Sitting of 25 June 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:— Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; County of Durham Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric Supply Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Crellin's Patents Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
  Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill; Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Rugby Lower School Bill [Lords], Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.
  Barry Railway Bill [Lords], [not amended]; considered; to be read the third time.
  Cumberland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [Lords]; Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Forfar Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill, without amendment.
  Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas Bill, with an Amendment.
  Reserve Forces Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Company, and to empower that Company to make and maintain tramways and other works; and for other purposes." [Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate a body of conservators for the preservation and management as public open spaces of certain commons in the rural district of Henley, in the county of Oxford; and for other purposes." [Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling the Ritz Hotel, Limited, to rearrange its capital; and to provide for the extinction of its deferred shares; and for issuing ordinary shares in lieu thereof; and for altering the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company; and for other purposes." [The Ritz Hotel, Limited, Bill [Lords.]
  Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords]; Nettlebed and District Commons (Preservation) Bill [Lords]; Ritz Hotel, Limited, Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.
  Petition from Rugby, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Calstock; Nottingham (two); and Selly Oak; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Blisland; Ingatestone; Maer (two); Morwenstow; and Thurnham (two); to lie upon the Table.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION.
  Petition from Westmoreland, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions against; from Glasgow; and Greenock; to lie upon the Table.
  PHARMACY BILL.
  Petitions against; from Leek; and Sheffield; to lie upon the Table.
  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [LORDS].
  Petitions for alteration; from Bridgeton; East Gloucestershire; East Renfrewshire and Go van; Halifax; Newcastle-on-Tyne (two); Ripon; and Tiverton (two); to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Blackpool, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 31st March, 1906, etc. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3650 to 3652 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Chief Inspector for 1905. Report and Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DANGEROUS TRADES).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the action taken by the Home Office under the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1891, 1895, and 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIONS (BLACKBECK, LANCASHIRE).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an Explosion which occurred in the Gunpowder Factory at Blackbeck, Lancashire, on the 30th April, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901 (HOME WORK).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 27th March; Mr. Ramsay Macdonald]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 211.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Return of Advances made under The Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of February, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (IRELAND) (FEMALE INSPECTORS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th April; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, under the provisions of the Act, for the variation of an Order for uniting the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION)
  Copy presented, of Report and Recommendations of the Committee appointed to investigate and advise the First Commissioner of Works with regard to the improvement of the Ventilation of the House of Commons [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPERISM (ENGLAND AND WALES) (HALF-YEARLY STATEMENTS).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement of the number of Paupers relieved on the 1st day of January, 1906, and similar Statement for the 1st day of July, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 81, of Session 1905)."—(Mr.Runciman.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Property and Estate Laws in the Transvaal.
  MR. GROVE (Northamptonshire, S.): To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, seeing that in the case of the death of a trustee holding property in the Transvaal succession or estate duty in respect of the trust estate is levied, he will take steps to bring the English and Transvaal laws into harmony, and so remove the disabilities under which English subjects holding property in the Transvaal suffer.
  (Answered by Sir John Walton.) It is assumed that the Question refers to English succession or estate duty, and to the death of a person domiciled in the United Kingdom (see Finance Act, 1894, s. 2 (2). The general rule is that neither succession duty nor estate duty is leviable in the United Kingdom on the death of a trustee, as no change in the beneficial enjoyment of property is involved. As to succession duty, this is not expressly provided, but it follows from s. 2 of The Succession Duty Act, 1853. As to estate duty, there is an express provision,

  587
  s. 2 (3) of The Finance Act, 1894. If the case put in the Question falls within either of the two exceptions referred to in the above sub-section, the grievance can only be that duty is charged here and also in the Transvaal in respect of the same property. Grievances of this nature are intended to be met by s. 20 of The Finance Act, 1894. This section has not, however, been applied to the Transvaal, the reason being that the conditions under which an Order in Council may apply the section have not been satisfied. There was some correspondence last year between the Colonial Office and the Transvaal Government with regard to legislation in that colony necessary to enable His Majesty in Council to apply the section. The Inland Revenue Department are not cognisant of the stage which this correspondence has now reached. There appears to be no case for altering the English law, but any Question directed to that object should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not known whether under the Transvaal law duty is payable on the death of a trustee (as such). I have no power to obtain any alteration in the Transvaal law, and if such alteration is desired, application should be made to the Colonial Office.

  Duties of Auxiliary Postman at Derrybrien, County Galway.
  MR. DUFFY (Galway, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the rural auxiliary postman for Derrybrien, Gort, county Galway, has been employed in that office for over twenty-one years; has any revision taken place in his wages in consequence of the house to house delivery; how many miles were added to his daily average as a consequence of the fresh duties imposed upon him; and will he take all the circumstances into consideration with a view of increasing his wages.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not acquainted with the circumstances of the case referred to, but I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will afterwards communicate with [the hon. Member.

  Workmen's Compensation Act—Restaurant Staff as Domestic Servants.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether waiters and cooks in restaurants, and potmen, and barmaids are domestic servants within the meaning of that term in the Workmen's Compensation Bill; or whether, being merely workmen, they will come within the scope of the Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am advised that waiters, potmen, barmaids, and, speaking generally, cooks in restaurants, are not domestic servants within the meaning of that term in the Workmen's Compensation Bill, but the question is one of fact to be decided on the circumstance in each case. The circumstance which is generally considered as most important to show that a servant is a domestic servant is that of residence in the master's house.

  Shorthand Notes of the Poplar Inquiry.
  SIR F. BANBURY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether shorthand notes of the proceedings at the Poplar inquiry are being taken; and whether they will be available to Members of this House.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have arranged for shorthand notes of the proceedings being taken. The notes would only be available to Members of the House if they were printed and issued as a Parliamentary Paper. I propose to defer she consideration of the question whether this should be done until after the completion of the inquiry.

  Extra Delivery of Letters at Carrigallen, County Leitrim.
  MR. T. F. SMYTH (Leitrim, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General if he will grant a mid-day delivery of letters in Carrigallen, county Leitrim, as the inhabitants there suffer inconvenience from having only one daily delivery of letters, seeing that Carrigallen is only six miles from Killeshandra, and that the extra cost would only be about £22 yearly.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a report on this subject,

  589
  and on its receipt I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Officer in Charge of Magilligan Camp Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Postmaster-General under what circumstances a Dublin relief clerk, temporarily employed in the Londonderry office, has been selected to take charge of the Magilligan Camp this season, seeing that in former years this duty has been reserved for the staff at Londonderry, and their supercession on this occasion will entail financial loss.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry and will communicate with the hon. Member.

  Responsibility to Parliament of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. GINNELL (Westmeath, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Estates Commissioners are themselves answerable to Parliament, there is any precedent or analogy for refusing to answer an inquiry with reference to one of their non-judicial subordinates, whose work has been declared incorrect by a county court judge; and whether he will now furnish the House with information in the case in question.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I think the hon. and learned Member has somewhat misapprehended the reply which I gave to his former Question on the 20th instant. It was intended to convey that the responsibility for the action taken by the Estates Commissioners in the case of M'Glone rests entirely upon them, and not upon their inspector, who inquired into the case by their direction and on their behalf. The Commissioners are considering the question whether they will take steps to test the decision of the county court judge, and until this question has been decided it will not be convenient to give further information in the case.

  Defective Sight of Naval Officers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with a view to the safety of
  590
  His Majesty's ships and their crews, the Admiralty hold the Commander-in-Chief of a station responsible that cases of defective vision on the part of officers commanding ships are reported to the Admiralty; and whether the officer commanding a ship is in a similar manner held responsible in the case of his officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is naturally the duty of Commanders-in-Chief and Commanding Officers of ships to report any circumstances affecting the capacity of an officer to perform the duties for which he is responsible, but it has not been considered necessary to specify any particular defect as calling for a special report.

  Education Authorities and Instruction in Agricultural Co-operation.
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the circular of 13th June, 1902, addressed to county councils and enclosing the Minute of 16th April, 1902, authorising the Buckinghamshire County Council, under Section 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, to include in their syllabus instruction in the principles and practice of agricultural co-operation, resulted in applications from other county councils, and in the sanctioning of this subject of instruction in other counties, and, if so, in which counties; whether, in pursuance of their powers under Section 2 of the Education Act, 1902, any local education authorities, and, if so, how many, have applied to the Board of Education to sanction the inclusion of the principles and practice of agricultural co-operation in their syllabus of technical instruction; and whether any county, county borough, or other education committees for the purposes of elementary education have applied to the Board of Education for their sanction for teaching this subject in any school under their control, and, if so, in which counties or districts, and in how many instances.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The circulars referred to were issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries after consultation with the Board of Education. The Board of Education sanctioned the subject "Principles and Practice of

  591
  Agricultural Co-operation," by Minute under The Technical Instruction Act, 1889, on 16th April, 1902, on the representation of the Buckinghamshire County Council that it was a form of instruction suitable to the circumstances of the district. This subject was similarly sanctioned in respect of the areas of fourteen other county councils, viz., Carnarvon, Cheshire, East Sussex, Staffordshire, Essex, East Suffolk, Pembroke, Oxford, Leicester, Shropshire, Carmarthen, Rutland, Cardigan, Devonshire. The Education Act, 1902, rendered obsolete those Minutes of the late Science and Art Department, and made it unnecessary for county councils to obtain the express sanction of the Board of Education for the recognition of any particular subject as a branch of technical instruction. I am not in a position to furnish the number of authorities which now include in their programme of technical instruction any classes on the "Principles and Practice of Agricultural Co-operation." I am not aware that any local authorities for elementary education have attempted to teach children in any public elementary school "The Principles and Practice of Agricultural Co-operation," but I think it hardly likely that an attempt has been made, or, if made, would be fruitful; at all events, in any but the higher classes in those few schools where an unusual number of children attend until fourteen and fifteen years of age.

  The Burtonport Railway.
  MR. MACVEIGH (Donegal, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed on the 11th inst. by the County Council of Donegal, confirming resolutions passed on 23rd August and 16th October, 1905, calling for an inquiry, in the interest of the ratepayers of the guaranteeing area, and the public using the Burtonport Railway, and for the appointment of an arbitrator to inquire into the allegations made by the railway company as to the imperfect completion of the line, the insufficient equipment with engines and rolling stock, and the alleged improper expenditure of public money; and will he say when an arbitrator will be appointed to inquire into the matter and the working of the line generally.
  592
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) After very full and repeated consideration of all the circumstances of this case and in view of the terms of the Order in Council, and the agreement with the Treasury for the construction, etc., of the line, the Treasury has decided that it would not be justified in referring the matter to an outside tribunal. A similar Answer was given to unstarred Questions by the hon. Members for West and South Donegal on Monday last.† As regards the working of the line an improvement, has, I understand, already taken place some time ago, and I am not aware of any reason for pressing the Board of Trade to hold an inquiry into the matter.

  Applications for Reinstatement from Evicted Tenants in North Roscommon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many applications for reinstatement from evicted tenants in North Roscommon have been received by the Estates Commissioners; in how many cases have the evicted tenants been restored to their holdings or given equivalent holdings; and what progress has been made in acquiring untenanted land for distribution among the tenants of uneconomical holdings, in North Roscommon.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners records are not kept by Parliamentary divisions. The Commissioners have received applications from 156 persons seeking reinstatement in county Roscommon. The reinstatement of fourteen of these has been notified to them. The Commissioners have entered into agreements for the purchase of 1,112 acres of untenanted land, and are negotiating for the purchase of some 2,000 acres in addition.

  Sale of the Clements Estate, County Leitrim.
  MR. DOLAN (Leitrim, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sale of the Clements Estate at Manorhamilton, county Leitrim, under the Land Act of 1903, has been completed; is he aware that on the 22nd February last the
  † See (4) Debates, clviii., 1344.

  593
  rural district council of Manorhamilton adopted a resolution requesting the landlord to sell a grazing farm at Skreeny, included in the estates to the Estate Commissioners, with the view of providing sites for houses for the working classes in the town of Manorhamilton; has that resolution been considered by the Estates Commissioners; and. if not, would he have the circumstances investigated before the advance of the purchase money on this estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the purchase agreements in respect of this estate have only now been lodged with them, and that consequent y the sale will not be completed for a considerable time. The Commissioners have not received the resolution referred to, but will be prepared, when dealing with the estate, to consider any application upon the subject which they may receive.

  Spread of Consumption in Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the spread of consumption in Ire and, the Government will consider whether any steps can be taken for dealing with the disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) This matter has been receiving the serious consideration of the Local Government Board, who are issuing to local authorities and medical officers of health circulars containing recommendations and instructions as to measures designed to check the spread of consumption.

  Publication of Irish Historical Manuscripts.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, in view of the mass of records and historical manuscripts at home and abroad relating to Ireland, which are unpublished and of the desirability of initiating their publication, he will arrange an opportunity of discussing the question before the end of the present session.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) An opportunity of discussing this question will,
  594
  I take it, be afforded whenever the Estimates for the Irish Record Office may come under discussion. Those Estimates, however, do not belong to Irish Supply. I may remind the hon. Baronet that in recent years considerable progress has been made in the publication of historical manuscripts relating to Ireland. The Annals of Ulster and the Brehon Laws have been edited and published, and the publication in eight volumes of a calendar of the Justiciary Rolls of Ireland up to the 18th year of Richard II. has been authorised, as well as the publication of a volume containing the statutes and ordinances of the early Parliaments and great councils of Ireland. The Historical Manuscripts Commission and the English Record Office are each also engaged upon the publication of manuscripts relating to Ireland. I shall, however, be glad to receive any suggestions on the subject and to do my best to secure the proper editing and publication of these valuable records.

  Sale of the Estate of Mrs. Adair, Mountmellick.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that five tenants on the estate of Mrs. Adair, Mountmellick, Queen's County, have signed agreements to purchase their holdings at twenty-three years purchase, with bonus added, that the greater portion of the same estate was sold to the tenants eleven years ago at seventeen years purchase, and that the latter tenant purchasers have received one decadal reduction of 14 per cent., and are entitled to two more; and can he say what is the cause of the rise in price under the Act of 1903; and whether the Government propose introducing legislation to prevent such prices being demanded from the Irish tenant purchasers.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the Question. I could not, within the limits of an Answer, attempt to enter upon a speculation as to the possible cause or causes of the rise in price. As I have already repeatedly stated, the Government are

  595
  carefully watching the operations of the Land Purchase Acts, with the object of deciding whether amending legislation may be desirable, and I am not at present prepared to add anything to that statement.

  Notices to Release Portions of the Bog in County Fermanagh.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority John Crawford, of Lavagh, county Fermanagh, served notices on John Crawford, junior, of Derryvan, county Fermanagh, Samuel Rooney, of Kinglass, county Fermanagh, and Mrs. Crawford, of Mullaghgarrow, to give up the portions of bog in the townland of Mullaghgarrow which had been secured to them in their investment orders when they were purchasing their holdings under the Land Purchase Act in 1892; whether the Earl of Enniskillen sold these portions of bog to John Crawford, of Lavagh; and whether he will give instructions to the Land Commission to see that these people are secured in the rights which they acquired by their terms of purchase.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Land Commission inform me that they have no knowledge of the proceedings referred to in the Question. If the tenant purchasers consider that their rights have been invaded, it is open to them, if so advised, to seek redress by legal proceedings. The matter is not one in which the Land Commission can intervene.

  Terms of Purchase of the Carysfort Estate.
  MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tenants on the Carysfort Estate, in the county of Wicklow, have memorialised the Estates Commissioners stating they have refused to agree to the terms of purchase demanded by the landlord, on the ground that they were exorbitant, and they would be unable to pay them; that in consequence the landlord has since harrassed them in various ways, and by duress sought to compel them to consent to his terms, and requesting the Com-
  596
  missioners to refuse to sanction the sale of any portion of the estate until the landlord agrees to reasonable terms of sale for the whole estate still unsold, and also requesting the Commissioners to intervene as negotiators and arbitrators between themselves and the landlord, stating they are willing to agree to any terms that may be settled by the Commissioners; and whether the Commissioners will accede to the tenants' request.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the memorial referred so. They have no present knowledge of the matters complained of, but will have them fully inquired into by their inspector when he visits the estate in connection with the proceedings for sale which have been instituted. The Commissioners will duly consider all the circumstances before sanctioning the sale of the estate.

  Disturbance in Dublin at Distraint on Goods of Mr. Patrick O'Carroll.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at an auction of coal, seized by the police to defray the fine imposed upon Mr. Patrick O'Carroll, a member of the Dublin Corporation, for having his name printed on his cart as Phadrig O'Cearbhaill, in Irish characters; whether he is aware that a crowd was attracted by handbills denouncing the Government, and declaring that the proceeds of the sale would be devoted to the part payment of the salaries of the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant and Sir Antony Macdonnell, and that the police had to be called in to quell the disorder; and whether proceedings will be instituted against the persons who organised this disturbance.
  (Answered by Mr Bryce.) Until this Question was put down my attention was not called to the proceedings referred to. The hon. Member will, I am sure, be delighted to learn that the disorder on the occasion referred to was not of a serious nature; It appears that some persons interrupted the proceedings, and that the police, at the

  597
  request of the auctioneer, ejected the offenders. The police authorities inform me that, in. their opinion, no further proceedings are necessary.

  Alleged Boycotting of Mr. John Dowd, of Ryefield, County Roscommon.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John Dowd, of Ryefield, Elphia, county Roscommon, has complained to the police that he has been boycotted by direction of the United Irish League, and that Mr. Timothy Rorke, J.P., the United League Treasurer for North Roscommon, who is employed by the Congested Districts Board, had threatened to make it hot for him; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that Mr. Dowd has not complained to the police that he has been boycotted, or that Mr. Rorke had threatened to make it hot for him. The police state that, as a matter of fact, Mr. Dowd has not been boycotted, and has not, so far as they are aware, suffered any inconvenience. Mr. Rorke is not in the employment of the Congested Districts Board, though he was temporarily employed for a short period, about fifteen days, last spring in placing grazing stock on the Board's lands. No action is called for in the matter.

  Sale of Farms on Earl Fitzwilliam's Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tenants who refuse to purchase their farms from Earl Fitzwilliam, on the ground that the price demanded is excessive, have been notified by the Estates Commissioners, through Mr. Fottrell, solicitor, that they intend to exclude those tenants from the sale of the estate unless they write by return post agreeing to purchase on the land lord's terms; and, if so, will he make inquiries into the action of the Commissioners in these cases.
  598
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that in a few cases the tenants refused to accept the terms offered, upon the ground that these terms were excessive. In such cases the Commissioners required their inspector to state whether, in his opinion, the vendor's terms were reasonable, and he inspector's report was in the affirmative. As the tenants still refused to sign purchase agreements on these terms their holdings were excluded from the "declared" estate, upon the vendor's solicitor giving an undertaking that, as far as possible, these holdings would be included in a subsequent estate if terms acceptable to the tenants could be arranged. This course was taken in order to complete the proceedings for sale, affecting 1,055 tenants, upon that portion of the several estates for which agreements had been signed. The Commissioners have no information as to what communications passed between he solicitors for the vendor and the tenants. In such cases as these it is I he practice to inform the tenants that their holdings have been excluded, but that an opportunity would be subsequently avoided them of coming to terms with their landlord, in which cast (heir holdings would be included in another estate.

  Payment of Cost by Patients Obtaining Poor Law Medical Relief.
  MR. MEAGHER (Kilkenny, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is competent for boards of guardians at their meeting subsequent to the admission of patients to the infirmaries or hospitals under their control, who seek relief by way of loan, to fix the amount which the patient or patients shall pay per day for their maintenance and attendance while in the hospital or infirmary; and, if not, whether, seeing that at the present time such patients contribute but a fraction of the cost which they bear on the rates, he will introduce a Bill granting boards of guardians the power to fix the rates of charges to patients who seek relief by way of loan, so as to include, in the case of patients who are able to pay, a part of the cost of medical and nursing attendance, and the actual cost of the dietary.

  599
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In the opinion of the Local Government Board the answer to the first part of the Question is that the guardians have only a limited power under Section 4 of The Poor Relief (Wand) Act, 1862, whereby they are empowered to charge patients in hospital or infirmaries a portion of their cost, but such portion is in no case to exceed the average of the general cost of maintenance, medical and surgical treatment, in such hospitals or infirmaries. The Government are not prepared to consider the suggestion contained in the latter part of the Question pending the presentation of the Report of the Poor Law Reform Commission.

  Maintenance and Patients Treated in the Kilkenny District Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of patients treated in the Kilkenny District Lunatic Asylum for the year 1897, and the total cost for the same, including maintenance and establishment charges, showing how much was raised by local rates and how much received from Government grants, and the average weekly cost per head in that year, and the details of the same information for the year 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In the calendar Year 1897 the average number of patients in this asylum was 388: the total cost, including maintenance and establishment charges, was £9,127, of which £4,400 was raised by local rates and £3,212 received from Government grants; and the net average weekly cost per patient was 7s. 6d. The corresponding figures for the financial year ending 31st March, 1905, were, average number of patients, 452; total cost, £12,997; raised by local rates, £7,876; received from Government grants, £4,552; net average weekly cost, 8s. l0d.

  Weekly Tenants and Payment of Rates on Cottages.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the burden placed on the ratepayers of a number of unions in Ireland by the inability of weekly tenants of cottages to pay the rates levied on them; and whether,
  600
  seeing that the rates on those cottages prior to the operation of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898 were borne by the landlords, he will see his way to have that Act amended in order to revert to the old system, and so prevent the other ratepayers from having to meet increased taxation.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.)—I beg to refer to the replies which I gave to similar Questions on April 4th and May 16th,† when I stated fully the reasons why the Government are not prepared to introduce legislation on this subject.

  Allocation of Grants for the Teaching of Irish.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the lack of prosperity in some parts of Ireland, he will discontinue the allocation of grants towards the teaching of Irish in national schools, with the object of securing more time being spent on learning other languages, seeing that a section of Irishmen object to contribute towards the cost of teaching Irish; and whether he can see his way to constitute the Irish language as a special subject, to be taught out of national school hours, and paid for by those parents desirous of having their children taught it.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.)—It is not proposed to discontinue the allocation of grants for the teaching of Irish, nor does the Irish Government believe that it would be possible, as the hon. Member seems to suggest, to introduce the general teaching of Greek, German, and other languages in Irish primary schools. Neither would it be an easy matter to give effect at the same time to all the wishes of every particular section of Irishmen. The suggestion in the last paragraph of the Question does not appear to be practicable.

  Case of James Ward and the Castlebar Urban District Council.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James Ward, who was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment at the Sligo winter assizes,
  † See (4) Debates, Clv., 476; clvii, 482.

