Sitting of 20 June 1906

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill; Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Great Northern Railway Bill(by Order). Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th June], "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
Ordered, That the Debate be further adjourned till Monday next, at a quarter-past Eight of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL
  Petitions against; from Aberdovey; Babworth; Bosley; Brighton; Deddington; Donisthorpe; Drayton; Easthampstead (two); Elvaston (two); Everton; Great and Little Chesterford; Lacock; Paddington; and Walton-on-Trent; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Ball's Pond; Bartlow (two); Bottisham; Brinkley (two); Castle Camps; Castle Eden; Cheltenham; Chettisham (two); Cheveley (two); Christ Church and Upper St. Leonards; Duxford (two); Fen Ditton; Fordham (two); Hildersham (two); Hinxton (two); Horningsey; Ickleton (two); Isleham (two); Kennett (two); Linton (two); Lode (two); Middlestown (two); Pampisford; Sawston; Shermanbury; Snailwell; Soham; Stetchworth; Steyning; Stow cum Quy (two); Stuntney; Weston Colville; West Wiekham; and Wicken; to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petitions for alteration of Law; from Barton-upon-Irwell; arid Driffield; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; from Bedfordshire (South); Brighton; Cardiff, Cow-bridge, and Llantrissant; Derby (West); Derbyshire (North East); Eccles (two); Eckington; Hanley; Hastings (two); Islington (North) (two); Kensington (North); Kirkby Stephen; Kirkcaldy; Luton; Merthyr Tydfil (two); Nottingham (East); Twickenham (two); Wake-field; Westmoreland (North); and Whitby; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIA MENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [LORDS].
  Petition from Hackney, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.M
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copies presented, of Colonial Report No. 484 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1905) and 485 (Hong Kong, Annual Report for 1905) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 16th June, 1906, respecting the addition of years to be assigned, for pension purposes, to certain offices under the Board of Education [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1906, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of The Civil List Act, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 205.]
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1906–7 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 206.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3646 and 3647 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Provision for Widow and Children of late Petty Officer George Howe.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that first class Petty Officer George Howe died recently in Hastings Hospital after undergoing a number of surgical operations, that George Howe had served in the Royal Navy for twenty years, and was, at the time of his death, serving as a coastguard at Bexhill, that his widow and four young children are unprovided for, and are dependent upon private charity; and whether the Admiralty propose to make any provision for the widow and children.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) This second class petty officer (commissioned boatman) had only seventeen years seven days service counting towards pension. He died on active service, and there is therefore nothing due on account of pension, and the widow and children are not eligible for assistance from naval funds. He was, however, entitled to £2 good-conduct gratuity, and steps will be taken to pay this to the widow. No provision in the shape of pension or gratuity can be made from the funds at Greenwich Hospital for the widow, as Howe's death was not attributable to accident or extraordinary exposure or exertion on duty. The children are eligible for consideration for admission to homes at the expense of Greenwich Hospital, and application may be made on their behalf to the Admiralty, stating their names and ages.

  Publication of Inspector's Report on the Case of M'Glone.
  MR. GINNELL (Westmeath, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will make available to hon. Members a copy of the in-
  148
  spector's report in the recent case of M'Glone, with the name of the inspector, his qualifications, experience, at whose instance he was first employed, and any explanation he has to offer of his conduct in fixing the value that he did on M'Glone's holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The reports of the inspectors are confidential, being made for the information of the Estates Commissioners only, and it would be contrary to practice and to public policy to lay them upon the Table of the House. The Commissioners do not think it desirable to state the name of the inspector in the present case. They themselves are answerable for any action which they may take upon their inspectors' reports.

  Publication of Information by the Irish Board of Intermediate Education.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the information which he has declined to give to the House of Commons in reference to the recent proceedings of the Board of intermediate Education in Ireland has been communicated to a Dublin newspaper, together with an announcement that the Board has decided by a large majority to disregard the recent unanimous decision of the House of Commons in reference to its rules; and whether he will not, in view of these facts, make a full statement of all the facts in relation to the action of the Board in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Until I saw the hon. Member's Question I did not know that any statement of the nature indicated had appeared in a Dublin newspaper, nor do I know what the statement was. The fact, however, is that the Board have, since I last answered a Question on this subject, informed the Irish Government that they find it impossible to prepare a new set of rules in time to enable them to be approved by the Lord-Lieutenant and lie forty days on the Table of both Houses before August; and that, as the gravest inconvenience would be caused to the numerous schools which

  149
  prepare pupils for the Board's examinations if the programme of those examinations were not announced by the month of August, they find that the only course open to them is to continue the existing programme, viz., that in force for 1906. They accordingly propose to submit to the Lord-Lieutenant for his approval the rules for 1906. This is a purely temporary expedient, rendered necessary, in the opinion of the Board, by the shortness of the time available.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Claim of Mary Anne Mortland.
  MR. McVEIGH (Donegal, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been called to the claim of Mary Anne Mortland, to the farm of her father, Joseph Mortland who was evicted from his holding on the Wilson Estate, Carnone, Raphoe, East Donegal, in 1894, and has since died in Australia; and, if not, whether he will direct them to send down an inspector to inquire into her case, seeing that Moses Wallace is in the full enjoyment of her farm; and whether he will say if Miss Mortland, now come of age, will be in some way restored to her farm, or be paid the value of it.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received from Miss Mortland an application for reinstatement in the holding from which her late father was evicted. This holding has been bought under the Land Purchase Acts by Moses Wallace, the present occupier, with whom the Commissioners have no power to interfere. The Commissioners, however, will consider Miss Mortland's application in the event of their acquiring untenanted land in the neighbourhood.

  Case of John Riordan.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Estates Commissioners has been repeatedly called to the case of John Riordan, Gneeves, Glantane, Mallow, an evicted tenant on the Grant Estate; and in view of the fact that the estate
  150
  has been purchased some time since, the case has been considered; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have referred the case of John Riordan to one of their inspectors for inquiry, and are awaiting the receipt of his report in the matter.

  Report of the Irish Consultative Committee of Education.
  MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, as a Command Paper, a copy of the Report drawn up by the Consultative Committee of Education consequent upon the communications that passed between the late Irish Govvernment and the representatives of the Committee in November, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have received a copy of the Report in question, which is marked private and confidential, but I cannot find that the Report has ever been formally presented. It deals with matters which are now under the consideration of the Irish Government, and I cannot, as at present advised, undertake to present it to Parliament.

  Sale of the Roberts Estate, County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any negotiations are pending for the sale of the Roberts Estate, in the parish of New-town Cashel, county Longford; whether he is aware that, amongst seven others, Patrick Casserly, of Culnagore Wood, was evicted in 1889, his farm since remaining derelict; whether he is aware that in the course of negotiations for the sale of this property the solicitor in charge has stated that Casserly's holding, along with some fifty acres of plantation, has been let to a planter tenant for the purposes of sale under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; whether such a tenancy can be so created; and whether, in the interest of the general peace of the district, he will suggest to the Estates Commissioners not to consider this application until they first exhaust the provisions of

  151
  The Land Purchase Act, 1903, for the restoration of evicted tenants to their holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are not aware whether negotiations are pending for the sale of the estate referred to. No proceedings in the case have yet come before them, and they have no information as to the estate itself or as to the statements alleged to have been made in the course of the negotiations. The evicted tenant, Patrick Casserly, referred to in the Question, has been provided with another holding in the county of Dublin, and is in occupation of it.

  Refusal of Gun Licence to Mr. Daniel Casey
  MR. POWER (Waterford, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a licence to carry a gun has been refused by Mr. Orr, R.M., to Mr. Daniel Casey, of Grawn Kilmacthomas; what are the grounds of such refusal; whether he is aware that Mr. Orr, R.M., considers it his duty in all cases when applied to for a gun licence to ascertain whether there is a possibility of the applicant, in the view of local landlords and land agents, using the gun to shoot game, even though the applicant would become entitled to obtain a game licence on first obtaining the magistrate's licence; and whether he will inform Mr. Orr that he has no justification for refusing such an application on any grounds other than such as relate to the peace of the district, and that the preservation of game for the benefit of a limited class is not part of his duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The power of issuing licences under the Peace Preservation Act is vested in the resident magistrate, and it would be contrary to practice to state in this House the grounds of refusal in a particular case. I think it right, however, to state that Mr. Orr informs me that the question of the preservation of game does not in any way influence his decision in such cases, and that he makes no inquiry from this point of view. All resident magistrates
  152
  are made aware of the fact that the Act was passed for the preservation of life and property and not for the protection of game.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Sergeants in Belfast with over Thirty Years Service
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast are at present serving with over thirty years service.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that there are at present serving in Belfast fifteen sergeants of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have had over thirty years service.

  Sergeant Long, Royal Irish Constabulary.
  MR. McKILLOP (Armagh, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether Sergeant Long, Royal Irish Constabulary, recently appointed to Loughgall, county Armagh, was appointed to this district on his own application, or whether he was transferred by order of the Inspector-General; and whether this sergeant, while stationed at Poyntzpass, was repeatedly reported for the manner in which he discharged his duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that he transferred Sergeant Long to Loughgall upon the recommendation of the county inspector and not upon the sergeant's own application. The only complaint made against the sergeant while he was stationed at Poyntzpass was one contained in an anonymous letter, which was found on inquiry to be without, foundation.

  Religious Persuasion of Royal Irish Constabulary Sergeant Stationed at Poyntzpass.
  MR. McKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the present sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary stationed at Poyntzpass, county Armagh, is of a different religion from the majority of the inhabitants; will he say whether this also applied to his predecessors; whether a sergeant professing the same

  153
  religion as the majority of the inhabitants has ever been appointed to this town; and whether, seeing that there is no magistrate sitting at Poyntzpass Petty Sessions of the same religion as the majority of the inhabitants, he will consider the advisability of at least appointing a sergeant whose religious views are in sympathy with those of the inhabitants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that the sergeant of Royal Irish Constabulary at Poyntzpass is a Protestant, as were his predecessors for a number of years past. The inhabitants of the village itself are about equally divided as between Catholics and Protestants, but the latter are largely in the majority in the district of which the village forms part. The Inspector-General does not propose to remove the present sergeant, who impartially discharges his duties.

  Pressure for Payment of Rents on the Faulkner Estate.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether lie is aware, with reference to the Faulkner Estate, Spring-hill, Queen's County, that many poor tenants on this property, notwithstanding that under the agreement in this matter they were to be relieved of the payment of one year's rent, are now being pressed for payment of this year's rent; and will he endeavour to induce the Estates Commissioners to effect an early definitive settlement in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge whether pressure for the payment of rent is taking place in the case of this estate. The Commissioners expect that they will be able, by the end of this month, to make an offer for the purchase of the estate.

  Residence in Precincts of Workhouse of Family of the Master.
  MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board has any rule in force with regard to residence in the precincts of a workhouse of the family of which the father is master of the workhouse and the
  154
  mother is the matron of the same institution.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer is in the negative. It is not the practice of the Local Government Board to prevent the children of a master and matron from residing with their parents in the workhouse, assuming that the children are not of an age to provide for themselves. Each case is decided by the Board upon its merits.

  Religious Instruction of Catholic Children in Armagh Workhouse.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chef Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken, or will be taken, by the Local Government Board to secure that the Catholic children n the Armagh Workhouse will receive adequate religious instruction; and whether, seeing that this matter has been under consideration for four years, he can say when the Local Government Board intends to deal with it.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that in the year 1903 the guardians of the Armagh Union, despite the protest of the Local Government Board, dispensed with the services of the assistant teacher, who had also acted as Catholic catechist. The Board have since repeatedly urged the guardians to appoint a successor, and have expressed their willingness to allow recoupment from the local taxation fund upon the salary involved. The guardians, however, have declined to make any appointment, and, under the existing regulations, the Board have no power to compel them to do so.

  Religious Denominations of County Armagh Police Force.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the numbers of the different religious denominations in the police force in county Antrim; how many have been promoted from the seniority list since the appointment of County Inspector Reeve, and to what religious denominations they belong; and how many have been promoted by competitive examination from the P list during the same period,

  155
  and to what religious denomination they belong.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Inspector-General that there are at present 126 Protestants and 112 Roman Catholics in the county Antrim force. Since the appointment of County Inspector Reeves to take charge of the county there have been twenty promotions from the seniority list, and of this number fourteen were Protestants and six Catholics. In the same period seven men were promoted from the P list by competitive examination, of whom two were Protestants and five Catholics.

  Portuguese Kaffirs in the Witwatersrand Mines.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total number of African natives employed in the Witwatersrand mines, and what proportion are Portuguese subjects; whether the work performed by such last-mentioned natives is similar in character to that discharged by Chinese coolies; whether the importation of these Portuguese Kaffirs is subject to any and what regulations; whether there is any substantial difference either in the methods and regulations relating to the housing and control, in and out of working hours, between these Kaffirs and the Chinese coolies who are working under the terms of the Chinese Labour Ordinance; and, if not, what steps the Government have taken, or propose to take, in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) On 31st March 84,409 African natives were employed on the Witwatersrand gold mines, of whom about 60 per cent, were Portuguese subjects. The work performed by them is similar to that performed by Chinese coolies. These Portuguese Kaffirs are engaged on yearly contracts. As regards housing and control, the position of both classes of labourers is described by Lord Selborne, in his despatch of 18th September last, published in Cd. 2786, as being similar, but there is the substantial difference that the Chinese labourers are brought in under the terms of the Labour Importation Ordinances, which place them under certain special restrictions and disabilities.

  Chinese Translation of the Repatriation Proclamation.
  MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make investigations as to the translation into Chinese of the recent repatriation proclamation in South Africa, and will he have any inaccuracies rectified in England; will he, in case any further proclamation is issued which has to be translated, have that translation made in this country by those who can be trusted to do it accurately; and whether he will take means-to secure that the authorised Chinese version, and none other, shall be used.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Inquiry will be made as to the variation between the recent translation of the proclamation and the terms as read by me to the House.

  Wages in Royal Dockyards
  MR. J.WILLIAMS BENN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the official inquiry now proceeding in order to make the wages in the Royal dockyards equal, all things considered, to those which obtain outside, he proposes to make any inquiry, privately or otherwise, into the wages and conditions of the men in the Navy who, owing to the nature of their engagement, do not benefit from the action of trades union organisations.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) There is no analogy between dockyard employment and service in the Royal Navy. From time to time the conditions of service among the various classes of men employed in the Navy are investigated, but no reason is seen for holding any special inquiry at the present time.

  Arming of the "County" Class of Cruisers.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state what, would be the cost of bringing the armament of the ten cruisers of the "County" class up to the strength necessary to render them fit to engage in action with contemporary armoured vessels of other Powers; and whether, having regard to their small fighting value, as at present armed, compared with the cost to the

  157
  nation of building and maintaining them in commission, it would be cheaper to incur the additional outlay necessary to constitute them efficient armoured cruisers than to leave them in their present condition.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The cost of re-arming and protecting with thicker armour cruisers of the "County" class would be prohibitive, and its effect would probably be seriously to reduce their speed. As regards the second part of the Question, the reply is in the negative.

  Chatham Dockyard Discharges.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will give an assurance that no further discharges shall take place at Chatham Dockyard during the current year, ending March 31st, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) No such assurance can be given; but it is not anticipated that more discharges other than those already arranged for will take place.

  Chatham Dockyard and the Repair of H.M.S "Montagu."
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if H.M.S. "Montagu" may be brought to Chatham Dockyard for repair in the event of her being refloated.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Chatham is not considered a suitable dockyard for the repair of the "Montagu.'

  The Hyde Park Fountains
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.): To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will state the number of days in each year since January 1st, 1900, on which the fountains at the north end of the Serpentine have played; and what has been the annual cost of their repair and maintenance during the same period, and the initial cost, and upon whom it fell.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The fountains usually play from Easter to the
  158
  end of September, but no register is kept of the actual number of days. There is no record of the initial cost of the fountains, and I regret that I am unable to furnish the annual cost of maintenance, as the pumps which work these fountains supply also the Round Pond and the Serpentine.

  Procedure Committee—Date of next Meeting.
  MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.): To ask the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure of the House of Commons, when he proposes to call together the Committee for the prosecution of the reference.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Fowler.) I am trying to arrange an early day for the next meeting of the Committee.

  Maintenance and Work of the Imperial Institute.
  MR. LAIDLAW (Renfrewshire, E.): To ask tie President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that the charges for the internal maintenance of the Imperial Institute buildings are borne out of funds administered by the Imperial Institute and the University of London, whether he will give a detailed statement showing the yearly income of the Imperial Institute and the sources from which it is derived; and whether, as the institute belongs to the nation, and the cost of the external maintenance of the institute buildings is borne from public funds, he will direct the submission to Parliament of an annual report on the institute, accompanied by a detailed statement of its receipts and expenditure, thus following the practice adopted in respect to the Indian Section.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) A report on the work of the Imperial Institute at South Kensington during 1905, with a financial statement, will shortly be presented to Parliament.

  Staff of the Imperial Institute.
  MR. LAIDLAW: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the staff of the Imperial Institute is recruited in

  159
  the ordinary way by the Civil Service Commission or by private patronage.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) No members of the Imperial Institute staff are established Civil Servants, and consequently they are not engaged through the Civil Service Commission.

  Checking of the Board of Trade Customs Returns.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that practically no entries in the Free Import Registers at the Statistical Department of His Majesty's Customs had been checked for about four years, until the 12th June, 1906, and that the checking of the entries in the British export registers had been intermittent and cursory; and whether, in view of the importance of the Board of Trade Returns of Imports and Exports, and the need for accuracy and reliability, he will take steps to ensure an adequate and efficient supervising staff for the Statistical Office, seeing that during the past ten years, in consequence of the large and important amplification of the returns, the total staff has increased over 60 per cent., while the supervising staff, many of whom have been brought into the Statistical Office possessing no knowledge of statistical work, is considerably less than that in 1895.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that during the past four years entries have been checked from time to time into the Free Import and British Export Registers, and, in addition, further checks are, and have been applied at various stages of the work in the course of each month, the whole being considered sufficient to insure reasonable accuracy in the accounts. The staff of the Statistical Office in 1895 consisted of 163 persons. Of this number forty-eight were of higher rank than abstractor, while five of the latter rank were in receipt of checking allowances. But the supervising staff was then considered to be in excess of requirements, and the number was in consequence in course of reduction. At the present time the staff consists of 236 persons. Of this number thirty-three are above the rank of abstractor,
  160
  while thirty-two of the latter grade are now in receipt of checking allowances. The existing supervising staff, together with the checking abstractors, is considered by the Commissioners of Customs to be sufficient to provide for the necessary checking.

  Increased Charge for Ordnance Maps.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he will state the reason for the increased charge from 1s. to 1s. 6d. per sheet for Ordnance maps: whether he will state what the result has been of increasing the charge by fifty per cent, on the sale of the maps during the last five years as compared with the sale for the five years previous to the increase of price.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) In order to cover the cost of production if was found necessary to increase the price of the small scale maps which are mounted on linen, but the price of the same maps unmounted and folded in a cover, has not been altered. The change was only made in January, 1905, and no comparison for five years can therefore be given.

  British Forestry.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbighshire, W.): To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what steps have been taken to carry into effect the recommendation of the Departmental Committee of 1902 on British Forestry; and whether any communication has been addressed to corporations and municipalities relative to the Committee's recommendation as to the desirability of planting with trees the catchment areas of their water supply.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) 1. The Departmental Committee recommended that the Alice Holt Woods in Hampshire should be made available as soon as possible to serve as a demonstration area in England. This has been done. A full report as to the past history, present position, and future management of these woods has been prepared by Dr. Schlich at the request

  161
  of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and the recommendations made therein are being systematically carried out. A certain amount of experimental planting has already taken place. Copies of Dr. Schlich's report, illustrated by plans, can be had on application to the Commissioners. It was also recommended that a suitable estate should be purchased in Scotland to serve as another demonstration area. Several properties have been brought to the notice of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but, for various reasons, they did not appear suitable for the purpose. Two additional properties are now under consideration, and as soon as a suitable estate has been found the Treasury will be approached with a view to purchase. 2. The recommendation of the Departmental Committee that lecturers should appointed at Oxford and Cambridge has to some extent been met by the augmentation of the salary of the Sibthorpian Professor of Rural Economy at Oxford, who is now the Professor of Forestry Botany. It is understood that an estate will be placed at his disposal for demonstration purposes. 3. A sum of £500 a year, which was placed by the Treasury at the disposal of the Board for the establishment of lectureships in forestry, has been allocated to the University College of North Wales at Bangor and the Armstrong College at Newcastle-on-Tyne. The results have been most encouraging. A considerable number of students have been found desirous of taking a full collegiate course of study, good classes of practical foresters and others have been conducted at selected local centres, while there has been a constant demand on the part of land-owners for expert advice from the lecturer. 4. A school for working woodmen has been established by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in the Forest of Dean, and is now in the third year of its existence. From eighteen to twenty youths are receiving instruction. 5. Legislation would be necessary to remove the inequality in the levy of the estate duty on timber, and it has not been possible hitherto to take any steps in this direction. The matter has, however, not been lost sight of. 6. The Railway Fires Act, 1905, which comes into force on the 1st January 1908, will give some
  162
  protection to owners of woods against loss by fire caused by sparks from locomotives. 7. Special inquiries were made in 1905, with a view of ascertaining the extent of land now occupied by woods in Great Britain, and the results have been published in the Agricultural Returns for that year. The three categories suggested by the Departmental Committee were adopted. 8. With the object of ascertaining the districts in which local authorities have developed the catchment area of their water supplies by afforestation, the Board communicated with the Local Government Boards for England and Scotland, who sent out a circular letter to all local authorities asking for a Return. The results were tabulated and published in the journal of the Board of Agriculture for November 1904. A leaflet on the relation of Woods to Domestic Water Supply was published in January 1904, and a large number of copies have been issued. The Board are keeping the various recommendations of the Departmental Committee steadily in view, and they hope to be able from time to time to proceed further in the directions indicated in their Report.

  Payment of School Grants.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the President of the Board of Education, whether he has considered the representation made to him by the elementary education authorities of the inconvenience caused by withholding payment of the annual grant until the expiration of the school year; whether he contemplates the resumption of quarterly payments; and, if so, when.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As I stated in reply to an oral Question from the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, on February 22nd last. † the annual grant has never been paid on a regular system of quarterly instalments. Ever since the first establishment of the annual grant, forty years ago, it has not been paid until after the close of the school year, and I am not aware that any confusion has thereby been occasioned. It has only been within the last three financial years that a partial and essentially temporary
  † See Debates, clii., 509.

  163
  expedient has been resorted to by which certain limited sums have been paid in advance. The representations made to the Board on this matter have been fully considered in conjunction with the Treasury. The resumption of quarterly payments is not contemplated, but a careful investigation is being made by a special committee, appointed for the purpose, to consider whether some rearrangement of the scheme of paying grants in respect of elementary education cannot be effected, under which the sums payable to local authorities may in future be more evenly distributed throughout the financial year. But the problem is an extremely difficult one, and I must not be supposed to be holding out any substantial expectation that it can be solved this year, in view of all the circumstances.

