differently from every other borough in the Metropolis. Every Metropolitan borough council would be able to acquire open spaces; the City of London alone would be excluded.
  Amendment moved—
  '' In page 10, line 22, after paragraph (e) to insert the following new paragraph:—'(f) In the case of the City of London, out of the metage on grain duty or otherwise, or out of the consolidated rate of the City.' "—(The Earl of Meath.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: I quite agree with everything the noble Earl has said about the good work of the City of London in regard to parks and open spaces, but there is one fatal objection to the Amendment, and that is that it imposes a charge on the rates, and therefore cannot possibly be inserted in the House of Lords. I think that disposes of the Amendment of my noble friend; it is not possible for us to accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 190.)

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3, agreed to.
  Clause 4:—
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEmoved to omit Clause 4, the object of which was to substitute fourteen days for one month as the period within which answers should be given to notices served under the Act. He explained that in 1883, when the first Labourers Act was passed, it was necessary to insert three notices in the local papers for three successive weeks; in addition to that, notice was served on the owner,

  347
  to whom a month was given in which to make an answer. It was now proposed to give the owner only a fortnight. This period, in his opinion, was quite insufficient. Under the Act of 1883 there were five methods of serving the notice. First, the notice could be served personally on the person required to be served; secondly, if such person was abroad, or could not be found, his agent might be served for him; thirdly, if he had no agent, or the agent could not be found, the notice might be served or left on the premises; fourthly, in lieu of any of the foregoing methods the notice might be left at the usual or last-known place of abode of the person required to be served; or fifthly, the notice might be served by post in a prepaid letter addressed to him at his usual or last-known place of abode. It was quite evident that the district council would naturally choose the method which was the least trouble to itself. Even under the existing law it was quite possible that a notice might fail to reach its destination before the statutory period had elapsed, and if that was the only reason against the proposed change he thought it was a very sufficient one. But in addition it had to be remembered that the local authority must state whether they intended to acquire land by purchase or by lease for ninety-nine years. In the case of a limited owner this made a great deal of difference, as it was very necessary that he should have advice on the subject, as it was quite possible that money might have to be paid into Court, and it might be extremely difficult for him to get it out. In addition, trustees might have to be consulted who were scattered over different parts of the country; they would have to write one to another, and they naturally would not decide without consulting their legal adviser. Under these circumstances a fortnight would very soon pass, and it seemed to him that that was a very good reason why the present limit should be adhered to. It should not be forgotten that His Majesty's Government had expressed the hope that as the result of this Bill, within the short space of two or three years no less than 25,000 new labourers cottages would be erected. During the whole
  348
  period since the first Act was passed in 1883, only 17,000 cottages had been erected, so that it was expected that at least 50 per cent, more would be erected within a very short time. From this it would be readily understood that in various parts of Ireland a considerable amount of ground would be required for the purpose, and many landowners and land agents would be much occupied in considering whether or not they could accept the applications that were made to them. That being so, it was only reasonable that the time limit should be left as it at present stood. He knew that His Majesty's Government were very anxious to do all that they could to expedite matters under the Bill, and he was sure that no one on the Opposition side of the House would object to helping them as much as possible in that respect; but justice ought to be done to all parties concerned, and, after all, one month in which to consider the question was not a very long time. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 4."—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE EARL OF ARRANsaid that although theoretically this clause might accelerate the working of the Act, it would only do so by a short time, and in practice it would give rise not only to very great inconvenience but sometimes to great injustice. He would remind their Lordships that while a month was a very short time to wait, a fortnight was a very short time in which to work. Owing to the peculiar conditions which existed in Ireland, great difficulties might ensue. On many estates, and particularly on small estates, there was no single resident agent. On the contrary, many agents had for their sole business the management of a large number of small estates situated a long way from their own place of residence. Owing to this, and to the fact that each estate had many calls upon the agent, it would very often be impossible, or at any rate extremely inconvenient and difficult, for the agent to be able to draft answers to the notices in time. He hoped the Government would agree to the omission of the clause.
  LORD DENMANsaid he was glad to hear that the Bill on the whole met with approval from noble Lords opposite, and that they desired to expedite its passage. He regretted, however, that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment which had been moved. He would point out that the owner would really have a great deal more than fourteen days, as there would probably be quite six weeks before the inspector would be called upon to decide in any particular case. The whole object of the Bill was to save time and expense, and this was one of the provisions by which the Government hoped to accelerate the working of the Act. There were precedents for such a course being taken in the Public Health Acts both of England and of Ireland, and he did not think the arguments which the noble Lord had advanced were sufficient to warrant the Government in departing from those precedents.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that this was not a question of precedent, but of the best way of scouring justice. The labourers' code was not a code of yesterday. The first Act was introduced in 1883, and since then there had been nine or ten Acts of Parliament, and a month had been the time given for the notices. For what reasons did the Government wish to make such a brand-new departure? There was no six weeks in the business at all; the answers had to be given within a fortnight, and if they were not given within a fortnight the person was shut out. Surely it was reasonable that the existing law should be allowed to stand in this respect. It had worked no inconvenience. He was all in favour of rapidity, but rapidity could be purchased too dearly. People were entitled to an opportunity of knowing what was being done and what was proposed, and as the existing law had worked fairly well, and no case whatever had been made out for such a change, he hoped the Amendment would be agreed to.
  LORD HEMPHILLhoped the House would not agree to the Amendment. The great object of the Bill was to expedite proceedings under the Labourers Act. As had already been observed since 1883 only 17,000 odd labourers
  350
  cottages had been built. That was the strongest argument for the passage of the present Bill as it stood. It was a monstrous thing that in twenty-three or twenty-four years, throughout the whole of Ireland, where there was so much poverty, and where there were such wretched habitations for the poor, only 17,000 odd cottages had been built. This Bill had been very elaborately considered by the Standing Committee of the other House upon which all the representatives from Ireland, with a few exceptions, had had an opportunity of stating their opinions upon this important subject, and the Bill had come before their Lordships' House without, he believed, this point having been even advocated by the representatives of the landlords in another place. If a fortnight would not answer the purpose, neither would a month. If a landowner had not a resident agent, or if the agent was not on the spot, or could not easily be got at, a month would not be any more security than fourteen days. The initiatory delay was the thing to be deprecated, and though no great principle was involved in the Amendment, it only showed the inclination on the part of some noble Lords to throw difficulties in the way—[Cries of "No, no."]—of passing this Bill, which was generally admitted by both sides of the House to be a most remedial measure.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, when we reach the other side of the Irish Channel, we become aware that we have to deal with Irish time. In the course of this brief conversation, we have had two striking examples of what constitutes Irish time in the minds of some noble Lords connected with that country. We were told in the first place that although this clause says that fourteen days are to be substituted for one month, yet fourteen days is in effect equivalent to six weeks. It has not been explained how, by some Procrustean process, the fourteen days can be stretched into a period of six weeks. Then came the observations of the noble and learned Lord opposite, who told us that if this Amendment was pressed, your Lordships would be standing between the labourers of Ireland and the great and undoubted advantages

  351
  which, this Bill places within their reach. The noble and learned Lord argued that there really was no difference between fourteen days and a month. That is the second illustration.
  LORD HEMPHILL:I meant practically.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Now I ask your Lordships to recollect for a moment that under the law as it now stands these notices can be served by forwarding them by post in a prepaid letter addressed to the usual or last known place of abode of the person who is to be served. Is it any wonderful or impossible assumption that there may be some cases in which these missives do not at once reach their destination? Is it not reasonable, therefore, on the part of my noble friend behind me to ask that at least one month should be allowed as the time within which an answer should be made to these notices? I ask your Lordships to recollect that this Bill— which we do not in the least desire to impede or obstruct—does nevertheless very considerably interfere with private rights. It is surely right and proper that that interference should take place under reasonable conditions, which will not be resented by the persons affected by the transaction. I must say that the suggestion of my noble friend behind me that the present term of one month should be allowed to stand, instead of being shortened to fourteen days as is proposed by the Bill, seems to me to be a very proper one, and if he goes to a division I shall certainly vote with him.
  LORD KILLANIN:thought it was pity that the House should commence their deliberations upon an Irish Bill by a difference of opinion about a comparatively small matter. Therefore, he suggested that as a settlement of the matter they should split the difference, and that the clause should be so amended as to substitute twenty-one for fourteen days.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The EARL of CREWE): My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Killanin, that this is not a matter of first-rate importance, but I am afraid I
  352
  cannot agree with him that the rough and ready method he suggested of splitting the difference is particularly applicable to this case. The reason that we are obliged to stand by the period in the Bill is that it forms part of the general principle embodied in the measure, of attempting, to accelerate the procedure under the Labourers Acts as far as we possibly can. I think my noble and learned friend was a little misunderstood when he evoked the cries from noble Lords opposite, because although we most cordially accept the assurances of the noble Marquess that he does not at all wish to obstruct the passage of this Bill, yet on the other hand some of the Amendments on the Paper would, if carried, undoubtedly have the effect of retarding the procedure under it. Relying partly on the fact which no noble Lord opposite attempted to gainsay, that there are precedents under the Public Health Acts for the precise procedure which we propose, I am afraid, if noble Lords opposite persist in the Amendment, we must take the sense of the House upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he would not have intervened in the discussion had it not been for the remark of the noble Earl, that certain Amendments had been placed on the Paper with the object of retarding the progress of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not say they had been placed on the Paper with that object, but that they would have that effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he could not agree with the noble Earl on that point. Many of his noble friends, especially those from Ireland, who had studied this question, viewed with approval the desire of the Government to provide sanitary houses for the labouring classes in Ireland, and the Government had their sincere goodwill in the efforts they were making. But in conferring benefits upon one class of the community, care should be taken that no injustice was inflicted upon another class. Undoubtedly the present Bill, unless it was very carefully