  601
  for having published a seditious libel against the Government and trying to prevent persons from enlisting in the Army and Navy, has been liberated three months in advance of the termination of his sentence; whether he is aware that James Ward, since his incarceration, has been unanimously co-opted a member of the Castlebar Urban Council; and whether in view of the fact that this man has been imprisoned for this offence, he will take steps to have the appointment cancelled.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) James Ward has been released, by order of the Lords Justices, two and a half months before the termination of his sentence of nine months. He has, I am informed, been co-opted, but not unanimously, a member of the Castlebar Urban District Council. He does not appear to be disqualified from acting upon the district council. The Irish Government have no power to cancel appointments of this nature.

  Evicted Tenants in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will, in the interest of public peace and good feeling, see that the evicted tenants in county Clare are dealt with as soon as possible, and whether he can state the total number of Clare evicted tenants, and what steps are being taken for their restoration to holdings, so that their present state of idleness and suffering may be terminated.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have deputed one of their inspectors to inquire into the cases of the 217 evicted tenants who have lodged applications for reinstatement in county Clare. The inspector's inquiries will obviously take some time, but the matter will be pressed forward with as much despatch at possible.

  Irish Intermediate Education Board Rules.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL (Kerry, W.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when will the
  602
  new rules of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland be laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The rules were laid upon the Table on Friday List. They are substantially the rules approved in 1905 for the year 1906. The only changes which have been made are, I understand, a few minor changes consequent upon the alteration of the programme as regards some of the subjects. These changes do not in any way affect Irish as a subject of examination.

  Government Board and Resolultion by Parliament.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any precedent for a board, either in England or Ireland, deriving its authority and its finances from the Exchequer, refusing to adopt a Resolution unanimously agreed to by Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am not aware that there is any precedent, but I am also not aware that the case has arisen.

  Revision Court for Carrickmore.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a Resolution, recently passed by the Omagh Board of Guardians, in reference to the necessity of a revision court at Carrickmore, in the Parliamentary Division of Mid-Tyrone; is he aware that householders, in order to get their names on the register of voters, have in many cases to travel ten, twelve and fourteen miles to the town of Sixmilecross, mostly on foot; and whether, in view of the value attached to electoral rights by tic people of Tyrone, he will take steps to establish at Carrickmore a revision court in time for the Autumn revision.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Resolution in question has been received, and the necessary inquiries are being made with the object of submitting the matter for the decision of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council.

  Local Government (Ireland) Act—Suggested Repeal of Clause 6.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has bean called to the effect on the ratepayers of Ireland of the operation of Clause 6 of the Local Government (Ireland) Amending Act of 1902; and whether, seeing that the existence of this clause in the Act has given dissatisfaction to all the Poor Law unions of Ireland, and also so the officers of these bodies, he will see his way to have the clause repealed, or, as an alternative, will recommend the Treasury to accede to the request of the Poor Law Association of Ireland by giving an equivalent grant to the Poor Law unions of Ireland in aid of salaries.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board have received from some unions requests for the repeal of the section quoted, but it is not the fact that the operations of the section has given dissatisfaction to all unions. I have already stated that it is not the intention of the Government as at present advised to take steps for the repeal of this section, and I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to Questions on the subject put by the hon. Member for South Cork on the 12th March† and 23rd May.‡

  Local Government (Ireland) Act—Suggested Repeal of Section 83.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the difficulties in the way of the efficient working of the Parliamentary Voters' Acts, by the existence of Section 83 (7) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act of 1898; whether he is aware that the majority of the Irish Poor Law unions boards have, at repeated times, urged on the Irish Government the necessity for repealing this section in favour of having the work and the work under the Jurors Acts performed as heretofore by all clerks of unions; and whether he can see his way to have this section repealed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) By the enactment referred to, the duty of pre-
  † See (4) Debates, cliii., 876.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clvii., 1287.
  604
  paring voters and jurors' lists was transferred from clerks of unions, to secretaries of county councils. In the opinion of the Local Government Board, this enactment does not hinder but facilitates the efficient working of the Parliamentary Voters and Jurors Acts. It is the fact that a number of boards of guardians have from lime to time asked for the repeal of the section in question, but it was found that there was a consensus of opinion on the part of county court judges and revising barristers in favour of the continuance of the present system, and in these circumstances it is not proposed to take steps for the repeal of the section.

  Irish Boards of Guardians and Tenders for Supplies.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in considering contracts for the supplies for workhouses and dispensaries, boards of guardians are allowed to use their discretion to accept any tender which they decide on, irresspective as to whether the same may be the lowest or not, if, in their opinion, or in the opinion of the majority of the board, they are doing the best for the interests of the ratepayers; and whether it is only in the case of district council work that reasons are to be given to the Local Government Board as to why tenders other than the lowest were accepted.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Boards of guardians are, in the exercise of their discretion, at liberty to accept the lowest or any tender for the supply of goods to the workhouse, except in the case of medicines and medical and surgical appliances. In order to obtain recoupment from the local taxation account of portion of the cost of these latter articles, boards of guardians must, before accepting a tender, other than the lowest, obtain the approval of the Local Government Board. In every case boards of guardians must be prepared to satisfy the auditor that their action in accepting a tender other than the lowest was in the best interest of the ratepayers. Section 18 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, requires a rural district council which accepts a tender other than the lowest,

  605
  for the execution of a public work, to give the reasons on a prescribed form for the non-acceptance of the lower tender or tenders. The reasons must be produced to the auditor of the Local Government Board.

  Extra Police at Loughrea.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many extra policemen are stationed in Loughrea at present arising out of the eviction of Mr. Martin Ward; how many are employed protecting the men in possession of Mr. Ward's premises; is any share of the cost to be borne by the landlord, Lord Clanricarde; and, if not, who will be responsible.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that the number of extra policemen at present stationed in Loughrea is eleven. No policemen have been specially detailed for the protection of the caretakers of Mr. Ward's late premises, but this duty is performed by the police generally. The extra policemen at Loughrea belong to the established force of county Galway, and the cost therefore falls on the Parliamentary Vote, and not on local authorities or other persons.

  Complaints of the O'Hara Tenants.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to investigate the complaint made in the memorial forwarded to them by a body of the O'Hara tenantry, near Gort; and will he state how the matter stands.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have entered into communication with the agent of the estate in question upon the subject of the petition which they have received from the occupiers of small holdings in the district. No proceedings for the sale of the estate have yet been instituted before them.

  Changes in the Irish Intermediate Education Programme.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the
  606
  House of Commons unanimously agreed on May 21st,† to certain changes in the intermediate programme for the year 1907, and that these changes created no difficulty in administration, he will explain why the Board took one month before they could give a definite reply to the matter; whether he will secure the publication of the minutes of the meeting of the Board at which this matter was discussed; and will he state which of the proposed changes causes difficulty, and in what way it does so.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) There has been no avoidable delay on the part of the Board or of the Executive in dealing with this matter. Any delay that has occurred has been due to the difficulties inherent in the case, and to the necessity of summoning members of the Board from various parts of Ireland to the meeting convened to consider the matter. It was found necessary to tike the opinion of the Law Officers as to the effect of the Resolution of the House upon the rules submitted, and His Excellency was advised that the rules as a whole had been rendered null and void by the passing of the Resolution, and that a new set of rules required to be submitted. This opinion was communicated to the Intermediate Education Board, who thought that, considering the difficulties and intricacy of the matter, they could not, within the time necessary to enable rules to become effective, frame new rules which would adequately meet the case. They have therefore submitted the rules already approved of for 1906 as rules for 1907, and these, with the formal sanction of the Lord-Lieutenant, have now been laid on the Table. The publication of the minutes of the Board would be very unusual and, in the opinion of the Government, not to the public interest, nor has the Irish Government any power to require the Board to produce the minutes of its proceedings. Even if I possessed the necessary technical acquaintance with the subject it would be impossible within the limits of an Answer to explain the difficulties which have led the Board, as they inform me, to postpone for the present year an attempt to reconstruct these rules.
  † See (4) Debates clvii., 1072,

  Turbary on Lord Orkney's Estate at Castle Iney.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on Lord Orkney's estate, at Castle Iney, county Tipperary, signed their purchase agreements on the understanding that the turbary was to be divided equally amongst them, and that the solicitor acting for the tenants, Mr. Ryan, received a letter from the solicitor for the landlord, Mr. Lyster, previous to the signing of agreements, stating that the turbary was to be sold to the Estates Commi sioners for the purpose mentioned, and will he say if this turbary has been acquired by the Estates Commissioners, is it to be distributed evenly amongst the purchasing tenants, and what steps have been taken s nee the negotiations were completed in 1904 to distribute this portion of the estate amongst the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce) The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the sale of this estate are before them, but that the property has not yet been inspected on their behalf. The matters of fact alleged n he Question will be inquired into when the inspection is being made, but the Commissioners have no present knowledge on the subject. No part of the property has been acquired by the Estates Commissioner.

  Report of the Estates and Land Commissioners.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH (Sligo, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of the Estates Commissioners for the year ended March 31st, 1906, has yet been issued; if not, can he say when it is likely to be available for Members and can he say when the Land Commission Report for the same year will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they anticipate that their Report will be ready for presentation by the middle of next month, and the Land Commission that their annual Report will be completed by about the same time. Such delay as has occurred in completing the
  608
  Report of the Estates Commissioners is, they inform me, largely due to the diversion of much of the t me of their staff to the preparation of Answers to Questions put in this House. My recollection, however, is that this does not, however, in any way refer to Questions put by the hon. Member, whose Questions have not, according to my recollection, unduly occupied the time of the Commisioners or of any Irish Department.

  Grant towards Improvement of Kinvarra Harbour.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution passed by the Galway County Council at its meeting on the 18th instant, wherein disapproval is expressed of the action of the Department of Agriculture in withholding the payment of their promised contribution of £1,100 towards the improvement of Kinvarra Harbour; and whether, in view of the necessity of completing the improvements to the harbour and the extension of the pier, he will take steps to see that the undertaking arrived at, as between the county council and the Deparment of Agriculture, is carried out with the least possible delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Resolution referred to has been received. The proposed harbour works at Kinvarra are in two sections. In one of these, the cost of which is £1,900, the works are already in progress under the Marine Works Act, £1,100 having been provided under that Act, and £800 by the county council. The other scheme, which involves a cost of £1,600, consists of an extension proposed by the county council to which the Department of Agriculture proposes to contribute £1,100. The Department have no desire to withdraw their offered contribution, but a legal difficulty has arisen as to the powers of the county council to contribute their share of the cost. This matter is, at present, receiving the earnest attention of the Government.

  South Derby Election—Assault Case.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the case of

  609
  George M'Cullough and William Foster, in connection with the South Derry election, to recover damages for assault I and battery, tried in Dublin before Justice Kenny and a jury, and in which plaintiff obtained a verdict for £20 damages; is he aware that the learned judge commented strongly on the conduct of the local police in not prosecuting Foster for this assault; and will he say what steps do the constabulary authorities intend to take in regard to Constable Mason and the other policemen.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) My attention had not been called to this case, but I have now received a report from the police authorities and have seen a newspaper report containing the comments of the learned judge upon the hearing of the civil action. It appears that the assault in question was witnessed by two policemen, who at once interfered to prevent further assaults. I am informed that it is not the practice for the police to prosecute in such cases unless the assault is of a serious nature or is one involving the general peace of the locality; and if the police have any doubt upon the latter point, they take the directions of the magistrates at petty sessions, under 25 and 26 Vic. Cap. 50, See. 9. This was done in the present case, and the bench of magistrates decided that, as a civil action was pending, it was better that the police should not interfere. M'Cullough himself had requested the police not to prosecute, as he intended to take a civil action. The learned judge was probably not informed of this fact. As the police followed the usual course in this case, the Inspector-General does not intend to take any steps.

  Belfast Prison Governor.
  MR. McKILLOP (Armagh, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state what is the age of the present governor of the Belfast prison; how long has he been in the service, and does the sixty-five rule apply to his case; can he say how many prisons he has been governor in before his appointment to Belfast; and how many escapes and attempted escapes have taken place in each, during the term of his governorship.
  610
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the Governor of Belfast prison is sixty-one years of age. He has been in the prison service for forty years. The rule as to retirement at sixty-five does not apply in his case, as he is one of the existing officers who were transferred to the service of the general Prisons Board under the Prisons Act of 1877. He has been governor of threes prisons besides Belfast, namely, Tralee, Limerick, and Clonmel. One escape and one attempted escape occurred during his governorship of Tralee prison, and one escape during his governorship of Limerick Prison.

  Belfast Prison—Confidential Reports.
  MR. MCKILLOP: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is usual for the Prisons Board, in regard to charges against warders, to receive secret Reports from the governors of prisons in such cases; if not, is he aware of any cases in which such has been done; whether the Prisons Board ever consider or base their decision on such Reports, without disclosing the nature of the same to the warder concerned; and whether any such secret Reports have been received from the Governor of Belfast prison during the past twelve months; and, if so, will such he laid upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The General Prisons Board inform me that they continuously receive from prison governors, including the Governor of Belfast Prison, confidential reports upon matters affecting prison administration and discipline. Warders are afforded full opportunity of meeting any charges which may be brought against them. The evidence in support of the charges is taken in their presence, and they may cross-examine the witnesses and bring up witnesses in their own defence. The General Prison Board do not, in any such case, base their decision on confidential reports, but on the admitted or proved facts of the case. It would be quite contrary to the established practice, and not in the interests of the public service, to lay upon the Table confidential reports received by the Prisons Board from their officers.

  Glenties Land Dispute.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings of the landlord in a case in which the Marquess Conygham is plaintiff and Major Johnstone, of New Eden, Glenties, in the county of Donegal, is defendant, in which, at the last petty sessions at Ardara, on 12th June, a decree for the possession of three farms, Magherymore, Mullynigh, and Oisk, all under one rental, was granted, a decree in ejectment for non-payment of rent having been previously obtained, and to the magistrate's opinion that the application could not be refused as the six months' period of redemption had expired, notwithstanding that the defendant made an offer in gold of full rent and costs, which was refused, although Captain Crosbie, the resident magistrate, strongly urged its acceptance by the landlord's solicitor; and whether, having regard to the fact that the decree for possession was given on an undertaking on behalf of the landlord that the eviction would not be carried out for a month, and that now, in violation of that undertaking, preparations are being made for its immediate execution, he will refuse to lend the forces of the Crown in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. The decree which was granted was, however, not against Major Johnstone but against James Boyle, who was originally a subtenant to Major Johnstone, and was, at the date of the decree, caretaker of the holdings. It is, I understand, the fact that the resident magistrate suggested the acceptance of the proposed payment in the interests of peace, but the plaintiff's solicitor stated that he had no power to accept the offer. I have no information as to any undertaking that the execution of the decree should be delayed for a month, nor have I any information that preparations for its execution are now being made; but in any event, it is hardly necessary for me to remind the hon. and learned Member that I have no power whatever to with-
  612
  hold the forces of the Crown in cases of this kind.

  Clonamirin Estate Sale.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proposed sale of a large estate, situated in Clonamirin, Mount Shannon, county Galway, in sections, to four or five tenants; whether he is aware that close on forty small tenancies, of an average valuation of less than £5, exist in the neighbourhood; and whether the Estates Commissioners will institute special inquiry into the circumstances attending the sale of the John F. George and James Wakely estate before sanctioning a sale which, if carried out, will stereotype the poverty of the congested occupiers in the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that in the short time since notice of this Question was given they have been unable to trace any proceedings as having been instituted before them in respect of the estate referred to, but they will have a further investigation made, and I will apprise the hon. Member of the result.

  Belfast Army Meat Supplies.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has been expressed respecting the quality of the meat supplied to the troops stationed in Belfast; and whether he can state the firm to whom the contract was given.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No complaint has reached the War Office regarding the quality of meat supplied under the Belfast contract, which is held by F. Boddy, of Liverpool.

  Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham
  MR. C. DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary of Stats for War whether he can state how many of the men recently employed at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Birmingham, have been thrown out of employment owing to the transference of this factory to a

  613
  private company; and whether, in view of the understanding that no man should be discharged, and the promise given by the Government that 25 per cent, of the orders to be given out to private contractors should be sent to this factory, he will say what action the Government intend to take in order to prevent the discharge of the workmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The condition of transfer alluded to was that preference of employment by the purchasing company was to be given to men employed by the Government at the factory at the time of transfer. We understand that this condition of the agreement is being fulfilled, and that all men who were so employed at that date are still employed at the factory.

  Crimean Veteran's Record.
  MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the prosecution, at Killarney, on the 18th June, 1906, of Cornelius Brosnihan for begging; whether he is, aware that this man was a soldier ii the 32nd Regiment, and served through the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny, and was also presented with the modal of the Royal Humane Society for life-saving; and whether he can do anything to relieve this distressed old soldier and save him from poverty in his old age.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This man was discharged from the Army with ignominy, and with a very bad character. This is not considered to be a case deserving a compassionate allowance.

  Natal Natives and the Kimberley Mines.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Natal natives captured as rebels are being sentenced and sent to work in the Kimberley mines; whether he would inform the House what are the terms of contract which the Natal Government has made with the De Beers Company in respect to these rebels; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to make any representation to the Natal Government on the subject.
  614
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I can add nothing to my previous Answers upon this subject except that I am confident that there is no contract in existence of the kind suggested, and that we have telegraphed to ask for information as to the facts.

  Transvaal Trade Routes
  MR. MOLTENO: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what have been the respective proportions of the trade of the Transvaal, in tonnage, carried via the ports of the Cape, Natal, and Delagoa Bay, respestively, in each year since the modus vivendi came into force; what was the proportion carried via the same ports in the last complete year before the war; and whether he is aware that the trade of the ports of the Cape and Natal is languishing, while the port of Delagoa Bay is stated to be so congested that the warehouses are all full, and goods are being stored in the open.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The hon. Member's Question is understood to refer to commercial sea-borne traffic imported through the coast ports to the Transvaal. Statistics, either before the war or later, enabling a full Answer to be given are not available, but it would appear that this traffic during the period December, 1903, to May, 1905, was divided in the proportion of about 44 per cent, to Delagoa Bay, 40 per cent, to Natal, and 16 per cent, to the Cape. I have no official information to the effect of the last part of the Question.

  Australian Tinned Meats.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, owing to the system of inspection of cattle before slaughter in Australia, there has been no complaint in reference to Australian tinned meats; and whether this will be borne in mind by the Government in view of the necessity which may arise for the purchase of tinned provisions.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I understand that there is a very careful inspection of cattle before slaughter in the various States of Australia and in New Zealand, and I am not aware that any

  615
  complaint has been made in regard to tinned meat imported from those Colonies. Very little, if any, tinned meat is imported at present from Australia, but as regards the imports from New Zealand, the Secretary of State recently, at the request of the Colonial Government, drew the attention of the various Government Departments concerned in the matter to the fact that all frozen and tinned meats sent from that Colony are subject to minute inspection under stringent conditions carried out by duly qualified inspectors.

  Russian Treatment of Jews.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information on the unsettled state of affairs in Russia; and whether lie could consult the French and German Ambassadors in reference to sending a joint note protesting against the treatment of the Jews in Russia on humanitarian, not religious, grounds.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The Answer to both Questions is in the negative. For reasons which have already been given, His Majesty's Government cannot adopt the course advocated.

  Solvency of Insurance Companies.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the advisability of establishing an Insurance State Department with Government auditors to investigate and report on the solvency of all British, Colonial, American, and foreign insurance companies transacting business in the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) As at present advised, I have no intention of introducing legislation of the nature suggested. Certain questions affecting the interests of British policy-holders in foreign and Colonial life insurance companies transacting business in the United Kingdom a e now being considered by a Committee of the House of Lords.

  Dingwall and Cromarty Light Railway.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what progress
  616
  has been made with the Dingwall and Cromarty Light Railway?
  (Answered by Mr. Kearley.) I have again communicated with both the railway companies concerned in this matter, and I am informed that ince the date of my hon. friend s previous Question of the 29th March last,† the working survey of the line has proceeded continuously.

  Blasting Accidents in the Channel Islands.
  MR. KEIR HARDIETo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of accidents due to blasting and other operations during the past five years in the Channel Islands; and what inquiries are instituted when such accidents have a fatal termination?
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have communicated with the Lieutenant Governors of Jersey and Guernsey, and have received the following information:—No accident due to blasting, either fatal or non-fatal, is known to have occurred in Jersey during the past five years. If such an accident happened and had a fatal termination, proceedings termed "Levées de corps," which correspond to a coroner's inquest, would immediately be held by the "vicomte" on a warrant issued by the bailiff. In Guernsey and Alderney there have been, respectively, five and three fatal accidents during the same period. No official record is kept of blasting accidents which do not end fatally. In the case of a fatal accident, an inquest is held in Guernsey by the Royal Court under the presidency of the bailiff, in Alderney by the Court of Alderney, under the presidency of the judge.

  Cabman's Licence Suspension.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a cabman who, on the 15th of May, was a arrested for being drunk in the Harrow Road at 12.30 a.m., and was fin d on the next morning 4s. or four days, at the Marylebone Police Court, and to the fact that
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 1542.

  617
  during the hearing it came out that he was a cab driver, badge 16,872, and that his licence expired on the 14th of June, and that when he applied for its renewal he was told that it would be suspended for two years; and, if so, will he say under what Act or regulation the Chief Commissioner took this action; and whether, as the man was not driving or in charge of a cab at the time of his a rest, he will take steps to see that the man's licence is renewed as soon as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Yes, Sir. The driver in question is a man of intemperate habits. It was after his fifth conviction, and after repeated warnings, that his licence was refused him. It will not again be granted except upon proof that he has become a sober man. The action of the Commissioner of Police was taken under the London Hackney Carriages Act, 1843, Section 8, and this exercise of his power, has been upheld by the High Court (see 28 J.P. 438). I see no ground whatever for interfering with the Commissioner's discretion.

  H.M.S. "Renown."
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the first class battleship "Renown," which has for some months been without an important part of her fighting equipment, has now had her guns and ammunition returned to her; whether he can state for how long the first class battleship "Ramillies" will be in dockyard hands owing to the recent collision; and also afford similar information about the first class battleship "Prince of Wales," which was brought home on account of the breakdown of her main engines.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The portion of the secondary armament of the "Renown," alluded to, is ready for shipment at short notice. The other portions of the Question cannot be answered, as the times of completion have not yet been reported.