  National Gallery and the Chantrey Bequest Fund.
  MR. MIDDLEMORE (Birmingham, N.): To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government or the trustees of the National Gallery, or both of these bodies, have the power to refuse to hang pictures, which may be offered them for that purpose by the trustees of the Chantrey Bequest Fund, if they consider such pictures unsuitable for permanent exhibition; and whether they have power to return to the trustees such picture as they may consider it to be unadvisable to retain.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Treasury letter of 11th November, 1898, to the Royal Academy gave the trustees of the National Gallery no power to reject Chantrey pictures; and by a letter of 29th November 1898 the trustees concurred in the Treasury arrangement.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    German Naval Programme.
    MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any official information showing that the two new German battleships to be laid down will have a displacement of 19,000 tons in-
    164
    stead of 18,000, as intimated in the-preamble to the German Naval Estimates.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): There is no official information on this point.

    Admiralty Contracts and Trades Union Wages.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Messrs. Richards, Limited, Aberdeen, are on the list of contractors for this Department; whether he is aware that the wages earned by their women workers are in some cases, as low as 3s. 4d. per week, and the average for the firm is 7s. 6d. per week; that sixty of the women have been discharged for having joined a trade union, and have been told that they will only be reinstated on giving an undertaking to withdraw from the union; and what action he proposes taking in the matter.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Messrs. Richards, Limited, are on the Admiralty list of contractors. No complaint has hitherto been received as to the rates of wages paid by this firm, but inquiries will be made.

    Gun Practice in the Thames Estuary.
    MR. WHITEHEAD (Essex, S.E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he has taken to prevent such firing from Sheerness into the navigable channels of the Thames estuary as occurred early in May last.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): It is the navigable channels of the Thames that the guns at Sheerness are intended to protect. And if any useful practice with these guns is to be carried out it is manifestly impossible to avoid firing over these channels. Strict safety regulations are laid down and observed, and no shot is fired over any water when there are vessels in dangerous proximity. The Secretary of State believes that every possible precaution against the possibility of danger is taken by the responsible-officers concerned.

    Shoebury Battery Gun Practice.
    MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that on June 4th, when a party of nine persons in a bawley from Leigh-on-Sea were fishing off South Shoebury gas buoy, west of the Admiralty beacon, and outside the sands, a shot from Shoebury battery struck the water not more than twenty yards from the bow of the boat; whether this was done in conformity with the amended regulations issued by the Secretary of State last month; and whether he will make further Amendments to the regulations, and will issue further and effective instructions to the responsible officer at Shoebury in order to avoid all risk to the public using the estuary.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Careful inquiry has been made, but no information of any occurrence of the kind on the day mentioned has been received. The precautions under the regulations, which are of a very strict nature, were in force, as on all other occasions, throughout the firing on that day. Expert officers and non-commissioned officers are specially on duty to see the regulations carried out. None of these officers or non-commissioned officers observed or heard of any such occurrence.
    MR. WHITEHEAD: If I satisfy the hon. Gentleman that this event actually took place, will more stringent regulations be issued?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I will inquire further, of course, if the hon. Gentleman can give me additional information.

    Ireland and Army Meat Contracts.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY (Cork, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received a Resolution recently adopted by a Committee representing the cattle trade of the southern half of Ireland, strongly protesting against the recent innovation in the tender forms for the supply of meat to the Army, whereby the words "home-killed" are substituted for "home-fed" as hitherto specified; and, if so, will steps be taken to revert to the old form of tender when contracts are being taken for supplying the Army with meat.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Several representations from Ireland have reached the Secretary of State, but he is not able-to identify the particular Resolution to which the hon. Member refers. As the Secretary of State has already said, it is not proposed to revert to the old form of tender.

    The Unrest in Bengal.
    MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the action of the Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam, in dispersing by force the Bengal Provincial Conference, in preventing and breaking up peaceful and religious processions, in interfering with municipal commissioners and honorary magistrates and other persons who are in favour of the Swadeshi movement, in the frequent prosecution of schoolboys and in other measures, he proposes to hold an inquiry by means of a Commission, or otherwise, in order to devise means of allaying the unrest which now prevails in the new Province.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): As I stated in reply to a Question on May 14th, † it is the wish and the intention of the Government to take such measures as may seem most likely to allay unrest. But I am not at all disposed to think that a Commission is necessary, nor do I think that it would be desirable.

    Railway Rates from Delagoa Bay.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that an agreement was entered into between Lord Milner and the Portuguese Government providing that in return for permission to recruit native labour for the mines in the Transvaal from Portuguese territory, a preference in railway rates was arranged for goods being sent up country from Delagoa Bay to Johannesburg whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in the report of the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce to the effect that the preference in railway rates from Delagoa Bay as against East London and Durban ranges from
    † See (4) Debates, clvii., 177.

    167
    10s. to 15s. per ton; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Secretary of State is aware of the facts referred to by the hon. Member, and the matter is at present forming the subject of negotiation with the Portuguese Government.

    Repatriation Proclamation.
    MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been called to a translation of the Repatriation Proclamation, which has recently appeared, containing a coneluding sentence ordering the Chinese in threatening terms to tremble and obey; whether this sentence was actually posted in the compounds; and, if so, why it was omitted from the version read to the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The version which I read to the House was that supplied to the Secretary of State by the High Commissioner before the notice was posted at the mines, and I need scarcely add that it was to the best of my belief a true and complete version in every respect. Inquiry will now be made upon both the translations from English into Chinese and back again from Chinese into English to ascertain whether they have gained anything in substance or style during either operation.
    MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)asked whether in the case of any further proclamation the translation would be made in this country by those who could be trusted, and whether the hon. Gentleman would take care that the authorised Chinese translation, and no other, would be used in future.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The course we shall take with regard to any further proclamation must necessarily depend on the result of our inquiries into the first.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.): Is it not a fact that every Chinese authority in London who has been con-
    168
    sulted differs in his version of the proclamation?
    [No Answer was returned].

    Zulu Prisoners and the Kimberley Mines.
    MR. BYLES (Salford, N.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Zulu prisoners charged with rebellion are being drafted to Kimberley; and whether the object is to send them into the diamond mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is not aware that any natives concerned in the recent outbreaks in Natal and Zululand are employed, or are likely to be employed, upon the Kimberley diamond mines. A number of long-sentence prisoners have been removed from Natal to the Cape Colony to make room in Natal gaols for persons awaiting trial upon charges of rebellion. Such a proceeding is entirely within the competence of the Natal and Cape Colony Governments and under the sanction of their laws.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Kimberley mines are worked by convicts, and is there not a danger that these prisoners may be utilised by the Cape Government for that purpose?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am aware that convict labour is used in the mines.
    MR. J. WARDasked whether the hon. Gentleman would make such representation to the authorities in South Africa as would prevent the possibility of such an occurrence as the hiring out of political prisoners to the monopolists of the diamond mines.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will bring the opinion which has been expressed by the hon. Member to the notice of the Secretary of State.

    The Native Rebellion in South Africa.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his official reports show that the death of the native chief Bambaata, now officially reported, will tend to check the alleged rebellion, or to increase the native disaffection in South Africa.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The news which the Secretary of State has received shows that the Natal Government believe that the native disturbance will shortly be at an end; and that the death in action of the native chief Bambaata will prove to have aided and accelerated its conclusion.

    Martial Law in Natal.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether now that some rebel chiefs have been killed while others have surrendered, and the native levies has been disbanded, there will be an immediate termination of the state of martial law in Natal.
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is a matter for the Natal Ministers to decide how soon the state of martial law in that Colony may be terminated.
    MR. BYLESasked whether His Majesty's Government would request the Government of Natal to abolish martial law at least in those provinces where they did not consider military operations necessary.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The inconvenience resulting from martial law in Natal falls wholly on the people of that Colony, and I cannot conceive that they would be willing to subject themselves to its onerous provisions a day longer than public safety demands.
    MR. BYLES: I am not quite satisfied yet. Do the Government not consider that our responsibility to the native population imposes on us the duty of protecting them from the illegal tribunal under martial law?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is rather an argumentative Question.

    The Macedonian Budget.
    MR. LYNCH (Yorkshire, W.R., Ripon): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the amount of the deficit in the Macedonian Budget for 1905, and the amount expended on military and on civil expenditure respectively; and whether he can give similar figures for 1904, and any estimate made by the Financial Commission for 1906 under the above heads.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir EDWARD GREY): The deficit in the Macedonian Budget for the year ending March 13th, 1906, was £687,855. The military expenditure for the same year was £1,303,161, and the civil expenditure £678,223. The deficit on the Macedonian Budget for the year ending March 13th, 1907, has been estimated at £747,778. The military expenditure for the same year has been estimated at £1,344,690, a reduction of £636,210 on that of 1904, and the civil expenditure at £768,697. The Financial Commission have not furnished any statistics for the year ending March 13th, 1905.

    Massacres of Jews in Russia—British opinion.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the Government of Russia, prior to any steps being taken to establish closer ties of friendship with this country, of the views held by the British people concerning the massacre of Jews in Russia.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The impression which has been made, and the sympathy which has been aroused, not only in this country, but everywhere, by disturbances and loss of life in Russia, is well-known to the Russian Government, and these are not matters in which official diplomatic intervention is usual or desirable.

    Experiments on Living Animals.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the inspector's. Returns of experiments on living animals, which are now overdue, are likely to be laid before the House; and whether he can see his way to expedite their submission.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): This Return is now in the printer's hands, and it is hoped that it may be available by the beginning of next week.

    Workmen's Compensation Insurances.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary

    171
    of State for the Home Department whether in view of the difficulty of insuring compensation to some of the new classes compensated for accident and disease by the present Workmen's Compensation Bill, based on individual responsibility, and in view of the unnecessary expense to which employers and the community are put by individual insurance with private companies, he will take steps to set up or advise a Royal Commission to consider the possibilities of collective or State insurance based on collective responsibility.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I must refer the hon. Member to the speech I made on the Second Beading of the Bill† when the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, moved, "that this House desires such recognition and guarantee of insurance as to prevent the defeat of legal expectation of compensation created under the law." I have nothing to add to the statement I then made.

    Prussian Cigarette Makers.
    MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information respecting the expulsion of some 1,000 alien cigarette makers from Prussia; and whether any considerable number of these persons are likely to come to this country.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information on the statement contained in the Question. Perhaps my hon. friend will let me have any particulars on the subject which have come to his notice.

    Convicts' Licences.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the dismissal, last week, by the magistrate at the Thames Police Court, of a charge of failing to report brought by the police against an ex-convict on licence; and whether, having regard to the fact that the publicity of such a charge destroys a man's chance of earning an honest livelihood, he will instruct the police that a public prosecution for such an offence is not to follow as a matter of course, but that a proper discretion must be exercised.
    †See (4) Debates, clv., 536 et seq.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member's suggestion represents the existing practice. Licence-holders who fail to report are not prosecuted as a matter of course. Every case is carefully considered on its merits, and the licence-holder is not charged if he can show any sufficient excuse for his failure to report. If there is any reason to think that a licence-holder was genuinely trying to make an honest living, this would have much weight in his favour. In nearly 50 per cent, of the cases where an ex-convict fails to report and is apprehended, police court proceedings are not taken. In the present case, after inquiry into the facts, I am satisfied that the charge was properly brought. In these circumstances no fresh instructions to the Police appear to me to be necessary.

    Merchandise Marks.
    MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evasion of the Merchandise Marks Act by the importation of parts of watches which do not bear the mark of the country of origin; and whether he can apply the Act to the goods stated.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am aware of the importations referred to, but the Merchandise Marks Act, while prohibiting the application of false trade descriptions, nowhere prescribes the marking of all foreign made goods imported. If, however, the question relates to the fraudulent sale as English of watches made up of foreign made parts, the Board of Trade had been in communication with representatives of the watch trade, and have assured them that if a specific case is submitted to them in accordance with the regulations under the Merchandise Marks Act, it will be carefully considered.
    MR. PAULasked whether the Merchandise Marks Act had not served as a gratuitous advertisement for cheap foreign goods.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am sorry to say I believe that has been the case up to the present moment.

    Glamorgan Education Authority.
    LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to an attempt made by the Glamorgan education authority to utilise the labour certificate examinations as a test of general school efficiency; and whether this action is compatible with the regulations of the Board of Education, and what steps the Board propose to take to safeguard the educational interests of the schools.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EEDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): My attention has been called to this matter and the local education authority has been informed that the Board of Education cannot accede to any arrangement by which His Majesty's Inspectors' examinations of individual children in a school for labour certificates shall be converted into a general examination of the whole school.

    Government Amendments to the Education Bill—Clause 4.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education how soon the House will be in possession of the Amendments, or any of them, which the Government propose to make in the Education Bill.
    MR. BIRRELL: I will see that the Government's new provisions in respect of Clause 4 will appear amongst the Amendments circulated on Saturday morning.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked if, to afford opportunity for consideration of the Amendments before entering upon discussion of Clause 4 and to allow notice of Amendments to the Amendments, should such appear desirable, the Government proposals could be made known to the House on Friday.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid this was a reasonable request, and he would do his best to have the Amendments to the clause put on the Paper on Thursday night. But, of course, he could give no definite promise.

    Sheep Scab in Northumberland.
    MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland): I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the limited character of the outbreaks of sheep scab of recent years in Northumberland, he will consider the sufficiency for the purpose of stamping out the disease of enforcing drastic fines and penalties on farms where the disease is discovered, instead of continuing in force the Sheep Dipping (North of England) Order of 1906, which is applicable to all farms, whether affected or not, and is a source of widespread irritation.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): The suggestion made by my hon. friend was considered by the Departmental Committeee on Sheep Scab and also by the Board, but legislation would be necessary in order to carry it into effect, and I am afraid that the proposal is not one which would commend itself to Parliament.

    Sheep Dipping (North of England) Order.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board has been called to the effect of the Sheep Dipping (North of England) Order, which requires that sheep which have been dipped on or shortly before July 31st shall be dipped a second time before they can be sent to market or out of the dipping area after August 31st, unless they shall have been kept isolated; whether he is aware that sheep cannot be kept isolated on the hills of Northumberland, because often there are no fences; whether he is further aware that to dip lambs twice, with only a short period between the dippings, is likely to cause them serious injury; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The value of the dipping would be destroyed if sheep which have been dipped are not kept separate from undipped sheep, and I am afraid therefore that we cannot agree to any modification of the Order in this respect. The difficulty referred to is, however, one that can be met by

    175
    the mutual co-operation of the flock-masters of the county. There is nothing in the Order which makes it necessary for lambs to be dipped twice within a dangerously short period.

    Irish Tenant Right.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney- General for Ireland in view of the fact that the tenants' right to protection of his occupation, interest, and improvements in his holding under the Land Act of 1881 exists as a rule, and that cases in which it does exist are exceptional, will he state why the legality of confiscating that property under the Land Act of 1903 has not been tested before now; and what is the reason for leaving unsettled a question which arises in connection with almost every sale under this Act.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): The Act of 1903, as I have several times reminded the hon. Member, deals with voluntary agreements between landlord and tenant only. The legality of confiscating the property of tenants or of any other class in the community does not and cannot arise in connection with any sale under the Act.
    MR. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for twenty-five years the law of the land has stood between landlords and tenants for the purpose of protecting the tenant from these so-called voluntary arrangements?
    MR. CHERRY: That may be so, but the Act of 1903 especially authorises them.

    Dog Licences.
    MR. McKILLOP (Armagh, S.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland what is the practice in the petty sessions districts of Holywood, Bangor, and New-townbreda with regard to the stamping of dogs' licences where more than one dog appears in one licence; what is the practice in these districts as to the cancellation of stamps; whether the number of dogs licenced in the above districts corresponded during the present and preceding year with the stamps affixed to the licences issued; whether
    176
    the petty sessions clerk of the districts duly accounted, and, if so, when did he account; and whether the petty sessions clerk of these districts, in his accounting statement for these years, set forth such particulars as would show the instances in which he did not affix stamps in respect of dogs licenced, and the instances in which he only affixed stamps for one dog on licenses in which more than one dog appeared.
    MR. CHERRY: The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks informs me that every petty sessions clerk is charged each year with the number of stamps which should have been placed on dog licences, as shown in the Register of Dog Licences. In this register is shown the number of licences issued and the number of dogs in each licence. The number of stamps paid for by the petty sessions clerk of Holy-wood, Bangor, and Newtownbreda, agrees with the number of licences issued and dogs licensed in the years 1905 and 1906. The petty sessions clerk was absent at Quarter Sessions during some days of the dog licensing period and the person acting for him neglected to affix a second dog stamp in some cases in which two dogs appeared in the same licence. The clerk subsequently returned to the head office dog stamps amounting to £4 12s. 0d., stating that these were on his hands, in excess of the proper amount. He had already been charged for these stamps and they were destroyed. All stamps affixed to dog licences should be cancelled on issue, but it is impossible to use them a second time under any circumstances.

    Irish Land Purchase—Cappaloughlin Estate, Queen's County.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that agreements to purchase their holdings have been signed by the tenants on the Cappaloughlin, Queen's County, estate of the Endowed Board of Commissioners on terms of twenty-three and twenty-five years' purchase, including one year's rent to November last, turf banks and cutaway bog also included, and that the tenants have since been informed by the agent, Mr. Franks, that they will be required to pay in addition for the turbary rights, in consequence of which a minority of the tenants have withdrawn from the sale;

    177
    and will he see that the Estates Commissioners shall inquire into this matter before sanctioning the sale.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are unable to identify the estate referred to as one in which proceedings for sale have been instituted before them. If the estate should come before them, they will make enquiries into the facts alleged in the Question.
    MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Estates Commis-ioners that the terms agreed on are six or seven years' purchase in advance of the average terms under the Act.
    MR. BRYCE: I am willing to send to the Commissioners any information which the hon. Member thinks should be Conveyed to them.

    Longfield Estate, Mallow.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have any information as to the proposed sale of the Long-field estate, Ballyclough, near Mallow; and whether, in view of the fact that the landlord, Mr. R. E. Longfield, retains in his own hands the evicted farm of a man Lehane, the Estates Commissioners will decline to sanction the purchase agreement unless Denis Lehane, son of the evicted tenant, is reinstated on the lands now let to graziers.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an originating application in respect of the sale of the estate in question was lodged with them on 9th February, 1906. The case of Denis Lehane will be duly considered when the estate is being dealt with. The Commissioners have already approached the landlord's agent on Le-hane's behalf, but have been informed that the owner is not willing to sell the holding in which Lehane seeks to be reinstated, seeing that this holding is now incorporated in the owner's farm and demesne.

    Mallow Evicted Tenant.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the case of Mr. Timothy O'Callaghan, Dromahane, Mallow, who was excluded from the purchase arrangement on the Newman; estate, and since evicted from his holding, whether the Estates Commissioners have received a reply to the statement made by Mr. Newman, and which they transmitted to the tenant; and, if so, whether, having regard to all the facts of the case, they are still of opinion that they should have excluded this holding from a large estate merely on the representation of the landlord that he intended to resume possession; and what steps the Commissioners propose to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the matter referred to in the Question is still under their consideration, and as various questions of law may be involved which may be found to require judicial decision, they are unable to make any statement in regard to it.
    MR. FLYNN: Although this Question referred to an individual case, I put it down for oral Answer, because I think the Estate Commissioners in this matter have acted entirely outside the scope of their duty.

    Irish Intermediate Board of Education Rules.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, under the Act of 1878 constituting the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, the Rules of that body must lie upon the Table of this House for forty days before they can come into operation; and whether, seeing that secondary schools commence their school year some time about the middle of August and others in the beginning of September, and require to know some time beforehand what programme has been definitely decided on by the Board and that only a short time remains if the Rules are to lay upon the Table for forty days and come into operation some short time before the commencement of the school year, he will give notice to the

    179
    Board that they adopt the Resolutions of this House and publish the revised Rules within a week, or, if not, that they must resign their posts, and that he will appoint a small provisional board to carry on secondary education until inquiry is made and a scheme adopted for placing a primary, secondary, and technical education in the hands of one board appointed by and responsible to the Irish people.
    MR. LONSDALE: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the refusal of the Commissioners of Intermediate Education to submit new rules for the forthcoming examinations, he proposes to ask the House of Commons to rescind the Resolution which was adopted on Monday, May 21st? †
    MR. BRYCE: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. Since I answered a Question on this subject last week, the Board of Intermediate Education have informed the Irish Government that they find it impossible to prepare a new set of rules in time to enable them to be approved by the Lord-Lieutenant and lie forty days on the Table of both Houses before August; and that as the gravest inconvenience would be caused to the numerous schools which prepare pupils for the Board's examinations if the programme of those examinations were not announced by the month of August, they conceive that the only course open to them is to continue the previously existing programme, viz., that prepared in 1905 to be in force for 1906. They accordingly propose to submit to the Lord-Lieutenant for his approval the rules for 1906 that they may be in operation for 1907. This is a purely temporary expedient, rendered necessary, in the opinion of the Board, by the shortness of the time available. It is hoped that the rules may be laid before Parliament in the time sufficient to enable the secondary schools to go on with their work of preparation in the usual way. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh I have only to add that it is not the case that the Commissioners have refused to submit new rules.
    † See (4) Debates, clvii., 1072.
    MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Arising out of that reply I should like to ask whether the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has now communicated to the House is the first answer sent in by the Board, or whether it is a fact, as stated in a leading Dublin newspaper, that the Board by a large majority declined to submit to the unanimous decision of the House of Commons, and absolutely refused to alter their rules; also whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the alteration proposed by this House is so simple that there could be no difficulty in carrying it into effect.
    MR. BRYCE: I have stated in my answer to the hon. Gentleman, which I regret has not yet been circulated, as I intended it should have boon, that communications were passing on the whole subject between the Government and the Commissioners of Intermediate Education, and I cannot make any statement as to the correspondence. I am bound to say that from the communications that passed, it is quite true that it would be more difficult than it appears at first sight to draw up a new set of rules consistent with the view that the Commissioners entertain, and considering the extreme technicality of the system under which these intermediate examinations are worked. I did not know until I looked into the matter how highly technical it is, and I can understand the difficulty.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether upon the Board receiving notice that the rules were to be changed in three points of importance, the delay arose not because of the difficulty itself, but purely and simply because the Nationalist representatives wanted to have Irish put on an equality with French and German.
    MR. BRYCE: I do not think the latter part of the hon. Member's Question is well founded. I think there is a real difficulty.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked whether, if they agreed to allow the third part of the changes dealing with domestic economy to stand over for another year, the right hon. Gentleman would guarantee that Irish should be placed in the position they desired.
    MR. BRYCE: I am sorry to say I cannot guarantee anything. The hon. Member seems to suppose that the rules are made by the Irish Government. They are not.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the delay renders it impossible for the Commissioners to submit these amended rules in time to lay them upon the Table of the House for forty days before August, whether the delay of three weeks which has already taken place is not entirely due to the Commissioners themselves; and, secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman state how it is if there is not time to put the amended rules upon the Table there will be time to put last year's rules upon the Table. Why cannot the amended rules be laid as well as last year's rules?
    MR. BRYCE: I am afraid I have failed to explain the matter sufficiently. It is an extremely difficult thing to fit into their general scheme the alterations which have to be made in order to comply with the Resolution of the House. They are of course willing to comply with the directions of this House, but find extreme difficulty in doing so. I think that is quite true, and if hon. Members would look into this matter they would understand that it is so. As regards the first part of the Question I do not think a certain amount of delay could be avoided, considering the position in which the Board was placed by the decision of this House.
    MR. DILLON: Is it not a fact that the real difficulty arises from the decision of the Commissioners to defy the decision of this House; and, further, is it not a fact that the decision of the Commissioners was communicated by them to a Dublin newspaper and published three weeks ago?
    MR. BRYCE: I know nothing whatever about & Dublin newspaper. I have not seen it and I do not think it is fair to the Board to say that that is the cause of the delay. The matter is one of very great difficulty, and I can quite understand it.
    MR JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has no control over this
    182
    Board, but the House is entitled to ask whether the Board, after the decision of this House, passed a Resolution defying the action of the House?
    MR. BRYCE: I have already stated that pending the completion of the correspondence that is going on between the Board and the Irish Government I ought to make no further statement on the point.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is that acting fairly to the House of Commons? It decided by a unanimous vote a certain thing, and I ask whether one of these Irish Boards for which the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible passed a Resolution defying the action of this House.
    MR. BRYCE: That might be stated if they were defying the action of the House, but their communication to the Irish Government is one accepting the decision of the House and accepting the rules.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am very sorry to have to press this matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer—of course if he refuses to do so there is an end of the matter—did the Board, after an unanimous decision of this House, pass a Resolution declining to act upon the decision come to by the House?
    MR. BRYCE: I can make no further statement on the matter. There has been correspondence between the Board and the Irish Government, but I am not now in a position to make any further statement.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish the minutes of the last meeting of the Board?
    MR. BRYCE: No, Sir.