  353
  safeguarded, might be the means of inflicting great injustice upon one class while conferring benefit upon another. The noble and learned Lord for whose remarks the noble Earl had just apologised—
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Oh no; I did not apologise; on the contrary, I entirely endorsed the observations of my noble and learned friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that the noble and learned Lord had pointed out that during the time the Labourers Acts had been in operation only 17,000 cottages had been erected. It was no use denying the fact that that comparatively small number was due to the great caution of various unions indifferent parts of Ireland, but he hoped that under the new circumstances in which the occupier, on terms agreeable to himself and his landlord, would be made the owner of his holding, that number would be very largely increased. He believed that in the future the unions which had looked with a certain amount of apprehension on these Acts would adopt a more favourable view. With regard to the substitution of fourteen days for a month, he thought that when it was remembered how very dilatory some Irishmen were in negotiating their own affairs, it would be admitted that a month was a very short time. This would be the more realised if noble Lords considered the slow progress that was being made under the last Land Purchase Act. He agreed that landowners must co-operate with their agents in considering the details of these transactions, which agents were generally concerned with a large number of properties. Therefore, he thought that a month was a very short time in which to require answers to be made to the notices, and under these circumstances he was glad to hear that the Leader of he Opposition would support the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENdid not think that because a month had been allowed in all former Acts that was any particular reason why it should be included in the present Bill. The real
  354
  object of this measure was to satisfy a want which previous Acts of Parliament had left unsatisfied. It was generally admitted that one of the reasons why former Acts had been only very partial successes was the dilatory nature of the proceedings under them. If he thought that any real injustice would be done to anybody by shortening the period to fourteen days, he would vote in favour of the Amendment, but he could not think that any real injustice would be inflicted. It seemed to him that if an owner or his agent, or his solicitor, or whoever managed the property, could not be found in a fortnight, the probability was that he would never be found at all. Reference had been made to the dilatory manner in which Irishmen conducted their own business affairs. He did not altogether agree with the remark, but if landlords had been dilatory in managing their own affairs, he failed to see why the labourers should suffer for i
  THE EARL OF MAYOpointed out that there was a danger in shortening the period in question. If a limited owner was concerned, and the proceedings went forward, and the purchase money was paid to the wrong person in consequence of the proceedings being conducted in a hurry, the district council might suffer by there being brought against them an action, and by their having to pay the money to the proper person. Therefore, he thought that if there was a little less hurry in the initial stages the whole business might go through better eventually. The noble Earl the President of the Council had said that the Opposition were delaying the Bill, but the noble Lord in charge of the measure had stated that there would be more time available than the fortnight, because the inspector would take at least six weeks. He could not quite see how those two statements could be made to agree. But even if the inspector was to take six weeks, that had nothing to do with the service of the notice. The answer had to be made to the notice within fourteen days. He thought that a month was much better, and that the longer period would facilitate the carrying out of the provisions of the

  355
  notice, and also prevent the district council, in the case of a limited owner, being compelled to indulge in the luxury of a lawsuit.
  Clause 4 accordingly disagreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that it might be a convenience to their Lordships and enable the House to follow the meaning of the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, if he stated generally their bearing on the first three sub-sections of the Clause. Clause 6 was an important
  On Question whether the clause to be left out shall stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 78.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Armitstead, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and. Mount-Earl.)

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Burghelere, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Colebrooke, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman, L.

  Reay, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Chesterfield, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Shuttleworth, L

  Russell, E.

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

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Joicey, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Devonshire, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Inchiquin, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Kelvin, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kenyon, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Hill, V.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Hutchinson, V. E. Donoughmore.)

  Langford, L.

  Bath, M.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Addington, L.

  Massy, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Ampthill. L.

  Newton, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Devon, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

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

  Chaworth, L. (E Meath.)

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Essex, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Haddington, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde)

  Kilmorey, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Digby, L.

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

  Mayo, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Forester, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Ventry, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Hylton, L.

  section, and had naturally attracted a great deal of attention, and doubtless given some anxiety to the Government. The proposal was that the inspector of the Local Government Board should go down and make an examination; then having made his Report he was to have power to make a Provisional Order. He (Lord Ashbourne) did not think it wise or reasonable that the inspector's decision should be called by so important a name as a Provisional Order. That, however, was merely a

  357
  verbal point, but he thought it would be desirable, in the final form of the Bill, to give the order some less grandiose name. Then the suggestion was that the Local Government Board, if anyone was dissatisfied, should read the Report and the evidence furnished by the inspector, and decide what should be done in regard to the compulsory taking of the land involved in the case. The section dealt entirely with the question of the compulsory taking of land against the will of the owners. Up to the present there had been a much more serious method of determining these questions. It used to be by means of a Provisional Order which had to pass through Parliament, and then the Privy Council, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of some of the Judges of the High Court, dealt with the question. By this Bill it was proposed to get rid of the Privy Council and the important machinery previously in force. He did not question that proposal, because he admitted that the machinery was unnecessarily strong, and put the parties to considerable expense in bringing the persons concerned, and their witnesses, from every part of Ireland up to Dublin. Still, it was necessary to provide some kind of real appeal for the parties whose land was to be compulsorily taken against their wish. He had indicated on the Second Reading that it ought to be within the option of the parties to have their case beard before a judge. He then stated, and it was embodied in the Amendments he had placed on the Paper, that a county court judge might supply the requisite machinery. He was aware that a judge of assize had been suggested, and the point was well worth consideration, though personally he believed that the suggestion he himself had put forward was the soundest solution. It had been pointed out in another place that the judge of assize sat only twice in the year, and that, as it was desirable to enable appeals to be taken more frequently, the county court judge, who sat much oftener than the judge of assize, would form a more desirable tribunal. This would not necessitate any very great change in the substance of those proposals. All that he desired was that there should be a full appeal.
  An appeal meant that the parties should be heard, and their witnesses examined, and that the tribunal should have an opportunity of giving a decision. It was not suggested that the Local Government Board were to do any of those things, nor could they without bringing the parties and the witnesses to Dublin, and if that were to be allowed or required there was no purpose served in getting rid of the Privy Council. If the Government thought it desirable to retain the present clause, believing that some parties might be satisfied with the decision of the Local Government Board, it was not for him to say that they should not be allowed to do so, but at the same time if the parties wanted to have a judicial decision, they should have an opportunity of saying that they would not be satisfied unless a judge heard their case and decided upon both their law and their facts. Anyone could go to the Local Government Board if they were satisfied with the Board's reading of the Report and the evidence, and the making of any further inquiry they might direct. But if the parties were not satisfied with that, it was only fair and reasonable that they should have an opportunity of going to the county court judge. If the Government recognised the reasonableness of his suggestions, perhaps they would indicate how they proposed to deal with them, and he would be very glad to meet them if possible.
  LORD DENMANhoped that the suggestion he was about to make would meet with the approval, or at any rate the agreement, of noble Lords opposite. He still adhered to what he had stated on the Second Reading of the Bill with regard to the Local Government Board; the Government still thought that that would have been a cheap and quick tribunal, and one which would have decided equitably on the points brought before them. However, for the purpose of expediting the passage of the Bill, and also to avoid the suspicion that they desired to do any injustice to any class—which was very far from being the case—they were willing to go a long way to meet the views of noble Lords opposite. What they suggested was that the Local Government