  Admiralty Clerks.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view
  618
  of the fact that all of the redundant second division clerks now serving in the Admiralty have served in that department for periods varying from nearly four to seven and a half years, and of the effect upon their position of transfer to other offices, he will arrange that no further transfer shall take place, and that all the clerk in question shall be absorbed into the establishment as opportunity occurs.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) By Clause 11 of the Order in Council, dated 29th November 1893, all redundant clerks are liable to be transferred without reference to their age or the amount of their salary. By Treasury circular, dated 27th August, 1896, No. 12,613, the seniority of a clerk of the second division depends on his length of service in the division as a whole, and not in any particular Department. The question of retaining such of the clerks as have a prospect of being absorbed within a reasonable time will be considered.

  New Mall Roadway.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the First Commissioner of Works, the cause of the delay in opening up the roadway through the Mall to Charing Cross, in view of the inconvenience caused to the public generally, and more especially to those going Citywards.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) It was decided by the late Government and the last Parliament, that the entrance from the Mall to Charing Cross should be by archways through the new Admiralty block, which is in course of construction. Until this building is completed it will be impossible to open the new roadway.

  Campbeltown Mails.
  MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that mails from Machrihanish and Southend reach Campbeltown every morning except Sunday about 7.15; that the local letters for Campbeltown are not delivered till three or four o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, and too late to permit of any reply by the outgoing mail to the places mentioned; whether, as inconvenience is caused by

  619
  this arrangement, he can grant a morning delivery of these letters in Campbeltown.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will cause inquiry to be made in regard to the matter, and w ill inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Enniskillen Learner's Pay.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a qualified male learner at Enniskillen, after being in the service two and a half years, is only in receipt of six shillings per week, whilst another learner, with less service, has been placed on full pay since April last; and whether he will explain the reason for this difference.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry and communicate the result to the lion. Member.

  Letter Collections.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office letter carriers, when proceeding on their rounds collecting letters from the pillar boxes, are precluded by the regulations from accepting letters to be posted from passers by; and ii so, whether he will consider the advisability of altering such instructions for the convenience of those of the public who do not reside in the immediate vicinity of a post office or a pillar box, but near the road used by the letter carrier.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Rural postmen are allowed to collect letters from the public except in the immediate vicinity of a post office or a letter box; but the circumstance in towns are not such as to admit of this facility being given. Collections in towns have to fit closely to the despatches, and to allow the public to hand letters to a postman in a town would be to risk delay in the correspondence generally. Moreover, letter boxes in towns are much nearer together than in rural districts.

  Central Telegraph Office Staff
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether
  620
  he will state the number of telegraphists attached to the Central Telegraph Office, who are at the present time loaned to the engineer-in-chief's department for the purpose of assisting in clerical and other work.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The number of telegraphists belonging to the Central Telegraph Office who are at present attached to the engineer-in-chief's department for temporary duty is nineteen.

  Diocesan Education Inspectors.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can make any statement as to how far the suggested repeal of the Education Act of 1870 would affect the position of diocesan inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Board of Education have no relations with diocesan inspectors. The latter are not officials of any education authorities. It is, therefore, impossible for me to say how the position of such persons will be affected, if at all, by the Education Bill, or by the repeal of the few clauses of The Education Act, 1870, that are affected by the Bill.

  Poplar Schools at Hutton.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the exact amount that has been spent on the Poplar school at Hutton, Essex, to date; and whether the accommodation provided is for 600 children.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The total amount sanctioned in respect of the provision of these schools, including the cost of the site, is £156,515. I am not able to state the exact amount which has been spent on them. The schools are intended to accommodate 624 children.

  Port of London—Inspection of Tinned Foods.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of taking measures to give

  621
  effect to the opinion expressed by the Sanitary Committee of the Port of London that tinned articles of food should be subjected to a proper system of inspection before they are exported to the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am giving consideration to the measures which should be taken so as to secure the object which the hon. Member has in view.

  Admiralty Clerks.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that authority has been given for the appointment of 151 temporary hired accountant clerks in the Accountant-General's department of the Admiralty, for the performance of duties of a permanent nature, and that the work has previously been performed by established clerks, who have passed competitive and medical examinations and hold Civil Service certificates of competency, he will state what justification exists for this departure from the spirit of the Order in Council of the 4th June, 1870, which established open competition as the general rule for admission to His Majesty's Civil Service.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) As I explained in my Answer given to the hon. Member for the North Division of Camberwell on the 27th March last,† there are justifications of general expediency and precedent for these appointments, and power is given by Clause 8 of the Order in Council in question to withdraw appointments from the list of those filled by open competition.

  Customs Inspectors.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that on the recent retirement of the inspector of the outdoor department of the Customs in London, an inspector was brought from Liverpool to London, a surveyor was moved from Glasgow to Liverpool, and another surveyor from London to Glasgow, to fill the resulting vacancies, entailing a cost of nearly £1,000; and will he explain why the
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 1075.
  622
  vacant inspectorship was not filled by a London man, and the resulting vacancies by London men who were entitled to promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) It is the case that a recent vacancy of inspector in London was filled by the transfer of an inspector from Liverpool, but that transfer was at the officer's own request and expense. The resulting vacancy of inspector having been offered to and refused by a London surveyor, was filled by the promotion of a first-class surveyor at Glasgow, and a second-class surveyor in London was promoted to the first-class surveyorship at Glasgow. The cost to the Crown of these two removals is not likely to exceed £100. Vacancies of inspector are filled by the promotion of the most suitable officer from among the general body, irrespective of the particular port at which he may be stationed.

  Denatured Alcohol.
  MR. MOND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Bill allowing the use of denatured alcohol, free from revenue tax, in the arts and manufactures was recently passed by the House of Representatives and the Senàte House of the United States of America; and whether he will take steps to expedite the passing of the Bill introduced by him on this subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) My attention has been called to the United States legislation referred to. I recognise the desirability of making the changes in the law of the United Kingdom, which are proposed in the Revenue Bill, as soon as possible, and I will do what I can to secure the passing of the Bill this year.

  Jute Cultivation in Bengal.
  MR. MOND: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the increase in the price of jute, owing to the shortage in supply, whereby the price of bags and other products made from jute has been very seriously affected to the detriment of trade in this country; and whether, in

  623
  view of these circumstances, the Government will take steps to encourage a greater cultivation of jute.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand that the shortage is due to a great and rapid increase of demand, as the area under jute and the yield have steadily increased. In the districts of Eastern Bengal in which the plant is grown its cultivation has extended to soils not altogether suitable for it. The improvement of the crop and the introduction of the plant into other parts of India are engaging the careful attention of the Government of India and of local governments, and experiments are in progress. An experienced agricultural chemist has been added as a jute specialist to the staff of the Agricultural Department of Bengal, and action has been taken on his recommendation that cultivation should be tried in the Godaveri delta, in the Madras Presidency, and in other similar tracts.

  Bengal and Bombay Civil Service Pension Funds.
  MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for India what were the amounts of the funds transferred to Government when the administration of the Bengal and Bombay Civil Service Provident and Pension Funds was taken over by the Government; and whether a separate account has since been kept of the receipts and disbursements of those funds, or whether they have been merged in the general finances of the Indian Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The balance of the Bengal and Bombay Funds, at the time of their transfer to the Government amounted (at 2s. a rupee) to £1,908,409 and £815,345 respectively. The receipts and disbursements of the funds since the transfer have been merged in the general finances of the Government of India.

  Owen Wynne Estate, County Sligo.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in regard to the Owen Wynne Estate, county Sligo, of which the sale was completed on the 8th February,
  624
  1906, whether he can state the names and addresses of the tenants whose holdings were excluded from the estate for sale; how many holdings were excluded on the ground that they would not afford security for the advances applied for; were all the holdings, for which advances were made, inspected; can he state in terms of years purchase the average price paid for non-judicial, first term, and second term, rents on the estate sold; whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the confusion likely to result from the exclusion of isolated holdings from the estates within which they are situate, and their subsequent inclusion in estates from which they are separated and whether, in regard to the estates sold, any public notice was given locally of the holdings excluded.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissoners inform me that the holdings of fourteen tenants were excluded from the sale of this estate. I am forwarding to the lion. Member the names and addresses of these tenants. In eight of the cases the advances were refused on the ground of insufficient security. In cases outside the zones the holdings were inspected, but there was no inspection in cases within the zones. The average number of years purchase of the rents was in the case of non-judicial rents, 24·1; first term rents, 22·8; second term rents, 26·6 The Commissioners do not consider that the exclusion of holdings from the estate in which they are situate and their subsequent inclusion in other estates causes any serious confusion. No public notice as to the excluded holdings was given, but notice was given to the tenants concerned.

  Imperial Taxation in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of the population in Ireland in 1851, and the amount of Imperial taxation levied in that year; whether he can state the estimated number of the population, deducting the number of emigrants since the last census and adding on the births to the 31st May, 1906; and also state the amount of Imperial taxation to be levied in Ireland for the year 1906–7.

  625
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) According to the census of 1851, the population of Ireland in that year was 6,574,278. I have been unable to ascertain the amount of the Imperial taxation levied in Ireland in 1851, but the amount for 1849, the nearest year for which figures are available, was £4,563,512. Present estimates of population are made quarterly, and the estimated population on the 31st March, 1906, was 4,397,720. The estimated amount of Imperial taxation to be levied in 1906–7 is £8,339,000.

  Ardrum Evicted Tenant.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Estates Commissioners have received a statement of claim for re-instatement from Patrick Mullane, an evicted tenant on the Colthurst Estate, at Ardrum, Inniscarra, county Cork; is the evicted farm at present occupied by a planter named John Buttimer; has he been approached with a view to giving up possession to the evicted tenant; have any negotiations taken place for the sale of this estate; and what steps will be taken in regard to Mullane's claim for re-instatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received from Patrick Mullane an application for reinstatement, and the matter has been referred to an inspector for inquiry. Pending the receipt of the inspector's report the Commissioners have no information as to the facts of the case.

  Irish Teachers.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of teachers trained in Irish elementary training colleges who have left Ireland for Great Britain from the beginning of 1900 to the end of 1905, together with the names of the colleges in which they were trained (indicating the number trained in each college); whether he can assign any reason for the departure of those teachers from Ireland; and whether he can also state the total amount expended on the training of those teachers, and say whether the sum so expended has been lost to elementary education in Ireland.
  626
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, so far as can be ascertained from their records, the number of teachers trained in Irish elementary training colleges who have left Ireland for Great Britain from the beginning of 1900 to the end of 1905 is 242. The numbers trained in the different training colleges were:—Marlborough Street, 118; St. Patrick's, Drumconda, 18; Our Lady of Mercy, Baggot Street, and Blackrock, 15; Church of Ireland, 29; De la Salle, Waterford, 29; St. Mary's, Belfast, 16; Mary Immaculate, Limerick; 17. The records do not, however, purport to account for all cases, particularly as some teachers who were trained in Ireland and who went to Great Britain directly after their training, have not yet furnished returns of their destinations, and in such cases no information is available. The Commissioners have not sufficient data to enable them to assign a definite cause for the departure of those teachers. The total amount expended on the training of the teachers referred to was about £20,000, including diploma bonuses. It is not possible to say to what extent the sum so expended is lost to elementary education in Ireland, for not only have most of these teachers given service after their training and before leaving for Great Britain in Irish national schools, but many Irish trained teachers, after spending some time in Great Britain, have returned to Ireland and resumed service as national teachers. During the year 1905, twenty-two teachers who had gone to schools in Great Britain returned to Ireland and are again teaching in national schools.

  Killaloe Petty Sessions Clerk.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that he was elected to the position by the majority of the magistrates, the Local Government Board will sanction the appointment of Mr. M'Keogh as petty sessions clerk of Killaloe.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It has been ascertained that Mr. M'Keogh did not receive a majority of valid votes of the magistrates and the Lord-Lieutenant has therefore been unable to approve of the

  627
  election. It will be necessary to hold a fresh election.

  Belfast Police Inquiry—Head Constable Farrell.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Constable Shankey, of Leopold Street Barrack, Belfast, made and signed a statement regarding the charges then pending against Head Constable Farrell, and subsequently at the police inquiry, held in connection with these charges, contradicted his former statement; and if, under these circumstancs, he will explain why Constable Shankey was allowed to remain in Belfast; and whether Constable Bradley acted similarly in connection with this case, and, if not, why was he transferred.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Inspector-General informs me that the sworn evidence given by Constable Shankey was in complete accord with his prior written statement of the main point at issue, though there was some variation in regard to details. The Inspector-General raw no reason for ordering the constable's removal from Belfast. Constable Bradley did not act similarly; the reasons for this constable's removal were stated in my reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Down on 1st May,† to which I beg to refer the hon. Member.

  Housing of Working Classes—Boyle Commissioners Resolution.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a, resolution passed by the Boyle Town Commissioners to the effect that, having built houses and added plots of land for workers, under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, they are anxious to sell the same to the occupiers, who have paid their rents punctually for five years, on the lines proposed by the Government in the new Labourers' Bill, and asking the Government to so amend the Bill as to apply this provision to houses and plots provided under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts in small towns, and thus give the workers a freehold in their own land, and liberate funds for
  † See (4) Debates, clvi., 416–7.
  628
  further building operations in relief of this class in the Irish towns; and whether he proposes to take any action in connection with the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to my Answers to Questions on this subject put by the hon. Members for East Clare and West Kerry on Tuesday and Thursday last,‡ which have probably escaped the hon. Member's notice.

  Irish Taxation.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction presented the Return of local contributions out of the rates to Parliament, without stating the total amount of such contributions for the entire country as well as setting them out in detail; whether he can give the total of such contributions for the years dealt with, and also state the amount of all the grants received from other sources by the Department for each of the years mentioned, and the full total of all moneys received by the Department from all sources since its establishment.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Return in question gives the particulars required by the Order of the House. The totals for each county were not demanded, but they may be readily ascertained from the Return. The totals of the figures given in detail in the Return are as follows:—

  Year.

  Amount.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1900–1

  9,642

  12

  8

  1901–2

  41,201

  2

  2

  1902–3

  45,755

  19

  8

  1903–4

  49,822

  13

  7

  1904–5

  53,259

  7

  10

  1905–6

  53,057

  12

  11

  Gross total for the six years

  £252,739

  8

  10

  These sums are not grants received by the Department, but are the amounts levied by the local authorities from the rates, and expended locally in carrying out the approved schemes under The Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899, which are also subsidised by the Department. In reply
  ‡ See Columns 46, 47 374–5.

  629
  to the concluding inquiry, I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Appropriation Accounts annually laid before Parliament, which contain statements of all moneys received by the Department each year.

  Italian International Congress.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will make inquiries as to the advisability of sending delegates to assist at the Italian International Congress, with a view to co-operate with other nations in an international endeavour to prevent gambling in futures, options, foodstuffs, cotton, shares, and warrants.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 3rd April.†

  South African Mining Shares.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the depreciation in South African mining and other shares, amounting in 1905–6 to over £100,000,000, has been due to an organised bear raid on the London, Paris, and Johannesburg Stock Exchanges, and that according to the South African preferences the mining magnates are endeavouring to explain this state of affairs by laying the blame for the collapse on the conduct of the Imperial Government; and, in consideration of the effect of such losses on the economic position of South Africa and the values of funds and other securities, and of the fact that a syndicate has been formed in order to protect the diamond mine shares against similar bear raids, His Majesty's Government intend to take any measures to stop a continuance of these systems of bull and bear financial gambling operations in fictitious shares, with the object of protecting the interests of bona fide shareholders.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) I have no information on this Question, but, assuming the facts to be as stated, I am doubtful if any effectual measure could be adopted by
  † See (4) Debates, clv., 339.
  630
  the Government in the interest of the shareholders.

  Political Pensions.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Prime Minister if the Government has any objection to the Bill for the abolition of The Political Pensions Act, 1869.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) My attention has only been directed to this Bill by the hon. and gallant Member's Question, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues. It would assist them in coming to a conclusion if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would tell me whether the intention of the Bill is merely to stop the issue of fresh pensions, or at the same time to cancel those already granted.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Officers' Eyesight.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with a view to the safety of His Majesty's ships and their crews, the Admiralty hold the Commander-in-Chief of a station responsible that cases of defective vision on the part of officers commanding ships are reported to the Admiralty; and whether the officer commanding a ship is in a similar manner held responsible in the case of his officers.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): It is naturally the duty of Commanders-in-Chief and Commanding Officers of ships to report any circumstances affecting the capacity of an officer to perform the duties for which he is responsible, but it has not been considered necessary to specify any particular defect as calling for a special report.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Have the Admiralty received any report at all with reference to H.M.S. "Montagu?"
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice of the Question.

    Army Rations—Preserved Foods.
    MR. LEA (St. Pancras, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that boards of guardians all over the country are declining to issue tinned meat to inmates of our workhouses, he will reconsider his refusal to forbid any further issue of preserved food as Army rations to our soldiers in time of peace.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): Orders have been given to withhold all issues of American brands of preserved meat until the officer dispatched to America to inquire into their character has reported.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will permit tins of the preserved food issued to our soldiers from the store in reserve for war purposes, and which are several years old, to be placed in the tea-room of the House of Commons, and allow these tins to be opened so that hon. Members can see the character of the food that has been issued to the Army.
    MR. BUCHANAN: As I have already informed the hon. Member, the issue of American preserved meat is suspended pending the report of our officer, and the Secretary of State thinks it would not be desirable to have the exhibition of tins in the tea-room suggested by the hon. Member.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any non-commissioned officers or men have been punished during the last three months for refusing to eat tinned meat served out as rations by the military authorities?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware of any such case.

    Dangerous Ammunition.
    SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received any report of an accident which occurred a few days ago at Pirbright to a young officer, who was shot through the stomach; whether, owing to the similarity of the long blank ammunition and the service ammunition, he has received reports that bullets have been frequently heard over-
    632
    head at sham fights, with danger to onlookers at royal and other reviews; and whether he will consider the advisability of a return to the short blank ammunition under these circumstances.
    MR. BUCHANAN: No details of this accident have as yet been received at the War Office from the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Aldershot. It has been decided that for manæeuvres and field training short blank ammunition only will be used, the long blank being reserved for instructional purposes.
    SIR ROBERT HOBART: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the possibility of stray bullets on field days has made such an impression on the troops that officers have now less trouble in instructing their men in the art of taking cover?
    MR. BUCHANAN: It is with a view to obviate these and other disadvantages, which have arisen that this general order has been issued.

    British Officers for the Indian Native Army.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the evidence Lord Roberts gave before the South African War Commission, any action has been taken or is contemplated in order to the provision of a sufficient number of British officers for native regiments in the Indian Army in time of war.
    MR. BUCHANAN: An Inter-Departmental Committee which assembled in April last to inquire into the sources of supply of officers for the Indian Army has quite recently issued its Report. This Report is now being considered.

    Payment of Soldiers in the Field.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether advantage has been taken of experience gained during the late South African campaign to devise a scheme for the payment of men in the field, which will relieve captains of companies from much of the clerical work attendant thereupon, and thus insure that combatant officers will be more free to attend to their executive duties.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Sir. A scheme to this effect has been devised. It is based on the experience gained during the South African campaign.

    Army Meat and Foreign Contracts.
    MR. MCVEIGH (Donegal, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a resolution, passed on June 11th by the county council of Donegal, protesting against the change made in the Army meat tender which permits contractors to supply foreign meat killed at the port of disembarkation instead of home-reared meat, which was guaranteed to be used by the late Government some years ago; and will he say whether the Army horses are mainly fed on foreign oats, straw, and hay, and, if so, will he reconsider his decision in the interest of the agriculturist, ratepayers, taxpayers, labourers, and employers of the three kingdoms.
    MR. BUCHANAN: My attention has been drawn to this resolution. There is no doubt that considerable quantities of foreign oats and straw are supplied to the Army under contracts, but in the case of oats it would be very difficult to obtain sufficient home grown supplies at reasonable prices. The proposal to limit the supply of forage to British produce would involve an extra expense to the State which I am not prepared to recommend.

    South African War—Issues of Firearms to Natives.
    MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total number of firearms issued to natives in the course of the South African War; and what was the total number of firearms so issued which have, since the peace, been accounted for as returned.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Secretary of State has made inquiry of the War Office upon this question, but the records kept by that Department during the Boer War do not appear to have been so extensive and precise upon this subject as upon other matters, and Lord Elgin has not been able to procure the information which the hon. Member desires.

    Natal Court-Martial.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state if the report of the proceedings of the court-martial which sentenced twelve Natal natives to death is to be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether he can state how many courts-martial are now sitting in Natal, and how many persons are awaiting trial by them.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received the following telegram from His Excellency the Governor of Natal. Begins, "I have received following minute from Ministers:—Begins. In consequence of request from Ministers, Press in Natal have, in view of disturbed condition of native mind, refrained from publishing evidence in martial law cases, and Ministers would deprecate publication in England as serving no useful purpose. Ministers, however, have no wish to conceal any of the proceedings, and rather than any such charge should be made against them they would be prepared to agree to publication if His Majesty's Government still consider it necessary." In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government do not, as at present advised, propose to publish the evidence in question; but I should be prepared to give my hon. friend access to it if he so desires. The Secretary of State is not able to state how many courts-martial are now sitting in Natal and how many persons are awaiting trial; but he Will inquire.
    MR. MYER (Lambeth, N.): May I ask whether there is or was any evidence?
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. The evidence is extensive and voluminous, and from what I have seen I am of opinion that it shows the careful and thorough manner in which the trial was conducted.

    The "Standard and Diggers News."
    MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the premises, plant, and materials of Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce, late proprietors of the Standard and Diggers News, of Johannesburg, were, during the South African War, taken possession of

    635
    by the British military authorities, and used by these authorities for their own purposes for a period of twenty months; that the accounts of the business during this period, as vouched for by the Auditor-General at Pretoria, and subsequently audited by Messrs. Turquand, Young, and Co., of London, show a profit of £24,855 15s. 4d.; that the late Colonial Secretary, in a letter dated March, 1905, stated that Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce were entitled to receive a refund of the profits actually made by the military authorities out of the business carried on in the firms' premises, and through the use of their plant and materials; and will he explain why His Majesty's Government have now offered Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce the sum of £2,500 conditionally upon receiving from them a receipt in full discharge of all liability.
    MR. CHURCHILL: There were two premises of Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce used for nineteen and sixteen months respectively; the account quoted is subject to certain adjustments, and it is not admitted that the profits shown can be finally treated as actual profits. It is the fact that Mr. Lyttelton acqainted Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce in March, 1905, that he considered that they were entitled to the profits made, but they were subsequently informed by Mr. Lyttelton through Sir John Puleston, who had interested himself in the case, that Lord Selborne had very carefully gone into the matter and had come to the conclusion that the proper course was to pay a reasonable rental for their premises as had been done in certain other cases. Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce themselves made their original claim, which was for £9,525, on the basis of rent and not of profits. The offer of £2,500 has been made as the result of a careful investigation by an independent expert as to what would be a fair and reasonable payment in respect of the use of the company's premises and plant by the Transvaal authorities. It is admitted that at first there was some confusion in dealing with the matter locally, and that regrettable delay has arisen thereby.
    MR. SCOTT: Do I understand that £2,500 was offered to cover rent and the use of plant valued at £20,000? One of these premises let at £300 a month.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the premises were not let at £300 a month during the first month of the military occupation, nor could the profits of a newspaper conducted by the military authorities be balanced against the profits which might be made by a commercial company conducting a newspaper not during a period of war.
    MR. PAULasked whether Messrs. Mendelssohn and Bruce had refused an offer of £80,000 for the Standard and Diggers News from the mine-owners on the Rand, who wanted to use it for their own purposes.
    MR. CHURCHILL: A great many people lost a great deal of money in the South African War.
    In reply to Mr. LEHMANN (Leicestershire, Market Harborough)—
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid it was true that the late Secretary of State considered that a fair basis would be the basis of profits; but on further consideration he came to the conclusion it would not be a fair basis.