    Irish Tenant's Occupation Interest.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the accounts of some public salesmen in Ireland show the value of the tenant's occupation interest, including improvements, in an agricultural holding to frequently equal and occasionally exceed the value of the landlord's interest in the

    183
    holding; and will lie ascertain what has been the average price of this tenant's property in normal cases in each county during the last ten years, in order to find a standard for the guidance of the Estates Commissioners and their inspectors.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estate Commissioners that they have no information as to the matters of fact alleged in the first part of the Question, and have no means of obtaining the particulars asked for in the concluding inquiry.
    MR. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain the information?
    MR. BRYCE: I am afraid I have no means of doing so. I have no powers over the Estates Commissioners to compel them to give it even if they have it.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland do all or any of the inspectors on behalf of the Estates Commissioners set forth in their reports in respect of each holding the value of the tenant's occupation, interest and improvement; is this value deducted from the gross value of the holding to find the value of the landlord's interest which is the only object of the sale; is the price calculated upon that interest exclusively; if not, how is the promise kept that the form of report would be adequate for this purpose; and how are the Treasury and the tenant protected from paying for that which is already the tenant's own property.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer the hon. and learned Member to the instructions to inspectors which have been laid on the Table of the House. These instructions, and the form of report attached to them, set forth the matters on which the inspectors are required to report. These include the tenant's improvements as admitted, the value thereof, and the estimated gross and net fair rent. I am informed that no report is required as to the value of the tenant's occupation interest, and no deduction from the gross rent is made in respect of such interest. For further elucidation of the matter, so far as it is one of fact and not of argu-
    184
    ment, I may refer the hon. Member to the Answers given to his Questions of May 14th and 23rd. †
    MR. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question; whether the tenant pays for his occupation interest in the price of the land.
    MR. BRYCE: If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer to his previous Question, he will find my reply to this point. I can add nothing more.

    Headfort Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have been able to effect any settlement of the claims of Denis Healy and Jeremiah Healy, of Headfort, county Kerry, as evicted tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the Report of their inspector on the McCartie Estate, upon which the persons named seek reinstatement, will come before them for ruling at an early date.

    Irish Teachers' Capitation Grants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now make a statement as to expediting payments of capitation grants to teachers; if not, what is the cause of the delay; and if it is the case that the reform required in the matter of payment of this money could be carried out with very little difficulty and expense.
    MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of National Education have made arrangements, with the sanction of the Treasury, to pay the annual residual capitation grant to the teachers in the month of April in future, that is to say, immediately after the expiration of the financial year to which the grant relates. The payment of the grant in respect of services rendered by the teachers in the first three months of this year is to be made forthwith.

    Irish Land Commission.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Wilkinson,
    † See (4) Debates, clvii., 197–200, 1291.

    185
    who was appointed in December, 1905, to an office in the Collection Department of the Irish Land Commission at a salary of £300 per annum, was an experienced land clerk, possessing skilled practical knowledge of Irish estate accounts; and, if not, what are his special qualifications for the post.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that the Answer to this Question is in the affirmative.

    Irish Land Clerks.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many Irish land clerks have been employed by the Congested Districts Board since the passing of the Land Act of 1903; and how many clerks and assistants other than land clerks have been employed by the Board in connection with the purchase and management of estates.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that since the passing of the Land Act of 1903, the Congested Districts Board have engaged one land clerk, who was in the employment of the vendor of an estate which they had purchased. They have also engaged eight other clerks to assist their land inspectors. Two of these have since resigned. Fifteen other temporary clerks have been appointed for estates business in the Dublin Office. The Board have called up for competitive examination every applicant for a temporary clerkship in their Dublin Office, and with one exception all the posts of clerk to land inspectors were filled by competitive examination of persons who had applied for employment.
    MR. SLOAN: Is it not the fact that during the debate on the Act of 1902 these land clerks were promised a preference for appointments, provided they made themselves fully qualified, and has not that pledge been completely ignored?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not know if that is so. I will look into the matter if the hon. Member will indicate when the pledge was given.
    MR. SLOAN: It was given in debate. There was a distinct promise that these land clerks should be given employment, and yet they are now being
    186
    made to stand aside for the sake of other people.

    Ballina Evicted Tenant.
    MR. HALPIN (Clare, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Michael Maloney, of Ballina, Labashuda, county Clare, a tenant on the estate of the Hon. C. W. White, is not yet reinstated in his farm, although it was inspected in April, 1905; whether, seeing that the greater part of the estate is now sold to the tenants, he will inquire what is the cause of the delay in reinstating Mr. Maloney; and at what approximate date will the reinstatement take place.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have made an offer to the land judge for the purchase of the estate in question, but it has not yet been decided whether the offer will be accepted The Commissioners are considering whether it may be possible to bring about the restoration of Michael Maloney.

    Dunmanway Estate—Coolsnagtig Evicted Tenant.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the negotiations for the sale of the estate of Mr. John Atkins, Dunmanway, are still in progress; whether he is aware that James Murphy, an evicted tenant at Coolsnagtig, is claiming reinstatement in the farm from which he was evicted; and, if so, will the Estates Commissioners refuse to declare the Atkins property an estate unless Murphy be included among the purchasing tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate in question have yet come before them, and they have no knowledge of any negotiations for sale which may be proceeding. The Commissioners have, however, referred the case of James Murphy to one of their inspectors with a view to effecting a settlement.

    Irish Land Commission Staff.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many land clerks have been added to the staffs of the Irish Land

    187
    Commission since the passing of the Land Act of 1903, and how many of them are second divisional clerks, assistant clerks, third class Land Commission clerks, abstractors, and solicitors' clerks, respectively; and will steps be taken to give effect to the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover; and to see that a fair proportion of Irish land clerks who have a special knowledge of the Irish land system will not be overlooked in favour of those less qualified.
    MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform me that two clerks who had previously had considerable experience in land agents' offices have been appointed to the staff of the department since the passing of the Irish Land Act, 1903. One of these gentlemen holds the position of estate management clerk in the Estates Commissioners' office, and the other is assistant to the clerk in charge of the department for the collection of interest in lieu of rent. Neither of these officers belongs to any of the grades of clerks mentioned in the question. The applications of all persons who seek employment in the office of the Land Commission are carefully considered as vacancies arise.
    MR. DELANY: Is it right that these land clerks should be recruited from rent offices in Ireland?
    MR. BRYCEsaid he had given what Answer the information in his possession enabled him to give, but he would look further into the matter if desired.

    Bandon Estate Evicted Tenants.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Bandon estate was sold subject to the understanding that evicted tenants on the estate, whether holding directly from the head landlord or middleman, wore to be reinstated in their old farms, an inspector has yet visited the farm at Knockmeady, formerly held by Cornelius O'Donoghue; and, if so, has any decision been arrived at regarding the reinstatement of the evicted tenant.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the applications which have been received from evicted tenants on this estate, including that of
    188
    Cornelius O'Donoghue, have been referred to one of their inspectors for enquiry and report.

    Dunmanway Cottage Scheme.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the recent scheme of cottages promulgated by the Dunmanway Rural District Council, and for which the Provisional Order has now become absolute, the representation of Michael Shea for a cottage and plot of land on the farm formerly occupied by Jeremiah Hallihan, and now held by a man named Cunnell, was amongst those recommended by the Local Government Board inspector; that this applicant proved his claim to be a bona fide and a proper one before the Local Government Board inquiry; and that a majority of the district council since passed a Resolution excluding Shea's application from the scheme; and whether, seeing that Shee's application has been included in the Provisional Order, will the Local Government Board insist that he shall get his cottage and plot of land.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The cottage referred to was authorised by an Order of the Local Government Board in August, 1904. On May 15th, 1906, the rural district council unanimously decided to abandon the proposal to erect this particular cottage, upon the ground that Shea, the original applicant, had gone to America and that the present applicant belongs to the Macroom Union. The Local Government Board do not propose to interfere with the action of the council in the matter.

    Bevan Estate, County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON (Limerick, E.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Bevan estate, situate near Bruff, in the county of Limerick, has come before the Estate s Commissioners for sale to the tenants; and whether Messrs. James Butler and James Mulcahy, both evicted tenants on the estate, shall be considered in the purchase negotiations with a view to their reinstatement; or whether the Estates Commissioners will send one of their inspectors to interview the occupant of the

    189
    holdings, John Van Bevan, to ascertain if he be willing to resign the lands in favour of the evicted tenants Butler and Mulcahy.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings for the sale of the estate referred to have yet been instituted before them. The Commissioners will, however, have inquiry made into the cases of the two evicted tenants named, both of whom have lodged applications for reinstatement.

    Major McBride.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was with the cognisance and permission of the police authorities that Major McBride was present in Dublin on June 1st.
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of any reason why the permission of the police should be necessary to enable Mr. McBride to visit Dublin.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is the right Gentleman aware that Major McBride fought on the side of our enemies in the Boer War and was therefore guilty of high treason?
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information on that point.

    Rossmore Evicted Tenants.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY (Limerick, W.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Simon Morrissey, who was in occupation of the farms of James Murphy and Laurence O'Connell, evicted tenants on the Shelton estate at Rossmore, in the county of Limerick, left the country about two years ago, and that the farms are since derelict; and whether, under these circumstances, the Estates Commissioners will approach the landlord immediately with a view to their reinstatement.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received applications for reinstatement from the persons named, and that they will have the cases duly inquired into by one of their inspectors with a view to effecting a settlement.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: When will the Inspector make the inquiries?
    MR. BRYCE: I am afraid it is impossible to fix a time, as there is a good deal of work on hand.

    Nantenan Evicted Tenant.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Ellen Sheehy, evicted tenant, of Nantenan, in the county of Limerick, has arranged with her landlord to purchase her holding, and that the tenants on the estate have signed agreements to purchase; under these circumstances, will he ask the Estates Commissioners to give her a grant for the purpose of rebuilding the dwelling-house on the evicted farm, which is in ruins, and for stocking and working the land.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that, at the request of the vendor, they have intimated the sum they are prepared to advance to Mrs. Sheehy for the purchase of her former holding. The Commissioners are not aware whether an agreement between Mrs. Sheehy and the landlord has yet been arrived at, but if Mrs. Sheehy should become the purchaser of the holding they will consider the question of making her a grant.

    Raheen Evicted Tenants.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether, having regard to the fact that John Sheehy, William Ryan and Owen Sheehy, of Raheen and Ballinaguile Croagh, in the County of Limerick, who were evicted from their holdings in the years 1884 and 1887, are still out of possession, and that the farms are in the possession of the landlord, Colonel R. Conway, an absentee landlord, he will take steps to see that the Estates Commissioners approach him with a view to bringing about a settlement.
    MR. BRYCE: I have already informed the hon. Member that the Estates Commissioners have received applications for reinstatement from the three persons named, and that the cases will be inquired into by an inspector. Until the inspector's report has been received and considered, the Commissioners are unable to decide what action they may take in

    191
    these cases. I can assure the hon. Member that the Estates Commissioners are doing their best to deal with, all these cases.

    Knight of Glin's Estate, Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that there is a number of evicted tenants on the Knight of Glin's estate, in the county of Limerick, who have been out of their holdings for years, he will din ct the Estates Commissioners to enter into negotiations with the landlord to bring about their reinstatement.
    MR. BRYCE: I beg to refer to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of Wednesday last.† The Estates Commissioners are unable to say what action they may take until they have received and considered their inspector's report.

    County Limerick Evicted Tenant.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say how many applications for reinstatement from evicted tenants in the county of Limerick the Estates Commissioners have received; and what action they have taken in regard to them.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that applications have been received from 309 persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants in County Limerick. In eighteen cases the applicants did not come within the class of persons mentioned in Section 2 of the Act of 1903. In twenty-six cases the applicants have been reinstated, and the remaining cases will be inquired into by the inspector who has been allocated to the district.

    Irish Lord Chancellors Salary.
    MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in order to provide additional funds for the Irish Labourers Act, he will reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to £5,000, the amount received as salary in that capacity by the Lord Chancellor of England.
    † See (4) Debates, clviii., 938–9.
    MR. BRYCE: The Answer is in the negative.
    MR. FULLERTON: Why? Are the duties more onerous in the case of the Irish Lord Chancellor than in the case of the Lord High Chancellor of England?
    MR. BRYCE: That is a Question of which notice ought to be given.

    Emigration from Ireland.
    MR. DOLAN (Leitrim, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the number of emigrants from Ireland during the past two months shows an increase over the corresponding figures for last year; and to what cause does he attribute the increase.
    MR. BRYCE: It is the case that the number of emigrants from Ireland during the past two months shows an increase over the number for the corresponding period of last year, but I have no information which would enable me to form a definite and positive opinion as to the cause of this increase. There are many causes, some of them operative in America and others here, which influence fluctuations in the number of emigrants.

    Labourers Acts Loans—Rates of Interest in the North Dublin District.
    MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the rate of interest charged to the North Dublin Rural District on loans repayable in fifty years, under the Labourers Acts, is 4¼ per cent., with a sinking fund of 2 per cent., making in all an annual payment of 6¼ per cent.; whether he will give a Return showing the rates of interest and repayment of principal prevalent in all the rural districts of Ireland in respect of labourers; and whether, in view of the rates prevalent in the North Dublin district, and other districts, he will consider the necessity of affording some relief from so heavy a burden.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed that a statement to the effect mentioned in the first part of the Question was made at a recent meeting of the North Dublin

    193
    Rural District Council. The fact, however, is that the present annuity upon a loan of £100 repayable in fifty years is £4 17s. 2d. and not £6 5s. Od., as stated. Since the passing of the original Labourers Act of 1883, loans have been granted from time to time at varying rates of interest having regard to the Treasury rates in force for the time being. The rate of the annuity for a fifty-year loan has, during that period, varied from £4 1s. 6d. to £4 17s. 2d., this rate being dependent on the rate of interest charged, which has varied from 3¼ to 4¼ per cent. A detailed Return such as is suggested would, I am informed, entail a considerable amount of labour without any corresponding advantage. The question of affording relief is one for the Treasury and had better be addressed to a Minister representing that department.
    MR. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.): Cannot the right hon. Gentleman promise a Return which will show in general outline the rates of interest for sinking fund of the whole period of the working of the Labourers Acts? We want a general summary—not a detailed Return.
    MR. BRYCE: I will see if that can be done. Perhaps the hon. Member will draw up the form of Return he desires.
    MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.): Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, for a loan of £20,000 sanctioned by the Board of Works last December, the interest charged was at the rate of £4 5s. per cent, whereas under the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the charge should be £2 15s. per cent.
    MR. BRYCE: I must ask for notice of that Question.

    Irish Trade Statistics.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the necessity for adopting means for collecting statistics regarding Ireland's trade with England and foreign countries; and whether, if this cannot be done under the law as it stands, he will introduce a Bill dealing with the matter.
    MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already informed the hon. Member in reply to a previous Question that there is no objection to publishing an annual Return if desired giving details of the Import and Export trade of Ireland carried on directly with Foreign Countries and British Possessions and further that the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are about to publish certain information as to the cross channel trade which they have procured through harbour and port authorities. The Board of Trade and Customs Department have no power to require details of the value of the. trade of Ireland which is carried on with or through Great Britain, and in view of the grave interference with trade, and of the expense which would be caused by the collection of such statistics, I am not prepared to introduce a Bill for the purpose.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some twenty years ago the authorities at the Irish customs ports collected these statistics and gave returns of imports and exports?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will inquire.

    Alleged Disorders in the Church of England.
    MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what day the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into alleged disorders in the Church of England may be expected.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. friend the Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool on May 28th. †
    MR. FULLERTON: What is the cause of the delay? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman press for the report?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government have no control over the Commission. I can only convey to the House what the expectations of the Commission are.
    † See (4) Debates, clviii., 97.

    The Unemployed Bill.
    MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now say when the promised Bill for amending the Unemployed Workmen Act will be introduced; and, in any case, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Bill in such time as will permit of its passage into law before the adjournment of the House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I answered this Question yesterday. I am afraid I can say nothing definite at present. I do not think it is at all likely that the Bill will be introduced in time for passage through all its stages before the summer adjournment.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise the extreme importance of giving local authorities time to make suitable arrangements?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, I am quite aware of that, but then our time is limited.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked if the Bill on passing would become immediately operative.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That will be considered.

    Colonial Vote.
    MR. A. E. W. MASON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the necessity of securing in South Africa wider opportunities for British settlers, he will grant an early day for the further discussion of the Colonial Vote.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are other grounds besides these mentioned by my hon. friend. We will do our best to find a day, though I fear it cannot be an early day.
    Sir J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us a more encouraging assurance that the Government will take action than we have received from the Under-Secretary?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.

    Scottish Estimates.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, seeing that there are thirteen Motions on the Paper challenging Votes in the Scottish Estimates, that not a single Vote has yet been passed, that only two and a half hours on Thursday, June 14th, were devoted to discussion on these estimates, and that there are several matters of importance to Scotland, which can only receive attention during the discussion on the Estimates, he will grant another day for Scottish business.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am well aware that Scotland has had a scanty allowance of time, but I am afraid I cannot extend the promise I gave the other day.

    STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, &c.
    Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Law have leave to sit To-morrow during the sitting of the House for the consideration of the Workmen's Compensation Bill.—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)

    DOGS BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c, with Amendments.
    Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 207.]
    Ordered, That the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee be printed. [No. 207.]
    Ordered, That the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be taken into consideration To-morrow, and be printed. [Bill 264.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, in respect to the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry

197
(Scotland) Bill:—Mr. M'Kinnon Wood; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Cleland.
Report to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
DUBLIN POLICE BILL.
Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Dublin Police Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Bryce.)
NEW BILL.
  STRANGERS IN BLOOD INTERPRETATION BILL.
  "To interpret the meaning of the term stranger in blood under the Legacy and Succession Duty Acts," presented by Sir William Bull; to be read a second time upon Monday, July 9th, and to be printed. [Bill 265.]