  359
  Board inspector should first of all give his decision, as before, and that if a person felt himself aggrieved by the decision, he should have the alternative of himself deciding whether he should appeal to the Local Government Board or to the county court judge. He hoped that noble Lords opposite would realise that the Government had gone a long way in making that concession, and that they would be able to accept the proposal. In that case he had prepared a considerable number of Amendments which would be consequential upon the acceptance of the suggestion he had made; no useful purpose would be served by going through those Amendments at the present stage, but if it suited the convenience of the House he would move them en bloc, and they could then be printed so that on the further stage of the Bill noble Lords opposite would have an opportunity of seeing whether they went far enough to meet their views.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought that what the noble Lord had said was very reasonable, and that his proposal to move the Amendments en bloc, and have them inserted in the Bill, would be for the convenience of the House. They would then appear in the reprint of the measure, and would thus facilitate the consideration of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I understand the noble and learned Lord withdraws his Amendments down to line 20.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Yes, in favour of those to be introduced by the Government.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord in charge of the Bill move the Amendments to which he has referred?
  LORD DENMAN: Yes.
  Amendments moved accordingly and agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNEmoved to insert at the end of sub-clause (4) of Clause 6 the words, "Unless it appears that the particular holding or estate has been selected for an indirect purpose."
  360
  He said that this Amendment was of an entirely different character from those to which he had referred in his previous remarks. The sub-section dealt with a very slender matter, and he was really at a loss to understand how it got into the Bill at all. Having taken some part in the administration of the previous Acts, he did not think the Government could have had present in their minds what had been the common action in reference to these cases. The section did very little in reference to the administration of the law, but having been inserted it might lead to grave misconception, and therefore in order to prevent any misunderstanding he thought that the words he had proposed should be added. He suggested for the consideration of the Government that it might be wiser to strike out the sub-section altogether, and if they preferred to do that rather than accept the words he had suggested, he would be quite prepared to adopt that course, and move accordingly.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 30, after the second word ' scheme,' to insert the words ' unless it appears that the particular holding or estate has been selected for an indirect purpose.' "— (Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD DENMANregretted that the Government were unable to accept the Amendment. It was with the greatest diffidence that he ventured to criticise the wording of an Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, but he submitted that the words suggested were somewhat vague. It might be difficult for the court to settle a point of law if raised in connection with the words "for an indirect purpose." He pointed out further that the Amendment would introduce a new element into the clause. The sub-section provided that a scheme should not be disallowed merely on the ground that agricultural labourers were not required for the cultivation or management of the holding or estate a portion of which it was proposed to acquire for the purpose of the scheme. The Amendment introduced a proposal which could only be properly dealt with by a new clause or a new sub-section. The noble and learned Lord had suggested as an alternative that the Government might accept a new clause, but he regretted

  361
  that he was unable to agree to that proposal.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that he would be sorry to divide the House on a question which he had already indicated was of a very slender character. He did not think the sub-section made any advance in the law, and the only reason he had suggested the addition of these words was in order to prevent any misunderstanding. But as the Government's peace of mind appeared to hang very much on the retention of the subsection, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthen moved to omit Sub-clause (5), which provided that where a petition had been presented and not withdrawn and the Local Government Board were of opinion that the ground or grounds on which such petition was presented was or were frivolous or vexatious, the Board might make an order for the payment by the petitioner of the reasonable costs, charges and expenses of the district council incurred in opposing such petition, and an order respecting costs should be enforceable as if it were an order of the High Court. He pointed out that this sub-clause was not in the original Bill as introduced by the Government, and was an entire departure from previous enactments in reference to costs. Under previous Labourers Acts it was enacted that provision should be made for the payment of the costs of a person who objected in defence of his property. That was perfectly reasonable, but this sub-clause went further, and provided that anyone who presented a petition to the Local Government Board, if the Board came to the conclusion that the act was frivolous or vexatious, might be grievously amerced in costs. That was an entire reversal of the whole principle of the law in reference to these matters. If a man's land was going to be compulsorily taken, he had a perfect right to present a petition saying that he objected, and giving his reasons. The Government had already wisely accepted an Amendment enabling the person affected to have the question threshed out before a County
  362
  Court Judge. The County Court Judge would deal with the costs at the hearing before himself. This provision, however, suggested that the Local Government Board should deal with the costs. But there would not be one farthing of costs incurred before the Local Government Board, because they would not see the parties or examine the witnesses; there was no hearing at all, and there was nothing in regard to which costs could be incurred. A report was sent up to the Board by their own Inspector, together with the evidence given before him, and then, in some back room of the Customs House, they came to their decision as to what should be done. The sub-section was an entire departure from all previous enactments in inference to the compulsory taking of land, and therefore he hoped the Government would accede to his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out sub-section (5)." — (Lord Ashbourne.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The argument that the noble and learned Lord has presented certainly deserves some consideration, and if he will agree to let the question stand over until the Report stage, I will ask my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary if he can see his way to meet the noble Lord's wishes.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that the noble Earl had views as to rapidity. He himself was a much more tranquil person, but with a view to rapidity he thought it would be better for the noble Earl to agree to the Amendment, omitting the sub-section, and consider between then and the Report stage whether he would give notice to replace it. That would lead to both speed and accuracy.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am quite willing to adopt that course.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:—
  LORD KILLANINmoved to insert the words "with the concurrence of the

  363
  county council," so that in cases where a district council had neglected to make an adequate improvement scheme under the Act, the concurrence of the county council should be necessary before the Local Government Board could require the district council to make and carry out such a scheme. He thought that the clause as it stood gave a very large power to the Local Government Board, and enabled them practically to take the law completely into their own hands, and to act in a very peremptory way, wholly regardless of local feeling. Under the clause as it stood, where a district council had refused to take action, or to carry out an improvement scheme, the Local Government Board, without consulting any other local authority, were to be allowed to take the place of the district council. He was aware that in the past some district councils had been very backward in undertaking improvement schemes which they ought to have undertaken, and this Bill had been brought in to remedy that. In many cases the reason why improvement schemes had not been undertaken was that previous Labourers Acts had been very inefficient and very expensive. Under the present Bill, however, if a district council refused to undertake an improvement scheme, he thought it would be clear that they must be in the wrong, and he was all in favour of the Local Government Board initiating proceedings. But his proposal was that before they actually took the law into their own hands, and wholly disregarded all local feeling, and possibly acted in spite of local feeling, so far as they had an opportunity of testing it through the district council, the matter should be laid before the county council. Having served on his own county council since its inauguration, he had no doubt that if an improvement scheme were brought before the county council, it would be adopted, and its adoption by the council would make the measure more popular, and it would not have the appearance of having been forced on the locality by the Local Government Board regardless of local feeling. Moreover, if the scheme had the concurrence of the county council, it would put to shame the district council and would act as an incentive to make the district council undertake such a
  364
  scheme. It might be said that the county council had not much connection with this matter, but from the very next clause it would be seen that the county council was intimately concerned in the matter of funds. The county councils were very important bodies, and much more responsible than the district councils, and if their concurrence was obtained a scheme would probably be carried out much more amicably and in a less peremptory manner.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 5, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' with the concurrence of the county council.' "—(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that there was not much likelihood of the Local Government Board either overriding local opinion or acting in a peremptory manner in this matter. The county councils had nothing whatever to do with the administration of the Labourers Acts; in fact, throughout the Bill the term "county council" was scarcely mentioned except in connection with money grants.
  LORD KILLANIN: That is a very important question.
  LORD DENMANagreed that it was important, but it was purely a bookkeeping transaction. The county councils had no training such as would qualify them for administering or for interfering in any way with the Labourers Acts. The clause enabled the Local Government Board, where the district council had neglected their duty, to compel them to erect cottages. He understood that in some parts of Ireland hitherto the district councils had not fulfilled their duties very well in these respects, and it was very necessary to give the Local Government Board the powers suggested in this clause. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:—
  LORD DUNBOYNE, who had placed on the Paper a series of Amendments to Clause 11, said he understood that in an amended form the Government were prepared to accept them. By inadvertence he had omitted, to give notice of an Amendment to Sub-section (3), but possibly if he called, attention to it the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would himself amend the clause. Sub-section (3) provided that a memorandum of the amount paid under Sub-section (2) should be endorsed on the instrument creating the mortgage or charge. In many cases that would be absolutely impossible, because charges were often created by will or deeds which were not in the possession of the person for whose benefit the charge was made; therefore ho would be unable to produce the document to have a memorandum endorsed upon it. The sub-section as it stood was mandatory, and he suggested either that it should be omitted altogether, as it was really unnecessary, or that the words "when practicable" should, be inserted. With regard to the other Amendments of which he had given notice, he was willing to move them in the terms which had been suggested to him. If the Amendments were accepted, Sub-section (2) would become a proviso of Sub-section (1), and would provide that "the amount of the compensation may, if he consents, be paid to the person entitled to the mortgage; '' Sub-section (3) would be omitted altogether or the words "when practicable "Inserted; and after Sub-section 4 the following new sub-section would be inserted:" A copy of the receipt should on the request of any persons entitled to any estate or interest in the land in respect of which the purchase money or compensation is paid be furnished by the council at their expense to that person." By the permission of the House he would move the Amendments in that form.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I think it would be more convenient if the noble Lord would move the Amendments one by one.
  LORD ASHBOURNEpointed out that the procedure suggested by the noble Lord, (Lord Dunboyne), would be somewhat confusing, inasmuch as the Amendments now suggested were Amendments of other Amendments on the Paper, and the House had really nothing to go upon. He understood that the noble Lord who moved the Amendments and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had had some conversation on the matter. The clause dealt with an extremely technical though not very large question, and he could quite understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had consulted with the draughtsman as to the particular phraseology he would wish to employ. Under these circumstances, he suggested that the Amendments should be put in a connected form and incorporated in the Bill so that the House might see them in print to-morrow.
  LORD DENMANsaid the clause dealt with some extremely technical matters, and he was glad the Government had been able to come to an agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne. As to the omission of sub-section (3), no notice had been given of the proposal, and he would prefer to leave it to a later stage of the Bill. As to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, he had given Lord Dunboyne a copy of the agreed clause, and doubtless the noble Lord would be willing to read it in a connected form.
  LORD DUNBOYNEthought the best plan would be for him to put the Amendments into writing and move them on Report.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the most convenient course would be for the noble Lord to hand in his Amendments; they could then be inserted pro forma, and would appear in the reprint of the Bill.
  Amendments moved accordingly, and agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: What has become of sub-section (3)?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: It is still in the Bill, as far as I am aware.
  *LORD CLONBROCKin moving the omission of sub-section (9) said it was a decidedly unusual course to fetter the discretion of an arbitrator in determining the amount of compensation to be paid in the event of a purchase being decided upon. It was true that, since the properties to be acquired were small, the amounts of compensation awarded would also be small, and the difference whether compulsion was taken into account or not comparatively insignificant, but it would set up a most dangerous precedent in regard to land in Ireland. This was especially the case, since from a statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, in describing the Commission he proposed to appoint to inquire into congestion, it appeared decidedly probable that the taking of land compulsorily on a much larger scale for the purpose of relieving congestion was in contemplation. Under these circumstances the sub-clause would afford a most dangerous precedent, and he moved its omission.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out sub-clause 9."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  THE EARL OF ARRANsaid that the question raised by this sub-clause was dealt with by several noble Lords in the Second Reading debate, and great emphasis was then laid upon the fact that it would set up a very dangerous precedent; it was also stated that the principle involved, whether good or bad, was of too far reaching a character to be properly argued on the minor subject to which it was here applied. In Ireland the question of compulsory purchase was in the air not only in regard to sites for labourers' cottages, but also in connection with whole estates. Though the question of compulsory purchase might be a bad or a good thing, it should at any rate be argued from the extreme possibilities which it might engender. As had been pointed out a precedent had been created under the Labourers Allotment Act in England, and all those interested in Ireland would be grateful for this kindly warning, because if this principle had been brought in in another Bill which dealt with it in a small way, it was right and proper
  368
  that the precedent should be checked in order that it might be dealt with, upon a larger and more general basis. He sincerely hoped the Government would agree to his noble friend's Amendment and if they did not he hoped it would be pressed to a division.
  LORD DENMANsaid this Amendment dealt with a small matter and with small plots of land. The Earl of Arran had mentioned that they had a precedent for this proposal in the Local Government Act 1894 in England, and His Majesty's Government could not see why the precedent should not be followed in the particular case. If the noble Lord pressed his Amendment, as he believed was his intention, the Government would be forced to go to a division.
  LORD CLONBROCKcalled the attention of the House to sub-clause (3) of Clause 10 of the Act of 1894 which provided that—
  "the arbitrator, in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the land and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner during the term of hiring, and any depreciations of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council."
  In that case any loss to the owner, apart from the value of the land compulsorily taken, was allowed for. No provision of that kind occurred in the Bill before the House. He could not, therefore, consider it as a real precedent, and he further objected to a precedent being drawn from what appeared in an English Act. They had often, in pleading fair play and justice to Irish landlords, urged comparisons between their position and the position of the English landlords. In such case they had been invariably told that the condition of the two countries was so different that no comparison could be instituted. Now they were told that an English precedent must be followed. It came, therefore, to this: that in anything favourable to the landowners' interest, the eases were completely different, but in anything detrimental to that interest they were absolutely parallel. He did not know how this provision had got into the Act of 1894. As it referred only to small areas it probably slipped in