    The Repatriation Proclamation.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether instructions were given by the Secretary of State to the Governor of the Transvaal to issue to the Chinese in the Rand the Repatriation Proclamation which was read to the House of Commons; and, if so, whether those instructions were complied with.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received the following telegram from Lord Selborne:—"23rd June A. Matter most urgent. Your telegram of 22nd June No. 1. The terms of His Majesty's Government's offer were first formulated in English. They were then translated into Chinese. Owing to difference between the genius of the two languages, the Chinese text was then translated back into English in order that the ipsissima verba of what the coolies would have placed before them should be submitted to you. This text was cabled in my telegram A 28th April. Words at the end usually rendered in English 'tremblingly obey' constitute stereotyped

    637
    formula attached to every single official proclamation issued in China. It is as much part of the literature of Chinese proclamation as the Royal Arms are part of an official proclamation in England, and was therefore no more telegraphed to His Majesty's Government than were the dates in two styles or the official title of the issuer. This is Superintendent of Foreign Labour's explanation to me of the words 'tremblingly obey' as I personally did not know that they were in the proclamation. So much were they a matter of course to a diplomatist of twenty years experience in China that he never even thought of mentioning them to me. I have the most profound confidence in the loyalty of Superintendent of Foreign Labour."
    MR. MACKARNESS: Do the words "tremblingly obey" still form part of the proclamation?
    MR. CHURCHILL: We are considering the desirability of making alterations and amendments in the proclamation.
    SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.)asked whether the words "tremblingly obey" were only used in China in prohibitive proclamations, and not in proclamations purporting to make concessions.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member speaks with immense and exceptional authority on these questions, and I think it is quite possible that what he says is I correct. Speaking for myself, I should say that no commands should be addressed to law-abiding citizens which they cannot obey without trepidation.
    MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has ascertained whether the translation which has recently appeared of the Repatriation Proclamation is a correct translation of the proclamation as it was posted in the compounds; and, if so, why a different version was read to the House of Commons.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Foreign Office translator has now reported that the version of the proclamation given in Lord Selborne's telegram of April 28th is a more accurate translation than that which appeared in the Manchester Guardian.
    MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the original Chinese Repatriation Proclamation was drawn by the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, or one of its officials or members; whether it was submitted to the Secretary of State, before being issued, and approved by him; and whether, when issued, it was posted in the compounds accompanied by the English version read by the Under-secretary of State to the House of Commons, and by whom was the translation made.
    MR. CHURCHILL: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, the Secretary of State is informed that the proclamation was drafted by the Superintendent of Foreign Labour. The Answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the third, that he has no reason to suppose that the Chinese version of the proclamation was accompanied by the English version, which would have been unintelligible to those to whom it was addressed. The Superintendent of Foreign Labour made the translation.
    MR. DALZIELasked if an independent translation would be made.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have already said we are considering the issue of an amended proclamation.
    MR. MYERasked who was referred to as "we."
    MR. CHURCHILL: When the word "we" is used in answer to Questions it means His Majesty's Government.

    Ceylon Pearl Fisheries.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what principle of calculation the annual rent of the Ceylon Government Pearl Fisheries was fixed in the lease negotiated with the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers at £20,666, when the net profit of the year 1905 accruing to the Ceylon Government was £150,000; whether, before the amount of annual rent was agreed upon with the Gulf Syndicate or the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers, the opinions of either

    639
    Professor Herdmann or Mr. Hornell was asked or taken about the adequacy of this rent; whether Professor Herdmann was employed under Sir J. W. Ridgeway, when Governor of Ceylon, as an expert and scientific adviser on the improvement of these fisheries; and whether either Professor Herdmann or the colonial marine biologist, Mr. Hornell, sent him reports in regard to the improvement of the fisheries and the probable profits of future years.
    MR. CHURCHILL: As the lion. Member will find stated on pages 12, 19, and 39 of Cd. 2906, the rental was fixed roughly at the average annual net profits to Government of the twenty years ended 1905 inclusive. I am not aware that either Professor Herdmann or Mr. Hornell was consulted as to the adequacy of this rent, but Professor Herdmann was quoted in the Debates in the Ceylon Legislative Council as having stated that he did not consider that the company could make their bargain a paying concern. Professor Herdmann was engaged by the Ceylon Government during Sir W. Ridgeway's tenure of office to investigate and report on the fisheries. He reached Ceylon in January, 1902, and left in April of the same year. Before Sir W. Ridgeway ceased to be Governor Professor Herdmann furnished some preliminary reports on the measures which he recommended with a view to the improvement of the fisheries, and he is now completing the fifth part of his detailed scientific report to the Government of Ceylon, four parts of which have already been published. Professor Herdmann's recommendations for the improvement of the fishery were printed in 1904 as a Sessional Paper for the Legislative Council of Ceylon, and I am not aware of any reports either by him or by Mr. Hornell other than those which have been made to the Ceylon Government. As Sir J. West Ridgeway's name has been mentioned several times in this connection, and he is himself absent from this country on duty, I think it right to add that a careful study of the Papers on the Question convinces me that he acted throughout in good faith and with integrity.
    MR. DALZIELinquired whether, having regard to the discussions which have taken place in respect to
    640
    this matter, the Government did not think that it would be advisable to issue a notice to Governors of Colonies suggesting the inadvisability of their becoming directors of companies trading in the Colonies even when their term of office has expired.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will represent the view which the hon. Member has put forward to the Secretary of State.
    SIR J. JARDINE: Is not the effect of the expert reports that the annual profits since these improvements will be more uniform and far larger in future years?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have not a doubt that they will prove much more profitable in the future than they are today.

    Flogging of Chinese Coolies at the Crœsus Mine.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Selborne's long-continued efforts to obtain sufficient evidence for the prosecution of Withaner, the compound manager of the Croesus Mine, who in March last admitted to the Superintendent of Foreign Labour, in the presence of witnesses, that he had flogged Chinese coolies in the mine, have yet been attended with success; and, if not, whether he can say what additional evidence, besides an admission of guilt by the accused, corroborated by other oral testimony, is required by the law of the Transvaal to insure conviction for a criminal offence in the courts of that colony.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has not yet been informed whether a prosecution has been undertaken, but he has addressed a further inquiry to Lord Selborne on the subject. I cannot tell what degree and character of evidence are necessary to establish certainty of guilt under the law of the Transvaal. Each case has no doubt to be considered upon its merits rather than in obedience to any rigid rule.
    In reply to a further Question,
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the Secretary of State would not interfere with the discretion of the authorities in South Africa in this matter.

    Importation of Chinese Coolies into the Transvaal.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for which mines in the Transvaal the 1,859 Chinese, who arrived in South Africa on board the steamship "Indravelli" on May 13th, were imported; for which mines the 2,000 Chinese, who arrived on May 28th by the steamship "Cranley" were imported; and whether any steps were taken by the Government of the Transvaal before they were admitted into the Colony to ascertain whether they were not criminals or otherwise undesirables.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State does not know the particular mines for which these labourers were imported. The Government of the Transvaal has no means of enquiring into the antecedents of coolies arriving in the Colony. This can only be done in China but, as employers now realise that dangerous characters will be repatriated at their expense, there is every inducement to the labour agency they employ for recruiting not to ship coolies of this class.

    Dr. Chiveiback's Claim.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he his aware that the claim of Dr. Chiveiback, formerly Red Cross medical officer with the Boer forces in the South African War, for compensation in respect of money and property taken from him by British military authorities, has neither been satisfied nor shown to have been ill-founded; and whether, seeing that the Central Judicial Commission has ceased to sit, the Colonial Office will take steps to have this claim freshly adjudicated upon.
    MR. CHURCHILL: On the evidence before them, the Central Judical Commission felt bound to disallow the claim, and the funds provided for such claims have been fully distributed. In so far as there was subsequent corroborative evidence of cash to that amount having been taken from Dr. Chiveiback, a sum of £90 has been paid to him by the War Office in the special circumstances. As at present advised, the Secretary of State does not consider that Dr. Chiveiback's
    642
    claim for war losses can be judged anew, as it would be liable to be quoted as a precedent for re-opening other claims and would involve the provision of further funds by Parliament. This His Majesty's Government do not feel able at this time to recommend to the House.

    Boer Migration.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state how many Boers have emigrated to Argentina or other countries over sea since the termination of the war; how many have gone to German East Africa; and whether, or to what extent, this emigration is still going on.
    MR. CHURCHILL: We have no accurate information as regards Argentina, and no information at all as regards other countries, but it is estimated that not more than 300 have gone to Argentina. I may add that twenty Boer families have recently migrated from German territory and have applied for land in the British East Africa Protectorate. They have thus voluntarily returned to British rule after having traversed the African continent to escape from it.

    Jewish Colonisation.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the renewed outrages upon the Jews in Russia, any steps can be taken to give effect to the colonisation scheme of the Jewish Territorial Society.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Society are in communication with the Secretary of State on the subject, but no practical scheme has yet been submitted.

    The Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
    MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have yet received the Report of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, which was due last October, as to the complaints against the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands; and, if so, whether they are prepared to lay it upon the Table of the House.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has only just received a Report by the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific on the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, which deals amongst other matters with certain complaints made against the Resident Commissioner of those Islands. The Report could not be published in full, as it contains matter of a confidential nature, but the Secretary of State will consider whether extracts from the despatch can be laid before the House.

    Sir West Bidgeway's Commission.
    MR. BYLES (Salford, N): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir West Ridgeway's Commission has completed its labours; and how soon the Report may be expected.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Committee have completed their investigations in the two Colonies, and leave Capetown on June 27th. Their report may be expected to be in the hands of His Majesty's Government shortly after their arrival in the middle of July.

    South African Native Administration.
    MR. BYLES: I beg the ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Natal Government has appointed, or is about to appoint, a Commission on Native Administration and Legislation; and whether His Majesty's Government will be represented on this Commission, or will take steps on its own behalf, to obtain what information is necessary to arrive at an impartial judgment, so as to secure equitable treatment for the Natal Natives.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Natal Government has announced its intention to appoint such a Commission. The Secretary of State understands that the Commission will be a local one. His Majesty's Government do not propose to take steps as suggested which would be contrary to the principles of responsible Government. The Crown has retained the right of veto in regard to legislation inequally affecting European and non-European inhabitants of Natal but no other right has been specifically reserved.

    Portugal and the Transvaal.
    MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State
    644
    for the Colonies what is the nature of the modus vivendi between Portugal and the Transvaal, of which the Cape Colony and Natal complain, and which is referred to in the speech of the Governor of the Cape Colony at the opening of the present session of the Cape Parliament, as being to the detriment of the British Coast Colonies; by whom was it made; and whether the Cape and Natal were consulted at the time in the matter.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The modus vivendi is printed as an appendix to Cd. 2104. It was made by and between the then High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor-General of Mozambique in December, 1901. I am not aware that the Governments of the Cape Colony and Natal wore consulted upon a matter which after all primarily concerns the Transvaal.
    MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that the modus vivendi between Portugal and the Transvaal has unduly favoured the trade of the foreign port of Delagoa Bay to the disadvantage of that of the ports of the British Colonies of the Cape and Natal; and that the trade to the Transvaal via the Capo and Natal has dwindled to small proportions as compared with that via Delagoa Bay.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The question of the modus vivendi forms the subject of negotiation at present between His Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government. The information given in answer to a written Question by the hon. Member to-day does not indicate that the Transvaal trade through Natal at all events has dwindled to small proportions. †

    The Tse-tse Fly.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether Dr. Davey's Report upon the tse-tse fly will be laid upon the Table; and whether Dr. Davey found a wild, buffalo he shot in British Central Africa to be tainted with tse-tse virus.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has not yet received any report
    † See Col. 614.

    645
    from the British Central Protectorate upon the subject of my hon. friend's Question.

    Aliens in Germany.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German police authorities possess and exercise the powers of expelling aliens on the ground of their economic undesirability, in the form of undercutting competition with German workmen; and whether he can say upon how many aliens these authorities have served notice to quit Germany for economic reasons.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)(For Sir EDWAED GREY): The German police authorities have the power to expel all aliens who may for any reason whatever be considered undesirable. His Majesty's representative at Berlin has made inquiries, and can learn of no cases in which foreign workmen have been expelled merely on the ground of undercutting competition with German workmen.

    Spanish Tariffs.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House regarding the progress of negotiations with the Spanish Government as to the proposed changes in import duties in Spain, so far as these are export duties on goods manufactured in the United Kingdom, or barriers to their entrance into Spain.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement upon the matter.
    MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can inform the House if goods supplied to customers in Spain, on contracts entered into early in 1906, will be subject to the tariff as in force at the time of contract.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement upon the matter.
    MR. DUNCAN: When is one likely to be made?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say.

    Macedonia.
    MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay before Parliament a Report from His Majesty s Consul at Salonica, showing the changes introduced in Macedonia by the civil agents in the several branches of local government, in the judicial system, and in the prison accommodation.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: We have no Report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Salonica, but despatches from the British representative on the financial Commission, of which the civil agents are members, will eventually be laid, dealing generally with the administrative situation in the three Vilayets. With regard to judicial reforms, it will be seen from No. 138, Page 99, of Turkey No. 1, 1906, that it was not found possible to invest this Commission with the power of supervising the judicial Administration.

    Russian Treatment of the Jews.
    MR. HARWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the speech of Prince Urusoff, recently Under-Secretary for the Interior, in connection with the massacres of Jews in Russia; and whether any communication has been received from the Russian Government giving assurance that they will do their utmost to protect their Jewish subjects.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I have seen the accounts of the speech which have appeared in the Press. His Majesty's Government have not asked for any assurance of the nature indicated. But my hon. friend has no doubt observed the speeches made by Russian Ministers in the Duma, and the fact that the Minister of the Interior has issued instructions to governors and chiefs of police, warning them that every possible precaution should be taken to prevent riots or disorders directed against the Jews, and stating that the least sign of disturbance must be instantly suppressed, and that any neglect of duty in that respect will be punished in the severest manner.

    Anarchist Newspapers in England.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any official information showing how many newspapers supporting the doctrines of anarchism are published in this country, and in what languages such papers are printed.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): I have of course official information, but I think it would not be advisable that I should make any statement on the subject.

    London Juries.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether arrangements can be made whereby persons of comparatively small means living in the suburbs of London can be spared from such frequent calls to serve on special and common juries as are made upon them at present.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no authority with regard to the arrangements for summoning jurors, and cannot give any instructions in the matter. Service on juries is a public duty which must necessarily cause some inconvenience to those on whom it falls, but I have no reason to think that residents in London suburbs have any special grievance in this matter.
    MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such summonses seem to be escaped by persons living in houses with high rents?
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. I am not aware of that.

    Motor Accidents in London.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of accidents in the London area during the month of May last, from motor 'buses and motor cars, respectively; in how many instances have personal injuries resulted; and in how many cases have such injuries proved fatal.
    MR. GLADSTONE: During the month of May, 1906, the number of accidents known to the police to have
    648
    been caused by motor cars (including motor cycles) within the Metropolitan Police District was 556. Of these 169 resulted in personal injury and four proved fatal. In the same month 400 accidents were caused by motor omnibuses of which sixty-two resulted in personal injury and two were fatal. Accidents caused by tramcars are not included.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.): Is it intended this session to take any steps to regulate motor traffic?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot say.

    Miss Billington's Case.
    MR. CLYNES (Manchester, N.E.): On behalf of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now had an opportunity of considering the papers relating to the case of Miss Teressa Billington, who was fined £10 with the alternative of two months' imprisonment at the Marylebone police court on Thursday last; and what decision he has come to in relation thereto.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have now seen the evidence in this case. It was clearly proved that Miss Billington was, with other women, causing an obstruction in Cavendish Square, and that when a police officer asked her to move away from the square, she slapped him in the face three times, and, after she was arrested, kicked him twice. Miss Billington did not deny these charges nor question the evidence. In these circum stances the Magistrate had no choice but to convict, and I think that his sentence—a fine of £10, or two months imprisonment—was a reasonable and proper one. I have since received an appeal for leniency from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In consequence of this appeal I have, with the concurrence of the learned Magistrate, reduced the fine to £5, or in default one month's imprisonment.
    MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.)asked whether, seeing that Miss Billington was acting on the advice tendered by the President of the Board of Trade in this matter, the Home Secretary would not use his influence to get a rehearing of the case. There was sufficient

    649
    evidence to prove that this lady did not commit the assault complained of, but rather resisted an assault committed upon her.
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Flogging in Prison.
    MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many floggings were inflicted in convict and local prisons during the years ended March 31st, 1905, and March 31st, 1906, respectively; and whether any prisoner was flogged more than once during those years.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The numbers were as follows:—

    Convict prisons.

    Local prisons.

    Year ended March 31st, 1905

    8

    15

    Year ended March 31st, 1906

    17

    30

    One prisoner who received a corporal punishment of eighteen strokes with the birch on November 7th, 1904, also received twenty-four strokes with the birch on August 8th, 1905. No other prisoners have received corporal punishment twice during the two years named.

    Probation Guardianship of Criminal Offenders.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the last Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland that a system of probation guardianship of criminal offenders is being introduced gradually, so far as the existing law allows, and with successful results, in the courts of some of the burghs and large cities, and especially in Dundee, whereby the operation of the sentence is suspended provided that the offender behaves well under supervision; and if he will consider whether it would not be practicable to introduce a similar system of probation in the Metropolis.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The matter has for some time been engaging my attention. The Metropolitan Magistrates already in many cases exercise their powers under the Summary Jurisdiction and First
    650
    Offenders Acts, and place criminal offenders under probation; but I am satisfied that further powers are required, and a Bill on the subject is now being prepared.

    The Madrid Outrage.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to certain passages occurring in two papers published in London, on 8th and 15th June, in which it is stated that the perpetrator of the recent outrage in Madrid was no criminal, but sacrificed his life in the interests of humanity, and in which regret is expressed that the object of the outrage, namely, the death of the King and Queen of Spain, had not been attained; and whether he proposes to take any steps against the persons responsible for these publications.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen translations of the passages referred to. The sentiments expressed are highly objectionable, but, as I am advised, it would not be expedient to take proceedings.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in what respect this case differs from that of a man named Most, who in 1882 was convicted of approving the murder of the Tsar of Russia, and was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment, and whose, press was broken up?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The case is a different one, but it is quite obvious that I am unable to state the difference across the floor of the House.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: May I ask in what respect the cases are different?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Richards, Limited, Aberdeen.
    MR. CLYNES: On behalf of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether Messrs. Richards, Limited, Aberdeen, are on the list of contractors for his Department; whether he is aware that this firm have dismissed sixty of their workwomen, some of whom have worked for the firm for over

    651
    thirty years, for having joined a trade union, and refuse to reinstate them unless they give an undertaking to withdraw from the union; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): This firm does not at present hold any orders from the Post Office.

    American Mail Service.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mid-week mails for the United States were dispatched on Wednesday, 20th June, from Southampton by a German steamer; that, in view of the inability of the managers of the White Star Line to provide their fast steamers for the mail service, recourse is frequently had to German steamers for this purpose; and, seeing that when this course is adopted the mails are closed many hours before the usual time, thus causing inconvenience to the business community, will he say what steps the Government propose taking to ensure regularity in this matter.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am aware of the course followed on the occasion in question, when, as sometimes happens, the White Star Company find it necessary to employ one of their slower steamers for the mid-week service to the United States, the mails are forwarded by any faster packet that may be available. This arrangement is adopted entirely in the interests of the public, and as it is always announced beforehand I do not think that inconvenience is caused by it. Although on such occasions the bulk of the mails leave London on Wednesdays earlier than usual, it is the practice to despatch supplementary mails at the regular hour for embarkation on board the White Star packet at Queenstown.

    Millom Telephone Service.
    MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will undertake to supply a public telephone service for the town of Millom; and whether there are any other towns in the United Kingdom with a population of 10,000 without a public telephone service.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Enquiry was made by the Post Office in 1903, and again in 1905 as to the demand for a telephone service at Millom, but not more than five subscribers could be found. The length of a trunk line to Barrow would be about twenty-four miles and it would be costly to erect. I will, however, have further enquiry made as to the amount of the guarantee required under the reduced terms lately announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are other districts with as large a population as Millom without a telephone service, the provision of which must depend more on the demand than on actual population.

    Preserved Foods.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he could see his way to pay a few surprise visits to the chief manufactories of meat and food products throughout the metropolis.
    The following Questions also stood on the Paper:—
    MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will insist that, in the examinations conferring certificates on sanitary inspectors, some portion of the questions asked shall be on the subject of meat and food inspection, in order that every qualified inspector shall have a knowledge of this important subject.
    MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will grant a Return of the number of inspectors in England and Wales who hold a meat and food certificate, and are fully qualified to inspect all meat and food products.
    MR. ALDEN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the differences in method of the meat and food inspection under the various local sanitary authorities in London; and whether he will issue a circular to such authorities, recommending one uniform system of inspection throughout the whole of London and the extra metropolitan boroughs.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): Perhaps I may be

    653
    allowed to answer this and the three following Questions together. As to the first, I do not think that any intimation that surprise visits would be paid to the chief manufactories of meat and food products in London would be likely to answer the object which my hon. friend has in view. As to the second, the subject of meat and food inspection is one of those upon which candidates for certificates from the Sanitary Inspectors Examination Board and the Royal Sanitary Institute are examined at the present time. The latter body have also a special examination on the subject. As regards the third Question, I would refer my hon. friend to the Return No. 326 which was obtained in 1904 by the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, and which gives the particulars he desires as respects London and certain large towns. To obtain a Return for the whole country would involve much labour and expense. As regards his last Question, I may state that I am aware of the differences in method of the meat and food inspection therein referred to. I do not think that at the present time advantage would be likely to result from a circular of the hind suggested, but I am considering whether, when some further information has been obtained, a conference of the local authorities specially concerned might not usefully be convened with a view to uniformity of action in this matter.