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 3:—
  MR. PIKE PEASEmoved to leave out the word "if" from the beginning of sub-section (1), with the object of subsequently moving other Amendments with a view to making the granting of facilities obligatory. The hon. Member suggested that they might have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education with regard to the question as to whether religious teaching in the schools would or would not be given during school hours. Anyone who had a full knowledge of the question knew very well that a large percentage of the children would
  198
  not receive any religious instruction unless such instruction was given during school hours. One could imagine an English village school with the children inside, listening to those playing outside. He hoped and trusted in the interests of the children of the country, that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of making some statement upon the question that day, because it was of great importance in connection with the Amendment before them. Some time ago they had a division with regard to secular education, and he believed there were in one lobby sixty-two Members. That did not represent the feeling of the House and the country upon the question, but at the same time it showed that there was a deep feeling among the people in favour of religious education being given during school hours. If it was not obligatory for children to go to school to receive religious instruction there was no doubt at least one-third of them would receive no moral teaching in the schools at all. There was no Member of the House who could say that a mandate was given to the Liberal Party to do away with religious instruction during school hours, and he thought there were few hon. Members who would not prefer religious instruction in school hours. The President of the Board of Education had said that he intended the clause to be not a sham but a reality, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had supported that view. It was desirable that they should have some definition in the Bill with regard to what "extended facilities," and "ordinary facilities" meant. The man in the street believed that every ordinary school would have these facilities, but members of the Committee knew that there was no foundation for such a statement. The local authority need not take over a school at all, and there was no provision for compelling local authorities to make the granting of facilities a condition of the arrangement. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, would be able to say whether this teaching would be given in school hours and that the clause would be made mandatory.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 24, to leave out the word 'if.'"—(Mr. Pike Pease.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'if' stand part of the clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)said the hon. Member had referred to Clause 6, which provided that "the parent of a child attending a public elementary school shall not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at the schoolhouse, except during the times allotted in the time-table exclusively to secular instruction." The hon. Member desired to know whether the Government contemplated any alteration of the provisions of that clause. All he could say was that upon that point the Government were perfectly willing when they came to Clause 6 that the question should be fairly and fully considered in such a way as to secure, if possible, that the children should be required to attend. That was not a view that met with special favour in his mind, because he had always been of opinion that, if they wished to make the conscience clause really effective, they ought to make it easy for the child as well as for the parent to claim exemption. For that reason he favoured the clause in the form in which it now appeared. But there was a great deal of feeling the other way, and when the Committee came to that clause the fullest opportunity would be afforded for considering the question—it might be upon a Government Amendment, although as to that he had not yet come to any definite conclusion; but he thought that in all probability the Committee would have an opportunity of considering the question on a Government Amendment. At all events, the whole question would be open for consideration and there would be no attempt whatsoever to take the clause as it at present stood as representing the view of the Government upon this important point. With regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, he did not think the clause as it at present stood was in any way open to any other objection than that there was no obligation upon the local authority to take a school at all. That was the gap of which so much had been heard. That gap was always in the mind of the Government; they knew perfectly well it was there, and he thought it would be found that in his speeches he had not used language inconsistent with that statement. The Government always contem
  200
  plated that there was no obligation whatever on the local authority to take over a school, but they always contemplated that the schools would be willing to come over, and that the authorities would be desirous to take them; and that, when that was done, these facilities should be made a compulsory condition of their being taken over. They did not intend that a local authority should refuse to take a school because if it did it would have to grant facilities. That was not the intention of the Government, nor was it the effect of the clause; but by either a new clause or a new sub-section he would make it perfectly plain that the local authority, if it did take over a school, must grant these facilities, and also, possibly, say how it was to proceed to take it over. He wanted to make it perfectly clear, however, that the Government could not, and did not, propose to take away from the local authority the responsibility of providing for its own school requirements, and that they could not make it compulsory on the local authority to take over a school simply because one was there. It would be ridiculous to impose on the local authority the obligation of making suitable provision if they did not leave them free to say what suitable provision was. Subject to these considerations he hoped a way had been found to bridge over the gap. The Amendment could not be accepted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman was a most important one. But he wished to begin his remarks by thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he had made, rather, as he gathered, against his own natural inclination, to the very strong feeling which undoubtedly existed both in and out of the House. He did not regard as so satisfactory the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on the difficult problem of how to ensure that there should be these religious facilities given in schools, if they left, as the Government now desired to leave, a discretion to the local authority. He was not sure that the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman squared with, he would not say his previous speeches, but the impression which those speeches had left on the minds of the Committee. He certainly was under j the impression that, when the right

  201
  hon. Gentleman made the promise that he would, on the Report stage, bring forward an Amendment to bridge over the gap between Clause 1 and Clause 3, it carried with it an obligation on the local education authority to take over those schools which consisted of buildings fit for educational purposes. There was a common agreement on both sides of the Committee that it would be most unjust to compel the local authority to take over schools which were so seriously defective that, obviously, the proper course was to build a new school; but he thought the Government agreed with them in thinking that, subject to that exceptional qualification, there was to be an obligation on the local authority to take over voluntary schools. Now he understood the Government had withdrawn from that. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] He looked that morning at the imperfect report, as all reports of their proceedings in Committee were imperfect, in The Times of what the right hon. Gentleman said last night, and he certainly gathered, both from the speech which he had just made and from the words that fell from him last night, that he did not propose to require local authorities to take over schools in all cases, not even in those, necessarily, where the school was fit for educational purposes. He hoped that before they left this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman would clear up for ever certain ambiguities which seemed to attach to the utterances of the Government on the subject and the doubts which were very widely spread on both sides of the House. He did not think the Government had made it quite clear, so far as this gap was concerned, exactly what it was they meant to require the local authority to do. But there was another gap the true character and importance of which he did not think the right hon. Gentleman appreciated. Supposing the trustees of a school said they would rather not enter into any arrangements with the local authority, then, under Clause 8, the fate of that school was handed over to the Commission of Three, who had power to impose conditions of transfer upon the voluntary school, but not to impose conditions of reception or acquisition on the part of the local authority. That was a separate and quite distinct gap in the scheme of the Government, for this one-sided imposition of terms had no corresponding
  202
  coercive effect on the other party to the transaction.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was getting very wide of the question before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be opening up the whole question of the Bill and not the particular Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he quite agreed with the Chairman's ruling. He only wanted to show that he thought the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn from the pledges he had given to the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he wanted the right hon. Gentleman to confine his observations as far as possible to the facilities given under Clause 3.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would confine his observations to the religious side of the question. There were two points in which the mandatory character of religious facilities was really not given by anything which the Government had promised either upon tins or any other clause.
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)said that the discussion had been from the start entirely out of order. The Amendment, so far as he could understand it—and it was not easy to grasp its bearing—was intended to make the granting of facilities for religious instruction mandatory in all cases where a school was taken over by the local authority. But if a school were taken over under Clause 2, on the terms of the trustees, the granting of facilities under Clause 3 was mandatory as the clause stood. Where the hon. Member seemed to have gone astray both in his Amendment and in his speech, was that he did not recognise that this was a matter which came back to Clause 2. The question of whether a school could be taken over had to be settled under Clause 2; but supposing the question was settled under that clause, then Clause 3 became mandatory. If, under Clause 2, the school was taken over, the Board must give the facilities. He was surprised that the subtle intellect of the noble Lord the-Member for East Marylebone could not

  203
  realise that point, but there was no doubt that the first gap was in Section 2. He quite agreed in the importance attached by the Leader of the Opposition to the terms of the Amendment of the Government which was to be put upon the Paper in regard to Clause 2, but he did not think that it would be orderly or profitable to discuss the question now. He hoped and had no doubt that that Amendment would be put upon the Paper in good time for them to consider and discuss it. The real point they were now discussing was whether this proposed Amendment increased the mandatory or the compulsory force of Clause 3. He could not see that it did, and he thought that hon. Members should address themselves to Clauses 6 and 8 in regard to this question, because even if the Amendment were carried, the clause would have no more effect than it had at present.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid he found himself unable to agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo. There were two "ifs" which stood between the owners and the acquisition of these special facilities. One was "if" the school had been transferred—they had nothing to say about that question now, because they had dealt with it under Clause 2—but there was another "if," namely, "if" the granting of these facilities had been made a condition of the transfer, either under an arrangement between the owners and the local authority under Clause 2 or under a scheme made by the Commission of Three under Clause 8. He ventured—although he was not a lawyer—to say that without the assent of the local authority these facilities could not be made a condition of the transfer. Hence, unless the Government accepted the proposed Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Darlington, they had no assurance whatever that the facilities would ever become a condition of the transfer. The Minister for Education last night said that there were two gaps; the second gap which he discovered being that if the owners or trustees did not make facilities a condition of transfer there might very truly be a difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman observed that this was a somewhat small gap, for the
  204
  Government assumed that they could safely rely upon owners and trustees to make the condition part of the bargain. But a further gap which the right hon. Gentleman did not notice was far more important and it was with this they were now concerned. The local authority might make it a condition of the transfer that these facilities should not be granted. That was what they had to guard against. In either case, whether under Clause 2 or Clause 8, the local authority had the final word in deciding the question. In one of his speeches last night, the Minister for Education had assumed that in every case where the transfer took place facilities would be given. He only appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give effect to that assumption. They had not heard from Ministers what would happen if an authority objected to the facilities being given. Ministers had assumed that they would be given. Why not, therefore, say in the Bill that they should be given? It might be said that this would show an undue distrust of local authorities. He did not think so. They could not forget that there had been speeches made recently, only a few in the House but a good many outside, revealing a hardness and want of sympathy which inspired a certain distrust, he would not say of local authorities as a whole, but of certain individuals who, flushed with the pride of political victory, were prepared to drive hard bargains, even in regard to matters of conscience. He would appeal to the Minister for Education to allow this matter of facilities once and for all to be lifted above the region of wrangling and placed outside local politics. Moreover, what was meant by "facilities." It was all obscure and vague. Were they to be given during the time in which the local authority had the control of the school? He imagined that that was so, because otherwise the owners could get quite as much without claiming the facilities at all out of school hours. Again, was the Cowper-Temple instruction to be given concurrently with the special facilities and at the same hour? That is to say, were those who did not desire want the special facilities to get the Cowper-Temple instruction as an alternative. A third point was whether

  205
  denominational teaching might be given every day of the week provided no child received it more than twice a week? The question of facilities had been solved elsewhere, although he had a certain hesitation in referring to the subject, because the Minister for Education had deprecated any allusion to the experience of other countries. The Secretary for India, however, not very long ago said that—
  "Serious persons must reflect that whilst we are wrangling over unnecessary issues, our German and other rivals are straining every nerve to have real education."
  Well, what happened in Germany? In Germany there was a dual system; on the one hand there were a certain number of mixed schools containing children of different denominations. The parents of these children had not a conditional but an assured right to the religious instruction they desired being given in school hours and by competent teachers. But the mixed system was quite exceptional. The ordinary system, however, was that of strictly denominational schools, where children were educated in their own creed. This prevailed wherever there was an adequate number of children of one denomination and was almost universal. Some years ago Liberal feeling in Germany was rather against the denominational system, but experience had shown that the denominational were so superior to the mixed schools that he would mention opinion was now in favour of the denominational schools. The only other country was Ireland. He could not help being impressed with the marked contrast between the religious toleration in matters of education that obtained in Ireland and the singular intolerance that existed in England. Whatever might be the faults of Ireland in other ways, in her educational system she had managed to find a concordat. She, too, had a two-fold method answering to Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill. In all the "vested" schools, which corresponded roughly to the "provided" schools in England, a right of entry was allowed. It was not a matter of bargaining; and the religious instruction so given was that which was approved of by the parents or guardians. The teachers who
  206
  gave it might be either the school teacher or someone, cleric or layman, brought in from outside. And in Ireland precisely the same thing occurred as in Germany; the denominational schools vastly preponderated. The theory in Ireland was that of combined secular and separate religious instruction; but in practice the denominational system better satisfied the consciences of the people. There were 8,500 national schools in Ireland and only 1,829 of these were mixed schools. After all, "facilities" were only a second best expedient. That was the first lesson to be drawn from the experience of other countries. They were useful as a subsidiary arrangement to meet practical difficulties or to satisfy theoretical grievances, but they were not in themselves a security for a sound religious education. Secondly, the general intrusion of amateurs was dangerous to the discipline of schools. Thirdly, in so far as mixed schools were carried on with any success, it was by the employment of the school teachers in the school hours, and. moreover, by opening up the right to all denominations alike. His inference, therefore, was that Clause 3 was useful as an adjunct and supplement to Clause 4, but that Clause 4 ought to be largely and generously expanded.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Mr. ROBSON,)said the Amendment made a small but very important change in the clause. As the clause now stood the arrangement between the local authority and the trustees of voluntary schools was to be a voluntary arrangement. The Amendment proposed to put into that voluntary arrangement a compulsory term. That was not, in his opinion, the most convenient mode of conducting or concluding a voluntary negotiation. At present the trustees might or might not demand facilities for special privileges; the Amendment proposed that they should be compelled to do so. The short answer to the hon. Member was that the Amendment proposed to incorporate a compulsory term into a voluntary negotiation: that was not the most desirable way of conducting a voluntary negotiation, and they had no need to travel to foreign countries to discover that.
  MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)said he desired to say one word upon the effect of Clause 3 as it would be if amended on the lines proposed by his hon. friend. The hon. Member for Cambridge University had said that he regarded Clause 3 as an important addition and complement to Clause 4, but really in the practical application of this Act Clauses 3 and 4 dealt with totally different classes of schools. Clause 3 was the one slight hope which was left to the rural schools of the country. Clause 4 could not apply in its present form to the rural schools. It was Clause 3 which would govern the rural school system. The hon. Member for East Mayo did not believe the Amendment was necessary, because the trustees under Clause 2 and subsequent clauses would have the power to make the granting of these facilities a compulsory part of the transfer. That, he thought, was not so. The Solicitor General had just said that this arrangement was to be voluntary, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not even know his own Bill, because in Clause 2 the Government made the part relating to the transfer compulsory. When they were discussing Clause 2 they sought to add a sub-section to sub-section (a) making not only maintenance but the granting of facilities a compulsory result of the transfer. That Amendment was resisted successfully, hon. Gentlemen opposite point to Clause 3 as the means for securing the desirod result. It was therefore only to Clause 3 that they had to look for the provision of these religious facilities in the rural schools. His hon. friend had asked, and he hoped that the question would be answered, as it was very important that the Committee should be given an idea of the way in which these facilities were to be granted, because if they were not to be made mandatory it would be a cause of very great irritation and difficulty in the country districts. It was for that reason that the Opposition the other day pressed on the Government, with ultimate success, the contention that this House should accept, and not transfer to the local authority, the responsibility of deciding whether or not those religious facilities should be granted.
  208
  He could well conceive a local education authority, moved, as they undoubtedly would be, by the arguments which had been frequently expressed in this House, being led in some cases to vary their action. But if this clause were made mandatory, and the Amendment of the Government took the form which. they most certainly thought it would take and which the report of the debates of the time justified them in believing was then intended, namely, of imposing upon the local authority the obligation of granting these facilities provided the schools were fit and efficient for educational purposes, then the whole of the religious controversy would be removed from the local area. Otherwise the local authority would not be able to avoid discussing these controversial questions. If his hon. friend's Amendment were adopted, they would lay down what was to be the principle to guide the local authorities in future. That the granting of these facilities should be an obligatory part of the bargain was the least measure of justice that could be granted. He had hoped the Minister for Education would have told them something about the scheme of these facilities, as to which the Committee were in ignorance. No doubt the Government had some definite idea as to a scheme which, if the right hon. Gentleman would take them into his confidence, would help the Committee in discussing the clause. He hoped all those who believed that, in common justice, when a voluntary school was transferred it should be an obligation that religious facilities should be granted would not be led away by any doubt as to the meaning of Clause 2 or the effect of Clause 3 in its present form, but would see that the scheme could be carried out in no other way than by adopting the Amendment of his hon. friend, or something very much like it. This was the least measure of justice that could be given to those schools which had done such invaluable work for the children of the country, which work they were anxious to continue, only asking that they should be treated with fairness.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid they could not—as he thought the hon. Member for East Mayo quite accurately pointed out—consider any provisions that might be

  209
  hereafter proposed for bridging over the gap of Clause 2. It could not be done on Clause 3. There was a gap, and it was the intention of the Government that there should be that gap. But he had promised to introduce, at the termination of the Committee stage on Clause 4, words which very possibly would alter the situation very much, because the four-fifths schools might be fully provided for by and under that clause, and the gap in that case filled up. It would then remain to consider the filling up of the gap generally; but it would be out of order to attempt to do it on this clause. The Government did not want to make it absolutely compulsory that, in the case of every school that was taken over under Clause 3, the granting of these denominational facilities should be made a condition, because it would be found in the case of a good many of those schools, when their trusts came to be examined, that they ought not to have a denominational character at all. The Amendment was quite unnecessary, unless it were considered rather in the way in which the right lion. Gentleman who had just sat down construed it as making it obligatory upon the local authority—
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that what he desired to make clear was that where the transfer of a voluntary school took place, the granting of religious facilities should be as obligatory as was the burden of expenditure which was made.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid this seemed to him to be a very narrow point. He quite agreed, and he had already said so, that it was certainly not intended that when a local authority wanted to take over a school they should make it a condition that, if the facilities in question were insisted on, they would not take over the school. That was not the intention of the clause, and he could not conceive that it was the effect of the clause as it stood. But he was perfectly ready to consider that question and to make it perfectly plain that if the local authority wanted to take the school, and if the trustees wanted to have facilities, then facilities there should be.
  LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said there seemed to be some misapprehension on this point. The question was this: supposing there was a local education authority that did not want on conscientious grounds to grant special facilities under Clause 3, it could avoid the obligations which the right hon. Gentleman thought rested upon it by refusing to take over the school. They were discussing the point under some disadvantage, because they did not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman's clause was going to be. There were two ways in which the local education authority could avoid its obligation. They could refuse to take the school over on these grounds, and the matter might be argued before the Commission. They might succeed in persuading the Commission, but they were perfectly safe in any case, because the Commission could not put upon them anything unless they consented. The second way of avoiding their obligation was not to make it a condition of arrangements—that was to say, not a condition of the voluntary agreement. The Solicitor-General, differing entirely as he understood from the Minister for Education, regarded it as very desirable that it should be a matter of arrangement and discussion between the trustees and the local education authority. He did not understand that to be the view of the Minister for Education, and the only way to avoid the difficulty was to say that it should not be a matter of discussion between the two whether the facilities should be granted or not. It was an important point, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman admitted it.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he would consult with the noble Lord as to the best words to carry it into effect.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the remarks of the Minister for Education were very satisfactory, because there was certainly an impression left on his mind, and, he thought, upon other minds, that the statement the right hon. Gentleman made to-day was not in harmony with that which he made the other day. From the previous statement they clearly understood that one condition only was

  211
  to be permitted to interfere with the necessity of taking over a voluntary school, but to-day he understood the right hon. Gentleman to give a much larger concession. Was there intended to be any difference between the two statements? If not, what was the nature of the loophole which would enable the local authorities to escape from making this arrangement?
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)said it was obvious that a great deal of the discussion was wasted because they had not before them the exact terms of the Amendment to Clause 2 foreshadowed by his right hon. friend. But the Amendment now before the House raised a perfectly clear and intelligible issue, and he did make an appeal to his right hon. friend in the strongest terms. The right hon. Gentleman had already somewhat strained the allegiance of many of his strongest followers in the House of Commons by the Amendment which he had promised, placing as it would the discretion of the local education authority at the disposal of the Board of Education. He could assure his right hon. friend that many of his supporters who had sat silent on the Ministerial Benches with the view of helping the Bill forward, and they intended to do so to the utmost of their power, had listened to the foreshadowing of that Amendment with much doubt and misgiving. He hoped that in Clauses 3 and 4 his right hon. friend would show some firmness and some adherence to the general principles of the Bill, upon which he had obtained the power he now exercised as Minister for Education and upon which the Government had obtained their great majority. On the Ministerial side they were as anxious as hon. Members opposite to facilitate the advance of education by securing real peace in the schools on this religious question. He had not the slightest doubt that in dealing with village schools the local authorities would exercise generosity, discretion, and wisdom, but he warned the Minister for Education that he would strain to a dangerous point the allegiance of his followers if he consented to this whittling away of the discretionary power of the local education authorities in dealing with these vital issues under the Bill. The whole
  212
  future of education was bound up in the discretionary power and rights of the local education authorities, and they regarded with the very gravest misgiving any tendency to yield to the very ingenious and able arguments advanced from the other side. Those arguments were based upon the one contention that the Party opposite desired to maintain on a permanent footing and with the sanction of the law the denominational system in this country. What they wished was to treat the present denominational schools and their teaching with as much generosity and forbearance as possible. It was for that reason that he welcomed this clause as a fair solution, just as much as he was determined to vote against Clause 4 in whatever form it finally assumed.
  LORD BALCARRESreminded the Committee that the President of the Board of Education had already given them a promise that in cases of properly equipped sanitary schools the local education authority would have to grant facilities if demanded.
  MR. BIRRELL: But the point my hon. friend was referring to is in regard to bridging the gap.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid that if there was anything in the statement of the President of the Board of Education that he proposed to fill up the gap which existed in Clause 3 by making Clause 4 mandatory then the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire might have something to say on Monday next. The value of those facilities was largely governed by Clause 6. There was no provision in Clause 3 as regards school hours. The Minister for Education had told them that Clause 6 was going to be amended—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Will the noble Lord kindly confine himself to the Amendment.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he wished to discuss the question of facilities, and they depended upon what was going to be done in Clause 6. In the event of Clause 6 being amended, he wished to know if this special denominational instruction would

  213
  actually be given out of the hours of compulsory school attendance. This was a point to which they attached very great importance.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise at this stage.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSdesired to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education for his very satisfactory assurances as to what he would do when they reached Clause 6. Two points had troubled the owners of voluntary schools; one was that the children should be allowed to go free during the hour for religious instruction, and the second was as to the teachers having the option of giving religious instruction. With regard to the Amendment, what they wanted was that if the owners and trustees of voluntary schools required these facilities under Clause 3 they must be given. If that was made clear by the Amendment, Members on that side would be satisfied.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that if they went much farther in the direction in which the Minister for Education had gone, they would find the Bill being voted for consistently by Members of the Opposition and voted against by those sitting on the Ministerial side. The Amendment made the clause read absolutely absurd. He understood that the Minister for Education was going to lead his supporters into the Lobby against the Amendment. He was in favour of the clause as it stood at present. They had got into a great many of these muddles by discussing other clauses and promised Amendments which were not before the Committee, but the essence of this clause, and indeed the essential principle of the whole Bill, was that the local education authority should not be compelled to do certain things, and that it should be in their discretion to do certain things. The essence of the clause was that the local authority should be able to enter into an arrangement with the owners of voluntary schools, and if they did, then they were to have power to grant these facilities. The meaning of the clause was perfectly clear. The object of the Amendment was to place
  214
  compulsion upon the local education authority. He voted for the Second Reading upon the basis that these were to be matters of arrangement between the local education authority and the owners of denominational schools. Upon those grounds he should vote against the Amendment. If there was any more compulsion put upon the education authority he should certainly be compelled to abstain if he did not vote against the Government. This was all to be a matter of arrangement, and it was absurd to hold out these hopes to the other side.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the discussion had shown that the Opposition were justified in the arguments they had put forward in regard to this clause. They assumed that the Minister for Education was quite sincere in granting facilities to religious denominations in connection with voluntary schools, and they assumed that the facilities would be real and not illusory. If the children were not compelled to attend, and if the teachers were not obliged to teach them, the intentions of the Government would be nullified by the operation of Clauses 6 and 7. They were appealing to the Government that Clause 3 should be so amended as to make it certain that the declared intention of the Government would be carried out. Members of the Opposition assumed that the intention of the Government would not be carried out by the clause in its present form. He thought they all clearly understood that if a local authority desired to take over a school, and the trustees desired to hand it over, facilities should be compulsory—that was to say that the local education authority should give the facilities.
  MR. BIRRELL: If they are asked for.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that as this was now understood, the discussion had produced great good. If there was any confusion in the minds of hon. Members opposite regarding the clause the Minister for Education had taken the opportunity of clearing up that misunderstanding. In the minds of hon. Members en the Opposition side of the House,

  215
  there had been a complete lack of understanding on the matter until it was cleared up. They expressed their deep satisfaction that they had secured what they wished for, and what the Government intended to grant. The voluntary schools had been, in a sense the property of those who founded them, who gave most of the money for them, and who through many years under trying conditions supported out of their own pockets, with very little help from the State, the education which was for the good not only of Church of England children, but of Nonconformist children, and the children of the poor who had no faith at all.
  MR. HARWOODsaid the remarks of the hon. members for East Northamptonshire and Mid-Glamorgan shire were quite uncalled for. As he understood the matter the Minister for Education had done no more than give assurances which would make quite sure what everyone understood to be his intention. He did not think there was a single person in the House who heard the speech of the Minister for Education who did not understand it to be his intention that, provided the local authorities thought it desirable to take over the schools, and provided the owners of the schools desired to have these facilities, it should not be within the power of the local authorities to refuse them. He must protest against the Government being threatened in this childish and tragic way.
  MR. HERBERTsaid he understood that the position desired to be met by the Amendment was this. There was, let them suppose, a voluntary school which, from a sanitary point of view, was suitable, and which from the point of view of educational necessity and economy the local authority would be willing to take over; but the local authority said to the trustees that they did not mean to have any denominational instruction given in the school, and, therefore, the trustees made it a condition that they would not hand it over unless the local authority gave them the right to facilities for denominational instruction under Clause 3. He understood that such a case would be clearly covered by the undertaking given
  216
  by the Minister for Education. He did not quite agree with the interpretation which the Leader of the Opposition had been putting on the words of the Minister for Education. The right hon. Gentleman stated distinctly what hon. Members on his side of the House understood to be his intention. The Leader of the Opposition put it this way—
  "If you grant that a voluntary school is structurally fit, then the local education authority must take it over."
  He said No.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If desired by the trustees.
  MR. HERBERTsaid that if there was a large provided school built with the view of meeting the future needs of the neighbourhood, surely it could not be right from the point of view of the public interest that the trustees of a non-provided school should be able to say, "You must take it over, although from the point of view of the educational interest, you do not require it." That was the sense in which the Minister for Education was understood on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had clearly given an undertaking that a school should not be refused simply because it was a denominational school. If the owners of a voluntary school made it a condition of handing it over that facilities should be provided, it would not then be open to the local authority to say that they would not comply with that condition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the speech of the hon. Member for the Wycombe Division brought out exactly the point on which there was still some slight doubt in the minds of those who heard the debate the other day, and who listened to the statement of the Minister for Education. He certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman went further than the hon. Member. A local authority might find that they had accommodation at their disposal in which all the children in a district could be received. There was, however, a denominational school in the district which, let them say, was a perfectly fit structure. According to his view of the Government pledge, the