  369
  without being noticed, and at the time did not attract much interest as a precedent, because at that period there was no prospect of a Labourers Act being introduced into this country. He believed there was such a prospect now, judging from what had fallen from the President of the Local Government Board, and he would commend that to the attention of noble Lords who were not connected with Ireland. He thought this was a most dangerous precedent to introduce into the question of Irish land, and he should therefore press his Motion to leave out this sub-section.
  *LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHsaid that from the humble standpoint of an English Member he should like to endorse what had been said about the dangerous nature of this precedent. They were now discussing an Irish Bill, and one that related entirely to Irish affairs. As had just been said by the noble Lord who represented the Government this was a very small matter and dealt only with a small area. He wished to point out, however, that that was a very dangerous argument, and such precedents had sometimes been pushed to very extreme limits. It seemed to him that in modern legislation the great danger was that of establishing precedents upon small issues. Sometimes they were established in Private Bill legislation, and it was quite possible that in this way they might find them in an Irish Bill. The House was aware that there was very considerable negotiations in regard to private legislation in this House where vast quantities of property were taken for railways and public improvements. He did not, however, think there was any precedent for saying that an arbitrator should be absolutely forbidden from giving any allowance for compulsory purchase. It might be that sometimes he had been given a discretion under the particular circumstances, but he thought he was right in saying that the general law imposed no restriction upon an arbitrator in determining whether he would allow anything for compulsory purchase and what it should be. He therefore hoped that the Amendment would be supported by the House. However small the pre-
  370
  cedent might be now it was likely to lead to serious and complicated results which were not apparent at the present moment.
  LORD HEMPHILLsaid that on the merits of the case he would ask noble Lords opposite why the landlord or owner should not be satisfied with the actual value of the land taken; he did not see why this artificial bonus should be added. Some of their Lordships at all events were aware that this practice of giving 10 per cent. for compulsory purchase in regard to the compensation given by arbitrators and by juries when a railway company took land, had gradually crept in by degrees, and some years ago in Ireland the judges used to tell the jury that they were not bound to give the 10 per cent. But the practice arose; and latterly in charging juries, although there was no statutory authority for adding this 10 per cent. the judges were in the habit of telling juries that they would be at liberty to take into account the circumstance that the owner of the land was not a free agent, but that the land was taken from them by the force of the Act of Parliament. But apart from that, the ordinary man did not appear to realise that the acre or half acre of land that was taken for a labourer's cottage in point of fact was only worth about £30 in the market, and why should the labourer be called upon to pay £3 more in order to give the landord £33, the £3 being imposed as a sort of punishment for the local authority taking the land, or as a bonus to the selling landlord? He would much prefer that this question should be considered on its own merits, and not with reference to the precedent which was so very aptly referred to by the noble Lord on the Ministerial bench. He was rather astonished to hear the noble Lord from the cross benches use the argument that because in the distant future a very large question might arise namely, as to whether land should be taken by compulsion under the Land Purchase Acts from the landlords, that in anticipation of that question they should now do what was unjust in dealing with this very small and paltry matter of the labourers cottages. It would be sufficient to deal with that

  371
  question whenever it arose, and it would be a very bad argument to refer to what had been done in this particular Act of Parliament on public, local and imperial grounds, and upon grounds of humanity to lift the labourers in Ireland from the slough of despond in which they were at the present time. He could assure their Lordships from considerable experience in Ireland, that there was no question in which the masses were more vitally interested than this attempt to facilitate the provision of cottages for labourers. This Bill would not go very far assuming that it became law to-morrow. There was no question in which the people of Ireland were more vitally interested. All noble Lords who had had any experience of Ireland knew perfectly well that some of these habitations of the labourers in every part of Ireland, and more especially in the south and west, were very little better than pigsties.
  *LORD CLONBROCKsaid he had never said a word about this 10 per cent.; all he said was that the arbitrator should not be fettered in cases where he thought he should give more. He wished to remind the House that this was not a question affecting only the landlords, because very often the tenant on whose land the cottage was going to be erected would suffer very severely by it; the value of his farm would be reduced, and he might also surfer great inconvenience in other ways. Under this Amendment compensation would be paid to him as well as to the landlord. It was true that it was a small case, and was not a matter of great imporance in this particular instance, but it nevertheless required attention.
  LORD DUNRAVENassured the House that this Amendment was not going to make any material difference to the labouring population in Ireland. He ventured to say that there was a sound common-sense reason why arbitrators should be allowed to make an additional allowance where land was taken compulsorily. If they compelled a man to sell land, or to sell anything else, they put him to considerable inconvenience and expense in finding some other investment for his money; therefore, if a man was
  372
  an unwilling seller, it was not unreasonable that an arbitrator should have an opportunity of giving him something in addition, in order to compensate the owner for the time and trouble and expense which he would be put to in finding some other investment.
  THE EARL OF ARRANthought that many of the arguments which had been brought forward upon this subject would be more appropriate when the question was brought up upon a larger basis. Sufficient attention had not, in his opinion, been called to this very large principle, and it was entirely wrong that such a principle should be allowed to worm its way by a sort of back-door process into legislation of this kind instead of being properly fought out.
  LORD JOICEYsaid he happened to be a Member of the House of Commons when the Act of 1894 was passed. That Act was only passed after a very close and difficult discussion, and the House of Commons came to the conclusion hat it was desirable in dealing with very small holdings that such a charge as this should not be put upon the land. The case was very similar here, and he could not see why the House should not accept this proposal when it was an accepted principle already in regard to English legislation. There was a great similarity in dealing with the very poorest cottagers of Ireland and the very poor agricultural tenants of England. He did not think there was any argument which could be used in this House which ought to induce their Lordships to depart from the principle which had been already laid down in the Act of 1894.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It has been suggested that this question should be dealt with in reference to the merits of the case rather than in regard to precedents. I should like to ask upon the merits of the case why the court is to be precluded from allowing any addition to the purchase money in consideration of the fact that the transaction is a compulsory one. The noble and learned Lord told us that the value of these holdings was about £30 an acre, but I do not know what reason there is why the