    Canned Foods.
    MR. T. DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the report of the medical officer of health for one of the London boroughs, drawing attention to the quantity of tin in solution he has found in canned food which had been packed for a long time, and to the fact that old tins often contain such a large quantity as to be dangerous to the health of persons consuming the food; and whether, seeing that the presence of this poison can only be detected by chemical examination, the goods apparently looking and tasting all right, he will, in order to minimise this danger, take steps to compel all packers to have the date of packing stamped on each tin.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the report referred to. Legislation would be necessary to render it compulsory on
    654
    packers to have the date of packing stamped on each tin. The matter will receive consideration, but I think further investigation is required before it can be determined whether such a requirement ought to be made in the interests of the public health.

    Light Railways in the Highlands.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the provisions of the Light Railways Act are such as to render the construction of a light railway in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland impracticable without liberal local assistance; and, seeing that no such help is available in districts such as that between Garve and Ullapool, Rossshire, will he consider the expediency of introducing legislation with a view to render the Treasury grants for the construction of light railways in the crofting counties of a more liberal character than at present.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): The requirement of local assistance as a condition of a Treasury advance in furtherance of the construction of light railways seems to be a sound one, and there appears to be no ground for amending the existing law in the direction indicated in the Question.

    Cornish Crabbers' Grievance.
    MR. HAY MORGAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the French crabbers are continually coming within the three-mile limit of the coast of South-west Cornwall; and whether he will see that the gunboat, which is told off to protect the interest of the Cornish fishermen in this respect, will be ordered to visit this part of the Cornish coast.
    I beg also to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that trawlers frequently approach the Cornish coast at Coverack and trawl up the stockpots of the Cornish crabbers; and whether he will take steps to put a stop to such practices.
    MR. KEARLEY: My attention has been called to the fact that the trawl fishermen in the Bay of Coverack have been accused of fouling the stockpots of the Cornish crabbers, but so far no complaint has reached us of French crabbers fishing within the territorial limit. However, the Board of Trade will make inquiries and also communicate with the Admiralty to arrange for a gunboat to visit this part of the coast. I would point out that the crabbers whose stock-pots have been interfered with have a remedy under Section 4 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883.

    Llanelltyd School.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the salary of the schoolmistress of the non-provided school at Llanelltyd has not been paid for more than four months; that several appeals have been made in vain to the Board of Education on her behalf; what steps he proposes to take to secure the payment of her arrears of salary; and when she may expect to receive the money due to her.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The case referred to is a difficult and complicated one. I am in communication with the local authority in regard to the present condition of things as respects the teacher's salary, which is singularly unfortunate; and, though the position of the school and of the managers is gravely open to question, I am not without hope that the hardship to the teacher may shortly be removed.

    Inspection of Welsh Intermediate Schools.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what inspection of Welsh intermediate schools is made by the Board of Education apart from the inspection of the Central Welsh Board; whether the Board of Education exercising the powers of the Charity Commission, have power to inspect such schools; and whether any of such schools are inspected by the Board of Education in their administrative capacity as distributor of secondary or other grants.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Board of Education, exercising the powers of the
    656
    Charity Commission, have power to inspect all schools regulated by scheme under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889. By Treasury regulations made under Section 9 of that Act, they have further power to make such examination or inspection of the schools, in addition to that conducted by the Central Welsh Board, as they may think necessary, in order to ascertain whether the conditions under which the Treasury grant may be paid under that Act have been fulfilled. No inspection has so far taken place under either of the above-mentioned powers. Over eighty of the Welsh intermediate schools, out of a total of ninety-five, are recognised for grants under the Board's secondary school regulations, and each of these is periodically inspected by the Board under those regulations. Many of these also receive grants under the Board's regulations for the instruction and training of pupil teachers, and are fully inspected by the Board for the purposes of these grants.

    Cost of School House Maintenance.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in any arrangement under Clause 2 of the Education Bill, provision will have to be made for an apportionment of expenses between owners and local education authority whereby the cost of cleaning, lighting, and heating the school building, and of damage caused by wear and tear of the school furniture in respect of the use of the building out of school hours shall not be borne by the authority; and whether, in view of Sub-section 2 of Clause 3, a similar apportionment will have to be made between the persons providing denominational instruction and the authority.
    MR. BIRRELL: All the matters referred to in the Question must be matters of arrangement between the owners and the local education authority.

    Religious Teaching in Schools.
    LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether it is contemplated by the Government that children who receive denominational instruction under the facilities granted in

    657
    accordance with Clause 3 of the Education Bill will, on the same day, receive Cowper-Temple instruction from the local education authority; whether it is contemplated that denominational instruction will take place before Cowper-Temple instruction or at an hour when Cowper-Temple instruction is being given to the other children; and whether it will be the duty of the local authority to see that discipline is preserved in the school during the giving of denominational instruction, and to use the services of the teachers for the purpose.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the negative. The Answer to the second paragraph is that the second of the two alternatives suggested is correct. The point referred to in the third paragraph will rest in the discretion of the local education authority.

    Railway Companies' Receipts.
    MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthenshire, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether receipts given to passengers by railway companies, for sums exceeding £2 for excess luggage, are liable to penny stamp duty, and, if so, will he state whether any steps are taken by the Inland Revenue to enforce the observance of the law and to receive the duties, or to enforce the penalties set out in the statutes; if they are not liable, will he state under what sections of the Stamp Acts railway companies are exempt from payment of the duty.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): The documents referred to are treated as tickets authorising the conveyance of the luggage and are regarded as not in substance differing from an ordinary passenger ticket, and so not liable to stamp duty as receipts.

    Royal Botanic Museum.
    MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the educational value of the economic museums in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and of the fact that no official guide has been on sale since 1895 for No. I. Museum, the Board will immediately publish one.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.): A new edition of the official guide for Museum No. I. is now in course of preparation. It will be completed and issued to the public at the earliest possible date.

    Crofters Act Amendment Bill.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland why the promised Crofters' Act Amendment Bill has not yet been introduced, and can he now say when it will be brought in.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The Bill is still under preparation, and I am not yet able to say when it will be introduced.
    MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister during the general election referred to this question as one of an urgent character?
    MR. SINCLAIR: I can assure the hon. Member that no time is being lost.

    Ross-shire Schools Water Supply.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that on the mainland of Ross-shire there are sixteen, and in the Island of Lewis eighteen schools in which the water supply is reported to be defective, will he state in how many cases action is being taken with a view to secure a suitable water supply.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I may explain that in classing schools as defective as regards their water supply, it was not meant to be implied that no supply at all of drinking water was available for the school children. In all of the cases, as a matter of fact, good drinking water is available, but at too remote a distance in the opinion of the medical officer for the use of the school children. Of the sixteen schools on the mainland of Ross-shire, improvements on the water supplies are in hand with regard to five of them. There is no information available in the meantime with regard to the Lewis schools.

    Upper Bayble Cottars.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many cottars resident at Upper Bayble, Island of Lewis, have written to

    659
    the Scottish Office expressing their willingness to transfer themselves to the mainland provided that the Congested Districts Board arrange reasonable aid for their settlement; and will the Board consider the expediency of making the conditions of migration known throughout the island by means of posters in the different townships.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his unstarred Question No. 5 of June 11th.† No such cottars have hitherto expressed their willingness, so far as I know, to migrate to the mainland. In regard to the complaint made by these cottars and referred to in my reply of June 11th, the Congested Districts Board is in correspondence with the Landward Committee.

    Highland School Board Franchise
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that persons whose rentals do not exceed £4, while entitled to vote at parliamentary and county council elections, have no vote at school board elections, will he state when he proposes to present to Parliament a Return showing the number of persons in the Highland crofting counties who are thus deprived of the school board franchise.
    MR. SINCLAIR: The form of the Return is under consideration, and at present no date can be named.

    Sanitation in the Island of Lewis.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has yet applied to the Treasury for funds for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the Island of Lewis.
    MR. SINCLAIR: I am now in conference with the Treasury in regard to this subject.

    Gort Licensing Case.
    MR. DUFFY (Galway, S.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that Francis J. Persse, J.P., sat at Gort, county Galway, Petty Sessions on May 3rd, and adjudicated in a licensing case, in which Mr. Hart of Gort was defendant, and he being
    † See (4) Debates, clviii., 690.
    660
    a tenant on the estate over which Mr. Persse acts as agent; and whether the Government will take steps to prevent justices acting in the dual capacity of agent of disturbed estates and officiating magisterially at the same time.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I believe the facts to be as stated in the Question. It would appear that a Mr. Hart was prosecuted by the police at the Gort Petty Sessions for a breach of the licensing laws in having his licensed premises open at a prohibited time. The case was heard before the resident magistrate and two other magistrates, of whom Mr. Persse was one, and was dismissed upon the merits. No objection was made to Mr. Persse adjudicating, and the fact that he is alleged to be agent over the estate upon which Hart resided was not a legal disqualification to his acting as a magistrate at the hearing of the case.

    Drumtullagh National School.
    MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in 1905 a site was secured for a teachers' residence in connection with Drumtullagh national school, county Antrim; that the manager of the school applied to the Board of Works for a loan to erect the residence; that the application was accepted on the conditions that the vesting order be deposited with the Board, which is impossible until the estate from which the site has been granted is sold; and whether, in view of the fact that years may elapse before the estate will be sold, and that the Board of Works have accepted sureties for the loan, he will order it to be granted forthwith.
    MR. MCKENNA: I am informed that the facts are as stated except that Amendments have been called for in the plans and specifications. At present the applicant has only a yearly tenancy, which does not afford adequate security for the proposed loan. I believe the difficulties in this case could easily be removed and I shall be glad to communicate privately with the hon. Member.

    Limerick Postman's Pension.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can

    661
    state the reason why the pension due to Matthew Larkin, postman at Limerick, who was superannuated on medical disqualification, December 21st, 1905, after thirty-seven years service, has not yet been awarded to him; whether any sum of money has been granted in advance, and, if so, how much; and whether, taking the man's circumstances into account, he will see that the pension will be granted with as little delay as possible.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The delay in awarding the pension to Matthew Larkin, postman at Limerick, is attributable to the fact that considerable difficulty has been experienced in obtaining authentic information regarding his early service. An advance of £8 in respect of pension was made to Larkin in March last and the payment of a further sum of £10 has been authorised. The hon. Member may rest assured that the pension will be granted at as early a date as possible.

    Wage Disputes—International Action.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to M. Clemenceau's proposed legislation dealing with State regulation of industrial disputes and contracts; and whether, in view of the fact that the success of such regulations depends largely on international co-operation, His Majesty's Government will communicate with the French and German Governments as to the possibility of arranging for simultaneous legislation on such subjects in their respective countries.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Yes, Sir, I have seen the passage in M. Clemenceau's speech to which my hon. friend refers. I understand, however, that the projet de loi embodying the intentions of the French Government has not as yet been issued, so that my hon. friend will see that we have no material upon which to found a decision as to the advisability of concurrent legislation in respect to this question. For myself, I am disposed to think that though there are many directions in which international co-operation may be of great service in bettering the conditions of labour, this particular question of the
    662
    regulation of industrial disputes is so affected by the varying circumstances of different countries that united action may be difficult.

    Education Bill Closure.
    LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the operation of the Order of June 18th relating to procedure on the Education Bill, he will propose an Amendment to it providing that the closure at the end of each compartment shall be applied at 10.50 instead of 10.30.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, I cannot see my way to proposing the Amendment which the noble Lord suggests.

    The National Gallery.
    MR. HORNIMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he has or will consider the advisability of so altering the terms of the appointment of the new director of the National Gallery, whereby greater facilities may be given for the rapid acceptance or purchase of pictures, so that donors may not be discouraged by delays and money wasted by the pictures not being bought until after they have been sold by the original owners.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The present director of the National Gallery has been appointed on the same terms as his predecessor. The expediency of modifying the status and power of the director is receiving careful consideration.

    The Ceylon Pearl Fisheries.
    SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will be able to give a day for discussion of the lease of the Ceylon Government Pearl Fisheries to the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir, I am afraid it is impossible to promise a day for the discussion of the matter, however important it may be.
    SIR J. JARDINE: Is the Prime Minister aware that the lease to the Ceylon Company of Pearl Fishers is causing much comment in Ceylon, Scotland and the City?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid the exigencies of time are too strong to render any prospect of the debate possible.

    English Printers in Canada.
    MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government intend to introduce legislation, in the sense desired by the Dominion Government, which would render punishable false representations such as those which recently induced a body of English printers to migrate to Canada to take the place of Canadian workmen who were on strike.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: The published correspondence regarding the case of the English printers who were induced to migrate to Canada during a strike at Winnipeg shows that His Majesty's Government have been most anxious to meet the views of the Canadian Government in this matter. On May 16th the Secretary of State requested the Governor-General to assure the Ministry that their suggestion that Imperial legislation should be introduced to deal with any future cases of a similar character would receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government. That undertaking is now being carried out, but I am afraid in any event that it will hardly be possible to introduce legislation during the present session.

    Public Trustee Billt
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the recent absconding of another fraudulent trustee, involving widows and orphans in heavy loss, and if, with a view to affording the public the earliest opportunity of escape from these robberies of trust funds, he will press forward the remaining stages of the Public Trustee Bill, brought in by the Government, and read a second time in this House without a division. Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed three cases in to-day's paper?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can only say that the Government will do all it can to further the progress of this most necessary Bill.

    Board of Agriculture Vote.
    MR. BECK: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will, having in view the interests concerned and the fact that the House of Commons has of late years devoted little time to agricultural questions, consider the advisability of allotting an early day for taking the Vote on the Board of Agriculture.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Vote on the Board of Agriculture will be taken, if possible, on July 12th.

    Women on Local Education Authorities.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made on behalf of the Board of Education to the effect that the Board desire to see women given a responsible position in the direction of public education, but that the Board cannot give effect to this desire because the remedy lies in the alteration of our Local Government laws; and whether the Government will meet the views of the Board of Education in this matter by giving facilities for the passing into law during the present session of the Local Authorities (Qualification of Women) Bill, which would render women eligible for election on the same terms as men on the local councils which are to be elected in March and November, 1907, and which will become the local education authorities to administer the New Education Act.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not understand that the Board of Education have ever offered an opinion on the question of associating women with the general work of local government. That would be beyond their province. The Government, however, earnestly desire to see women placed in a position in which they can take their full share in educational administration, and though I cannot give a definite promise of Government facilities at the moment, my hon. friend may rely upon it that we shall keep the matter before us.
    MR. LEIF JONESasked the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that un-

    665
    less the alteration could be made this year women would have no place upon the first local authorities elected to administer the new Education Act.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he would bear that in mind.

    Responsible Government for the Transvaal.
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing any proposals the Government may make for the establishment of responsible government in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir, an opportunity will be given of discussing the question.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will it be given before the House rises for the holidays?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say when it will be.

    The Education Bill.
    DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)asked the Prime Minister whether he could so arrange that the important series of Amendments to Clause 4 of the Education Bill standing in the name of the President of the Board of Education, including one permitting denominational school managers in special cases to contract themselves out of the Act of 1902 and the present Bill, should receive discussion. As the Amendments were placed at the end of. Clause 4 it was practically certain as matters stood that they would be put to the House on Wednesday at 10.30 without debate.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think it is clear that ample time will in fact be secured for the discussion of the important matters referred to by my hon. friend, if only because all the points contained in the new Amendments are in effect raised by Amendments to Clause 4 which occur quite early on the Paper, and which, so far as I can see, will receive full and ample discussion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what would be the distribution of the work of Supply in the days yet remaining. He understood the Government intended to give only twenty days for Supply instead of the maximum of twenty-three days which had been commonly but not always given.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid on Thursday next the Irish Estimates would be taken, beginning with the Vote for the Congested Districts Board. On July 5th the Foreign Office Vote would be taken, and, if possible, a short time would be given for the further consideration of Scotch Estimates the discussion of which was shortened by the interposition of a private Bill. On July 12th the Army Estimates would be taken, when the Secretary of State for War would make a further statement. If possible, the vote for the Board of Agriculture would also be taken. On July 13th they would take the Navy Estimates, Vote 8.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When will the Volunteer Vote be taken?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It will be the second Vote on the day set apart for the Army Estimates
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether, if a third day was given for Irish Supply, the Chief Secretary's Vote would be put down on that day. It was desired by some representative of the Irish minority to raise some points of importance on that Vote.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Irish Members would expect three days for Irish Supply. That was the minimum that had been granted in former years. He hoped the Irish Members would be consulted before the question of the particular Irish Supply to be taken was decided.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that was a reasonable request. The Government would be glad to receive suggestions from the Irish Members and from all parts of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think it would be wise to limit the debate on the Foreign Office Vote by taking Scottish Estimates that day.
MR. WEIRpointed out that Scotland had fared worse this year than in any year in the last fifteen years.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Any apparent neglect of Scottish affairs is due to our excessive desire to give the fullest consideration to Scottish measures and to make adequate inquiry before framing them.
MR. WEIR: My reference was not to legislation but to Supply.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: When will the Colonial Vote be taken?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot name a day at present.
COLONEL WILLIAMS (Dorsetshire W.)asked at what hour the Board of Agriculture vote would be taken on July 12th.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It depends on the debate on the Army Votes.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [LORDS].
Reported, with an Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Ordered, That the Report do lie upon the Table, and be printed. [No. 212.]
Ordered, That the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee he printed. [No. 212.]
Ordered, That the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), be taken into consideration To-morrow.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW, ETC.
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.)
NEW BILLS.
  REMOVAL OF OFFENSIVE MATTER BILL.
  "To repeal the provisions of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, with respect to the Removal of Offensive Matter in places within the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, with respect to the Removal of offensive matter in places within the Metropolitan Police District," presented by Mr. John Burns; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 268.]
  DANGEROUS PERFORMANCES BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the Law relating to the employment of girls, boys, or women in Dangerous Performances," presented by Mr. Herbert Samuel; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 269.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented by Mr. Cathcart Wason; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Harmsworth, Mr. John Dewar, Mr. Weir, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Gulland, Sir Henry Craik, Viscount Dalrymple, Sir John Batty Tuke, Major Anstruther-Gray, Mr. Younger, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, and Mr. Cross; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 270.]
  PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.
  "To amend the Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887; and to authorise the appointment of Probation officers," presented by Sir Howard Vincent; supported by Viscount Helmsley; to be read a second time upon Monday, July 16th, and to be printed. [Bill 271.]

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 4:—
  THE CHAIRMANhaving ruled out of order that Amendments standing in

  669
  the names of the hon. Members for Spalding, North Hackney, Glasgow and Aberdeen University, Chichester, Ludlow, Wycombe and Preston,
  MR. EVELYN CECILmoved to insert the word "shall" in place of "may." His desire in so doing was to obtain equal treatment for all denominations so that they should be enabled to obtain extended facilities. If the purposes of the clause were carried out, every denomination ought to have equal rights to extended facilities, but from what they had learnt it was perfectly clear that the local education authorities in different parts of the country would not mete out equal treatment to the parents who applied. Even the other day the County Council for the West Riding of Yorkshire had done its best to drive a coach and six through the Act of 1902, and under these circumstances it was legitimate to ask what would occur in many parts, Wales, for instance, granting the word "may" remained and "shall" was not inserted. Supposing in the case of a small village in Wales four-fifths of the parents applied for extended facilities. What guarantee was there that the local education authority would accede to their request? It was most important, in view of what had happened in the West Riding of Yorkshire and Wales and elsewhere, that Parliament should clearly explain its intentions and make this clause mandatory. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education had said more than once that he did not intend these extended facilities to be illusory. If that was his view he could hardly fail to accept the Amendment. He could not see how the clause could be otherwise than illusory if it was not made mandatory. The right hon. Gentleman had just given notice of a number of other Amendments which, made confusion worse confounded. He had spent some time in trying to find out how they were to affect this clause, but he did not see that they covered the whole ground, though some filled up the gaps now admittedly left open in drafting the Bill.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said it was impossible to carry on the debate without referring to the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman, and
  670
  personally he had no objection to their being discussed at this time, but he would like to know whether it was in order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that on the Question of "may" or "shall" now under consideration there did arise considerations affecting many, if not all, of the Amendments proposed by the President of the Board of Education. Therefore he thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee that the general effect of the Government Amendments should be discussed on the present Amendment to some extent, but that attempts to amend those Amendments in detail must be left until they were reached.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL,continuing, said he failed to see how the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, which started on the assumption that the local education authority refused to agree to an arrangement with the owners of the schoolhouse, covered the whole ground of Clause 4. Take this case. He would assume that the schoolhouse had been transferred. After an interval of some months, or years, the parents of four-fifths of the children in the particular district desired to get extended facilities for their children. The schoolhouse had already been handed over to the use of the local education authority, and the local authority refused to grant the facilities. What was to happen after that? Therefore as he did not see that the Amendments of the right hon Gentleman grappled adequately with the question he felt that his own Amendment was all the more necessary. It was much the simpler way of dealing with the matter. The alteration of "may" to "shall" was plain and simple legislation, while the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be very complicated. It was easy to imagine from existing circumstances what different tempers local education authorities might be in. In one case the local education authority might be in the humour to refuse the facilities altogether. In another they might be in the humour to refuse them to Church of England parents, but not to Roman Catholics or to Jews. Such a thing would be an act of gross injustice, and certainly was not intended by Parliament. Then