  217
  needs of denominational education would be safeguarded by making it compulsory for the local education authority to take over that second school; but according to the view of the hon. Member for the Wycombe division, the Government had entered into no such undertaking. It was evident that there was really a material difference between these two versions as to what the Government intended. The hon. Member had clearly put forward his conception of the pledge. He hoped he had not less clearly put forward his view of it. He hoped the matter would be cleared up by the Minister of Education.
  MR. DILLONasked whether it was or was not open to the Committee now to discuss the terms of the pledge given by the Government in regard to Clause 2.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not open to the Committee to discuss that subject.
  LORD MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said that under the present Act the difficulty alluded to by an hon. Member had already arisen in one of the divisions of Buckinghamshire. He had in his mind the case of a small village with two schools—one British and one Church of England. It was obvious that from the educational point of view it was a bad method of educating the children.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is the same question again. It is really not in order, because the matter does not come under the terms of this Amendment.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid the Minister for Education had stated that the granting of facilities should be optional. He reminded the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the First Reading of the Bill, when referring to Clauses 2 and 3, said that the facilities were to be of a compulsory character.
  MR. LUPTONsaid he objected to the Amendment because it took away from the local authority the power to manage their schemes. The Bill as it stood referred to the arrangements made at the taking over of
  218
  the schools. If the Amendment were adopted it would be in the power of the owners or trustees of the school to call upon the local authority at some future time to make a different arrangement from that agreed upon at the taking over of the schools. He hoped the Minister for Education would stick to the Bill, and that while he tried to conciliate members opposite he would not disregard a large body of feeling on his own side of the House.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that the point raised by the Amendment was not of such importance as was represented. It was thought that pressure might be put by the local authority on the trustees to waive the condition they had the power to make as to facilities for religious teaching, and that it might be conveyed to them somehow or other that if they insisted on that condition the school might not be taken over. Therefore it was proposed to make the condition mandatory. He submitted that the Bill dealt with the matter in a better way than the Amendment. If they wanted the school, the local authority had the power to go to the Commissioners under Clause 8. There might be circumstance in which it would be well to allow the trustees to waive the conditions and hand over the school. There might be circumstances in which the local authority would hold it to be undesirable to continue a school as a denominational school. For instance, in a village in which nine-tenths of the population were Non conformists, it might be better to make provision for the denominational teaching of a tenth of the children outside the schools rather than build a new school. He could not conceive that the law would ever compel a local authority to take over a denominational school in a case of that kind. Without addressing any minatory language to the Minister for Education he ventured to suggest that his own scheme of a Commission to consider on what terms a trust school was to be taken over was a better method than that proposed in the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education would clear up the point at issue.
  MR. BIRRELLaid that he had undertaken to bring in an Amendment in the best words that could be found as soon as they had disposed of Clause 4. He could not go into the matter now without a much longer statement than he was inclined to make at that moment. The only undertaking which he had given was in reply to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University, as to making it obligatory on the part of the local authorities to take over the voluntary schools. He did then admit that it was impossible for the Government to consider a one-sided obligation of that sort, without a corresponding obligation on the part of all owners of voluntary schools to hand over their schools to the local authorities if the local authorities wished it. It was, therefore, a double-barrelled obligation. That was all the promise he had made; and he was not bound by any promise or kind of obligation other than that. Then he went on to say that, if it could be arranged without destroying the educational responsibility of the
  local authorities, he was anxious to secure that no local authority should refuse to take over the proper voluntary school simply and solely because of the religious facilities and obligations which would be attached to it under Clauses 3 and 4. That was all that was in his mind. After Clause 4 was disposed of, the Government would introduce such words as might be necessary for that purpose.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid he wished to withdraw his Amendment, which had called forth two statements of the greatest importance from the Minister for Education, viz., in regard to religious education being given in school hours and also in regard to making that power mandatory.
  Leave to withdraw Amendment being refused—
  Question put.
  The Committee divided—Ayes, 387; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 139.)

  AYES.

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

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Clough, W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

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

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Blake, Edward

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Agnew, George William

  Boland, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Allen, A. Acland (Cliristchurch)

  Boulton, A. C. F (Ramsey)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Branch, James

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

  Armitage, R.

  Bright, J. A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Brunner, Sir John T. (Cheshire)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Cremer, William Randal

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Crombie, John William

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crooks, William

  Barker, John

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Crossley, William J.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydeny Chas

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Barry, E (Cork. S.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. SydneyChas.

  Davies, W. (Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Beale, W. P.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Delany, William

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Beaumont, Hubert (Eastbourne

  Cameron, Robert

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

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

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Chance, Frederick William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bennett, E. N.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Dillon, John

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Bertram, Julius

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Duckworth, James

  Billson, Alfred

  Cleland, J. W.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien Kendal (Tipperary Mid.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Erskine, David C.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  ODoherty, Philip

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Essex, R. W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Dowd, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Grady, J.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lambert, George

  O'Malley, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Mara, James

  Field, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Findlay, Alexander

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Partington, Oswald

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Perks, Robert William

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lundon, W.

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lupton, Arnold

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pollard, Dr.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ginnell, H.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

  Price Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Grant, Corrie

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Reddy, M.

  Gulland, John W

  Mac Veigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Arthur, William

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Crae, George

  Rees, J. D.

  Halpin, J.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Hammond, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Micking, Major G.

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

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Mallett, Charles E.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Harwood, George

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Robinson, S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mond, A.

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Hazelton, Richard

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Montagu, E. S.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Russell, T. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morse, L. L.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Hogan, Michael

  Murnaghan, George

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murphy, John

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murray, James

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

  Myer, Horatio

  Sears, J. E.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Napier, T. B.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Seddon, J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nicholls, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)

  Shackleton, David James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Norman, Henry

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nuttall, Harry

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  222

  223

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Torrance, A. M.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Ure, Alexander

  Wiles, Thomas

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

  Verney, F. W.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Snowden, P.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walker, H. D. R. (Leicester)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Spicer, Albert

  Wallace, Robert

  Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh,

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Steadman W. G.

  Walters. John Tudor

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Winfrey, R.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Young, Samuel

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOE THE AYES—Mr.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Thorne, William

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pease.

  Tomkinson, James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Nield, Herbert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Parker, SirGilbert (Gravesend)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Percy, Earl

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Balfour. RtHn A. J. (CityLond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Balfour Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks East)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood

  Haddock, George R.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

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

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Starkey, John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Talbot, Lord. E (Chichester)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. HonCol. W.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Liddell, Henry

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cave, George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

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

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Maryleyone, E.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Craik, Sir Henry.

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Viscount Valentia.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield)

  MR. MASSIEobjected to the expression "of some special character," as describing the religious instruction to be given under the facilities provided by this clause and Clause 4, and moved to delete it and insert "in accordance with the pro-
  224
  visions of the trust deed." He wished to know whether some limit could not be put upon the variety of the religious instruction. It was important that the character of this religious instruction should be specified as definitely as possible, as leave to give it

  225
  would be part of the lease; and it seemed bette to define it according to the trust deeds than leave it to be wrangled about or to be interpreted by the Courts. These deeds usually described the instruction in a simple and definite form, such as "in accordance with the teaching of the Church of England" or the "doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church." The only reason for these facilities was respect for the trust deeds, and this object might be frustrated by the ambiguity of the phrase, since the parents of four-fifths of the children might capture particular schoolsforan alien faith. These were the reasons for which he asked the Government to give the Committee a more exact definition of "religious instruction of a special character," and that was the main purpose of his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 25, to leave out the words 'of some special character,' and insert the words 'in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.'"—(Mr. Massie.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. LOUGHsaid the object of this Amendment was to obtain some clear explanation of the words "some special character." It was suggested that they might possibly get something somewhat clearer than the words in the Bill. But they had had an illustration of the difficulty of doing that in the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman suggested the words "in accordance with the provisions of the trust deeds," but in a great many cases there were no trust deeds at all. The hon. Member did not tell the Committee the way out of the difficulty. Then again in many cases the trust-deed did not define clearly what the nature of the religious instruction was to be, and they would in those cases have to trace from other sources the growth of the religious teaching that existed. That was a great difficulty of which the suggestion in the Amendment would not get rid. Another difficulty was the change of the tone
  226
  of the religious teaching in this country. He submitted that all these difficulties were exceedingly well met by the happy expression which the Government had incorporated in the Bill, and he did not see his way to accept the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORdid not consider that the explanation of his hon. friend had altogether disposed of the difficulty. In the Act of 1902 the question of trust deeds came up, and a special provision was inserted by the House of Lords with regard to them. In the Act of 1902 the bishops or other ecclesiastical authorities were given as the court of appeal to decide whether the religious instruction given in a school was or was not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. When that Act was in Committee he moved an Amendment that the court of appeal should be the Privy Council, but it was rejected. Under this Bill provision was going to be made for religious instruction of a special character. That was all they knew about it; trust deeds were not mentioned; no particular religion was named; they did not even know the hemisphere from which the religion was to be drawn. It was upon that that he asked, Was there to be any appeal in case of dissatisfaction on the part of the parents of the children who attended the school? Who was going to decide after the bargain was made? Supposing that in a particular school special facilities for evangelical teaching were given, and the people woke up to the fact that a Roman Catholic in the guise of a Churchman had taken the place of the Evangelical clergyman, was there to be any court of appeal to decide whether the provisions of the special facilities had been complied with, and as to whether the children were getting the facilities which the local authority bargained they should get? It ought not to be left in doubt, especially owing to the very serious changes which were taking place in the Church. He wanted to know from his hon. friend, not whether he was prepared to alter the wording of this particular clause, but whether they were to have any further appeal in case dissatisfaction arose from the fact that the religious instruction given was not what the local authority expected when it

  227
  made the bargain, and was not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed.
  MR. LOUGHwas understood to say that he thought the provision was perfectly clear.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had not met the point of the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division. What was the meaning of the words "of some special character?" He did not know; he saw nothing in the clause to explain what they meant. Apparently they meant the special character of the religion provided for in the trust deeds. If they did not mean that he did not know what they did mean. They might mean nothing so far as he could see. This was an admirable illustration of the extraordinary ambiguity of the clause. He thought the Government ought to explain what they meant by the words "of some special character." It might be that the Government contemplated some elaborate system of reference first to the trust deed and subsequently to the bishop or to the Board of Education. He did not know. Or it might mean of the special character selected by the trust deed.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)agreed that the words were somewhat vague, but thought the proposed Amendment would land them in greater ambiguity. He suggested as a practical way out of the difficulty that the decision of the clauses should be of a negative character, and that "not repugnant to the provisions of any of the trust deeds relating thereto" should be inserted after "character." He thought that would get out of the difficulty.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid a good deal of this difficulty had arisen because the Government had qul1 e unnecessarily broken the trusts. It would have been sufficient for the purposes of their Bill if they had still maintained the trusts except so far as was necessary for the purposes of carrying out the Bill. But in spite of the protests that had been
  228
  made they let the trusts go, so that the owners of the schools now had a free hand and were at liberty to set up a religion which might not be in accordance with the trust deed at all. He would urge something in accordance with what the hon. Member for North Camberwell had suggested. Some alteration might be made after the words "of some special character." He did not think the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary was sufficient, because they might have to deal with schools where trust deeds existed. If some such words as suggested were put in after "character" they would meet the case of trust deeds, and also the cases in which there were no trust deeds but in which it would be easy to prove there had been. It was absolutely necessary that there should be some limiting words in the clause; otherwise it would give absolute discretion to an owner to set up any religion he wished even though it were contrary to the provisions of the trust deed.
  SIR W. ROBSON(who was indistinctly heard) did not think there would be any difficulty in actual working. If they proceeded, however, to make reference to the trust deeds they would lose all the advantages in one direction which they gained in another, and he thought it would be far better to allow some latitude to the trustees than always to confine them to the terms of the trust. The Kenyon-Slaney clause in the Act of 1902 modified the terms of the trusts, and he did not think the present proposal gave more than a fair latitude to the trustees, who might be trusted to deal with these matters.
  MR. MASSIEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR E. CARSONmoved an Amendment to add after "character" the words "in accordance with the trust, if any, on which the school has been previously held, and." He thought everybody, whatever might be his views as regarded religious instruction, would agree that if they were to afford such instruction it ought to be in accordance with

  229
  the trust deed, and they ought not to leave the power to the trustee of parting with the trusts.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 25, after the word 'character' insert the words 'in accordance with the trust, if any, on which the school has been previously held, and.'"—(Sir E. Carson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYwas afraid the words proposed might have a prejudicial effect upon those schools in the hands of private owners which could not be said to be held under any trust. In the Returns with regard to Kent there were something like fifty schools of which the larger number were distinctly under no trust at all, and if these words were introduced in the form in which they were moved he was rather afraid it might be held afterwards that these owners had no right to any special facilities at all. He only wished to make it quite clear that no voluntary school was excluded by the words his right hon. and learned friend wished to introduce.
  MR. PERKStrusted the Government would not accept the Amendment. There were many conditions in which it might be necessary to have a special form of religious instruction which might be absolutely at variance with the trust deeds. Let them take, for example, the case of the Wesleyan schools. The conditions of the Wesleyan trust deeds provided for the teaching of the Wesleyan Catechism. There might possibly be nothing in the Wesleyan Catechism at variance with the fundamental tenets of the Church of England, but at the same time the Wesleyan authorities would probably desire to transfer many and perhaps all their schools without any condition whatever as to the teaching of the Catechism. Or let them take the case of the trust deed of the National Society, in regard to so many of the schools in Lincolnshire, where in many cases 60 per cent., in some cases more than 90 per cent., and in one case he knew of 98 per cent., of the children in national schools were Nonconformists. It would be absurd to im-
  230
  pose a condition for ever on such buildings that all the children of the village were to be educated according to the condition of the National Society trust deeds in the tenets of the Church of England. This Amendment would require that. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] It was dangerously near it, at all events. It was really essential in many of our villages that there should be the greatest possible latitude exercised in view of the rapid changes which were taking place in the instruction and even ceremonial in connection with religious worship, so that he begged the Government not to limit the local education authority by restricting this special form of religious teaching to a strict compliance with the conditions of the trust deeds on which the schools might be held.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORdid not in any way desire to commit himself to an unqualified support of trust deeds, but he would respectfully ask for an Answer to a Question he put on a previous Amendment. He was not concerned so much about the bargain made between the local authority and the owners or trustees as to the special religious instruction, whatever it might be, as he was about the carrying out of the bargain. Under the Act of 1902 power of appeal was given to ecclesiastical authority to settle any deviation. What he desired to know was whether the local education authority had any interest in the question at all. If it had he could quite understand that the local education authority might object and the children attending school might object to the progressive development of a particular religious instruction under these facilities. If differences did arise in a school was there any appeal, and, if so, to whom did it lie? If there were no appeal, were they to understand there was unlimited discretion to the trustees as there appeared to be unlimited vagueness?
  SIR W. ROBSONthought the matter would be met by the concluding words of the section which referred to the wishes of the parents. This clause was a sort of guarantee against the imposition on the school of extreme developments, about which his hon. friend was so apprehensive. There was no clause expressly

  231
  enabling the local authority to control religious instruction. If there were such a clause they would be embarking in a sphere they did not desire to touch
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Question asked by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway was one of importance. Under the existing system it rested with the school managers of the voluntary schools to determine from year to year, or from week to week, what the religious instruction was to be. Who was going to be responsible for the denominational religious instruction when this Bill was passed? Who was going to be responsible for the management of religious education under the special facilities of this clause? At present there were managers and an appeal, but if this Bill were passed they would have neither managers nor an appeal. The point raised by the hon. Member was a very important one. A bargain was made between the trustees and the local authority after which the trustees had no further duties. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] Were they still to manage? [An HON. MEMBER: They have to pay for it.] After all, paying was the least of the privileges they had. He was not so sure that the point could be adequately dealt with on the present Amendment, but it was certainly a matter which ought to be dealt with. He wished to know from the Government what authority in their opinion would be responsible from year to year for the character of the teaching which was to go on in the school. Was that laid down in the Bill, and if not upon whom would it devolve? He thought some clear provision ought to be made for this.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question is really out of order. I am sorry to have to say so again. There is an Amendment before the Committee to insert certain words, and the question which the right hon. Gentleman is discussing does not arise on that Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Amendment was to insert words securing that the religious teaching should be—
  "in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed."
  That surely directly raised the question
  232
  of who was responsible under the Bill for dealing with religion education in the schools. He should like to know whether that was not immediately and directly raised by this Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the clause, which gays that if facilities are part of the arrangement, facilities are to be allowed, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has practically said so himself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must rule that the question is not in order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid all he desired to say was that he had not made the observation which the Chairman had attributed to him.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the discussion simply showed how ill-conceived the whole of this clause really was. The hon. Member for East Toxteth had pointed out that the children attending these schools had been accustomed to have a right to a certain class of religious teaching, and under this Bill there was no provision to secure that teaching. The clause proceeded upon the assumption that there would be only one kind of religion taught by special facilities under Clause 3, but that was a total misconception. It was quite possible to proceed on the lines that the education of the country already went on, namely, that schools established by private benefactions each offered a particular kind of religious instruction. There was a very great difficulty where there was only one such school in a particular district and where no choice of religious instruction was offered. The real reform required was to offer a choice of religious instruction to the children of each particular district, and they wanted facilities all round.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This question of all round facilities is not in order.
  LORD R. CECILsaid there was only one way in which a satisfactory agreement upon this subject could be reached, and that was by a full, fair and free discussion. It did not appear to him that the Government had in any way dealt with the objection raised by

  233
  the hon. Member for Liverpool, and they had not shown how the religious education of the children was to be protected. There was nothing to show that the trustees would have a word to say on the subject after they had made their arrangements. There was nothing at all to show what special facilities meant. The Bill provided that only one form of denominational teaching should be given, and that was of a wholly indefinite character.
  MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)denied that this clause abrogated the trust deed. The trustees would continue to receive certain moneys, and they would have the religious education in their own hands, and they would be responsible to the same authorities as they were before. There was nothing in the Bill to alter their position. They would still remain responsible for their trusts, and he thought all the discussion on this Amendment had been a waste of time.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid it could not be left out of consideration that the managers would be abolished by the Bill, and the clause simply allowed the local authority to provide special facilities, and failed to construct an alternative authority to supervise the religious teaching.
  SIR E. CARSONreminded the hon. Member for North Worcestershire that the trustees were left absolutely at large and under Section 2 the trust was entirely broken. The hon. Member had said that the position was the same under the Act of 1902, but it was not so, because the trusts for religion were preserved under that Bill. Under this Bill such trusts were absolutely abrogated. Under Sub-section 2 of Section 2 the trustees had full power, notwithstanding the trusts, to make and carry out any arrangement under the section. He had asked to have that limited, but it was refused because the Government wanted to get rid of the trust deeds altogether. The trustees might under the Bill divert the school premises and the school trust to an entirely different purpose. That was the plain issue between, them. All he asked was to have the religious teaching of a special character maintained as before, but
  234
  there was not one word in the Bill to secure that. They really had come to an extremely important point, because, so far as he could see, once the trustees had made an arrangement with the local authority the trust was practically at an end as far as the trust deed was concerned. In his opinion, and he stated it most emphatically, if the Bill was left in its present form the whole of the special facilities would really be an absolute sham, because there was no machinery for seeing that the particular religious teaching which had been carried on should be continued. There was no machinery insisting on such special facilities being in accordance with the trust deed and unless some such machinery was set up by the Bill these provisions would in his opinion in many cases turn out to be absolutely illusory. Would the local authority have anything to say after the agreement was made in regard to the special religion which was being carried out in the school?
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that if they had made their arrangement there was no doubt that the responsibility would be cast upon the owners or the trustees. The right hon. Gentleman said that the owners and trustees would die and nobody would be left to perform their duties. He might inform the right hon. Gentleman that in the Bill they had contemplated the continuity of the Church of England. He assumed that the Church of England was not in the least likely to allow those schools to lapse from want of care and vigilance in the enforcement of the original trusts so far as the owners of the schools desired to enforce them. If the owners ceased to take further interest in the matter that was a different affair. Of course the Committee-would not expect the Government to introduce a number of clauses providing machinery for cases where there were negligent or careless owners who did not desire to continue religious instruction. He thought everyone would assume the continuity of the Church of England, and the continuity of a desire on the part of those who belonged to it to safeguard their educational interests. They might feel confident that the interests of religious education would not be overlooked by them.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had not taken note of the fact that in the schedule of the Bill Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1902 was repealed, and that the Government left no machinery for carrying out all those matters which they professed to be leaving in the charge of the trustees of the schools.
  MR. CAVEasked whether the Solicitor-General suggested that the Church of England or the parents of the children could take action in a case where a local authority broke, or neglected to carry out, an agreement to give facilities for Church of England teaching.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members will only look at the clause and the Amendment they will see that the words are—
  "If the affording of facilities under this section for the giving of religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed has been made a
  condition of any arrangement for the use by the local education authority of the schoolhouse of a transferred voluntary school."
  If that is made a condition of the bargain, provision is made at the end of the clause that these facilities are to be allowed. Therefore the question which the hon. Gentleman asks does not arise.
  MR. HARWOODsaid the Solicitor-General seemed to assume that trustees would be abrogated They would not be abrogated at all. This Bill only proposed to take the use of the transferred schools which must remain in the possession of the present owners The trustees must be continued, and one of their duties was to see to religious education. They would make a bargain and it would be for them to pee that its terms were carried out Therefore the whole question raised by the Amendment was a mare's nest.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes, 388. (Division List No. 140.)