  373
  owner should be compelled to sell a single acre at the pro rata price of the whole. Surely it is fair in a case of this kind to take into consideration the fact that the owner is compelled to sell, not the whole of his property, but a fraction of it, which may from his point of view be very inconveniently situated. There might be a most inconvenient severance, and the use and amenities of the rest of the holdings may be very considerably interfered with by the appropriation of a small part of it. Why, under these conditions, are we to say that in no circumstances is there to be any addition made on the ground of compulsion? I should like to remind your Lordships that this principle is not unknown to us in English legislation. In our earlier Land Acts it was enacted that if a tenant was compulsorily deprived of his holding by his landlord, that tenant should receive compensation for disturbance. That is the same principle, and unless I am very much mistaken, a Bill which is now before Parliament which has received a great deal of approval from His Majesty's Government, contains a recognition of the same principle in a very emphatic form. Just one word as to precedent. Many speakers have relied upon the alleged precedent of the Local Government Act of 1894. As Lord Cronbrock has already pointed out to the House, that Act contains this most important qualification, and I will read it again to the House—
  "the arbitrator, in fixing rent or other compensation, shall take into consideration all the circumstances connected with the land, and the use to which it might otherwise be put by the owner during the term of hiring, and any depreciation of the value to the tenant of the residue of his holding, caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council."
  That is the principle for which my noble friends are contending, and I would say that if the Government really are determined to resist the Amendment of my noble friend, I hope, at any rate, that they will agree to some other words which will be upon all-fours with the words of the English Act.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The, debate on this Amendment has been devoted to two entirely different subjects. In the first place, it has been devoted to the
  374
  question of how far precedents are being followed, and on the other hand, to how far the words in the Bill are justified by the precise merits of the case. As regards the precedent of the Act of 1894, although I think it is of considerable value in coming to a determination on this question, it is by no means the only consideration which affected the Government in introducing this provision into the Bill. The noble Marquis who spoke last I think somewhat overstated the effect of the qualification which exists in that Bill. In speaking of the damage which the landlord was likely to sustain, he used the word "severance." Now there is nothing whatever that I am aware of in this Bill to prevent extra compensation being given on grounds of severance by the arbitrator. The case is similar in regard to other indirect damage which may be sustained, and it is simply on this one question of 10 per cent. in relation to compulsory purchase that the, precedent of the Act of 1894 is followed. The noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, based his argument in favour of this Amendment on the circumstance that the vendor under this Act must always be taken to be an unwilling seller. I should think in a large proportion of instances that is by no means the case. In many cases the sale is a great advantage to the estate, and if some extra payment is to be made on account of the alleged compulsion, I confess I am not able to understand the reason for it. There is no doubt that this ten per cent, has been put on in certain cases, and it is very familiar to all those of your Lordships who sit in the Committee rooms upstairs. It does not, however, possess the sanctity of the Ten Commandments, and in this country it has been very much abused. I believe there have been many instances where the ten per cent. has been given as a mere matter of form, where no compensation was morally claimable on the grounds of compulsory acquisition. Under these circumstances I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, and we must divide the House against it.
  LORD LONDONDERRYsaid the noble Earl had not proved that there was anything of the kind referred to in the Bill

  375
  which he was asking the House to accept. He reminded the House that under the various Bills which had been passed, the land had passed into the possession of occupiers, and in taking the course they were adopting that night they were defending those who had recently purchased their holdings, and were declining to allow them to have taken from them compulsorily their land which they had just acquired on favourable terms under the Purchase Acts. He ventured to say that those who were taking advantage of the principles of the Bill two or three years ago, were anxiously waiting for the time to come when they would become owners of their holdings, and they would look forward with great dismay at having signed agreements and afterwards finding that before they had actually acquired their holdings, it was possible that portions of them might be taken from them for the purpose of labourers cottages. Therefore, in taking the action they did that night, the Opposition were guarding the interests of those who were to be the future owners of the land which they occupied. It was all very well to say that 10 per cent. had not always been the custom in Ireland. It always had been the custom, and it had been an under-tood thing, and if that was so, and if it had been so for years past, and had been recognised not as one of the Ten Commandmants, but as an unwritten law why was the arbitrator to be arbitrarily forbidden from giving what he thought was right in the case of disputes in order to recoup those whose land was compulsorily taken from them. He believed that everybody regretted parting with their land, and he thought the landowners of Ireland in acquiescing in the sale of their land as they had done had taken that course because they
  thought it was in the interests of the country, and the sacrifices they had made were extremely great. When they were told that they were to introduce still more compulsory taking of land than at present existed, he must utterly decline to associate himself with any measure which would have such an effect. He trusted the day was far distant when they would see the principle of the compulsory sale of land extended throughout Ireland, and it would always be quoted to their discredit if they allowed a clause such as this to pass without criticism, or without showing their disapproval of it. Those who held land in Ireland would regret it in the future if they allowed this proposal to become law.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid the noble Lord had rather suggested that by this Amendment they were claiming something that was unfair. He said that whatever percentage was given would only be given in cases of compulsory purchase, and that hundreds of cases would not be compulsory at all. Not one single case that was not compulsory would come under the proposal which this Amendment put forward. Therefore he claimed that the' custom would not apply. He wished to enforce what had been said before, that they were not asking for 10 per cent. and they were not asking for anything except that the arbitrators should be allowed to judge whether something should be given or not. He did not think that that was an unreasonable thing at al to ask for.
  On Question, whether the sub-section proposed to be left out stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 32; not-contents, 86.

  CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Crewe, E, (L. President.)

  Armitstead. L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Colebrooke, E.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Reay, L.

  Denman, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Beauchamp, E.

  Eversley, E.

  Sandhurst, E.

  Carrington, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Sefton, E. (E. Sefton.)

  Chesterfield, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

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

  Stanley of Alderley, E.

  Russell, E.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hemphill, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Goschen, V.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Wellington, D.

  Hill, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-more.)

  Kenyon, L.

  Bath, M.

  Killanin, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Cairns, E.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Langford, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Addington, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Massy, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Devon, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Newton, L.

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

  Barnard, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Pousonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Drogheda, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Eldon, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Essex, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rathdonnell, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Rosmead, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Deramore, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Mayo, E. [Teller.]

  Digby, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Munster, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Onslow, E.

  Forester, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

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

  Rosse, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Hatherton, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.) [Teller.]

  Waldegrave, E,

  Hylton, L.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Churchill, V.

  Kelvin, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he considered that sub-clause 11 was more iniquitous than the one which had just been thrown out. The sub-clause as it stood would work as follows: They would sell a plot of land, and it would be taken from them compulsorily, the price would be fixed, and then when the whole thing had gone through the ordinary official channels, the money would be paid into Court and it would then be the duty of the vendor to get that money out of the Court after proving title. He would not, however, get his costs from the district council, or at any rate, he could not get more of his costs from the district council than £10. He thought that was an iniquitous proposal. They might be told that this was a very small transaction, and that the district council in the public interest ought not to be allowed to spend more than £10 in costs. It would, however, cost a vendor very much more, because he would have to prove title in regard to that one part of his estate, and he would have to prove title every time one of those small plots was sold. He could net understand from what motive of justice this provision had been put into the Bill. He had obtained a couple
  378
  of opinions from distinguished lawyers in Dublin upon this point, and one of them, Mr. Connor, K.C., said he considered that this limitation of costs was absolutely unjust, because it cost just as much to prove title for £100 as it did for 10s. Surely, if land was to be taken compulsorily, the least that could be done was to see that the owner was indemnified as to costs. If the owner had to spend perhaps £150 in order to get £100 out of Court, that was an absolute denial of justice. The other opinion went to show that it was utterly impossible that the costs in these cases would not exceed £10. The only possible result of this sub-clause, as far as he could see, would be, that there would be numbers of small sums paid into Court, and it would not be worth the while of landowners to pay the costs. He did not ask that the whole costs should always be paid to the vendor, but he did not think he would be acting unreasonably by asking that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Court.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 7, line 41, after the word ' pounds,' to insert ' unless the Court shall otherwise order.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that a similar Amendment was moved in another place and refused, and therefore it was only consistent that he should raise some objection, to it now. He did so more particularly on the grounds that he had stated before, namely, that the whole object of this Bill was to reduce the expense of these proceedings. What would happen was that the district councils would be mulcted in considerable sums when they might not have been at any great fault in the matter, and it was because the Government wanted to reduce the expenditure that they could not accept the Amendment of the noble Lord in this case. It was not a matter to which the Government attached any very great importance, but at the same time he respectfully asked the noble Lord not to press this particular Amendment upon the House.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid his case for pressing this Amendment was furnished by the speech which had just been delivered. The object of this clause, it was claimed, was to make it cheaper for the district councils, and the extra cost over £10 was to come out of the landlord's pocket. That was a great injustice, and he should certainly press the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not surprised that the noble Earl presses this Amendment, and we shall not resist it. I may say, however, that so far as I was concerned, I was not greatly impressed by the authority of the two distinguished gentlemen whose opinions the noble Earl read to the House. They were the opinions of two gentlemen belonging to the legal profession, and I think the House will agree with me that that argument, coming from the source it did, is not a very strong one, because the desire and temptation to cheapen this kind of procedure appeals less to the legal profession than to any other. We will not, however, resist the noble Earl's Amendment.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid the object of the new clause he proposed was to provide that a person should be disqualified for being elected a member of the district council if he was the tenant to that council in respect of a cottage on any land provided under the Labourers Acts. He thought their Lordships would readily see that it was necessary to introduce a disqualification of this kind, because such a case had arisen. He begged to move the new clause standing in his name.
  New clause—
  " A person shall lie disqualified for being elected, or chosen, or being a member of a district council if he is the tenant to that council of a cottage or any land provided under the Labourers Acts. If any such person shall become such tenant when a member of any such council his seat shall be, ipso facto, vacated."—(Lord Clonbrock.)
  Brought up and read la
  Moved, "That the clause be read 2a."
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government were not in a position to accept this Amendment because there did not appear to be any precedent for it. They had, during the debate, been frequently warned of the danger of accepting proposals without precedents, but the noble Lord by this Amendment would be creating a precedent.
  LORD DUNRAVENsaid it would disqualify the whole countryside.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid that under the circumstances he would not press his Amendment.
  New clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:—
  LORD MAYOsaid that this clause provided that the Lord Chancellor's salary was to be reduced by £3,000. He wished to ask the Government if any arrangement had been made for this under the financial provisions of this Bill. The sum might be put upon