  671
  why should not Parliament say so in the Bill? Further, if the local education authority was left to decide the question of giving facilities to four-fifths of the children, there would be a serious risk of religious quarrels at every local election, and he ventured to think that if the right hon. Gentleman did not make the clause mandatory the religious difficulty would continue as much in the future as in the past. They applied for equal treatment, it was not so long ago that the Prime Minister, speaking at Norwich on November 26th, 1904, said—
  "We want the child to be brought up in the faith of his father at least until he comes to such an age as to be qualified to be a judge of a faith for himself."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the object of the Liberal Party was to secure perfect freedom of conscience and equal treatment. That quotation showed that the Prime Minister at that time was in favour of some such Amendment, and if that was the view upon which the Radical Party went to the country why could they not now accept the Amendment he moved? With regard to the penalties, he supposed if this clause was made mandatory the proper course would be for the Board of Education to apply for a mandamus against the local authority in fault. But the better course, in his view, would be for the Board of Education to withhold the Parliamentary grants until such time as the local authority had complied with the mandatory conditions under Clause 4. If the Amendment was accepted he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education should introduce the penalties required on the lines he had just suggested. In urging the importance of the Amendment he might be allowed to say a word once more on the value of denominational teaching. Many believed that undenominational teaching was simply laying down a method by which everybody was to be a law unto themselves. He did not desire to press one kind of denominational teaching as against another, from this particular point of view. What was important was that denominational teaching should guide the growing youth of the country, watch over it with a helping hand, and save it from drifting away towards that indifference which as a rule led to a
  672
  career of selfishness and crime. He claimed that the parents of the children should be able to obtain the special kind of religious teaching they desired. He felt convinced that unless they aimed at securing that right to the parents, by the adoption of this Amendment, the Bill had no chance of being regarded as a final settlement of the religious question.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)said he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Aston Manor that probably it, was difficult for him to give reasons why the Government could not accept this Amendment without indicating very shortly the general effect and purport of the Amendments which now appeared on the Paper in his name. He thought that when the matter was fairly considered, having regard to the fact that the new Government Amendments did not in any way raise questions new to the Committee, but, as it were, only fixed and combined in a consecutive form separate Amendments which were now scattered up and down the Amendment Paper, the Committee would agree that time would not be lost if he were allowed very shortly to state the general effect and purport of those Amendments by way of answer to the Amendment which had just been moved. Clause 4 was the only clause with which they were now concerned, and any observations he made must be considered as rigorously confined to that clause. Clause 4, as originally drafted, was admittedly an obvious exception to the whole scheme and plan of the Bill as laid down in the first and most important clause. It had been called, and he did not quarrel with the word, an excrescence on the Bill; but it was, in the opinion of the Government, a necessary clause, and therefore ought to be made an effective clause, in consequence of what followed on the Committee adopting Clause 1 in the form it was introduced with the kind of religious teaching which followed on that. It had often been put

  673
  to him and the Government that if they had only had, in the preparation of their Bill and in deciding on the scheme they would adopt, the courage to base their measure either on an entirely secular scheme or to adopt "the facilities all-round" proposal, there would have been no necessity for Clause 4, and the supporters of the Government would have been spared a burden on their political minds and opinions by the appearance, in a measure which they wished to support, of a clause that had an undoubted denominational flavour and character. That, however, was inaccurate. Had they adopted the secular system, or the "all-round facilities" system, he would at that moment have been face to face with all the difficulties which had made Clause 4 necessary; because it was not to be supposed that Roman Catholics or Jews or Anglicans would be content to say that their religious feeling was satisfied by setting aside three-quarters of or half an hour each day for the purpose of teaching a catechism or formulary. The Government would have been told that that was the least part of religious education—that it consisted of more than that, namely, the spirit animating the instruction—a spirit which was to be found, as much, he hoped, in a council school as in a voluntary school. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the Government would have got rid of any of their difficulties if they had adopted either the plain secular system or the plan of facilities to everybody to come into a school for half an hour at the beginning of every day. Clause 4 was a purely voluntary clause—that was to say, there was no kind of obligation on the local education authority to take over a school, nor was there any obligation on them, if they were anxious to take over a school, to give extended facilities. On the First Reading of the Bill he said that this clause left everything to the local education authority, and that that authority might do as it liked in the matter. That was a clear statement as to the character of this clause, and then, as soon as the Bill was drafted, the Amendment Paper became crowded with Amendments proposing to substitute "shall" for "may." Therefore the Government had to consider whether or not they could in these four-fifths schools meet the views which were represented by those Amendments. One of the new Amendments which stood
  674
  in his name sought to remove the risk of any existing voluntary school which fulfilled the conditions (a) and (b) of the first sub-section being improperly refused by the local education authority the extended facilities contemplated by the clause. How did they suggest that that should be done? By providing for an appeal to the Board of Education, in the event of the refusal of a local authority to make arrangements for the transfer of such a school on the terms of the clause. That appeal having been given, he hoped the necessity for it would very rarely occur; but whenever it did, the Board might, if it thought fit, after considering the circumstances of the case and the wishes of the parents of the children attending the school as to the continuance of the school with extended facilities, make its own order as to the terms and conditions, including conditions as to extended facilities. Such an order, of course, when once made must be complied with. It would be the duty of a local education authority to comply with any condition contained in any arrangement made by such an order. But there was an alternative. This new clause provided that, if under any special circumstances of the case the Board thought it expedient, they might make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school, receiving the Parliamentary grant, but not rate aid. He quite understood the objection on principle which every educationist must entertain to schools standing out of the national system; but this was an exception grafted on an exception. Assuming (a) and (b) to be fulfilled, he was confident that it was not likely that the local education authorities would take it on themselves to refuse extended facilities, but he did not quarrel with Gentlemen in any part of the House who thought that the possibility of their doing so was sufficiently real to entitle them to some statutory protection. People were certainly entitled to be cautious in this House and to consider remote possibilities, particularly when the matter concerned was one so vital, as they thought, to the interests of the children. But no one would think that it was very likely that in many instances the local education authority would, conditions (a) and (b) having been fulfilled, decline to enter into an arrangement because, if they did so, they would have to grant

  675
  facilities. But supposing they did, then came the new Amendment giving an appeal to the Board of Education; and ass lining that the Board supported the appellants and thought it was reasonable that the school should be taken over on the terms of extended facilities being given, it was more unlikely that any local authority would refuse to be guided by the Board of Education. If, however, they still held out, there was a mandamus. He confessed he would not allow himself to contemplate the possibility of a local education authority anywhere refusing to obey an order of the King's Bench. Was there any county in England or Wales where the King's writs did not run? Certainly not. Therefore the mandamus was a most powerful engine whereby to effect the purpose they had in view. But there was an alternative suggested even to the mandamus, and that was that the Board of Education, under any special circumstances of the case, might, if they thought it wise, allow the school to continue and to become a State-aided school, receiving the Parliamentary grant, but not being entitled to rate aid. He was therefore entitled to say they were dealing with a most remote contingency. Such a case was very unlikely to arise. But there was another Amendment which provided for a further contingency, he hoped even more improbable. Lot them assume that the local authority had taken over a school on the terms provided in (a) and (b) and had not conferred the facilities though the school had been transferred, the relations between the school managers and the local authority might become s Drained—unhappy differences might arise, one party being supposed to be tyrannical and the other nagging and foolish. Such things did arise sometimes owing to the folly of people who engaged in a long correspondence with each other before the difficulty was reached. A little common sense on the spot, as a rule, got rid of these petty quarrels. Assuming, however, that the difficulties became sufficiently serious to make those interested in the school feel that their four-fifths facilities were really a sham, they might, after appeal, contract out, as it was called, or stand out, as the Government called it, and receive the Parliamentary grants only. He thought it was wise to insert this clause to show their good faith. He did not suppose
  676
  the provisions for contracting out would include in any circumstances a serious number of schools; he ventured to hope they would not include any. These Amendments constituted a better and wiser scheme in the interests of all concerned than they could have by simply turning the word "may" into the word "shall." The advantages would be obvious. The Government Amendments secured that, if there was any difference as between the authority and a four-fifths school as to whether it should be taken over, there should be an appeal, with the result that, if in the opinion of the Board of Education the school should be taken over, it had to be taken over. In that sense it might become an obligation on the local authority to take over the school on the conditions and terms fixed by the Board of Education on the appeal. In the Bill, as introduced, there was no obligation, except in the case of schools held under an educational trust, which could not be carried out without transfer to the local authority, to come to an agreement for the taking over of a school. Everything was voluntary. The rent was a matter of bargain between the parties, and if they came to no terms the bargain would be off. Having altered all that, and made it possible by appeal to the Board of Education that the local authority should be required to take the school over, the Government held it to be much fairer and more conducive to voluntary arrangements to say at once that in those four-fifths schools the question of rent should not become an opportunity of haggling between parties, but should be eliminated. The Government also had an Amendment as to the ballot, the object of which was to safeguard and secure condition (a). He did not suppose anyone would object to a ballot being taken in order that there might be no doubt that the wishes of the parents had been genuinely and properly ascertained. In the same interest it was proposed to provide that no child should be reckoned who had not been in average attendance for six months. The object was plain and clear. It was to prevent any manipulation or moving about of the children from one school to another simply for the purpose of obtaining those facilities, which would most certainly interfere with the ascertaining of the genuine denominational character of the school. As soon as that had been ascertained by

  677
  ballot there would be no difficulty in satisfying any person that the school which had stood that ordeal was the very kind of school contemplated by the machinery of this particular clause. These Amendments were, he submitted, better calculated than the Amendment to give effect to the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and his own desire and that of the Government that the facilities contemplated should be genuine.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he had asked the leave of his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition to intervene in the debate now because he was not allowed, by his doctor's orders, to remain in the House for any length of time. He was very anxious to be allowed to say one or two words from the Catholic point of view with reference to these proposals of the Minister for Education. He looked at the question of Clause 4 entirely at this moment from the point of view of his Catholic co-religionists. He might say at once that these proposals of the Government had been received by the Catholic body with great disappointment and much surprise. They thought—they were led to believe, in fact—that it was admitted by the Government that Clause 4 was inserted in the Bill for the purpose of meeting their case. They would very much like to know whether at the time the Government inserted that clause, and at the time the right hon. Gentleman received the Jewish deputation, he was aware that that clause, instead of meeting the Catholic case, destroyed practically one half of their schools. If the Government, in drafting their clause, were not aware of that fact, then the Catholics felt that they had some right, even though a minority, to ask to have it explained why the clause had not been altered for the purpose of meeting their case. As the clause stood, nearly one-fourth of their schools were absolutely cut out by the 5,000 limitation. Practically another fourth of their schools were wiped out by the four-fifths limitation. As a matter of fact, practically one-half of their schools, instead of being helped by this clause, were destroyed, and ceased to exist as Catholic schools. With regard to the new proposals, they were anxious to know what effect sub-
  678
  section (b) had on them. It did not appear to him and his co-religionists that there was any security that these Amendments would be operative unless the local education authority were compelled to find accommodation for the one-fifth balance in the school. That was a point on which they would like some enlightenment. They would also like to know how these Amendments were going to apply to new schools. They did not see in the proposals of the Government wherein—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must stop the noble Lord. We cannot discuss new schools on Clause 4. They come in Clause 5.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he apologised if he had gone too far. Might he ask the Government to explain on what principle they made the limitation of the 5,000 area? It seemed to Catholics that the Government were putting a different value on the soul of a country child as compared with that of a town child. They wanted to know on what principle, in places where there was a Catholic school outside the 5,000 limitation, and in the same locality another school, the Catholics in that locality were to have meted out to them different treatment from what they would have in an urban area. With reference to the proposal of contracting out, the new Amendments, he admitted, might have in theory some attractions. In the form in which it was put in this Amendment it meant starvation. It was unfair and cruel on the teachers, unless the Government accepted the Amendment which the hon. Member for North Camberwell had very rightly and properly put down on behalf of his own profession. But if the Government did accept that Amendment, then the scheme, so far as the Catholics were concerned, was absolutely unworkable. It was unfair to the children, because it cut them out and deprived them of taking their share in the scholarships and in the general advantages to be gained in the district in which they lived. And all this was done at the expense of depriving Catholics of the rent. It appeared to some of them, at any rate, that the proposed abolition

  679
  of the rent clause, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, was very near breaking the promise given by the Government. If he might be allowed, he should like before he sat down to read Resolutions which had been passed by the Watching Committee of the Catholic Educational Councils on these new Amendments, and which had the approval of the Catholic bishops. These Resolutions were passed on Saturday last. The first was—
  "That the Committee, having considered the proposed Government Amendments to Clause 4, is of opinion that they fail to meet any of the substantial objections which the council have already submitted to the bishops as being among the grounds upon which in their opinion the Bill ought to be opposed."
  Secondly—
  "Having considered the effect of the proposals to set up a class of State-aided schools, the Committee is of opinion that the provisions for establishing such a class as set out in the Government Amendments are open to the same objections as caused the Committee to pass on June 18th the following Resolution: 'That the Committee, having considered the probability of a system of contracting out of the Education Bill being proposed for the acceptance of the Catholic body, declares that any such proposal must be opposed as strongly as the Bill as it stands, unless it be accompanied by adequate Government grants having regard to the cost of education in the provided schools of the respective areas.'"
  Lastly—
  "The Committee therefore submit that the Government's Amendments to Clause 4 as set out in the Parliamentary Papers of June 23rd be opposed."
  These Resolutions, as he had said, had the approval of the bishops of his Church. In their opinion the only practical result of the new proposals was that they deprived them of the rent promised in the Bill, and gave an appeal to the Board of Education with the only possible result that that Board could give them an order to starve.
  MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)said it had been alleged that this Amendment would be an excrescence on the Bill. He believed that it would be nothing of the kind; it was really an essential part of the whole. Under Clause 1, how did the voluntary schools stand? After the Committee passed that portion of the Bill, it was pointed out that unless such words as "except in so far
  680
  as subsequent clauses would alter their condition" were accepted these schools would be wiped out of existence. They would receive no recognition, they would be eliminated from the State system; they would not get any Exchequer grants or even have a right to that portion of the rates which the Catholic owners of the schools and the parents attending them had paid. It was obvious that except in the rare instances of endowed Catholic schools, or Catholic schools provided by wealthy patrons, the Catholic schools would be wiped out by Clause 1 unless they were revived by some special provisions. Clause 2 was the first attempt to provide for the essential work of revivification. The Government acknowledged that it was not their intention to wipe out these schools, but to make provision for the continuance of the work of education in the buildings of the voluntary schools. They recognised the rights of the owners and parents of the children attending these schools; but the words of the clause, after a long discussion, did not carry out the intention of the Government. It was said that the Catholics ought to have faith that the voluntary measure would be acted on and would be accepted by the local authorities, and that to impose compulsion on the local authorities would be harmful and intolerable. It was on the same principle that they were now asked to accept Clause 4,"save in so far as subsequent Amendments should be incorporated in that clause." That being the clause for the resuscitation of the Catholic schools, they must carefully scrutinise both the original provisions and the proposed Amendments. The Catholic case generally was that the great principle of admission, subject to such conditions and stipulations as this House might determine, should be defined and settled here in this central Parliament. It was here and here alone that the voice of the whole country could determine on what general terms and principles a settlement of this great educational question could be accomplished. He thought the House of Commons would not be equal to its great position if it threw into the hands of local areas and local education authorities, not elected for educational purposes only, a task to which it had

  681
  been itself unequal. No greater humiliation could be put on the House of Commons than that it should abdicate its position in this way. The Amendment of the hon. Member, which he supported, asserted the view that the principle of admission should be placed beyond the power of the local authorities. Purely administrative questions might be dealt with by the local areas and local education authorities, although their decisions even on these questions were not to be final. But the primary principle of admission should be settled by Parliament and so also should the provisions of Clause 4 be made mandatory. These two parts of the question were entirely distinct, all that part connected with the design—whether the school was to be taken over under the limitations prescribed—being quite distinct from the other. The appeal on those questions which were to be in the first instance decided by the local authority was a great improvement and an essential security. But that did not in the least modify the objection of Roman Catholics to leaving to the local authority the decision as to whether a school should be admitted. That was their position on the clause as originally produced, and they had to ask themselves whether anything had taken place which would justify them in withdrawing from that position—the abandonment of Amendments on the subject of "shall" instead of "may" in order that they might adopt as satisfactory the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. These facilities concerned more vitally than those of any other denomination, except perhaps the Jews, the Roman Catholic schools. Very large facilities were given to the schools of the Roman Catholic denomination under Clause 3, but they were of small or no importance; but the facilities under Clause 4 were to them the essential part of the Bill. There was no foundation so far as their information went for the view that the facilities under Clause 4 as it stood would apply to more than about half the Roman Catholic schools, which made it still more essential that where they did apply they should be made operative. Therefore, when the time came it would be their duty to move Amendments which would make these facilities applicable to a larger number of schools. Probably less than half the Roman Catholic schools would come
  682
  within the four-fifths Clause, and that in his judgment would be a most deplorable condition of things, which would demand consideration at the appropriate time, rendering it far more essential for them to see that in the comparatively limited number of schools where it could come into operation, the clause should be made as effective as it could possibly be. Let the Committee consider for a moment what the condition of things was in which it was to become effective. What was the character of the school population that existed, and was to be dealt with? It was a school containing Jews, Roman Catholics, or others. The others were provided for else where, and it was therefore only those of one faith with whom this clause dealt. So far as they dealt with them for the purposes of secular education they observed the right rules for efficiency and saw that the State got an educated citizen. The only privilege these children of one faith had was that their education should be conducted simultaneously with the religious training of their own faith. How many Members of this House were there who in their calm and considered moments would think that it was otherwise than right and just that under these conditions the religion of the children should be taught in a way which their pastors and parents believed was the only way in which it could be effectively taught in the schools? That was the proposition the principle of which he wanted recognised by Parliament by a declaration of the right to have facilities if the conditions were complied with. Why should they throw it as a bone of contention to the different areas, to be decided with all the heat and bitterness that this question raised, without the light and instruction of this great central Parliament acting for all? Why not declare in favour of religious freedom, which could do no harm to any man, woman, or child? Why not settle the question once and for all by taking it out of the hands of the local authorities and not inviting them to exercise an option as they were invited by the Bill as drawn? Why should it be said that this great principle could not be declared once and for all? Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen had said that they did not believe that this was a case in which the local authorities, if they

  683
  had the power, would care to exercise it. If there was such an overwhelming opinion in that direction, was not that an overwhelming reason for settling it once and for all? He thought the obvious duty of Parliament was not to throw this bone of contention to the local authorities. His view was that the declaration of the principle which they hoped to accomplish by the passing of this Amendment, and the appeal to the central authority could do more than anything else that he could suggest to obviate unjust treatment in those matters which in a primary state were left in the control of the local authorities. They must not permit the details of this measure to be made the pretext for a reconsideration of the principles which had already in theory been grafted on to an Act of Parliament. There must be an appeal to the central authority, because, Parliament having decided how the general point should be settled by a legislative Act, there must be reserved a final appeal to the central authority with the same responsibility, the same broad view, and the same constitution He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education that the introduction of an appeal was an important improvement. As to the proposal of a ballot, some form must be adopted to determine whether four-fifths desired this change; he supposed that it was to be done by a vote, and, for his part, he had not a word to say against the ballot. The next was a most important provision—that in cases in which there were four-fifths in favour of facilities, those facilities should be granted. But there was to be no payment of rent at all. The Minister for Education would excuse him for saying that he could not characterise that proposal otherwise than as mean and shabby. He submitted that the large use of the buildings by the trustees might involve some question of rent to be paid by the education authority for the use of buildings during the remaining time. That was a question just as much as the use that was given on Saturday and Sunday. But let them take the substance of the section. The authority obtained by this arrangement the use of the buildings for all the purposes for which it was entitled to interfere. Was it to pay nothing for that to the owners who had built and improved the schools under
  684
  circumstances of peculiar difficulty? Was it possible that Parliament would adopt that view? Although to those for whom he spoke this question was of great importance, he admitted that their primary object was to obtain that freedom of religious instruction which they believed to be essential; and if they were to be told that they were to be deprived of portion of the rent, if that was the price that Parliament was going to exact for religious freedom, he was sure that rather than go without the facilities they would pay the extorted price. But before it was decided to demand that price, let them consider whether it was a wise course to take. It was possible there might be some advantage from that course of action; it was possible that it might lead to the easier making of bargains. Their cardinal objection was that there was no declaration at present of a right or duty to give these general facilities. In the clauses providing for appeal there were some words which might indicate that facilities were to be given, but they left it open. He agreed with those who said that schools which, upon appeal to the Board of Education, might be contracted out, and only entitled to State aid and not rate aid, would in most, cases be exposed to absolute starvation. No one doubted that schools that were defective in structural facilities, in educational arrangements, and in salaries to teachers would be allowed to lag behind. If those schools were not taken over by the local authority, and if on appeal to the Board of Education the answer they were to receive was "Go out," they would be turned out into the wilderness. The Education Board put a glass of water and a loaf of bread in their hands and turned them out with those supplies as their portion, but they were to continue to pay the rates for all the schools in their area. What was to be done with their share of the rates? Was it to be handed back to them to carry on, at any rate so far as their own share of the rates was concerned, that public work which they were bound to do efficiently for the satisfaction of the State, so that the population of this country might be educated? It was to be put into the pockets of the other ratepayers whose children went to the provided schools. The burden of the wealthy was to be

  685
  lightened and that of the poor increased. He called the provision about no rent shabby and mean. This was what the right hon. Gentleman asked them in effect to be grateful for. Under these conditions they might well contend that in the name of conscientious scruple those other ratepayers of the area should decline to receive and put into their own pockets the rates paid by the parents of the Catholic children. He would have liked to have seen a nearer approach to justice introduced into the Bill. These contracted-out schools, however efficient the education they gave and however good the structure of the premises, were not to receive a shilling from the public purse. Under these circumstances it was clear that they were bound to deal with the Amendment before them as a declaration of principle which Parliament ought to make.
  MR. PAULsupported the Amendment of the hon. Member with the greatest freedom, though he hoped less responsibility, because he received no support from any of his Nonconformist friends when he endeavoured to oppose the third clause of the Bill, drawn unwisely and unskilfully, as he thought, for the exclusive benefit of the Church to which he belonged. The clause did not apply alone to the Church on behalf of which the hon. Member for South Longford had so eloquently pleaded. It applied to the Church of England, Wesleyans, and Jews. In the course of these debates he did not think the efforts of the clergymen of the Church of England in the cause of education had always received sufficient justice. By the accident of birth he knew as much about those efforts as any man in the House. The man whom of all others in the world he most honoured and revered had been for more than sixty years a clergyman of the Church of England. During the whole of that time he had taken an active interest in education, secular as well as religious. He took it long before Parliament recognised its duty in the Act of 1870, and there were hundreds of other clergymen like him in all parts of England. When he saw the President of the Board of Education reproached
  686
  for not having bestowed more compliments on the Church of England he was inclined to ask himself whether an established and endowed Church, an ancient and a privileged body, would be likely or willing to accept or to ask for praise of that kind. They might as well request a few kind words on behalf of the British Constitution. The Church of England, moreover, was not only a Protestant Church; it was an Erastian Church, prepared and almost bound to accept such reasonable form of Protestant faith as the wisdom of Parliament might prescribe. He did not think he could deny, if he were driven with his back to the wall, that this was a Christian and Protestant Bill. It followed from that that they owed some little indulgence to the Jews and Catholics. The Jews in this country were a body of very wealthy men. But was that the case with the Catholics? It was very much the reverse. No Church in this country had spent more money and time in the cause of education than the Roman Catholic. But many of them were exceedingly poor. If we were to force upon them a form of religious teaching which they would not accept, their schools would have to be either supported out of their poverty or altogether closed. When he said this was a Protestant Bill he meant that simple Christian teaching—which he very much preferred to the phrase "simple Bible teaching," because there was a great deal of the Bible quite unsuited to children—given by laymen was suitable to all Protestant churches, but with the Roman Catholics it was not so. The authority of the Church in matters of religion was part of the Roman Catholic faith, and this kind of teaching was by her regarded as worse than nothing. To use a homely simile, it was like offering a man a cigarette after a good meal—it was not an imperfect form of enjoyment; it was a mockery of a real need. He did not so much share the mistrust of the local authorities expressed by the hon. Member for Aston Manor. He believed ninety-nine hundredths of them would do absolute justice as between Protestant and Catholic. But he took rather the view expressed by the hon.