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cross, Alexander

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir FredDixon

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, Sir George

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Ashley, W. W.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Aubrey-Fleteher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

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

  Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Forster, Henry William

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Haddock, George R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Butcher, Samuel Herny

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

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

  Cave, George

  Liddell, Henry

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

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Younger, George

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Lonsdale, Jonh Brownlee

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Clough, W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Halpin, J.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hammond, John

  Agnew, George William

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Alden, Percy

  Corbett, C H (Sussex, E Grinst'd

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hart-Davis, T.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Armitage, R.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harwood, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crombie, John William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Atherley, L. Jones-

  Crooks, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCol.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barker, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, W. Ho well (Bristol, S.)

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Delany, William

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Beale, W. P.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Beaumont Hubert (Eastbourne

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bell, Richard

  Dillon, John

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Ballairs, Carlyon

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Bennett, E. N.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Duckworth, James

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bertram, Julius

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bethell. T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duncan, J.H. (York, Otley)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Billson, Alfred

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Jenkins. J.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedforshire)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Blake, Edward

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Boland, John

  Erskine, David C.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Essex, R.W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Branch, James

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brigg, John

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bright, J. A.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Brooke, Stopford

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Brunner, Sir Jn. T. (Cheshire)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lambert, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lamont, Norman

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Buxton, Rt Hn. SydneyCharles

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Levy, Maurice

  Cairns Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cameron, Robert

  Ginnell, L.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn. HerbertJohn

  Lough, Thomas

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Glover, Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lupton, Arnold

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Grant, Corrie

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Gulland, John W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Clelland, J. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maclean, Donald

  238

  239

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Phillips, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Steadman, W. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  M'Arthur, William

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

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  M'Crae, George

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

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

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Kean, John

  Radford, G. H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  M'Killop, W.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Reddy, M.

  Thomas Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rees, J. D.

  Thorne, William

  Massie, J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Tomkinson, James

  Meagher, Michael

  Richards, Thomas W. Monm'th

  Torrance, A. M.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Richardson, A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ure, Alexander

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Verney, F. W.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Walsh, Stephen

  Morse, L. L.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

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

  Murnaghan, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Murphy, John

  Robinson, S.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Murray, James

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wardle, George J.

  Myer, Horatio

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Napier, T. B.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nicholls, George

  Rowlands, J.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitbread, Howard

  Nolan, Joseph

  Russell, T. W.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)'

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow W.)

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Seddon, J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Williamson, A.(ElginandNairn)

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Dowd, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  O'Grady, J.

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

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

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  O'Malley, William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Winfrey, R.

  Partington, Osward

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wood T. M'Kinnon

  Paul, Herbert

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Spicer, Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Perks, Robert William

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Pease.

  LORD R. CECILmoved to amend the clause so as to provide that where "the parents of fifteen children attending any transferred voluntary school desire such facilities," those facilities should be given.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid that on Clause 2 the Committee had decided that owners
  240
  of voluntary schools might make any arrangement they chose, and he did not see how, in the terms of the Amendment, the parents of fifteen children in a village or town could be allowed to over-ride a decision taken under Clause 2.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the words quoted, if pushed, as the hon. Member suggested, to their extreme logical meaning, would have ruled out most of Clause 2 and the whole of Clause 3. He had tried to the best of his ability to deal with Amendments, and he did not feel justified in refusing the noble Lord the right to move his Amendment as amended.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that his Amendment raised a very important point which ought to be discussed. He could not help thinking that on this clause, as at present settled, they were proceeding on a principle which was only partially defensible. They were not proceeding on the principle that the schools, for most educational purposes, were to be taken out of the hands of the owners and handed over to the local education authority, and at the same time the owners were to settle what kind of religious instruction was to be given under Clause 3. He admitted that the Minister for Education had said that the local authority could not refuse to take over a school merely on the ground that an arrangement was demanded. Once having done that it seemed to him difficult to decide what religious instruction was to be given to the children attending the schools. The view he had always had was that such a settlement would take it out of the hands of the owners of the Church schools to decide what facilities should be given in the Church schools for religious teaching. That was, in his opinion, a very important concession to the Nonconformists. His Amendment proposed that wherever they found the parents of fifteen children—whether they were Wesleyans or Congregationalists or Anglicans—they should have facilities for these children to be taught according to the religion of their parents. That seemed to him to be perfectly just. He advocated that on all religious questions the children should be brought up in the faith of their fathers. He did not wish that any special religion should be taught, and it was for that reason that he advocated this improvement in the Bill. In the history of the education question we had drifted into a position that was not defensible. Up to 1870 the theory of our education
  242
  policy was that the benefactor came in and established schools which the children could attend or not as they pleased. The benefit was entirely conferred on the children. But when education was made compulsory different considerations arose. Hardship occurred where there was only one school and that of a particular denomination. The only alternative was that the parents should have the right to say what religion should be taught to their children. He had sufficient confidence in the common-sense of his fellow-countrymen to believe that they would realise that that was the only really just settlement of the religious difficulty.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 31, after the word 'schoolhouse,' to insert the words 'or if the parents of fifteen children attending a transferred voluntary school desire such facilities.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.)said he was very glad that they had coma to a discussion on this important point on Clause 3. He had given a pledge to his constituents to try and raise the point, but he had almost despaired of seeing it brought forward until the noble Lord moved his Amendment. It was a question that was raised in 1902 by the noble Lord's brother, but was not received with very much approbation on his side of the House. It would delight some of those who thought this was a fair and just system if the noble Lord could carry his Party with him under altered conditions. The Amendment did not, of course, mean that it was possible in the great majority of village schools to provide teaching of all kinds and sorts which the parents desired and divide the children into seven or eight pens, but it did provide some guarantee against the kind of injustice which, he thought, existed at present and which might be made permanent by this Bill. The injustice to which he referred was that only the clergyman should be admitted to give religious teaching, while the Nonconformist minister was excluded. That seemed to him to be a monstrous proposal to come from the Liberal side of the House. He thought it desirable that some Amendment of this sort should

  243
  be carried, giving the right of entry to ministers of all denominations. During the First Reading of the Bill the plea was advanced that it was grossly unfair to contrive a system by which one privileged religion should have practically a monopoly of what religious teaching was given. They could not make the local authority establish pens or divisions, or enable every group of fifteen parents to do it. But they could give a chance for other kinds of denominational teaching besides the kind favoured by the owners of the transferred school. If there was only one kind of denominational teaching in a school, he had no doubt that all the children would gradually drift into the particular kind of religion which the instruction imparted, and they would get that predominance of one religion in the villages, which he should profoundly deplore. Personally, he might prefer that no religious teaching should be given in the schools, but if any I denominational teaching was given, then they should have all denominational teaching, and get back from the principle of property to a broader and more general principle. He did not care anything at all about the property argument, but he did care that parents who seriously desired their children brought up in their own faith should have their desire gratified, and it was the duty of a Liberal Government to se that means were provided.
  MR. LOUGHthought that, whatever might be the merits of the question, to raise it on Clause 3 was extremely inconvenient. The clause related entirely to the arrangement to he made between the owners of voluntary schools and the local authorities. The proper occasion for the moving of such an Amendment would be on Clause 4. But the objection to the Amendment was that it would set up pan denominationalism of the worst kind. It also involved the repeal of the Cowper-Temple clause of the Act of 1870. The question, moreover, had been three times before the Committee, and each time decided in the negative. The clause dealt with an entirely different subject from the Amendment, and the parents' right of appeal under Clause 4.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that Clause 4 did not touch this question.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that Clause 4 did touch this question, because it conferred rights upon the parents of at least four-fifths of the children attending the school in regard to the acquisition of facilities. Clause 4 therefore would raise the general question of facilities to be given to parents, but under this clause they were confined to a great extent, if not absolutely, to the arrangements to be made with the owners or trustees of the schools. This point, therefore, ought to be raised, upon Clause 4, although he quite recognised the scruples which had induced the noble Lord to endeavour to introduce his Amendment at this particular place.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he had no scruples at all. The only point was that he was a little surprised that the hon. Member, who was a Nonconformist, did not desire to have this question discussed.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that he would say no more, except that this Amendment in his judgment ought to be brought in somewhere else. He therefore hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment at this particular point.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid it was perfectly possible, and not inconvenient, to insert the Amendment in the Clause, though it would have been more convenient to have accepted the Amendment I he had moved to Clause 1, which covered the same ground as this. Why should the nature of the religious instruction to be given in a school be confined to two alternatives—Cowper-Templeism or the particular form of denominationalism which commended itself to the owners? It was not the inclinations of the owners or trustees for which they should have regard, but the I wishes of the parents of the children attending the school. As for the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary that; the Amendment would set up pan-denominationalism, he would point out that there was not so great a variety of religious opinion in rural districts. It was to these districts that Clause 3 particularly referred, while Clause 4 related to urban districts. Nor did the Amendment involve the repeal of the Cowper-Temple clause, for it was only concerned with transferred voluntary schools and the facilities proposed to be allowed in them. He thought the Amendment

  245
  would go a long way to settle the religious difficulty.
  MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.)did not believe the noble Lord really desired that the Amendment in the way it was put down should be carried. The parents of fifteen children would include the case of three prolific widows with families of five children each attending the school. The Amendment as now worded with the numbers given would be impossible to work practically and would lead to uncertainty and confusion.
  LORD R. CECILsaid perhaps he might be allowed to explain. His interest was in the children, and he did not care whether they were born of prolific widows or not. He attached no great importance to the particular number fifteen, and was prepared to consider any Amendment which might be moved to alter that figure. What he did care about was that the children should be taught the religion of their parents.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsupported the Amendment, and said that this was the only clause upon which the matter could be raised. Under the Act of 1902 there was a difficulty in regard to single school districts. He believed that the Amendment would to a great extent remove that difficulty, and unless it was accepted he thought a great injustice would be done to denominational schools. There was no reason why they should not remove an injustice of which complaint had been made in the past, and it was on that ground that he asked the Government to carefully consider the Amendment.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had been struck with the way in which they repeatedly got far away from the real practical day's work of the school, and this Amendment was a case in point. It sounded sweetly reasonable, and in theory nothing could be said against it. The only difficulty about it was that it could not be carried out. Let the Committee observe the curious quarter from which it came. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone was one who said they must not violate trusts, and the right hon. Member for Oxford University spoke of the sanctity of trusts and the pious founder. He was
  246
  sure the pious founder must turn in his grave at this proposal. ["Why?"] It would introduce into schools set aside for one particular form of religious teaching all sorts of religious teaching. But frankly he did not much care what precise colour of denominational teaching the children got so long as they were kept in one family. He knew that the limited capacity of the child would not permit him to take in all these nice theological points about which the various denominations squabbled and which might very well be left to an older age. But he was violently against the segregation of children of tender age. The moment they said the parents of fifteen children should have the right to demand special facilities the others would want the same. And if they did not want it there would be those who would see that they did. If they let the parents alone they were perfectly satisfied to-day with simple Bible teaching. But they were not let alone. Other reasons were brought to bear, and they were induced to make their demand also. And so far from having all the children together in a common family, with all its admirable advantages from a social side, they would have them set aside in sections, and there would be pandemonium. He had resisted such proposals all through; he had resisted them in 1902, although he had nothing to say in theory in support of the position he took up.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member for North Camberwell had admitted that he had nothing to say in theory in support of his argument. What weight, then, was to be attached to it. The hon. Member had said he wished all the children to be kept together, hut the Bill prevented it. If that was the ideal they might have left matters where they were. The hon. Member had challenged them to discuss the practical aspect of this matter. He had been told by one who was conversant with the practical aspect that parents would send their children to a Church school or a Roman Catholic school if it was five minutes nearer than a board school. They were satisfied to leave the children together, but the hon. Member was not satisfied to do so. He said the trustees or owners might make a little special caste in the school, and that all the other children might be fished for by other persons.

  247
  They were in this Bill, therefore, destroying the first argument which the hon. Member put forward. They had not got this single contented family; it had teen shattered. The second argument was no more than a dialectical retort. The hon. Member had pointed out that on the previous night they had dwelt on the sanctity of trusts. That was true, but they said it was not desirable to make so drastic a change in the trusts for an object so small to hon. Members opposite, and so inequitable from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen with whom he sat. If the hon. Member would accept this Amendment there would be something to be said in favour of this violation of trusts. He would have given something in return; he would have recognised for the first time that the spiritual welfare of the children was of more importance than the trusts and the owners. The third argument was that pandemonium would be established; but so far from that being the case, something of this kind did now exist by the goodwill of Churchmen in some parts of the country. If the Goverment did not accept this Amendment they would in practice be taking a reactionary step.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Where?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in Dover in the articles of agreement of the church schools provision was made for the right of entry.
  DR. MACNAMARA: What use is made of it?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that in Dover very little use was made of it, because the people there agreed rather with the first than with the third argument of the hon. Member. They agreed to leave the children together. But at Hythe, seven miles from Dover, where the school was conducted by a clergyman of the Church of England who belonged to what was called by some the High Church party, these facilities were given and were readily availed of. There were forty-seven children in the school being given religious instruction of a character totally distinct and different from the religious teaching this gentleman gave to the other ninety children. So that if the Government
  248
  resisted this Amendment they would be taking a reactionary step and stopping an amount of religious liberty which did now exist in some parts of the country. As one who had too often and perhaps, sometimes too warmly championed the interest of the Church of England, he might say he supported the Amendment with all his heart, and agreed with every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for West Ham, because he thought it strengthened the defences of religious instruction. In accepting the Amendment the Government would strengthen instead of weakening the defences of religious instruction throughout the country, and they would vindicate themselves from the charges that had been sometimes unjustly preferred against them. For that reason, if for no other, they were entitled to ask the Government's acceptance of the Amendment. If it was accepted it would meet the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool, and it would meet the difficulty of the local authority saying to the trustee, "You may have religious instruction on two days a week if you like, because we must take your school." If this Amendment was accepted the difficulty would be met because the parents of the fifteen children might then say, "No, with your permission we will have our way and have on two other days the religious instruction that we wish should be given." The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had urged the Committee not to press this Amendment because this was not the proper place. It never was the proper place, according to the Government, in which to bring forward any general consideration touching the whole question of religious instruction. On one occasion it was a matter of local government and on another that of trust deeds and the extent of their modification. Never until now had it been in order to introduce specific words to show some regard for the religious welfare of the children and the wishes of the parents. If the parents had the right to say "No" to religious instruction of which they did not approve, why should they not have the right to say what kind of religious instruction they would have?
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it was quite obvious that the Amendment incorporated the principle of the general

  249
  right of entry, a principle upon which the Committee had already stated its definite opinion. He objected to the Amendment both in theory and in practice. Nothing could be more detrimental to the interests of the children than their being divided into pens. It was certainly curious as coming from the noble Lord that he was willing that a Methodist, an Anabaptist, a Buddhist, or a Jew, should come into a little school and get his little scholars into a corner so that he might teach them sectarianism. This was not religious teaching at all, but the teaching of sectarianism. He would ask the hon. Member for North West Ham whether any of his Nonconformist constituents asked for this right of entry.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid it was a promise he made to his Nonconformist constituents.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid what he desired to know was whether any Nonconformist constituent asked his hon. friend for a right of entry into denominational schools which did not belong to them. It was right that they who represented Nonconformists in this House should say that Nonconformists—not because they did not desire that religious teaching should be given to the children—expressly stated that they did not want in State schools either at their own expense, or at the expense of the State, or in any way whatever, to teach sectarianism in the schools.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that the hon. Member assumed that denominational teaching was sectarianism. Members of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome believed that religion consisted in belonging to a communion. It was the gross intolerance of people outside this House, who urged the hon. and learned Gentleman to make this kind of observation, that prevented a settlement of the religious question.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he did not complain of the noble Lord speaking strongly, because he held strong convictions on the subject, but for that very reason others should also be allowed to speak strongly. In the view of Nonconformists, Anglicans and Roman Catholics were members of sects. What was behind this proposal? If the Amendment were accepted, there would be no
  250
  answer to the claim that the same right of entry should be given in the case of all provided schools.
  LORD R. CECIL: I said so.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that in that case the Committee would know how to deal with the Amendment, which would introduce strife into a number of schools. Under the circumstances he hoped the Ministerial side of the Committee would be unanimous, with the one exception of his hon. friend the Member for North West Ham.
  EARL PERCY (Kensington, S.)sincerely trusted the Government would think twice before rejecting, the Amendment. He had always been in favour of the right of entry in all schools. The true principle was that every child as far as possible should be brought up in the denominational belief of its parents. Unless some such Amendment were accepted, there would be no guarantee that even a majority of the children would receive any religious education at all. The President of the Board of Education had removed a great blot in the Bill by the Amendment he accepted yesterday to Clause 2 at the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oxford University. The right hon. Gentleman at all events rendered it possible for the owners to make it a condition that besides the facilities for a certain number of children there should be compulsorily given at least Cowper-Temple teaching to the rest of the children in the schools. But supposing the owners did not make that stipulation, and the local authority having provided special facilities did not want to give Cowper-Temple teaching, in addition then there was no guarantee that some of the children would receive any kind of religious instruction. That was not a state of things they could look upon with equanimity. He had always thought that the main objection to the system of 1870 was not so much that Cowper-Temple teaching was unsatisfactory or that favouritism was shown to one form of religious belief, but that it was left to the option of a local authority to deprive children of the most elementary religious education. If the Government could not accept the words of the Amendment, he hoped they would introduce

  251
  some words to compel the local authority to give some religious teaching to the children attending voluntary schools, whose parents did not belong to the denomination to which facilities were accorded.
  MR. RAWLINSONbelieved that on this line only could a permanent settlement of the difficulty be found. He advocated the Amendment as a stepping-stone to three other conditions, namely, that the religious education should be given by the school teachers, in the school hours, and that it should he of universal application. Why was it the hon. Member for North Camberwell was invariably getting up in his place and saying—"You cannut do it because I say so?" The right of entry was working well at the present time in the Poor Law schools of England. In the model rules issued by the Secretary of State, which existed even so far back as the last Liberal Government, it was laid down with regard to reformatory schools that in the case of those children who were specified in the order of detention as belonging to a particular religious persuasion the managers should, so far as practicable, make arrangements that, during the time set apart for religious instruction, they should have such instruction imparted by ministers of such persuasion or by such responsible teachers of the schools or other persons delegated by the ministers with the approval of the managers. [An HON. MEMBER: Does that apply to ordinary school hours?] As a matter of fact it did, although it was not in the rules. Only one case had been mentioned by the hon. Member for North Camberwell in which the system had broken down. The same system was in operation in Germany, and it worked without any difficulty. It might be said that there were fewer denominations in Germany, but even in this country they would find that the number of denominations in any particular school was very few, especially in the rural districts. In a Church of England school the probabilities were that the different Nonconformists who attended that school would be content with one teacher of a particular kind and one form of teaching. In other cases where denominational differences were more acute his argument was all the stronger, because if the members of the Nonconformist body did not agree upon
  252
  a common teacher they would be entitled to have a separate teacher. The bedrock and basis of this proposal was exactly what the hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan had swept aside. The point was whether the people of England as a whole did not prefer denominational teaching for their children. He thought they did. In his opinion denominational teaching had taken a hold in this country and had become an integral part of the educational system. In the debate on the Act of 1902 the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that denominational schools were an integral portion of our educational system, and the Minister for War had declared that he had never been an objector to denominational education. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs also had declared that if there were alternative schools he should not press his objection to rate-aided denominational schools. Therefore he was justified in saying that there were in the Cabinet a number of Ministers who recognised that denominationalism was an integral part of the religious education of the country. The people desired denominationalism and why should it not be the basis of education? He submitted that it was upon these lines that they were likely to arrive at a permanent settlement of the question. He asked the Government seriously to consider this Amendment as what he earnestly believed to be the basis of a settlement of the religious difficulty, Sooner or later it would have to be adopted, and under it they would give every parent the opportunity of having his child taught the religon of the denomination to which he belonged.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University that he took this Amendment quite seriously, and he wished to give some evidence of his own solemnity. The whole of this question was a very serious one, but he desired to point out that it had already been dealt with, and that the Government had expressed their opinion upon it. It was hardly reasonable, therefore, that hon. Members opposite should expect a detailed reply from him now. The history of the clause showed how difficult it was to please people. The Committee had been told by the noble Lord and by the right hon. Member for Dover that they did not care about property. But these