  381
  the Development Grant, and he should like to know therefore that this sum had been secured for the Bill.
  LORD DENMANsaid he understood that one of the judgeships had already been suspended. It was £3,000 a year. Another would be suspended shortly, and the Lord Chancellor's salary would be reduced by £2,000 or £3,000. He understood that the assent of the Lord Chancellor had already been obtained to the reduction. He did not think there was any fear whatever of the sum in question coming out of the Irish Development Grant.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clauses 15, 16 and 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18:—
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid there was annually paid in Ireland £36,811, called the Exchequer contribution, in aid of the cost of building labourers cottages. Under that grant £2,466 was paid to Antrim, £2,026 to county Down, £1,074 to county Armagh, and £811 to County Fermanagh. He did not think those four counties had taken advantage of the grants allotted to them, but it was rather hard upon them now by this Bill to deduct £6,000 a year from the grant it was proposed to distribute. To a certain extent the counties had only themselves to blame, but, knowing that part of Ireland very well from experience, he thought these counties ought not to be thus deprived under a Bill which was intended to benefit the labourers. Undoubtedly agriculture in that part of Ulster was being steadily developed. Farming there was of an extremely high class, and he thought it would be an improvement if the labourers were given the advantages intended for them. If the noble Lord responsible for the measure would consider the question before it came up on report and consider how these counties were going to be deprived in the future, he would be perfectly satisfied.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he was afraid he could not give an answer to the noble Marquses which would be con-
  382
  sidered satisfactory. All attempts to alter the financial provisions of the Bill in any way would really be fatal to it. This matter was discussed at full length by Lord Dunraven upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was generally admitted that the Government, in adopting such a form of allocation, had done their best to arrive at an equitable solution of the question. As matters now stood, the residue of the exchequer contribution was divided between the different counties in proportion to their shares of the Irish Probate Grant. That depended upon the extent of roads in the area, a fact which clearly could have no bearing upon the question of the provision of labourers' houses. It certainly did seem generally equitable that, in considering how the provision was to be divided in the future, some account should be taken, in allowing cottages to be built on a cheaper scale, of the previous operations of such counties as had already built them. If that were not done there would be a marked injustice to counties which had gone to considerable expense, which after all could not be recouped. It was generally agreed that they could not devote any portion of this grant to recouping counties which had built in the past. The only way in which they could be recouped was by the plan in the clause under consideration. When the noble Lord said this was hard upon the four counties, he dared to say that it might be in a sense. They had very large arrears to make up, and it was possible that fewer cottages might be built there than otherwise, but on the other hand, they would under the Bill get the full benefit of the extremely reasonable terms which it provided, and he therefore hoped that there would not be much reason for the labourers in those counties to suffer any real detriment by the allocation proposed.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the noble Earl talked about counties being recouped, but there was no question in his mind about their being recouped. He understood that, owing to a smaller number of cottages being built in Ulster and elsewhere, that the greater part of the grant would be taken away. Antrim,

  383
  instead of receiving £2,466, would receive about £400; County Down, instead of receiving £2,206, about £300, and he believed that the other counties would receive sums reduced in proportion. It was not a question of recouping them, but one of their receiving so much less.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid that, when he spoke of recouping, he spoke of recouping those counties which had already built cottages, and not of the four counties in question. They could not be recouped. They were being deprived of a certain share of their grant.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19:—
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREproposed to leave out the words "or by a son of any such labourer"In line 35 on page 10. The inclusion of those words in the clause could, to his mind, only have two results. They would enable labourers—and they were cute enough to find out very quickly how—to avoid the proviso which followed at the end of the clause which was put in in another place by His Majesty's Government. All the labourer had to do was to give up his tenancy to his son. There was a far more serious result which the retention of the words might have. It might result in a lot of people getting the benefit of the Acts who were not agricultural labourers at all, and that was not the object of the Labourers Act. The local postman, the attendant at the local workhouse, or the artisan working in the town close by might say he wanted the benefits of the section because he was the son of a labourer. Thus they would have a large increase of uneconomic holdings without the compensating advantage of getting labourers back to the land. He hoped the Government would sec their way to take the words out of the clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 35, to leave out the words ' or by the son of any such labourer.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  LORD DENMANsaid the words should stand as they appeared in the Bill.
  384
  There were instances where labourers might be old and beyond work, and where their sons would have to work for them; it was rather hard to say that they should be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It was not a matter of great importance, however, and they had no intention of dividing the House upon it. Still, he hoped the noble Earl would allow the clause to remain as it stood.
  EARL DONOUGHMORE: I would rather have it out.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry to see the noble Earl is not more devoted to the hereditary principle.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I apologise to the noble Earl for becoming a Radical.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid he now wished to ask their Lordships to put back in the Bill a provision originally included. The provision read—
  " And that the applicant has paid all rent due by him in respect of such tenancy."
  He thought it was reasonable to say that a man should not receive the benefits of the clause unless he had paid his rent up to date like an honest man. He found some difficulty in imagining why the words were struck out. It had been put before him that the landlord would look after himself, but he did not think that His Majesty's Government would be moved by such a motive. He thought such a case necessitated the inclusion of the words which were originally in the Bill, and he therefore begged to move that they be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 10, line 37, after the word ' made to insert the words ' and that the applicant has paid all rent due by him in respect of such tenancy.' "—(The, Earl of Donoughmore.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he did not propose to resist the action of the noble Lord in the matter, though he did not think the clause, as it stood, by any means unreasonable.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 20 to 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24:—
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid that Clause 24 was an extraordinary one. Some 25,000 cottages were proposed to be built and placed on portions of land to be taken from various estates, and in them were to be placed labourers not necessarily from the estate on which they stood. These labourers were to be given the right to cut turf on the estate on which their cottages stood. The estate might mean 20,000 or 30,000 acres, and a part of it might be miles away from the cottage, and yet the labourer was to be given the right to go and cut turf without asking the landlord's or anybody's leave. The tenants had to ask the landlord's sanction unless the right was part of their agreement when they took over the tenancy. The clause gave the tenant of every district cottage the right to cut turf on the estate on which the cottage happened to stand. Surely that must be a mistake. It had certainly been put into the Bill without consideration. A great many bogs in Ireland were small, and there was already barely sufficient to support the cottagers in them, yet they were giving these thousands of additional men the right to cut. The Amendment he had put down on the Paper left it open to the owners to give permission. He was told that some mistake had been made, and that the clause only referred to estates bought under the Land Purchase Act. If that was so, neither the clause nor the Bill said anything about it. As the Bill stood, it was the most bare-faced robbery that he had ever seen. It was merely taking the bog and giving it to an outside man, whom the owner had not placed on his land and whom probably he did not want. It seemed to him a most unfair proceeding altogether, and he was strongly opposed to it unless some explanation could be given. It would only make the clause exceedingly involved, and would involve Amendments further on to make it apply only to estates bought under the Land Purchase Act. He hoped the Government would see their way to make some alteration to meet the case.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 39, after ' Council ' insert ' Provided that the owner of the estate has
  386
  consented to his being so deemed."—(Lord Inchiquin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he hoped to be able to meet the case by the insertion of the words—
  "In cases of estates sold under the Land Purchase Act."
  LORD INCHIQUIN: That will require an addition as well, and I prefer practically the same words placed at the commencement of the Clause.
  LORD DENMAN: As we are all agreed upon the principle, could we not settle it at a later stage to-morrow?
  LORD INCHIQUIN: It will require a further Amendment after the word "allotment." You will have to put in "on such estate." Perhaps the noble Lord will redraft the whole thing.
  LORD DENMAN: I will undertake to do so.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he was not sure that the Government had any clear idea in their own mind as to what was meant. Where was the turf to come from and who owned it? He could quite understand that a man wanted turf to light his fire, and everyone wanted to give it him, but he wanted to know the meaning of the clause as it stood. Who was the owner of the property in which the turbary was to be found? It was certainly not the District Council, which had only bought an acre of land. It must therefore be the proprietor of the surrounding property. His noble friend said it was reasonable to give the owner of the surrounding property whose turf it was proposed to take an opportunity of looking in and saying whether he agreed. It was a reasonable proposal made in no spirit of hostility to any poor labourer getting turf.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEsaid he gathered that the noble Lord was satisfied with the Government's proposal.
  LORD INCHIQUIN:Not entirely.
  *THE EARL OP CREWEsaid that provision was made whereby the tenant of the district council would be able to get