  687
  Member for South Longford that there might be here and there some unreasonable body which might, if left to itself, throw the whole machinery of the Act out of gear. If he were a lawyer he should "pray in aid" the speech of the President of the Board of Education on the Amendment which his right hon. friend was nominally opposing, for the whole gist of his argument was that they must, in the last resort, have recourse to a mandamus in the King's Bench, and he asked in what part of this country the King's writ did not run. The ultimate resource, therefore, under the Bill, as under the Amendment, was compulsion. Then was it not more reasonable that the House should do simply, directly, and at once, what in any case it would have to do indirectly and in the long run? Surely it was no disparagement of local authorities to say that in a great measure of national policy, a question of the highest principle Parliament must itself decide. In a case of this kind, involving the fate of a large number of schools scattered up and down the country, belonging to a Church whose members had cheerfully paid rates and taxes for teaching other people's religion, and therefore had some claim that public money should be devoted to teaching their own—in a case of that kind he did not say that Parliament would be cowardly, but it would be derogating from its own high responsibility if it did not decide this matter for itself once and for all. This was a far graver question than the mere arrangement of items in a curriculum; it went to the bottom, to the radical principle upon which education rests, to questions which were agitated long before these religious controversies which excited perhaps undue interest now, questions which led the greatest of all philosophers to say, long before religious sects began to brawl, that education was not filling the mind with knowledge, but turning the eye of the soul towards the light.
  MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)said he regarded Clause 4 as one of the most vital and important clauses in the Bill, principally because he believed in denominational education, and also because he had some distrust of facilities which allowed a
  688
  great number of doctrines to be presented concurrently in the schools. He felt fully the force of what the hon. Member for North Camberwell said the other day about the common religious lesson, and he would be glad if there could be that common lesson in most of their schools, because he desired to see Clause 4 effective and operative. He desired that the Catholics, the Jews, the Anglicans and the Wesleyans who had schools, should be able to maintain them in their integrity and, have in them a common atmosphere and a common social religious spirit which might be engendered by their teaching. So far from fortifying Clause 4 the Amendments to be proposed by the Government seemed to be in fatal derogation of it. Many Nonconformists regarded it as intolerable that they should be called upon to pay rates for other people's religion. ["Hear hear," from the MINISTERIAL Benches.]
  MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.): Do as you would be done by.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid that was their point of view, and he had not the faintest doubt that that belief I would find root in the minds of numerous local authorities. The Minister of Education had throughout the discussions on the Bill recognised and even contemplated acute hostility to Clause 4 on the part of the local authorities.
  MR. BIERELL: The possibility of it.
  MR. LYTTELTONthought that, having regard to Nonconformist opinion, it was a certainty that there would be strenuous opposition, and passive resistance was at the bottom of the feeling. What I was the position created by the Amendment? Where there was a preponderance of four-fifths of the parents of any particular denomination, the local authority had only to say, "We will not come into your arrangement and we refuse it, "and then there would be an appeal. The Board of Education could either reverse the decision of the local authorities or they could make the school a State-aided school. What was the President of the Board of Education

  689
  likely to do? The right hon. Gentleman knew what it would mean to threaten people with imprisonment for disobeying an Order of the King's Bench. He knew that Nonconformists and others were quite willing to go to prison rather than pay a rate for the establishment and maintenance of a Roman Catholic school. If that state of things arose, what would be the position of the Board of Education, provided they were human beings, as he supposed they were? Of course I they would shrink from the remedy of mandamus and resort to starving out Roman Catholic schools by reducing them to absolute difficulties.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.): Robbing the Catholics.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid it was perfectly clear that a department would always take the line of least resistance. There were some departments in the past to which that general indictment did not apply, but as a general rule it was quite true. They had this local authority with local knowledge and prejudice against the Roman Catholic schools and denominational schools which were Anglican or Jewish. Then there was the natural pressure which they could bring to bear in the locality, and there was the mandamus with all its terrors in the distance and to which no department ever wished to resort. Against all these difficulties they were to have an appeal to a department whose general policy was against denominational schools and against the poor people who in the future would have not only to continue the struggle to keep their own schools, but also to tax themselves for the benefit of other schools which must under this clause exist and compete with them. That was the sort of thing that was hailed with applause by those who were anxious to attack denominational education. Was there ever a stranger method adopted of trying to satisfy those who were not content with Clause 4 as it stood in its permissive condition, and endeavouring to abate the hostility they must naturally feel to the non-mandatory character of the clause? He
  690
  most emphatically urged the Committee not to be taken in by this extraordinary and illusory provision. There was no excuse for anyone being taken in after the speech of the Minister for Education, who was nothing if not candid. He told them that if a difficulty arose in the enforcement of their remedy there was behind them the State-aided school. What a preposterous admission! That was the very thing they had been contemplating all along, namely, the opposition of the locality to the clause and to the denominational schools and the attempt to enforce it by the Board of Education. Assuming that Board was willing to attempt to reverse the decision of the local authority, then there would be resistance by the local authority passive or active, and the Government Department placed in this position was not to enforce that which they had decided to be just, namely, the reversal of the local authority's decision, but were to return to the pre-1902 state, which every hon. Member who really understood the educational problem and every single expert regarded as a disastrous condition of struggling poverty which men submitted to who conscientiously desired to maintain the faith of their fathers.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)said that after the Second Reading of the Bill he put down an Amendment to substitute "shall" for "may." He did not think that in this there was a matter of very high principle involved, but he thought it was a matter of administrative convenience. The Bill provided that four-fifths of the parents of the children must petition, and there was now to be a ballot to see that the petition was a genuine one. The children must have been at the schools six months and if extended facilities were granted there would be no rental. He ventured to think that was a very fair proposal. In the four-fifths schools they would get denominational religious instruction every day. Under the Bill if the, managers got a teacher to volunteer they would be in the future as they were now, in the matter of religious education if the local education authority agreed, and he hoped by would agree.
  MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans): The teacher might be a Mahommedan.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid the clause provided that the teacher might be a volunteer for giving religious instruction. In regard to religious teaching these schools would be substantially just as well off as they were now. Besides, they would be financially much better off under the Bill than before. Under the Act of 1902 the wear and tear of the buildings was a charge upon the public authority, while under this Bill in addition to the wear and tear the public was compelled to pay for the upkeep of the fabrics which, according to the late Bishop of Manchester, amounted to £700,000 a year for Church Schools alone. Therefore it seemed to him that Roman Catholics and other denominationalists would be better off than before. Over and above that it had to be remembered that the denominationalists would have the free use of the buildings two days of the week, and at least four nights of the week. The proposal that there should be no rental was a fair one under the circumstances. But why not make the clause mandatory? Clause 3 was going to be mandatory in effect. The Minister for Education said the other day—
  "I still have it in my mind if it can be done—and I think it can—to propose a new clause by an amendment of Clause 2, which will make it perfectly clear that the local authority, if it chooses, may take over a school and grant those facilities."
  He disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. He did not think the local authority would be pig-headed when they came down to actual committee work. A great many people were pig-headed on the platform, but it was a curious fact that men of all shades of politics and religion, when they sat down together day by day to the work of actual administration were able amicably to settle matters, which they did not seem to be able to come within a thousand miles of settling in this House. He thought that in every local authority, however, there might be one pig-headed individual. There would always be some crank or pig-headed individual who every time the matter came up would make a long and acrimonious speech as to whether these facilities
  692
  should be given or not; he would squabble over this matter at local elections. In the interest of local government, and not of high principle—that was gone long ago—the clause as regards the rirs "may" should be turned into "shall." The question was as to harmonious working in the locality, and the Board of Education, or rather the President of the Board, had said that he would grant an appeal to the Board of Education. So far so good, but it was a roundabout way of getting the same thing for those who thought that they had no security. What he desired, and what he should certainly vote for, was that the Government should make "may" into "shall" in this line. The alternative of contracting-out under the clause had been ingeniously styled by somebody as the safety valve of Clause 4. He confessed that he was more than amazed that a proposition of that sort should come from the Government—that schools should be able to stand outside and yet receive State grants. That proposal went diametrically across the first clause which was the backbone of the Bill. It provided—
  "On and after the first day, of January one thousand nine hundred and eight, a school shall not be recognised as a public elementary school unless it is a school provided by the local education authority."
  Therefore those schools which contracted-out would not be public elementary schools provided by the local authority. He had yet to learn how the Government could propose to give any Government grants to these schools seeing that they were not public elementary schools. That was a matter which would ultimately have to be considered, and Clause 1 would have to be materially modified to make this proposal consistent with it. He strenuously pressed this matter on educational grounds. It was wholly alien to the principles of Liberalism that there should be schools which derived nine-tenths of their income from public sources and yet were outside of public local control. The Act of 1902 did bring these schools to a small extent within the area of public supervision and control. The proposal now brought forward by a Liberal Government was to push them outside, and the parson was once more to become the

  693
  one-man manager, and the teacher was to be appointed under religious tests. He was elected to see that religious tests were abolished in the case of teachers; and he was going to get them abolished. He did not see how the proposal of the Government was defensible in any way on Liberal principles. Previous to 1902 the teachers in the voluntary schools were paid 20 per cent, below the teachers in the provided schools. Many of the local authorities had, with great generosity, put the teachers in the non-provided schools on the same footing as those in the provided schools. This proposal would, in the vast majority of cases, send these teachers back again to the old scale of payment in the voluntary schools after having had two or three years well-deserved remuneration at the higher salaries. This was an amazing proposal to bring before the Committee. He was conscientiously bound to speak frankly and strongly upon it. If adopted, it would be disastrous to educational efficiency unless they could surround it with most scrupulously devised safeguards. It would be even more disastrous to the denominations, and he should be surprised if any denomination gave support to such a proposal. The schools had been four years under the rates. The maintenance of the schools had gone up by 20 per cent. How could they maintain the level of efficiency which would be properly demanded now, if compelled to contract out. Once more the children of the country were to be sacrificed because some obscurantists wanted to reduce the rates and some denominationalists wanted to tighten their grip on the schools. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education had said this would only happen under special circumstances and in rare cases. He was perfectly confident that the President of the Board of Education did not realise—not the religious bitterness of the local authorities, for he did not think that would come into play much when once they had got to work behind closed doors—but the desire of the local education authorities to get a reduction of the rates. Every school they could compel to contract-out would mean a reduction
  694
  of the rates, and the local authorities in order to get the rates reduced would make the conditions under Clause 4 so onerous as to compel the denominationalists to contract-out. For thirty-two years many of the local authorities successfully dodged the education rate; they said that they preferred denominational teaching. He thought Lancashire was a classical example of that policy.
  MR. HAROLD COXdissented.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid Preston was one of the worst instances in the whole country. When he went to speak at Preston, some ten years ago, he had given to him a leaflet signed, by the Mayor stating that Preston had never succumbed to the Godless school board system. Let Preston, said the Mayor, never lose the proud privilege of giving the children denominational teaching. But a postcript in heavy clarendon type stated that unless the denominational system was maintained there would be a sixpenny school board rate. That was the real trouble. He had supported the Act of 1902 right through for the reason that that did put these schools on the rates, though he admitted certain vital concomitants were omitted. That was what made the Act unpopular. If there had been more money in the central Exchequer—the South African war made that impossible—and the right hon. Gentleman opposite could have put his Bill of 1902 on the central Exchequer, throughout the great bulk of the country and particularly in those areas which never had a rate before they would not have had much passive resistance. The whole thing had arisen because of hostility to the local rate. The religious phase of the problem moved only a small number of very zealous people. Let them be frank about this matter. He was most anxious about the far-reaching effect of this proposal. People desired to keep rates at the lowest level, and the designedly onerous conditions made by local authorities would drive these schools to contract-out if this proposal were allowed to stand. He viewed the whole proposal, therefore, with the greatest apprehension, and a great deal of disappointment.

  695
  He did not like to go the length of saying that he viewed it with disgust, but he viewed it with a very near approach to that. He thought there could be nothing worse for the country than that they should set out to make a national system, then push these schools outside of local supervision, and allow them to have nine-tenths of their income from public sources without any scrap of local control. That was a thoroughly bad proposal He was surprised at the quarter from which the proposal came. He asked the President of the Board of Education what sort of guarantee could he get that these poor people would have sufficient income from private sources in addition to the Government grant to keep their schools up to the level of the provided schools in the area? He asked him what sort of provision would he make for the teachers in those schools? He maintained that these schools would have gone long ago had it not been for the zeal and self-sacrifice of the voluntary school teachers who had formerly been paid 20 per cent, below the salaries of other teachers in the same locality. What assurance was the right hon. Gentleman going to give the Committee that the teachers in the schools which were to be thrust out, would be paid a fair day's pay for a fair day's work or that they would have their present salaries secured to them? He put the matter very strongly, he hoped not offensively, but he maintained that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were reactionary, and he was extremely sorry that they had ever been made by a Liberal front bench.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid that the present Amendment was of very considerable importance; but not a single word, except by the right hon. Gentleman, had been said against it. That fact alone should make hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial benches pause before they gave their consent to the propositions put forward by the Minister for Education. He agreed with much that had been said by the hon. Member for North Camberwell, but he wished to enter a caveat against the argument that they should trust the local authorities on the question of rent seeing that
  696
  under Clause 4 the voluntary schools would get quite as good advantages as they had before. He would point out that that was not so. So far as they knew, the religious instruction under Clause 4 was to be paid for by the denominations, and if that teaching was to be given by the teachers there was no provision in the Bill which ensured that those teachers should be such as could give the religious teaching nominally provided for under the clause. The rent question did not affect the Church of England schools as much as those of other denominations. In one or two instances in Kent, in which the question of rent would arise, the Education Department had issued an instalment of a. Return from which it would be seen what was the position of the Education Department. In that return 480 voluntary schools were dealt with, 375 of which the officials of the Department said were bound by educational trusts. If that were so the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was fairly possible, that the rent for these schools would be only a pepper-corn, rent. Therefore it was very likely that for only 5 per cent, of the schools would any rent be got at all. He thought that in these circumstances longer time for the discussion of the financial proposals in the Bill was more than ever necessary. The Committee must be made aware of what was the use that was to be made of the £1,000,000 that was to be voted. It would be within the recollection of the Committee that, during the consideration of Clause 2, the President of the Board of Education said that when Clauses 3 and 4 came on for discussion, many of the difficulties, that had arisen under Clause 2 would be got out of the way; and that he hoped the gap the existence of which he admitted would be filled up in regard to the local authorities taking over efficient schools; but under the proposed new Amendments instead of the gap being filled up it had been made wider than ever. He would be very glad to ascertain whether or not the State-aided schools which were described as "transferred voluntary schools" would come under Clause 2. That was a very important point if they

  697
  were to be deprived of rent, of any share of the rates, and of any advantage of having the fabric of the schools maintained. They had heard of the intolerable strain as the cause of the Act of 1902, especially on the voluntary schools in the rural parts of the country, but it was these same schools that were being cut out from the application of this Bill if it became law. He entirely agreed with the lion. Member for North Camberwell so far as the unfortunate position of the teachers was concerned under the new Amendments; and he could not understand how hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches could defend the system proposed to be established. He insisted that the clause was very difficult to follow, and that it was almost impossible to tell how the Education Department was to find out the desires of the parents or to trace out the exact moment at which the scheme should be made applicable. It seemed to him that Clause 4 should be made mandatory, and that it should be laid down that the local authorities should not be put in a position in which they could act, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, in a manner that was not just, righteous, or fair. For these reasons he respectfully suggested that the Government ought to accept the Amendment.
  MR. BELLOC (Salford, S.)said that this was a practical matter, and one that was more than ordinarily difficult because it related to the future. Nearly every argument that had been used in favour of making Clause 4 mandatory had been presented on some supposed action which the local authorities would take in the future. He could not say too strongly not only for himself, but for many Catholics who voted Liberal at the last election, and who would vote Liberal again, that they as a rule trusted the local authorities. They recognised that the resistance to the Act of 1902 was an attempt on the part of Nonconformists to remedy a grievance which might easily have been remedied. He admitted that there might be cases in which a pig-headed local authority, or even a pig-headed individual on a local authority, might bring this system of national control into contempt and to a
  698
  deadlock. The question was whether the Committee would consent to get rid of that deadlock by making the clause mandatory or by giving under the Bill a power of appeal to the Board of Education. In either case there would have to be coercion, and whether that coercion was contained within the four corners of the Bill or attained by an administrative dodge was of little importance. For himself he would say that so far as he knew, the value of those different methods of procedure was very nearly equal. If some local authority did not want to keep up a four-fifths school it would not be blind to the action of the Board of Education under the Bill and it would not be blind to the other remedy which might be afforded. On the whole, however, he thought it would be more straightforward, more logical, and more in accordance with his pledges to maintain the rights of Catholic schools if he voted in favour of the clause being made mandatory.
  SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he had among his constituents a large body of Roman Catholics, and, admiring as he did their work in the cause of education, he felt sympathy with them in reference to the present situation. He hoped this clause would be made mandatory, because the decisions of local authorities were eminently uncertain and liable to be changed from election to election. Those who lived in the West Riding of Yorkshire had had occasion to lament the policy of the county council which they regarded as unjust, while their action was harsh. The High Court had also condemned it as illegal. How could he support a proposition which would give a county council of that kind discretion in regard to the facilities to be granted under this clause? Local control entailed debate on all subject of education. With a purely secular system it might be possible to keep religious questions out of the arena, but if they admitted religion into the schools the subject could not be kept out from local controversy. He desired to minimise everything which would tend to arouse ill-feeling, and therefore he opposed the proposals of the Government, believing that they would cause strife and the separation of people

  699
  who ought to be able to work together to promote education for the young.
  MR. ALFRED HUTTON (Yorkshire, W.R. Morley)said that all the speeches to which they had listened in that debate had been in favour of the Amendment for inserting the word "shall" as against "may." At the risk, however, of being called a "pig-headed individual" he ventured to say a word in favour of the retention of the word "may." He would point out that many hon. Gentlemen who spoke originally in condemnation of Clause 4 now spoke in favour of making it mandatory. He thought the local education authorities would not be as ready as some hon. Members supposed to divest themselves of responsibility in order to save a little rate. He thought on the contrary that the local education authorities would have the tendency to keep all the power they possibly could. He was not in favour of contracting-out, but if it were a choice between two evils he preferred it to having the clause made mandatory. But he regarded the clause, as a whole, as a very bad one, whether contracting out was allowed or not. Nonconformists had in the past objected to pay rates for teaching other people's religion, but they did not ask other people to pay rates for teaching their religion. He had always spoken in favour of leaving all religious education in the hands of the Church and taking it away from the hands of the State. The representatives of Nonconformists disputed the assertion that it was important in the interests of education that mere denominational religion should be taught in the school. They disputed it, as they believed, in the interests of education, because they thought that if they were going to try and safeguard religion by Clause 4 they would create strife, ill-feeling, and objection to that kind of religious teaching by the State, and in the long run do more harm than good. At any rate he believed with all his heart that no Nonconformist would ask anyone to pay rates for the teaching of his religion. It was said that the religion taught in council schools was Nonconformist religion, but it was a most extraordinary statement to make. If it was brought home to Nonconformists
  700
  generally that the religion taught in Council schools was Nonconformist as opposed to Anglican or Catholic he was convinced that practically all Nonconformists would agree that the only solution would be secular education. He believed Clause 4 was a valuable concession to the denominationalists. Previous speakers had all minimised it, but he thought it was a great deal, and he was afraid it gave away the position of the teachers. He would oppose the Amendment, and he hoped the Government would not yield on this point. It was extraordinary that Clauses 2 and 3 were now found to be absolutely mandatory though they had thought they were both optional. He hoped the Committee would save the situation in regard to the fourth clause.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said the hon. Member for the Morley Division had said that Nonconformists did not desire in the slightest degree that their religion should be taught at other people's expense. He accepted the statement quite freely, and he would tell him in return that the position of Catholics was that they claimed that their money should not be taken from them for the maintenance of schools where Protestant religion was taught. It had been stated—and the statement had apparently given some offence to hon. Gentlemen opposite, —that Cowper-Temple teaching was in reality Nonconformist religion. He did not make that statement himself, but he did say that whether it was near the Nonconformist religion or not it certainly was a form of Protestantism, and, as such, Catholics ought not to be called upon to pay for its support. If the President of the Board of Education succeeded in the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper, a number of the Catholic schools of this country would be placed back in the position in which they were before 1902; that was to say, they would have to pay once more largely out of their own pockets for the maintenance of their own schools, and at the same time they would be called upon to pay rates for the maintenance of the schools in which Cowper-Temple Protestant religion was taught. That was not justice towards the Catholic