  253
  trust schools were concerned with property and the Commission might have to consider "Aye" or "No" whether a particular school ought to be transferred to the local education authority, and how far the new school, when transferred, could be said properly to be a school for carrying out the trusts established in the deeds. That was the reason why they had provided that when a school was taken over the conditions were to be mandatory, enabling Church of England, Wesleyans, or other denominational schools to be taken over and to have facilities for instructing the children in the special views of the denomination to which the school belonged. That was their purpose and everybody would agree that it was an honourable purpose. That was the desire of the Government, and, if all went well, he thought people would be amazed to find how admirably it would work, and he felt quite sure that the children themselves would not discover that this marvellous Act had come into law. The noble Lord had put a point which had been often in the mind of the Government, namely, that a county council could not be expected to have imposed on them as a matter of obligation the giving of what was called "Cowper-Templeism" instruction. The Committee would see from the partial but satisfactory return which had been laid on the Table of the House the state of the case and the nature of the syllabuses that were in actual use by the local education authorities. He recommended any hon. Member who wished to spend a profitable Sunday to read that remarkable document showing what Cowper-Templeism might be, what it was among the great majority of educational authorities in England, and what an invaluable system of religious instruction it was. The noble Lord suggested that it should be made obligatory.
  LORD R. CECIL: Where the parents demanded it.
  MR. BIRRELL: Obligatory to do what? He could not settle the form of syllabus, for an unwilling educational authority might decree a very insufficient system of Cowper-Templeism. His objection to the noble Lord's suggestion was that the Government had made up their minds not to make Cowper-
  254
  Templeism obligatory on the county council and the local education authority, but to leave them the option which the law had for so long a time afforded to them. Having regard to the pledges of the Government in this matter it was idle to press upon them the adoption of this Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the fact that the right hon. Gentleman remained obstinately convinced that his solution, or want of solution, of the education question was the one to which he intended to adhere did not absolve the Opposition from the duty of pressing a different point of view. When this question was discussed on an earlier occasion the debate was most inadequate, for it arose during the unfortunate time of the dinner hour, when, under the new rules, hon. Members were expected to do two things at the same time. It would be apparent, he thought, that that discussion, and the present discussion, had been of great use in connection with the problem. He had been attacked by the hon. Member for North West Ham for not dealing with this matter in the Act of 1902, and for not attempting to give any effect then to the principles advocated by the noble Lord the Member for East Maryle-bone. Let the Committee consider what the position then was. He held then, and he held now, that there were two inequalities and injustices involved in the legislation of 1870, and which were not remedied by the Act of 1902—the injustice of the single-school area and the injustice of requiring the teaching of Cowper-Templeism. These two defects in the Act of 1870 and the system which it established remained unremedied up to the present time. Had it been possible—and everybody knew that it was not possible—to deal with that in the Act of 1902, they might have introduced universally a system that would have wholly removed the injustice of the single school area, and had the effect at the same time of giving a great shock to the hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorganshire, who for some reason he had never been able to understand regarded Cowper-Temple teaching as the very bulwark of Nonconformity.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I have never held that view.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that the phrase he had used was one of his own coining, but he believed it expressed the hon. Member's view. The hon. Member and his friends had always regarded it as something almost sacrosanct which Parliament ought never to be allowed under any circumstances to touch. They had always regarded this as the limitation which local authorities ought to maintain.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: My position always has been, and is now, that Nonconformity as such has nothing at all to do with denominational religion in the schools, and that Nonconformists do believe in most cases in simple Bible teaching, which is Cowper-Temple teaching.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was not what the Nonconformists desired he was discussing; it was their determination that nobody else who had hitherto provided schools should have what they wanted. In the present amendment they could not touch the second half of that particular form of remedy known as "facilities." They could only touch the part relating to the voluntary schools, and he did not believe that if this half were adopted the Committee would be able to touch the other half. Were it adopted by the Committee, it would be not only a first step, but a long step, in the direction of freeing the local authorities from the Cowper Temple clause and giving to the parents the right of getting denominational teaching in provided schools. It was not on that account, however, that he would raise objection to the Amendment. If objection was to be raised, it should be because it only went a little way in dealing with a half of the evil. Did hon. Members think that the argument which they had advanced on the practical side possessed all the weight they attached to it? The practical argument was a physical argument, namely, that they could not find the space or the conveniences to teach the scholars in sections. In so far as that objection was real—and it might be real in small schools—it could be met by the words "as far as practicable." But the Committee should also look at the practical difficulty on its moral side. It was apparently regarded as inimical to all the best interests of the children that they
  256
  should recognise at an early age that, in addition to their common Christianity, their parents belonged to different denominations. But surely that fact could not be concealed from the children, and no parent would wish to conceal it. Any parent bringing up his child at home-would tell him, "I am a member of such-and-such a Christian communion, and I hope that you will also belong and be an ornament to that communion." That was what had happened in the teaching at home. Was there anything in the view of attempting to give the same teaching in the school which would prevent the children from living in amity together or which would accentuate the religious difficulties which existed? He could not believe that this was the view of the Government, because he found in one of their educational measures this identical provision, declaring, that as far as practicable facilities should be given in schools for the blind, that the children should receive the religious instruction, and attend the religious services according to the persuasion of the parents. This was the object of his noble friend, and he could not see why the system which was practicable in a particular kind of school should he declared to be impracticable in the schools with which the Committee were new dealing. Surely it was manifest that the argument if applicable to one kind of education was equally applicable to another. He would go further, and would remind the Committee that in Scotland this plan was carried out without difficulty and without offence, without the production of any of the evils alleged in respect of many schools. The Committee ought not rashly to say that it was wholly impossible for an Englishman to do that which Scotsmen found to be easy. Ought not this fact to modify the attitude of critics as to this particular plan? It was logical in its completeness, and its justice, at all events as far as paper provisions were concerned, had been admitted by its severest critics. Practice and theory were thus not so far apart as hon. Members opposite would ask the Committee to believe, and therefore the Amendment deserved more favourable treatment than had been accorded to it by the Government. The Government had shown themselves to be content with the inchoate, truncated,

  257
  and inverted solution contained in the Bill, declaring their intention to bring up modifications and amendments to be submitted hereafter. Though this particular Amendment gave small opportunity of dealing with the larger question, he thought that it deserved greater breadth of treatment and a greater effort at argumentative reply than it had received either from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for Education.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that he would endeavour to supply from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman himself arguments against the Amendment. A similar Amendment was brought forward when the Act of 1902 was under discussion, and though the right hon. Gentleman expressed a certain amount of sympathy with its object, he dealt a little more fully with it than he had attempted on this occasion. He thought a sufficient reply to the Amendment was to be found in the expressions which the right hon. Gentleman used four years ago on a similar occasion. Speaking on November 25th, 1902, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had prepared an Amendment not covering all the ground of another proposal which had been made, but covering the particular subject of single school areas. He explained, however, that he had not proceeded with that Amendment for two reasons. He said—
  "One reason was that he felt perfectly confident that any such Amendment moved by the Government would create an enormous amount of controversy and friction inside and outside the House. It was perfectly true, as his noble friend had said, that there was a great body of opinion—of very highly instructed opinion—in the country which desired to see some such solution as this of our religious difficulties. That was absolutely true, but he was convinced that when the great body of the people whom the Amendment concerned and whom his Amendment would have concerned—the country clergy and the Nonconformist ministers all over the kingdom, and that great body of the teaching profession—considered the proposal they would unite in the strongest opposition to it."
  The right hon. Gentleman described the objection which the country clergy would have, then what the Nonconformist ministers would say, and he said the teaching profession would unanimously object. The right hon. Gentleman did not base his case on inference or prediction. He went on and gave instances. He mentioned Birmingham. He was not aware, by the way, that any Birmingham
  258
  Members had given the Committee the benefit of their experience in that debate. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that in the case of Birmingham the result had been failure. He brought forward practical objections and appealed to experience. Referring to the reasons of the failure at Birmingham, the right hon. Gentleman said that by universal consent the plan did not carry out either the intention or the wishes of its framers. Why? Because there was a great difficulty in getting a sufficient number of voluntary teachers—notwithstanding that Birmingham was a city where public spirit was so abundant—and because the teachers they did get were not able to teach. Teaching was not quite so simple a matter as it was supposed to be by those who brought in Amendments of this kind. It was found that to have at intervals in the school a number of teachers who could not teach was subversive of all discipline. The Amendment, he noticed, was founded on the admission of the gross and scandalous injustice of the existing system. The Leader of the Opposition had indicated that he felt some difficulty in the existing system in single school districts. There were 5,600 districts in England where the Church of England had the only school. It had been said that the last thing they thought of was proselytising. In these debates, however, it had been admitted that religion could not be taught at all unless the children were taught that they should belong to a denomination. That was the injustice this Bill was intended to remedy. When the Government went to the country on this Bill—he did not mean on a dissolution or an election—they would be able to tell the electors what had hitherto been denied—that in Church schools children must be taught to belong to a denomination. It was contended that there was no valuable religion except sectarian religion. He did not believe that. It was of the essence of the Bill that among Protestant communities common worship was possible. There could be no comparison between the effect on the mind of a child of rote learning and the repetition of creeds and the effect of common worship—the common hymn and the common prayer. He thought the Amendment had served its purpose. The alternative proposed by the Opposition had been denounced by their leader as hopelessly

  259
  impossible, and it was condemned by the experience of Birmingham, so that both leaders of the Tory Party got a certain kind of approach to union on this subject. But it was an alternative which sought to shut out common worship from the school life of Protestant children.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he wished to express his deep and sincere regret at the unduly provocative tone of the Solicitor-General's speech, and at the expressions which the hon. and learned Gentleman had used. Nothing said by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone could in any sense, whatever, be considered to have given any cause for offence to any Nonconformist. The provocative portions of the Solicitor-General's speech, however, seemed to him to have been deliberately directed against the bona fides of the Church of England and the way in which they conducted their worship. [Cries of "No."] Well, that was the impression which was left upon his mind.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the impression of the noble Lord was not justified by anything he had said. To suggest that he had made any reflections upon the Church of England could not be justified, and the assertion was entirely without foundation.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid he could not remember the exact phrase, but it was something about mumbled creeds and the repetition by rote which characterised their services. He considered that was an unduly provocative and offensive attack upon the Church of England. [Cries of "Withdraw," and "Order, order!"] He was perfectly in order in stating that that was his understanding of the speech.
  MR. AINSWORTHasked whether the noble Lord was in order in using the word "offensive."
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. CALDWELL,)said it was not an unparliamentary word.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid the Solicitor-General had stated that experiments in the direction of the Amendment had been tried at Birmingham and elsewhere and
  260
  had failed. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think that it was the failure to secure the required number of teachers which was one of the contributory causes of the failure of that experiment. There was, however, no want of teachers in Birmingham, but it was a lack of skill in the teachers which was experienced, and not a lack of numbers. Of course, as had been stated, teaching was not a simple matter, and if in Birmingham a difficulty was found in getting a sufficient number of teachers in regard to schools which might come under Clause 4, how much greater would be the difficulty of securing teachers who must come under Clause 3. It was all very well to say that teachers to give this particular kind of instruction could not be got in Birmingham. It might be true, and he was not very familiar with the details of that particular case. His impression was, however, that in that case teaching was given outside school hours, and the discipline had to be maintained by professional teachers who were brought in for this duty, as a sort of extra to the duties which they were paid to perform. That must have made the experiment unpopular among the teachers. He thought the hon. and learned Member had given the case away when he admitted that the teaching was not an easy matter, when he contended that in places like Birmingham it was impossible to find a sufficient number of properly trained men, and when he said that in urban districts under Clause 3 they were not to have the professional services of the teacher, but must rely upon the volunteer. That would render it all the more difficult for the teaching to be given successfully, and when they reached Clause 7 it would be an argument for giving the privilege to professional teachers to exercise the option of giving this instruction.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid he did not find himself in agreement with the Government, and regretted that they did not see their way to accept the Amendment. So long as we had religious teaching in this country the parents of a child had a right to have arrangements made for the kind of religious teaching which they desired. He regretted that the Government did not see their way to deal with that difficulty, and he especially regretted the heated

  261
  eloquence with which the Solicitor-General had referred to the religious denomination of which he himself was a humble member. In the first place it was said that they would have a pandemonium if all the religious denominations imparted instruction in the village school on a particular day. He did not think there was any substance in that argument, and he ventured to disagree with those who urged that view. The argument as to trust deeds also had no validity, since in 1902 the right hon. Gentleman had made an end of the trust deeds of voluntary schools. Then they were told that the parents did not want this particular kind of instruction. Which statement were they to believe—the statement that the parents did not want it at all, or that their wanting it would cause a pandemonium? They were told that the Amendment was opposed to the best interests of the children, but he thought the best interests of the children were best provided for, so long as there was religious teaching provided in the schools in the creed in which the parents of the children believed and in the creed in which they were educated at home. If the parents of children demanded dogmatic teaching in such cases, he did not think that Cowper-Templeism would advance the cause of religion much, whereas the Amendment proposed a logical solution which would stave off a resort to purely secular education in the schools. For that reason he found himself unable to support the Government in the attitude which they had taken up.
  COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire, W.)said that like the hon. Gentleman opposite he regretted the heat which the Solicitor-General had imported into the debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in his facts, because he represented that the effect of this Amendment would be to do away with that which they on that side of the House valued as much as hon. Members opposite, namely, common worship. The reverse was the case, for the Government had already yielded that when facilities were given for denominational teaching on two days, on the other three days undenominational teaching might be given. What was desired to be taught was that though beliefs might differ, yet common worship was possible; and they should
  262
  have denominational teaching on two days in the week, and common teaching on all the others. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be oblivious of the progress which the country was making in regard to this question of religious education. They were asked what was the use of making speeches when the Government had made up their minds in regard to what they were going to do, but the value of making them was to be found not in the answers which might be given to them inside the House, but in the answers they got outside the House. At that moment he had in his pockets letters which contained two of strongest pieces of evidence possible that the country was rapidly coming round to the acceptance of universal facilities for all kinds of denominational education in every school. At the general election he obtained considerably more Nonconformist votes than he thought he would, because he consistently preached at his meetings the doctrine that this was not a question of Protestantism. Nor was it. If it were it would be a case of persecution, because it meant that some people would say, "I am a Protestant, and in this matter I will have my way, and those who are not Protestants shall not have theirs." That was persecution of the worst kind. But Protestantism did not enter into this question in any way. If they proved that Romanising doctrines were taught in many more Church schools than hon. Members even in their wildest moments imagined, what had that to do with education? If that was thought, it meant that those who held that view were going to force their own system of education on every body in the country, because they thought it was right. The hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan said he did not want any facilities. But what about those who did? Were they not to have them? The hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan said "No, certainly not." But it was a religious question dealing with men's consciences, and was this Committee going to fetter men's consciences because they themselves did not want facilities? The hon. Member for North Camberwell spoke of breaking up the family life in the school, but the school was not a family institution, it was a civil institution. The family was a divine institution with the divine responsibility of

  263
  parents to children and children to parents.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Family life in the schools.
  COLONEL WILLIAMS: But it was not family life, it was school life. He wanted to make school life as harmonious as possible, but they were not going to do it by teaching the children that the parents' religion was all wrong and did not matter. If they gave them Cowper-Temple teaching in the schools they must go further and say that that satisfied them for their school life, and that it ought to satisfy them for the whole of their lives.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Who does that?
  COLONEL WILLIAMSsaid no one, and they did not want to see it done. But they must not talk of family life in the schools. They wanted to teach the children on two days a week that there was such a thing as denominational religion. They wanted them to live together and worship together; but they did not want them taken out of their religion. The true religion that they wanted to teach was not merely definite religion, but the unity of the religion of Christianity, and that though they might differ in the application, it was the same Christianity. If it was real Christianity, and they were to let the children grow up Christians, they must not stop any religion they could give. It was the neglect and carelessness on the part of the parents that they had to fight, and if they got the parents of only five children to say they desired that on two days a week definite religious instruction should be given to their children, for God's sake let them give it. Let them give them instruction on the unity of Christianity on three days a week, but if anybody said they wanted their child taught the doctrines of Roman Catholicism, or any other doctrine, let the child be taught what its parents desired. Let the parents have their facilities in the name of freedom. That was the true principle of freedom and a stepping-stone to a real universal system. Every child in every school should have exactly the same opportunities of receiving undenominational teaching, because in that way they would strengthen what they
  264
  all desired to strengthen, namely, the Christian religion which, although they differed in the application of it, was the same Christian religion in which they all worshipped.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said the Amendment seemed so reasonable on the face of it that they might have considerable difficulty in voting against it. But, as often happened, other countries gave them a clue to what it really meant. In Ireland they had a system of education founded on combined, secular and separate religious instruction. Under that system it was competent to teach all forms of religion as the parents of the children might desire. What had the result been? It had resulted in this, that the whole system, designed to be a national system, had developed into an open denominational system, and each of the sects did not keep its religion in the schools, but had got a school for itself, with the result that there were small schools, and inefficient because they were small. The whole system had broken down, and it was now frankly denominational. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that it was pretty much like introducing pandemonium into the schools. The Irish people found that out very quickly: each sect built its own school, and hundreds of those schools were inefficient because they were small. He would be no party to hunting Christianity out of the schools, but then what was this that he heard about Cowper-Temple religion? Did not the last speaker believe that the Cowper-Temple system at all events was practical Christianity? Were not the foundations of Christianity taught under the Cowper-Temple system? After all, what were they going to teach children beyond the foundations of Christianity? What did they know about Creeds? He wished they could be prevented from learning them till they were very much older. He would vote against the Amendment simply because the same system had broken down in Ireland, and he believed it would introduce pandemonium in England.
  MR. J. WARDsaid if they only considered what the proposition amounted to, they would see that it was absolutely impossible to carry it out. It meant that probably

  265
  one person, and very often not more than two, and occasionally perhaps three, would be able practically to disarrange the whole of the ordinary teaching in the school by the demand for special facilities. Let them imagine the difficulty of allotting the time. Supposing four or five claims were made for special facilities in the school—because there was no reason, if this Amendment was passed, why the Wesleyans and the Unitarians, and the Methodists and the Baptists and everybody else should not make a claim. Many of the schools affected were one-roomed schools, and he could picture in his mind's eye how they were going to mark them out, this the Baptist corner and that the Wesleyan corner, and another the Roman Catholic corner. It was only necessary to imagine it, to see how utterly ridiculous and confusing such a practice would be.
  MR. PAUL: And the Atheists.
  MR. WARD: Yes, if there was a demand for atheistic teaching that would also be included. How the system could be managed he could not for the life of him imagine. Under these circumstances lie thought the Attorney-General was absolutely justified in his criticism.
  MR. NIELDsaid lie was glad to follow the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat for he had addressed a meeting of 5,000 Churchmen at Hanley adjoining Stoke-upon-Trent and an open-air meeting of 2,000 people, at both of which meetings the Bill had been discussed and resolutions passed without a single dissentient voice denouncing and disapproving of its provisions. At any rate Churchmen of North Staffordshire were resolved to give this Bill their uncompromising opposition.
  MR. WARD: A few days after that I addressed a meeting in the Market Hall, Longton, of about 10,000 people.
  MR. NIELDsaid he was of course without any information as to the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, but none the less those 7,000 people whom he addressed might be trusted to do their duty in
  266
  regard to this Bill when the opportunity arose. He regretted exceedingly the bitter and sarcastic speech of the Solicitor-General. The Amendment did nothing more than give parents the right to be heard. They were asking for religious freedom for the parents. In the spirit in which they had been met by the Government to-day they could hope for nothing, but he believed that if they could appeal to the country the religious freedom which they desired would not be refused. A prominent supporter of the Government and a loyal Churchman recently told him that he opposed this Bill, although he was an earnest Liberal, because it departed from every principle of Liberalism, and from the elementary principles of liberty. That was the foundation upon which he based his opposition to this Bill. [Cries of "Question."] It was the question whether the parents of fifteen children attending any public elementary school should have religious teaching—
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not the Amendment. The proposal under discussion relates to transferred voluntary schools.
  MR. NIELDsaid he was dealing with the principle as to whether the parents of fifteen children attending any transferred voluntary school were to have an opportunity of saying whether their children should be allowed to have special facilities. If this Bill was supposed to give religious freedom it could only be religious freedom for the parents, because the children were not old enough to understand religious questions, nor could it be supposed that they should be called upon to make any such election. Surely it was only the barest justice that this concession should be made. If the country was asked to pronounce upon the question whether it was considered satisfactory that the schools should have these facilities for only two days a week, he had no doubt whatever as to the conclusion they would arrive at.
  MR. REESsaid that upon this question he was somewhat astonished at the triple alliance between the Catholics and the Church and the secularists. It was true that adversity made strange bedfellows, but it was very significant that the Church and the

  267
  secularists, who were opposite as the poles, should be combining against religious instruction. Both religious parties in his own constituency were agreed in urgently desiring to have religious instruction.
  LORD R. CECIL: This Amendment does not provide for the abolition of religious instruction.
  MR. REESsaid it made religious instruction impracticable, and it always seemed to him that the noble Lord's arguments proceeded upon wrong lines historically. His claim was that whatever was conceded to the Catholics should be conceded to the Anglican Church. [Cries of "Why not?"] The Catholic case was that the Bible should be interpreted by a priest. Was that the case of the Church of England?
  MR. J. WARD,on a point of order, asked whether the subjects which the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs was discussing had anything at all to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the matter is decidedly wide.
  MR. REESsaid that almost every other speaker had gone on lines wide enough to embrace the question he alluded to, but he would leave it out. It seemed to him to be absolutely impracticable to do what the noble Lord desired by this Amendment. How was it possible to carry out these religious facilities? He felt sometimes that any man who had spent most of his life abroad was rather disqualified from dealing with the ethical and religious aspects of these questions in the House. He had, however, taken considerable pains to investigate the kind of religion given under the Cowper-Temple Clause, and after visiting numerous schools he confessed that he thought Cowper-Templeism was a most excellent foundation for religion, such as any Christian of any persuasion might allow his child to receive in its tender years. He thought denominational instruction upon two days a week was sufficient for all practical
  268
  purposes, and would give a foundation for religion such as the Church of England, the Free Churches, and in fact any Christian Church might accept.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be speaking upon the religious teaching which is to be given, and that is not in order.
  MR. REESclaimed that the Free Churches were as sincere with regard to religious instruction as the Church of England, and it might be taken for granted that there was equal sincerity on both sides. The case for Liberal Churchmen had been dealt with by the hon. Member for Northampton. He might say that he had received a good many resolutions from rural deaneries and other Church associations in his constituency, and he could not honestly say that they were satisfied with the Bill, and regarded the agitation against this measure as being purely ecclesiastical, as the hon. Member had claimed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must warn the hon. Member that he is becoming highly irrelevant.
  MR. REESsaid his constituency was determined to have religious instruction. It would be different if they could say with Tacitus "Deorum injurias Diis curoe," but the country would not take that view, and as it wanted religious teaching,, practicable religious teaching should be given, and he would support this section of the Bill as it stood and oppose the Amendment.
  MR. BIRRELLexpressed the hope that the Amendment might be withdrawn, or at any rate a vote taken upon it, in order that the rest of the time at their disposal might be devoted to the further consideration of the clause. He hoped that the noble Lord would not feel that he was speaking disrespectfully of his Amendment, but the point had already been dealt with by the Government in a previous debate, and there could be no alteration in regard to the position of the Government in this, matter.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 78; Noes, 285. (Division List No.141.)

  AYES.

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Partington, Oswald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Percy, Earl

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Aubrey-Fletcher Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

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

  Haddock, George R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balfour, Capt. C.B. (Hornsey)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield Ecclesall)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur 0

  Hill, HenryStaveley(Staff'sh.)

  Starkey, John R.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kennaway Rt Hon. Sir J. H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kenyon-Slaney Rt. Hn.Col.W.

  Talbot,Rt,HnJ.G(Oxf'd.Univ.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  King, Sir H. Seymour (Hull)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Lamont, Norman

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Long, Rt. Hn.Walter (Dublin,S

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cavendish.Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

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

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Craig, Captain James (Down,E.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS FOB THE AYES—Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Robert Cecil and Mr.

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Carlile.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Agnew, George William

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Alden, Percy

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Erskine, David C.

  Armitage, R.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Essex, R. W.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Baker, J. A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fenwick, Charles

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Barker, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Findlay, Alexander

  Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Clough, W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Barnes, G. N.

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

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Beale, W. P.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Bell, Richard

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Benn, John W. (Devonport)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bertram, Julius

  Cremer, William Randal

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Crombie, John William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Lewis

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cross, Alexander

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Billson, Alfred

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Birrell, Rt. Hn. Augustine

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Hart-Davies, T.

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Boulton, A. C. F (Ramsey)

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Branch, James

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Brigg, John

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hazel, Dr. A.E.

  Bright, J. A.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Duckworth, James

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, J, Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Henry; Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hodge, John

  Morse, L. L.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Murray, James

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hooper, A. G.

  Myer, Horatio

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  Napier, T. B.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nicholls, George

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Grady, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Paul, Herbert

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jenkins, J.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Summerbell, T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Perks, Robert William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampt'n

  Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kelley, George D.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomasson, Franklin

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pollard, Dr.

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

  Kitson, Sir James

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

  Torrance, A. M.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Price, Robert J.(Norfolk, E.)

  Toulmin, George

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Trevelvan, Charles Philips

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Verney, F. W.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Vivian, Henry

  Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras, E)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wallace, Robert

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire. Wirral)

  Rees, J. D.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Levy, Maurice

  Rendal, Athelstan

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Ward, John (StokeuponTrent)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hn. David

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monmth

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  Lough, Thomas

  Richards,T.F.(Wolverh'mpton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Richardson, A.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Macdonald, JM (Falkirk B'ghs.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  M'Arthur, William

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Crae, George

  Robinson, S.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robson, Sir William Snowdoa

  Wilkie, Alexander

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wiliams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams.Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rowlands, J.

  Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Winfrey, R.

  Massie, J.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sears, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Montgomery, H. H.

  Seddon, J.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Pease.

  MR. J. W. WILSON (Worcestershire, N.)moved that the words at the end of Sub-section (1) limiting the special religious instruction to two mornings a week should be omitted, and that the Sub-section should simply enable children whose parents so wished to "receive such instruction." The object of the Amendment was to open up the question
  272
  whether "special religious instruction "was to be given on one, two, three, four, or five days a week. There was up and down the country a certain amount of feeling of hardship with regard to the limitation of days in the clause, and personally he should like to hear the views of the Government on the question why the matter could not be left perfectly

  273
  open to the local education authority and the trustees to decide the number of days. If that were done, probably the result would be that in a great majority of the schools not more than one or two days would be taken. He thought that in many Anglican schools Cowper-Temple teaching would be welcomed. If they had accepted the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Marylebone in regard to all schools, whether denominational or provided, it would have been desirable to limit to one or two the days on which religious teaching of a special character should be permitted. But if it were confined to the transferred schools, he could see very little risk of difficulty arising if the question were left entirely open. In most Church schools the removal of the limitation would not lead to the extension of the teaching. But he would not force co-religionists who now gave special religious instruction oftener, and desired to continue it, or who felt that they would be at a disadvantage compared with another Church which under Clause 4 would give such instruction every day in the week, to become, or threaten to become, passive resistors on account of this limitation.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 34, to leave out from the word 'receive,' to the end of the Sub-section, and insert the words 'such instruction.'"—(Mr. J. W. Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'that instruction' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BIRRELLsaid the Amendment would remove the restriction by which facilities for religious instruction were limited to two mornings a week, and allow it to be given on every day of the week. It was quite impossible for the Government to accede to that. They had given the matter full consideration, and two mornimgs a week were selected, because the result of their inquiries showed that that was the maximum
  274
  amount of such instruction customarily given in the Church schools of the country. That was no reflection upon those schools. It was simply an educational limitation prescribed, after long experience, as being a sufficient number of days for catechetical and strictly denominational instruction. He ventured to say that these were the methods and principles on which Church of England schools had heen carried on for a hundred years, and the Government proposed to adhere to their ancient usage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was hardly satisfactory, for reasons which he would at once appreciate. What the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have done was to take the average of the practice in the Church of England schools, and to say that that average was to be obligatory upon each unit on which the average was taken. He saw no rationale in that principle at all. It might be true that, for reasons purely educational, and also for other reasons which might attach to the fact that in the Church of England schools there was a great anxiety to meet the wishes of parents who did not belong to the Church of England, there was a large number of schools, perhaps a majority, in which the catechism was taught on only two days a week; but on what principle they were going to take that average as the obligatory and statutory maximum he failed to understand. But before he pressed that question, he should like to ask the Minister for Education a question upon the interpretation of his own provision. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment appeared to think that only on two days a week was any teaching of the Church Catechism permissible. On the other hand, the view of many of his hon. friends was that "two days "meant two days for any given child—that no child in any transferred school should be

  275
  taught denominational religion on more than two days a week. That was an eminently more reasonable proposition than the proposition which the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment seemed to think was embodied in the Bill, and which was countenanced by the Minister for Education viz., that the denominational teacher should not be permitted on more than two days a week to deal with the subject at all. He asked the Committee to observe the gross and palpable injustice of that last provision. In the voluntary schools there were children of all ages from three or four to fourteen or fifteen. Manifestly the same education of any kind, denominational or undenominational, was not suitable to children of very tender years, as might be suitable to a child of ten, twelve, or fourteen. Therefore, if religion, or anything else, was to be taught to the best advantage, the children must be divided into classes selected according to the age, progress, and intellectual aptitudes of the children. If only two days a week were allowed for denominational teaching to the children at school, it was evident that the denominational teacher would be unable to have small classes according to age and capacity. If they limited the teaching to two days a week in schools where Church children were in a majority, the classes would necessarily be large, and composed of children of different ages, to whom different teaching ought to be given, and that would be quite arbitrarily and most cruelly to diminish the efficiency of the religious teaching in those schools. These were two quite different policies. He thought the first—the most tolerant and the broadest minded—was that which the Government intended to adopt, but evidently the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not think they meant to adopt it, and
  276
  he wished to put the Bill in a far more intelligible shape. It did not appear to have occurred to the Minister for Education that the interpretation they had put on the Bill could be the true one, but, whether it was the interpretation which a lawyer would put upon it, or not, it was the interpretation which a statesman ought to desire to put upon it. It did no injury to any human being, it did not add to the power of any denomination, and it did not injure the children of any other denomination. All it did was to permit the organisation of religious teaching in voluntary schools to be conducted on the principle accepted in regard to every other kind of teaching. It enabled classes to be formed according to age, and in such a manner that they could be taught with real advantage by a competent teacher. To limit the possibility of denominational teaching to two days a week, and to compel the teacher to have one large class for the advanced child of fourteen or fifteen and the child of three or four, who ought hardly to be permitted to be at school at all, was surely one of the most irrational, intolerant, and cruel provisions that could be imagined to introduce into a Bill. He hoped they would be assured that, by a slip, the Minister for Education had misunderstood his own Bill, or, if that were not the case, that he was prepared to make his Bill what they on the Opposition side of the House had conceived it to be.
  MR. BIREELLsaid that the words of the clause were "afford those facilities by enabling children whose parents wished them to receive religious instruction of that special character to receive that instruction on not more than two mornings in the week."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he did not dispute the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. His speech in reply to the Amendment was based on the assumption that denominational teaching was to be given on two days of the week, and two days only. But he quite admitted that the wording of the clause which he had quoted enabled religious instruction to be given, in order to meet the necessities of a school, on more than two days, provided that it was given to no child on more than two.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In other words, there may be denominational teaching on five days in the voluntary schools provided that no individual child received religious teaching on more than two days.
  MR. CAVEsaid he would like it to be clearly understood whether the owners of voluntary schools could stipulate that denominational teaching must be given on two mornings of the week.
  MR. PERKSsaid he was bound to say that the interpretation put upon this clause by the Minister for Education was a revelation to many on the Ministerial side of the House. Sometimes there were extraordinary pitfalls in those subtly-drawn clauses which were a perplexity to plain men of business. But he was sure that the view which the Minister had taken of this particular clause was not the view which prevailed in the country. The view of this particular clause taken at large in the country was that simple Bible teaching was to be the ordinary religious instruction in the schools, and that, if anything more was required of a sectarian, dogmatic, or ecclesiastical nature, it was to be given outside the school hours. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Whether that extra
  278
  denominational teaching was to be allowed within the school hours, was a question which would have to be fought later on. All that was to be given in ordinary school hours was simple Bible instruction, or Cowper-Temple instruction, or whatever other name they might give it. At present there was no provision in the Bill to provide that this special instruction under Clauses 3 and 4, be it of a sectarian, dogmatic, or ecclesiastical nature, was to be given in school hours.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is accepted by the Government.
  MR. PEEKSsaid he did not understand that the Government had made any such promise, but he would not argue that point now, as it did not arise, but the contention of the Leader of the Opposition was that on every morning of the week a minister of religion should be admitted to the schools to give religious instruction if the parents demanded it. Then, what became of the unfortunate parents of the children of dissenting communions? It was perfectly clear that the interpretation put upon the clause by the Minister for Education, that in the case of every National school which might be transferred the parish clergyman might enter it on every morning of the week to give religious instruction, was not the interpretation put upon it by the country. He had taken out the figures of some schools in his own division of Lincolnshire; and he found that out of sixteen schools, in only two did the parson come in to give religious instruction on two mornings a week; in three schools he went in on one morning a week, and into the remaining eleven he never went at all.
  MR. BIREELLsaid that his hon. who had just spoken was in

  279
  error, and therefore he wished to reply at once. They were now dealing with Clause 3, which was confined to the trust of the particular school, and no other person was to be permitted within the walls of that school except the person who was to carry out the teaching of the denomination or trust to which it belonged. If it was a Wesleyan school no one but a person instructing in the doctrine of John Wesley would have any access to that school at all.
  MR. PERKS: He would not do it.
  MR. BIRRELL: Then they might eliminate all outsiders from their consideration, because the only person who would have access to the school was the person who was qualified to give denominational teaching of the denomination to which the school belonged. Therefore, they got rid of the constant incursion of rival religions. Then another question arose which, in his opinion, was a matter of pure business dealing between the persons who made these bargains and the persons who were entitled to the benefit of the Bill. What was to be done in very large schools? In his own district of London there was one school with about 1,300 children. Supposing this school came under the facilities granted by Clause 3, how was the teaching to be carried out? The children were entitled to be taught the tenets of the denomination to which the school belonged, and the children were to have it at the expense of the rates on not more than two mornings a week if their parents wished it. If a hard and fast rule were to be laid down that every child in that school was to have denominational teaching on the same two mornings in the week, whether the number was 400 or 1,300, the teachers would not be forth-
  280
  coming and the facilities could not be afforded. That would be denying to these children the rights and privileges-to which they were entitled. He did not wish to make this a controversial point. He wished hon. Gentlemen would ask themselves, on this clause still more than on Clause 4, whether they wished these facilities to be afforded. They were facilities of a most limited description. The Government had been invited to extend them, but had rejected the voice of the tempter, and had limited this to Clause 3. By this clause, all children whose parents wished them to be taught the religion of the denomination to which the school belonged should have it on not more than two mornings a week. That was pre-eminently a matter for arrangement between the owners and the authorities when they took over the school. It was only fair that it should be understood that these facilities were to be allowed if the parents wished it, and if the size of the school rendered it impossible that all the children should receive that denominational teaching on the same two mornings they were not thereby to be deprived of having it. For Heaven's sake let hon. Members make no mistake about this matter, which really was not open to the consequences anticipated by the last speech.
  MR. J. W. WILSONsaid that after what had taken place he thought he had better ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? [Loud cries of "No."]
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that as one of those who had said "no" when the proposal was put that the

  281
  Amendment should be withdrawn he wished to explain why he had taken that course. He thought it was obvious that this limit of two days was perfectly mischievous and would take away from the local authority the freedom and liberty which the Government proclaimed as the keynote of their policy. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would extend the liberty to be given in regard to the time of religious instruction and would see that by making this small concession he would get rid of a large portion of the ill-will engendered by the Bill.
  MR. SOARESsaid he was strongly in favour of the facilities given by the Bill under Clauses 3 and 4, but he was not in favour of them as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman. The point he wanted to make clear was what was going to happen to the rural schools, because he represented a rural constituency. Was there to be a right of entry on the part of every single teacher of every denomination to give denominational teaching on every day of the week? If the public were going to pay for the teaching of denominational religion on five days a week, which was the only interpretation he could put upon the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not support the facilities. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would say that his interpretation was a wrong one.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that it was entirely a question of honestly giving effect to these facilities. If it were not necessary to allow the clergyman a right of entry on every day in the week it certainly would not be allowed. It was a matter of machinery. In the great majority of the rural schools there would be no
  282
  difficulty in confining this "facilities' teaching to two named days in the week; but if it could not be given reasonably and properly on two days the time would have to be extended.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he agreed that it was a matter of machinery. But it rested with the denominational teachers, and with them alone, to determine the matter. ["No."] This was not to be a matter of arrangement, or one of the points to be bargained about between the managers and the local authorities. It rested with the denomination alone to determine how the teaching was to be given—["No "]—whether the two days teaching to be given to each child should be concentrated into two days of the week, or whether it should be distributed over five days of the week, although no single child might receive it on more than two days of the week. ["No."] That was what they contemplated in the Bill, and that was what they approved of.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not agree at all. The right hon. Gentleman's interpretation comes to this, that if the denomination chooses to say they cannot teach twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty children on two days they are to be entitled to come in on every day. That I entirely dispute. It is a matter of machinery and a matter for the local authority.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The local authority? On what words in the clause does the right hon. Gentleman rely for an interpretation which is not the interpretation he gave ten minutes ago, and is absolutely inconsistent with the plain meaning of the English language?
  MR. DILLONsaid he only rose for the purpose of pointing out that it must now

  283
  have dawned on the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite that the time allocated to Clauses 3 and 4 was not quite sufficient.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid one was disposed to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition where in the clause he found the words empowering the denominational teachers, without any reference to the local authority, to impose its own idea of the number of days necessary to comply with the provisions of the clause. The clause said the local authorities should afford facilities to enable children to receive, on not more than two days a week, the religious instruction they required. The denomination was not entitled to select and classify the children themselves, whether the local authority liked it or not, so as to spread the denominational instruction over five days. He reminded the Committee, moreover, that the clause was founded on the experience of existing schools. In schools as they now existed it had been found in general sufficient to give the Catechism teaching on two mornings in the week, and that covered all the children in the school.
  LORD R. CECILconfessed that he was utterly unable to accept the Solicitor-General's explanation, and regarded the construction put upon the clause by the Solicitor-General as involving a serious infringement of the liberty of the subject. The net result of the interpretation of the Solicitor-General was that a local authority which was hostile to the giving of religious instruction would be able to insist upon what instruction should be given.
  MR. PAULadvised the President to drop a clause which nobody understood,
  nobody supported, and to which everybody objected.
  MR. LEIF JONESthought it was a revelation to both sides of the House that the interpretation suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite could be put upon this clause. He could only say that if that was the interpretation to which his right hon. friend intended to give effect he must alter the clause by omitting the words "on not more than two days a week." He defied anyone to say, if religious teaching went on five days a week, that the Bill did not "enable" the children to receive religious teaching on those five days.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that if the clause meant what the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it meant, he wanted it made perfectly clear that it did not mean that. It did mean what he had already indicated, but he would take care on Report that the interpretation put upon the clause by the right hon. Gentleman was impossible.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: To what speech of the right hon. Gentleman is he going to make his Bill conform? I am in the recollection of the whole House when I say that the interpretation which in unmistakable language I put on the clause was. endorsed by the Minister in charge.
  And, it being half-past Ten of the Clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 18th, June, to put forthwith the Question on. the Amendment already proposed from, the Chair.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 352; Noes, 159. (Division List No, 142.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Agnew, George William

  Alden, Percy

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crombie, John William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Armitage, R.

  Crooks, William

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cross, Alexander

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Crossley, William J.

  Hudson, Walter

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, David(Montgomery, Co.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Barker, John

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Duckworth, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Kelley, George D.

  Beale, W. P.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Beck. A, Cecil

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bell, Richard

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

  Essex, R. W.

  Lambert, George

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bertram, Julius

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

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

  Billson, Alfred

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lehmann, R.C.

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lever A Levy(Essex, Harwich

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

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Levy Maurice

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Branch, James

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Brigg, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Bright, J. A.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Gill, A. H

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Brooke, Stopford

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Glover, Thomas

  Lynch, H.B.

  Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Gooch George Peabody

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

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maclean, Donald

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Arthur, William

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Harcourt Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Crae, George

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hardie J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Cameron, Robert

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harwood, George

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Massie, J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Menzies, Walter

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cleland J. W.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mond, A.

  Clough, W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henry. Charles S.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cooper, G. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morrell, Philip

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morse, L. L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hodge, John

  Murray, James

  Cory, Clifford John

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Myer, Horatio

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Napier, T. B.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw))

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  286

  287

  Nicholls, George

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Rose, Charles Day

  Ure, Alexander

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rowlands, J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Runciman, Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  Nuttall, Harry

  Russell, T. W.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wallace, Robert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Partington, Oswald

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Paul, Herbert

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Schwann, Chas. E.(Manchester)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sears, J. E.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Pearson, Sir W.D. (Colchester)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

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

  Seddon, J.

  Wardle, George J.

  Perks, Robert William

  Shackleton, David James

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

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

  Wason, John Cathart(Orkney)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Pollard, Dr.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitbread, Howard

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Steadman, W, C.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rees, J. D.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Williamson, A. (Elgin & Nairn)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monmt'h)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

  Richardson, A.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radclifie)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wodehouse, Lord(Norfolk, Mid)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorganshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradford

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

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

  Robinson, S.

  Tomkinson, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Torrance, A. M.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Ashley, W. W.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

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

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Forster, Henry William

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Banner, John S. (Harmood-

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Haddock, George R.

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Delany, William

  Hammond, John

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Dillon, John

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Blake, Edward

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hazleton, Richard

  Boland, John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury SEdm'ds)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

  Burdett-Coutts. W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Hogan, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  288

  289

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Murnaghan, George

  Roche, John Galway (East)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Murphy, John

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Nield, Herbert

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

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

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

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur Ormskirk)

  Lundon, W.

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Starkey, John R.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  O'Dowd, John

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

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Thomson. W. Mitchell-(Lanark),

  Macpherson, J. T.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.)

  O'Malley, William

  Valentia, Viscount

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  O'Mara, James

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Kean, John

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

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

  M'Killop, W.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Meagher, Michael

  Reddy, M.

  Young, Samuel

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Younger, George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Mr.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Rawlinson, and Mr. Evelyn

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Cecil.

  Question agreed to.

  MR. SAMUEL EVANS,on a point of order, said that one of the tellers in the last division, the hon. Member for Aston, Manor failed for several minutes to proceed to the door of the lobby, and hon. Members were kept waiting. That meant that the division was lengthened very much, and he wished to know if that did not constitute a disobedience of the rules of the House, which laid down that a teller should proceed at once to the lobby.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYasked if there was any rule of the House under which the tellers had to proceed to the door in order to conduct the division under the new system.
  THE CHAIRMAN: In reply to the last question, I do not think that there is any order to that effect. What occurred in this case was that there was some little misunderstanding as to the tellers, and the consequence was that one of the tellers for some time did not go to the door, but he eventually went to the door.
  The CHAIRMAN thereupon proceeded to put forthwith the question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY, Yorkshire, W.R., Pudsey): I move that you, Mr. Chairman, do now report Progress.
  SIR E. CARSON: May I ask why we should report Progress?
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he was quite willing to withdraw the Motion if the Opposition desired to proceed now with Clause 4.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Motion?
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEY: I am entirely in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite if they are anxious to proceed with Clause 4. I understand that they are not anxious to do so.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and

  291
  ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 417; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 143.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Abraham, William(Rhondda)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Agnew, George William

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Alden, Percy

  Cleland J. W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Allan, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Clough, W.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hammond, John

  Armitage, R.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Harvey A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Harwood, George

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Parker, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Crooks, William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Delany, William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay(Galway

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bell, Richard

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hodge, John

  Benn, John Williams(Devonp'rt

  Dillon, John

  Hogan, Michael

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bertram, Julius

  Duckworth, James

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bethell, J. H.(Essex, Romford)

  Duffy, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Billson, Alfred

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Black. Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Hudson, Walter

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Ellis, Rt, Hon. John Edward

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Erskine, David C.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Branch, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Brigg, John

  Essex, R. W.

  Jenkins, J.

  Bright, J. A.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Joyce, Michael

  Pryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Findlay, Alexander

  Kelley, George D.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kilbride, Denis

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Burnyeat, J. D. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kitson, Sir James

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gill, A. H.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Cameron, Robert

  Ginnell, L.

  Lambert, George

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lamont, Norman

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Glover, Thomas

  Lawson, Sir Wifrid

  Chance, Frederick William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E

  O'Grady, J.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Soares, Ernest J

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  O'Malley, William

  Stanger H Y

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  O' Mara, James

  Stanley Hn A Lyulph(Chesh)

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lough, Thomas

  Paul, Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lundon, W.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Luttrell Hugh Fownes

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lynch, H.B.

  Perks, Robert William

  Summerbell, T.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Philipps. J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Mackaraess, Frederic C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Maclean, Donald

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Macnamara Dr. Thomas J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tennant.Sir Edward (Salisbury

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power; Patriok Joseph

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Macpherson J. T.

  Price; C E (Edinb'gh, Central)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Price Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Thomas David Alfred(Merthyr

  MacVeagh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  M'Callum, John M.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  M Crae, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Torrance, A. M.

  M'Kean, John

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Toulmin, George

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Killop, W.

  Reddy, M

  Ure Alexander

  M'Micking Major G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Verney, F. W.

  Maddison Frederick

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Vivian, Henry

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roes, J.D.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Manfield, Harry Northants

  Rendall Athelstan

  Wallace Robert

  Mansfield H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Renton Major Leslie

  Walsh Stephen

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Walters, John Tudor

  Marnham, F. J.

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

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

  Massie, J.

  Richardson, A.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Masterman, C.F.G.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  Meagher, Michae

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Micklem, Natnaniel

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

  Waterlow, D.S.

  Money L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Montagu, E.S.

  Robertson J M. (Tyneside)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robson Sir William Snowdon

  White J D (Dumbartonshire)

  Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Roche John (Galway East)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morrell Philip

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morse, L L,.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murnaghan George

  Rose Charles Day

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Murphy John

  Rowlands, J.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Murray James

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Myer, Haratio

  Russell, T.W.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Napier, T.B.

  Rutherford, V.H.(Brentford)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  Newnes, F.(Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, S.M. (Whitechapel)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

  Scarisbrick, T.T.L.

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

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willians

  Seares, J.E.

  Wilson, W.T. (Westhoughton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Seaverns, J.H.

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Brien Kenda(Tipperary Mid

  Seddon J

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfold, Mid)

  O'Brien Patrick(Kilkenny)

  Seely, Major J.B.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Connor James (Wicklow, W.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T.(Huddersf'd

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Connor, T.P.(Liverpool)

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Donnell, C.J.(Walworth)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  O'Dowd, John

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  294

  295

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

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

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Ashley, W. W.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Et. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Percy, Earl

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Ratcliffe, Major R. F.

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Finch, Et. Hon. George H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Haddock, George R.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hardy, Laurenee (Kent, Ashford

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Carlile, E. Hildred.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

  Cave, George

  Hill, Henry Stave]ey(Staff'sh.)

  Thomson.W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cavendish.Et.Hon. Victor C.W.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Cecil, Lord B. (Marylebone, E.

  King,Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

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

  Coates, E. Feethara(Lewisham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

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

  Long, Col., Charles W-(Evesham

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

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

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Younger, George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Et. Hon. Alfred

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Craik, Sir Henry

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Cross, Alexander

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Viscount Valentia.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL [LORDS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (CHILDREN) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE [EXPENSES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the charge on the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to make good any liabilities incurred by the public trustee, or his officers, appointed under any Act of the present session to
  296
  provide for the appointment of a public trustee, and of authorising the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament,, of the salaries or remuneration of the public trustee and his officers, and of other expenses incurred by them in pursuance of such Act (King's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—(Mr. George Whiteley.)

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) [ADVANCES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the repayment to the Ireland Development Grant, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of such sums as may be advanced in any financial year out of that fund, in pursuance of any Act of the-present session to amend the law relating to labourers in Ireland, and to make provision with respect to the application of portion of the Ireland Development Grant (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  Adjourned at nine minutes after-Eleven O'clock.