  387
  his share of whatever turf was going on the estate; but if the landlord sold direct to the tenant he could make such arrangements as he pleased.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he was not sure that he had made his meaning clear. He was afraid that there was no clear idea underlying the cunning hands of the draftsman when he put in these five lines. He could understand that if the district council became the owners of the estate, they got not only the cottage and the acre of land, but the turbary as their own property; but that was not the question. The clause only dealt with the narrow case of the district council having acquired the cottage and the acre of land, and they suggested that somebody was to provide that acre of land and the turbary. His noble friend did not object to the benevolence of the idea, but he wanted the owner to have a look in before it was decided.
  LORD CLONBROCKsaid that a man, on selling his property, including turbary to his tenants, might keep a large portion of a bog in his own hands, for snipe shooting and other purposes. It ought to be made clear that the tenant of a labourers cottage should not have the right to go and cut turf there.
  THE EARL OF MAYO: Might we have the exact words of the Government's proposal?
  LORD DENMAN: May I bring them up on Report?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that when a certain amount of turbary went to a certain amount of holding, a portion of that holding was taken for the labourer with a portion of turbary. He did not know whether that was the idea of the Bill, but it seemed to him a rather sensible idea.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEE:I understand the noble Lord withdraws?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid he did not think it would do the Government any harm to consider the Amendment and see if they could not make the clause better on Report.
  LORD BARRYMOREsaid that the simplest and most natural way would be to cut the clause out altogether for the present and to bring up a new clause on report so that they could understand and agree to it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have said all the time that we will accept the Amendment.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I am not quite satisfied.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord is not satisfied with his own Amendment.
  LORD INCHIQUIN: I am quite willing to accept it for the time being and to have the clause re-drafted. The clause is a bad one. I have consulted two or three legal minds, and they are unable to understand it.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid it was a question of bringing meaning out of obscure words. His noble friend washed, to bring some order out of chaos. His Amendment did that, and, if it did not quite carry out the view of the Government, they could look at it and suggest further words.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That is just the course we propose.
  Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25:
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that under Section 3 of the Labourers Act (Ireland) 1886, no site could be taken compulsorily unless land immediately adjoined or was accessible from an existing road. There were hundreds of farms throughout the country that were not accessible from the public roads, and of course it was not fair to cut them out of the Bill. He hardly thought it would be fair to leave the words "over which a public or private right of way exists." because that might mean only a footpath. He thought his Amendment to add the words '' for carts and other vehicles" would be

  389
  perfectly fair. It would be a great injustice to a farmer to have labourers cottages put right inside the farm a long way from the high road and where there was no right of way except for a footpath, and if the words he proposed were added, it would make it much easier and save disagreements, fights, and most likely broken heads.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 12, line 5, after the word ' exists' to insert the words 'for carts and other vehicles.' "—(The Earl of Mayo).
  LORD DENMANsaid the Government recognised the fairness of what the noble Lord had said, and they would be glad to accept the Amendment.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhoped the Government would view favourably the new clause he had down on the Paper. They did not want a survey or any elaborate paraphernalia. What they wanted was either a sheet of the Ordnance Map with a red mark showing where it was proposed that the cottage should be or a tracing of the map. A rough plan would enable them to see where it was proposed that the site should be taken and would save them going to the Union; which was very often a considerable distance from the agent's office. It would save time, and he hoped the Government would give them the provision which would considerably oil the wheels of the Bill.
  New Clause—
  "the notice of any proposed scheme served upon the owner or occupier of any land proposed to be taken otherwise than by agreement shall have attached thereto a map or plan, sufficient to enable the person so served to identify the portion of land proposed to be so taken.' "—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  Brought up, and read 1a.
  Moved, That the Clause be read 2a."
  LORD DENMANsaid it was possible the proposal might add a certain amount
  390
  to the cost, but it was a matter of no great moment; and the Government would be prepared to accept the clause.
  Clause read 2a and added to the Bill.
  Clause 28: —
  LORD KILLANINproposed to leave out sub-section (2). He said that the first sub-section of the clause provided that the district council should make regulations with respect to the letting of cottages and allotments under the Labourers Acts and for preventing any undue preference in the letting thereof, and generally for carrying the provision of such Acts into effect. The second subsection went on to say that preference should be given to agricultural labourers who had signed on their own behalf the representation on which the scheme was founded, or on whose behalf that representation was made. He could not see, even if there was some merit in the proposal, why Parliament should take upon itself to tell the district council whom to prefer. What did Parliament know about the circumstances of the case or the character of the applicants? As the section stood a man of the very worst character in the district might receive preference. The matter should be left to the discretion of the district councils. His Amendment was decidedly on the Liberal side, and ho therefore hoped the Government would accept it. If they did not, he would not press it.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out sub-section (2)." —(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. He was informed that the sub-section was most essential to the working of the Bill. It was framed for the purpose of enabling those labourers who really needed them to get cottages, and he hoped, as the Government had conceded a good deal, the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30:—
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought there would be no controversy about the small Amendments he had put down on the Paper to Clause 30. The clause enabled the Local Government Board to make regulations. He did not object; but he wished to insert words to provide against any complaint concerning anything in the numerous clauses.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 13, line 18, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' subject to the provisions ' of this Act,'; In page 13, line 20, after the word ' may,' to insert the words ' the Local Government Board, after consultation with the President of the Incorporated Law Society, may make rules on the subject, as aforesaid.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  LORD DENMANsaid that on behalf of the Government he accepted both the Amendments proposed.
  Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 31:—
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid his next Amendment was really consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 13, line 32, to leave out the words ' of an inspector.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33: —
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid he could not understand what sub-section (2) of clause 33 meant. It would extend a most pernicious system, which he was sorry to say existed in some parts of Ireland. He could not see any case where it was absolutely necessary that a man should be told he could have a garden half
  392
  of which was forty yards away and the other half a mile away. He imagined that a labourer would like to have a garden adjoining his cottage, and therefore he should like the Government to accept his Amendment or give some strong reason why the words were placed in the Bill. They did not want tenants who had bought their land to have labourers with a plot here and a plot there.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 14, line 14, to leave out the words 'whether they adjoin or not.' "—(The Earl of Mayo.)
  LORD DENMANsaid he could understand the noble Earl's objection to several or possibly many plots, and he had a suggestion to make which he thought would meet this objection If they struck out the words "or more" after the word "two" it would read "two parcels of land whether they adjoin or not." He hoped that would meet the objection the noble Earl had taken to the clause.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid there was no vestige of principle in that suggestion. The whole point of the objection was that the plot of land should be one. Surely it was not desirable that it should be split, and be in two places. The greatest struggle of the Congested District Boards had been to get facilities for the union of small farms, and if they began by saying that the small allotment to a cottage might be divided and be in two places, he did not see on what principle they were to stand. It would not be wise or prudent.
  LORD HEMPHILLsaid it was not always possible to have the whole acre immediately adjoining the cottage, and the object of the clause was that in those cases they might still carry out the policy of the Bill and give an acre of ground to the labourer where the whole acre could not be given in one plot; there was therefore a provision by which there might be half an acre adjoining the house and the other half acre in some convenient place on the estate. The clause, as it originally stood, was too vague and general, but no injustice would result

  393
  from it as proposed to be amended by the noble Lord on the Front Bench. That clearly was the object of the clause, because otherwise they might defeat the whole policy of the Bill, which was to give a labourer an acre of land in order that he might eke out his subsistence.
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid they did not wish to defeat the policy of the Bill in any way; they were speaking in the interests of the labourer. There were 25,000 cottages to be built; and supposing there were 15,000 with half an acre of allotment distant from them, it would not be at all right. The long summer evening was the only time the labourer had got to work, and if they had two plots the second plot would remain derelict. They wanted to keep the labourer's land round his cottage. He should therefore like to adhere to his Amendment. Ho could not agree to leave out the words "or more."
  *THE EARL OF CREWEasked if he might make one more appeal to the noble Lord not to press his Amendment. He yielded to nobody in his dislike of excessive sub-divisions of land, but the provision was designed to meet, the case where it was not possible at the most convenient spot to put down a house to find a full acre of land. The noble Lord seemed to conclude that the remaining portion would necessarily be place at an extreme end of an immense estate. It was more likely to be as near as possible. In the interests of the landlords, it surely must be to the advantage of the estates that as many alternative sites as possible should be available. If they insisted upon the full acre of land being always attached to the house, they would greatly limit the choice of sites, and district councils would be compelled to apply for sites not so agreeable to noble Lords and other landlords in Ireland as if this simple form of division to which he could not see that any mischief could attach were adopted. He should like to appeal strongly to the noble Earl not to press his Amendment.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEsaid the subsection seemed a somewhat doubtful one, but he thought it was desirable to
  394
  retain in it a certain amount of elasticity. He understood that the Government were ready to leave out the words "or more; "That undoubtedly to some extent met the requirements of his noble friend; and, considering that on other points the noble Lords had met them not unfairly, he should counsel his noble friend to withdraw.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEasked how it was proposed to deal with the Bill on the morrow. There were, he said, a good many clauses to be amended, and they would like to know what opportunities they would have of considering them before the Bill was further advanced.
  LORD DENMANsaid it was hoped they might take both the Report and Third Reading Stages on the morrow. It was getting rather late, and, unless they did so, it would be very difficult to get the Royal Assent in Friday.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid that the Report Stage might be taken at the beginning of the sitting, and the Third Reading at the end. That would give them an opportunity of studying the clauses, and they would not lose a day.
  LORD DENMAN: We shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the noble Earl.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON)said they were most anxious to meet the noble Earl, but could the Bill be taken at the commencement of the sitting, before the other business which was now down?
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid they were all anxious to do what they could to facilitate the passage of the Bill. He believed that notice had to be given of Amendments made on the Third Reading, but he suggested that the Amendments might be handed to the clerk at the Table, who might get them printed in a couple of hours. He asked if the Bill would be circulated on the morrow.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid he thought the Bill could and would be circulated by the time the House met. That would give noble Lords an opportunity of considering it during the sitting.
  Standing Committee negatived, vhe Report of Amendments to be recei ed To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 191.)

  DEAN FOREST BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  DOGS BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1: —
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, lines 1 and 2, to leave out Sub-section 4."—(Earl Carrington.)
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid the Amendment he desired to move was one desiredby several county councils, particularly those in which there were large dairies, and where the chasing of cows might produce injury at some distant date. The second section of the Dogs Act of 1871 provided that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction might take cognizance of a complaint that a dog was dangerous and was not kept under proper control. If it appeared to such Court of Summary Jurisdiction that such dog was dangerous the Court might make an order directing that it should be kept under control or destroyed, and, if a person failed to comply with that order, he should be liable to a penalty not exceeding 20s. for every day he so failed. It was admitted in the case of sheep that it was very necessary that the clause should be passed, and they asked that a dog which was
  396
  seen chasing cattle might be considered to be a dangerous dog and might come under Section 2 of the Act of 1871.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the word 'sheep ' and insert the word ' cattle.' "—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  LORD BARNARDsuggested that, instead of saying cattle included horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats, and swine, they should adopt the words used in the title and speak of live stock.
  *LORD CLIFFORDobserved that he believed the definition given of "cattle" was almost word for word the definition given in "Webster's dictionary.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he must ask the House to leave the word "cattle" and not to substitute the words "live stock." He could not accept the Amendment, but perhaps the noble Lord would allow the clause to read "whore a dog is proved to have injured cattle or chased sheep." If that would satisfy the noble Lord, he would be pleased to have the words put in.
  LORD CLIFFORD: It is not quite what I wish, but I shall be pleased, under the circumstances, to accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words ' chased or' and to insert the words ' injure cattle or chased."—(Earl Carrington.)
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2, agreed to.
  Clause 3:—
  A NOBLE LORDasked whether foxhounds were included in the regulations. He foresaw some difficulty unless they were excluded. He was in full sympathy with the object of Sub-section (b), and he understood there were Departmental reasons for pressing it forward, but he should like the House to have a little more time to consider it. He also asked how they were going to prevent dogs from straying. Dogs were not infrequently let loose for the purposes

  397
  of protection, and he should be glad to know how it was proposed to prevent that.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid that foxhounds and all sporting dogs would naturally be exempted from wearing collars. If a dog was a stray dog, the police took it up, and, if nobody claimed it within seven days, they put it into a lethal chamber, where it received merciful and perhaps deserved death. Dogs let out at night without chains upon them came under the category of stray dogs.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 9, after the word 'dog,' to insert the words ' so seized.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert (6) The chief officer of police of a police area shall keep, or cause to he kept, one or more registers of all dogs seized under this section in that area which are not transferred to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs. The register shall contain a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure, and particulars as to the manner in which the dog is disposed of, and every such register shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by any member of the public on payment of a fee of one shilling. (7) The police shall not dispose of any dog seized under this section by transferring it to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs unless a register is kept for that establishment containing such particulars as to dogs received in the establishment as are above mentioned, and such register is open to inspection by the public on payment of a fee not exceeding one shilling."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD BURGHCLEREsaid he should like some provision beng put in the Bill for lethal chambers.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I cannot do that, but I can assure the noble Lord that where there is no lethal chamber there is always a gun and pistol.
  Amendment moved—
  "In lines 27 and 28 to leave out the words 'arising from the sale, or received from the owner, of any dog in pursuance of,' and to insert the words ' received by the police under.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  Drafting Amendments made.
  Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 11, to leave out the word "are duly complied with on the part of and to insert the words ' apply in the case.' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  Cause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6: —
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 23, after ' any' to insert the words ' head of."—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD CLIFFORDasked for an explanation as to the necessity of the Amendment, remarking that it did not make the clause read at all well. It did not sound anatomically correct.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid it was perfectly true that it sounded odd, but it was found in previous Acts of Parliament, and they ought to have the same phraseology.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7: —
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would admit an Amendment so that the name and address of an owner of a dog might be inscribed on the collar in Gaelic characters. He saw that a little lower down there was a similar Amendment to the effect that in Ireland the name and address of the owner might be inscribed on the collar in Irish characters. He wondered why Ireland was to be put in front of Scotland, and where the Scottish Members of Parliament were when the matter was discussed in the House of Commons. He asked whether the noble Lord would have any objection to the insertion of an Amendment to that effect.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he had had no demand for the Amendment, but, if the noble Earl was really serious and was expressing the wish of his fellow countrymen, he did not see any great objection to it.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: As the noble Lord says he has no objection to it I do not propose to move.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:—
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 19, after paragraph (c), to insert the following paragraph ' (d) Orders under Section 2 of this Act may permit the name and address of the owner of the dog to he inscribed in Irish characters-' "—(Earl Carrington.)
  LORD ASHBOURNEasked the noble Earl to give a sketch of how the Amendment came to be moved in the House of Commons. He asked if it were a brand-new idea, whether the Government divided upon it, and whether it was suggested that there should be a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid it was rather difficult to explain, but he believed that the last Government got rather into difficulties with their Irish supporters by refusing to allow people to put their names in Irish upon their bread carts. Since the present Government came into power, that difficulty had been met.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: I believe that the noble Earl is not right up to date.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he was informed it was so. The Amendment seemed very harmless, and it was moved because Irish Members in another place urged that there were districts in Ireland in which the Irish language was spoken and used. They pleaded for this small concession, and he could not see that there was any great objection to it.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEasked if the noble Earl was quite sure the Amendment was so harmless as he supposed. The object of the Amendment, under which dogs were to be decorated with collars and labels, was to enable the police to identify owners of dogs. Was the noble Earl quite satisfied that in all parts of Ireland there was sufficient knowledge of the Gaelic language among the police to enable them to decipher the mysterious inscription with which the unfortunate dogs would be labelled. Unless it were so, the Amendment was far from harmless.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid he was informed that the Royal Irish Constabulary did not speak Irish and could not read it. It therefore seemed very evident that if an Irishman put an Irish name upon the collar of his dog, the police would not be able to read it or to trace the owner, but would keep the dog for seven days, and then would put it into a lethal chamber or shoot it through the head. The object of the Bill was to get rid of stray dogs, and he did not think any better plan could be adopted in Ireland than to allow the Amendment to go through.
  *LORD LANSDOWNEsaid they had to provide against the Amendment in the interests of the dog. It was very hard that the dog should be taken from its "public resort "To the lethal chamber simply because the owner chose to have his name inscribed upon its collar in characters which could not be read.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREpointed out that the very reason just put forward by his noble friend was the reason given by the Department of Agriculture in another place for refusing the Amendment. It refused the Amendment in the interests of the dog.
  EARL CARRINGTONsaid the fact of a dog having an address and the name of a man upon its collar in an unknown language did not make the dog less of a stray dog. If the dog were not claimed within seven days,it would be shot through the head and a very good thing too.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  New clause;—
  "In this Act the expression 'cattle' includes horses, mules, asses, sheep, goats and swine."—(Earl Carrington.)
  On Question, new clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

  BILL OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882)AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

  DEANERY OF ANCHESTER BILL.
  Order of the day for Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS OF RIPON)said the Bill was one for the purpose of regulating the salary of the Dean of Manchester, and it resulted from the sale of the late deanery producing a larger sum than was necessary for the erection of a new deanery. The Bill provided for the disposal of the surplus. It was agreed to by the present dean, and any surplus which might be found after having paid the new salary would be devoted to the purposes of the Cathedral.
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  CROWN LAND BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES)BILL.
  Education (England and Wales) Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Wednesday next. (The Lord President [E. Crewe]). (No. 182.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock a.m. till a quarter past Four o'clock p.m.