  701
  people of this country. The proposal that these schools, which were the result of the sacrifice of the savings of the poorest portion of the community, were to be penalised if the parents of the children attending those schools declared in favour of the religion in which they believed, was something which he never expected of the President of the Board of Education, or of a Government calling itself Liberal. These Catholic schools were, as had been said, a veritable wonder to behold. They had been built out of the scanty savings of the hardest working portion of the population. These people had suffered privation, and, in many cases, the pinch of hunger itself; and yet. no matter how they had to deprive themselves and their children of the ordinary necessaries of life, they always found sufficient to pay, as far as their means would allow, for the schools in which they believed their children would be taught that religion which was dearer to them almost than life According to the Amendment put on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman they were told that if facilitie; were given for the teaching of religion in which the people firmly, passionately, and devotedly believed, no rent whatever was to be paid for the use of the school. A proposition of that kind was manifestly unjust. It came as a surprise to him at any rate, and he believed it would come as a shock and a surprise to the great majority of liberal-minded people of this country. Why should a school, the parents of the children attending which declared in favour of certain denominational education, be deprived of rent? Why should they not be placed in this matter upon the same footing as other schools? Why, in a word, should an effort be made, by the trick of withholding rent, to prevent the parents having their children taught the religion in which they believed? This one provision alone would do more perhaps than anything that had as yet occurred to inflame the feeling of the Catholic people with the idea that an injustice had been done to them. Did Liberal Members imagine that Roman Catholics would tamely submit to pay rates to maintain schools for religion to be taught in which they did not believe, while
  702
  they themselves were to be deprived of all share of the rates? Did those Nonconformists who boasted so much about being passive resisters in regard to the Education Act of 1902, imagine that the Catholics would, out of their hard earnings, tamely pay not only for their own schools, but also for the schools which satisfied Nonconformists? Without in the least anticipating that there would or desiring for a single moment that there should be any trouble, he did say that the Catholic people would not tamely submit to a system so manifestly unjust. It would not be reasonable to believe that any considerable number of local authorities, because of religious prejudice, would shut out a. section of the community from having the children properly educated; but he did know that there were places where the feeling of a portion of the community against the Catholic religion ran so high that pressure would be brought to bear upon the local authorities to shut out the Catholic schools. Surely it was not an unreasonable thing that they should ask Parliament, if it were satisfied that under certain circumstances certain religion should be taught, to say that it should be the law, and not leave it to small local authorities to decide. In the main he believed the local authorities of this country administered their ordinary work in an excellent manner, but those authorities were not originally intended to administer education or to decide upon questions of religion, and it was a perfectly monstrous thing to say that the question of religion was to be made an initial issue at local elections, as. would be undoubtedly the case if this clause were not made mandatory. He appealed to hon. Members on the Ministerial side to have the courage of their convictions. He was certain every hon. Gentleman was anxious to deal fairly with the schools of every denomination and that, if every hon. Gentleman were free from Party and outside influences, he would declare that, as it had been deemed wise by Parliament that under certain circumstances in certain schools denominational teaching should be given, it should be incumbent upon the local authority to grant the necessary fac lities. He would far sooner have the fourth

  703
  clause made mandatory than any provision reverting to the position of 1902, unless a guarantee were given that they would not be called upon, in addition to paying for the maintenance of their own schools, to help to maintain schools supported by hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side. One matter at least for congratulation in the debate was the exhibition of fairness and good temper that had been displayed. He could assure hon. Gentlemen representing Nonconformists that they who represented the Catholic people had not the slightest atom of ill-will towards them. Their sympathies were for all people who had been unjustly and unfairly treated in the matter of conscience and religion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had had their battles to fight and had had their dark days as the Catholic representatives had had theirs. He appealed to them to recognise that in the stand they were making the Irish Members were struggling for the recognition of that which was most dear to the people and something which they would never relinquish. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had said that he thought the Denominationalists were greedy. Could that be said of Catholics who asked that in the schools which they had built out of their savings and sacrifices their children should be taught that religion which they held dearer than life itself?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)said they certainly found themselves in a very peculiar position. So far as he knew, not one single Member had risen from any part of the House to give any full support to the proposition of the Government. The only hon. Member who rose apparently to do so was the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Morley Division of the North-West Riding; but, although the hon. Gentleman supported the present form of the Bill so far as "may" was concerned, and expressed his preference for "may" over "shall," he coupled that assurance with a declaration that he was totally opposed to the whole of the clause in principle and was not, and never could be, a convert to it. That was an extremely exceptional position for a strong Government to find itself in in the discussion of their principal Bill. The result was to
  704
  impress upon his mind what he had felt all along, that it was almost impossible to amend this Bill, that the Bill was drawn on wrong lines, and that upon those lines it was impossible to make a final settlement, which he did the right hon. Gentleman the justice to believe it had been his ambition to achieve. Taking the point they were discussing, although he would vote for the Amendment, he cared very little whether it was carried or not. The balance seemed to him, as to the hon. Member for South Salford, to lean on the side of the Amendment. But suppose the Amendment was not carried. In that case the clause, which he firmly believed was honestly introduced in order to give facilities in a large number of cases, and especially in the case of Catholic schools, would be illusory. If the Amendment remained the clause would be a sham. That was admitted, unconsciously if they liked, in all the speeches made in connection with this Amendment. There was not a single speaker on the Treasury Bench who had not admitted that if the clause was not made mandatory there might be, and there would be, local authorities who would refuse to give the facilities required. Then they proposed an elaborate scheme—so complicated that few outside the House not experts in the matter understood it—the effect of which would be to allow the schools which were not permitted by the local authority to enjoy the facilities to contract themselves out. In that case, as had been pointed out with unmistakable clearness by the hon. Member who had just sat down, they were doing a great injustice to those schools, whether Catholic or of any other denomination, by putting them in an impracticable position. He did not know that he agreed with what had been said about those schools being in an intolerable position in 1902; but whether they were or not at that time they would certainly be in an intolerable position now that they had to find double and treble the money which they found it impossible to find in other circumstances. If the clause remained as it was—a discretionary clause—it was illusory and would not be accepted by anybody as an adequate fulfilment of the pledge which they had all understood the Government to give.

  705
  If they accepted the Amendment and made the clause mandatory, then in the same spirit and for the same reasons they must go on to make other Amendments in the clause. That would be in strict accordance with the promises they had given. They must turn "may" into "shall." They must do away with those absurd and ridiculous and inconsistent and almost insulting distinctions between urban and other areas. They must do away with the absurd proposition that four-fifths of the parents might have a conscience and that three-fifths were not entitled to anything of the kind. All these things would have to be done away with. Then he granted that they would have carried out their pledges and have provided facilities by which the parents of the children who desired it would be able to obtain denominational teaching; they would have met the case of the Catholics; they would have met the case of the Jews; they would have met the case to a very large extent, he should think entirely, of the Anglican Church. But then what would the passive resisters say? They would have produced a Bill which would give more ground for passive resistance than anything in the Bill of 1902. They would have introduced a Bill in which they would altogether have neglected their great principle of the freedom of teachers from tests; they would have introduced a system in which they would not have given the public the control of the denominational schools. They would have made every person in the community pay for religious instruction of which he did not approve. That was the alternative to leaving the clause discretionary. If it was left discretionary it was a delusion and a sham, and if it was made mandatory it was not their Bill. The proposal made at an earlier period was their only possible solution. It was not, as he had ventured to say before, or it need not be, the secular solution. It was a separation between religious and secular instruction. That they had chosen to represent as the secular solution quite erroneously, and they had on that account condemned it. But unless they could, in some way or other, bring back the Bill to those lines or to a position in which procedure on those lines would be possible, they could not do justice be-
  706
  tween the religious sects of this country and they could not produce any final settlement.
  MR. SPICERsaid he believed that Clause 4 was an honest attempt to meet a very difficult position, and for that reason he should support the Government in maintaining "may" as against "shall." Many of the speeches that afternoon had proceeded on the basis that the local authorities of the country were distrusted, and he was rather surprised. Whilst he gave hon. Members opposite full credit for doing everything in their power to uphold the Catholic religion, still Members on the Ministerial side had sacrificed something to give them the power they desired and had trusted them just as they asked hon. Members to trust local authorities now. Local authorities deserved well of this House, and they were doing better service than Parliament could do if they attempted to legislate for them. He did not admit that the clause contained everything that was attributed to it. It was a reasonable clause because it was to be worked under the local authority. A good deal of criticism had been read into it, because hon. Members thought of the present denominational majorities of non-provided schools rather than the ordinary action of local authorities. He supported the clause because it trusted local authorities and because he believed that they would not wish to burn their fingers in a conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. He therefore trusted that the House would uphold "may" as against "shall."
  SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid his preference for a contracting-out provision in Clause 1, instead of on this clause, had been justified by the debate. When he proposed contracting-out it was as a voluntary act when a school had ample means for carrying on its work, but here it was a course to which a school would be driven in its extremity, without resources to meet its needs. The contracting-out he contemplated was not only voluntary, but it involved independent management. He asked the attention of the Minister for Education to this point. Did he or did he

  707
  not intend that these schools, which were to lose the benefit of all share in the rates if they contracted out, were still to be managed largely by members of the local authority? Did the Amendment contain any provision about this at all? It left the school under the management of a body upon which the local authority would be largely represented, and yet the school would not share in the rates raised by that authority That was to say, the schools of the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans would be left to a very large extent under the management of the local authority, while at the same time they would not share in the benefit of the rates raised by the local authority. Thirdly, he would point out another matter which he thought the light hon. Gentleman had overlooked, and it was a very important one. In his Amendment the right hon. Gentleman declared that these schools were to share in the grant, but surely he had not turned his attention to the item of grant under Section 10 of the Act of 1902. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean to do with regard to that? There was no provision whatever by which the grant under Section 10 of the 1902 Act could be allocated to a particular school. It was to be allocated according to the scale only in respect of attendance at schools which were provided and managed by the local authority. This would involve an additional hardship upon the voluntary schools of the Roman Catholics and the Anglicans. They would get the annual grant under the Code, but they would be entirely deprived of their share of the £l,400,000 or £1,500,000 a year under the section he had mentioned. For these reasons he drew a strong distinction between the principle of contracting-out which he suggested, and that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HARWOODsaid the Minister for Education appeared this afternoon to be in the position of a good man struggling with adversity. They all felt that the right hon. Gentleman was being put into a very painful position, and they recognised that, whatever might be their views on this or that particular matter, he, at any rate, was trying to do his best to meet
  708
  the complicated elements of this difficult part of the Bill. He was unable to agree with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. He differed from him for a reason which he did not think had yet received sufficient acknowledgment in the Committee. Those who had attacked the view now put forward by the Government had been told over and over again that they were suspicious of the local authorities. It was in the interest of the local authorities that he supported the Amendment to make the clause mandatory. All friends of local government must feel that they were showing their friendship for the local authorities best by keeping the question of religion out of their ken. When they brought the element of religion into a local contest they brought in an element which dominated all others. Therefore he would vote for the Amendment primarily for the sake of local government. Local government affairs had been increasing in complexity in recent years. Local authorities had now to deal with gas, water, electricity, trams, parks, and education, and already there was found some difficulty in getting proper men to take part in local work, and therein lay a great danger to municipal life.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that though the limits of discussion were wide, it was, after all, a question as to whether local, education authorities "may" or "shall" give extended facilities in certain cases.
  MR. HARWOODsaid it was just the question of "may" or "may not" that would dislocate local affairs at elections; it would bring in the element of religion to dominate all other questions. The Minister for Education might say that he had brought the right of appeal into this clause, as he had done into an earlier clause. But there was a serious difference. In the first case, the matter was primarily one of administration; here it was a matter of principle, and it was for Parliament to settle matters of principle. The provision which the right hon. Gentleman offered in regard to contracting out filled him with amazement. Those who cared for national education must view with alarm the prospect of a number of schools going outside the national system. Why should they have a Bill

  709
  at all, if they were to nullify it by allowing schools to go outside? Moreover, the treatment which was to be given to those schools seemed to him to be cruel. He was not pleading the cause of the Roman Catholic school or of any particular class of schools, but it seemed to him to be a monstrous thing to put a penalty on the teaching of religion. That was how it would appear to the public. It was as if Parliament were saying: "If you teach this kind of religion we will put a ban on you." Passive resistance! Why, in Bolton for thirty-two years the Roman Catholics, the poorest part of the population, kept up their own schools at their own expense and paid the School Board rate without a murmur. The members of the Government were being troubled by resistance of another kind from their own supporters, and he thought one of the causes of that was that they had condoned too much passive resistance. It was not for this House, which was the maker of laws, to treat lightly those who had disobeyed the law. It was not for this House to turn round on these poor people, who for thirty years had obeyed the law, although it was cruel to them, by paying rates for schools to which they could not possibly send their children, and say to them: "If you persist in teaching your religion we will put a ban on you, turn you into the wilderness, and put a mark upon you." That was surely not the way this House should treat the relationship of religion to the great problem of education. The clause unamended would be almost unfortunate thing for local government, and for municipal enterprise, and certainly he would oppose it.
  MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid he spoke as a friend of Clause 4 in principle, though exception might be taken to its details. He thought the clause could be defended on grounds of principle, and a word of thanks was due to the Government for having met the representations made to them inside and outside the House by allowing an appeal to the Board of Education. They were not dealing here with single school districts. In such single school districts there were, he knew, some Roman Catholic schools; but these he understood the Roman Catholics did not
  710
  propose to maintain on their present denominational basis. Lender this clause they were dealing with urban districts where there was a choice of schools, and where it was possible without sacrificing educational efficiency to grant concession. In those urban districts under the clause it was to be an absolute condition that there should be public school accommodation for other children. The Clause 4 school would not be the old denominational school as it was known in the past. Under the old system the denominational school had a monopoly of a district in which there were children of mixed creeds. The new Clause 4 school would not have a monopoly. It would be an option or an alternative. The denominational school under Clause 4 was a single-religion school. It was a school which could not exist unless there was accommodation for children who belonged to other creeds. Although he admitted that the Clause 4 school might be under clerical influence, it was under popular management and control. He thought that that was a clear difference, and that, therefore, they might give extended facilities under the clause. Nevertheless the Government had gone far enough in granting the appeal to the Board of Education. They all knew that there might be local authorities who would not allow the rates to go to denominational schools; and they did not get rid of the difficulty if the clause was made mandatory. They were dealing with authorities, some of whom might be pigheaded, and might fight the clause in other ways that plainly occurred to him; and it would not get rid of the difficulty to substitute "shall" for "may." Then in the last resort the Board of Education had the power of mandamus. The hon. Member for Bolton had said that this was a matter which ought to be taken entirely out of the hands of the local education authorities; but that could not be done, because there were questions of accommodation, structure, sanitation, and what children were to be considered as children attending the schools—all these questions had in any case to be placed in the hands of the local educate on authorities. It would be far better, in his opinion, to trust in the first instance to the localities and to submit the

  711
  adjustment of these facilities to justice and reason, rather than for the House of Commons to thrust this clause down the throats of the local authorities, whether they wanted it or not. After all, they were all anxious to get to a peaceful settlement of this unending religious wrangling, and many of those on his own side of the House would welcome concession, which would, without sacrificing fundamental principles, make for peaceful settlement. He did not know whether he had read the Amendment rightly, but in his view the contracting-out arrangement would rarely occur, and it would be a remedy adopted in the last resort. It would only apply to a fraction of a fraction of the schools. He did not believe that any great breach in our national system of education would be made in leaving these occasional and exceptional powers over this mere res duum of schools in the hands of the President of the Board of Education. He did not see much harm in a few experiments being made in that direction, but he regarded contracting-out as a temporary expedient—it was only going to last five years—during which period religious party passions would have time to cool down.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he was quite sure that the Minister for Education could not but have been moved by the appeal made by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester and by speaker after speaker, in behalf of the poor Catholics in this country. He himself was an Evangelical Churchman, but he hoped he had toleration to those who differed from him, and who wished to do justice to their own feelings and to their own schools. If they said it was necessary to have more extended facilities than were given to them in Clause 3, he thought they ought to be given. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester had said that half of the Catholic schools would be destroyed under the Bill. Surely that was a serious matter. He thought that if a Church wished that religious instruction should be imparted for more than two days in the week it should be given. He himself was a manager of a Church school, and he believed that the general practice in the Church of England
  712
  schools at the present time was that special religious teaching was only given for one half hour in the week. He had gone into schools to find out what was being taught, and had heard the children being taught to do their duty towards God and to their neighbour according to the Church Catechism— teaching which, formerly, no Nonconformist would have been unwilling to listen to. He knew that there were Catholics and some Anglicans and Jews who were willing to go further than he would, and there was no doubt that in some centres the existing religious teaching would not be sufficient. At the present moment he did not think we had strife in our local authorities. On the contrary he knew from his own experience they had peace reigning within them. Why should they disturb that peace by bringing in these sectarian and religious differences at every municipal election? If the proposal of the Government were adopted it would introduce into local elections that strife which they all wished to avoid. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wished to be fair and to do justice in the case of all schools. They should therefore endeavour to do justice to the Roman Catholic schools. Such an appeal came, he thought, with much more force from a Member who, like himself, was opposed to every doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, and to the extreme doctrines of the Church of England, than it would do from those interested.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said the Bill did not apply to Ireland and did not affect his constituency, but he could not help expressing an opinion upon the question, because he thought that an exaggerated view had been taken on both sides. Taking Clause 4, and dealing for a moment with it from the Nonconformist attitude, the President of the Board of Education had declared that he meant to make the extended facilities for special religious instruction a reality. Accepting, therefore, the idea that it was going to be made operative on a large scale, if that were so, what was the overwhelming reason against it being made mandatory? He took the Nonconformist position because

  713
  they were going to vote for the clause upon an assurance that it was going to be made a reality. But if the Government meant this clause to be a reality, and if they knew that it was going to be a reality, whatever they did in that Committee, surely the issue at stake from that standpoint was a very small one indeed. That was what made him say that he thought exaggerated views had been taken of this clause. He was going to vote for the Amendment, although he did not distrust the local authorities of this country. He had had a great deal to do with them. For five years he was at the Local Government Board and therefore knew something about the subject, but anybody who was acquainted with England knew that there were not only local authorities who were pig-headed and who gave a great deal of trouble to the central authority, but a great many local authorities were not only pig-headed but bigoted. There was nothing a Department would shrink from more than mandamusing a great local authority, or in fact any local authority. He remembered the Local Government Board mandamusing the Leicester Board of Guardians about vaccination. He remembered how much they shrank from it, and how they were driven from point to point, how they were glad to give it the go by, and how in the end the whole proceedings ended in smoke. The mandamusing of a local authority could not be done with impunity, and if it came to that on a large scale the working of the Act would be wrecked. The Government drew this clause with the avowed intention of meeting the susceptibilities of the Roman Catholic and the Jew, and they had to include the Anglican. If the Government meant, as they had said, that the clause should be a reality, that it should not be illusory, what reason could there be against making it mandatory? To throw this question into municipal elections all over England would be one of the worst things the House of Commons could do.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.)said they had now reached the crucial point of the Bill, and the matter was of such importance to hose whom he
  714
  represented that he felt he must trespass upon the time of the Committee. While recognising the honesty of the intention of the Minister for Education, he expressed the fear that, in endeavouring to reconcile the various conflicting interests concerned in this question, the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to do the impossible by the means he proposed. The only way of dealing with the problem was by adopting a policy of equality all round, of letting each sect teach its children in its own way. It was of no use to say that the State could not afford to give religious teaching, because in his view it was the first duty of the State to see that the children of the community were brought up with proper religious teaching and that no portion of the children of its citizens were neglected or damnified in any way by the system of education it undertook. Some hon. Members had spoken for local authorities and were entitled to do so because they were members of local authorities themselves. On the whole, however, he did not think that the local authority point of view had been properly dealt with. He did not think there was any distinction between English and Irish local authorities; the Irish local authority was very much in the same position as the English local authority. Many of his hon. friends and himself had been involved in local affairs, and he himself had taken part in every form of local authority which existed in Ireland. He thought that in the interests of the local authorities themselves this clause ought to be made mandatory. If the local authorities throughout the country were canvassed, and asked, not from a platform, but in their committees, what they felt, he believed they would agree that the last thing they desired to see was local elections influenced by religious discussions. After all, Parliament ought to have the courage of its convictions, and if it meant this clause to be a reality it ought to say so. It ought to say that the provision of this clause should be carried into effect, in order to save the local authorities the trouble of fighting election after election upon religious or sectarian lines. He was very much struck by the objection which some hon. Members seemed to take to the proposal that the local authority should pay the

  715
  rent of the schools which they were to take over. In his country that rent would be paid in respect of property which had been created by the labour and self-sacrifice of the poorest part of the population. He was referring to the schools created by the labours and sacrifices of the Catholic population. If in Great Britain the Government said that they intended to acquire the property of these Roman Catholics they were bound in common honesty to pay for it. He looked on the proposal for contracting-out as a dangerous one for Catholic schools. The salaries of teachers had been raised, the condition of the schools had been improved, and the expenses of education were not likely to diminish in the future. Schools which contracted-out might accordingly find it difficult to satisfy the authorities, and might run the risk of being closed on the ground that they were not properly carried on. Catholics were not responsible for the educational disturbance of the last few years, and he hoped they would not be made to suffer in consequence of it.
  MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)thought the whole of the debate was one more illustration of the difficulties which were created when the Government got away from the clear path of principle. It was a matter of hopeless difficulty to combine denominational teaching with public control. Contracting-out was, he thought, a step in the right direction, although he did not think it proceeded upon proper lines inasmuch as it was made a question of an order of the Board of Education instead of a question of the wishes of the trustees or managers of schools. Although he did not often find himself in agreement with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, he agreed with every word the right hon. Gentleman had said on this subject. He was sure it was the only logical and satisfactory solution. It was impossible to carry on an efficient system of education if a large section of the community had a rankling sense of grievance, as he believed under this section they would have.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid whether they voted for Clause 4 or against it, in favour of "may" or of "shall," or for or against various
  716
  Amendments that had been put upon the Paper by the Government, they would find themselves in a difficulty. Those for whom he spoke did not accept this Bill as being a satisfactory solution of the religious difficulty. They supported strenuously the proposal of the hon. Member for Burnley, which they considered at the time laid down a basis upon which a satisfactory educational superstructure could be erected. They were enormously out-voted. They saw the difficulties which followed from the magnificent beating they got on that occasion. He was painfully aware that to talk of logic and of rational conclusion in connection with this topic would meet with the severe disapprobation of some of his hon. friends opposite. Nevertheless, the fact remained that every Member of this House who voted against them on that particular occasion voted in favour of Clause 4. He had been exceedingly amused by some of the speeches which Nonconformists spokesmen had delivered to-day. If the country were entirely Nonconformist he could understand those speeches. There would in that case be common sense and practical wisdom in an hon. Member assuring the House that nobody could object to the Bill as it stood. Clause 4 was a reasonable and necessary corollary of the principle on which this Bill was founded. There were only two possible ways of dealing with the religious question in connection with elementary education. One was to say that as the State was a secular organization—which, of course, was the Protestant view of the State—it could only concern itself with the secular aspect of education. That was the view taken by him and his friends, but it was a view that had been rejected by an overwhelming majority. The only other way of dealing with the question, therefore, was to apply the principle of toleration. The principle of toleration was not to lay down what was called the greatest common ground occupied by all sects; that was merely tipping the scale in favour of the sect which laid the least emphasis upon denominational instruction. He was sorry that any sect should lay great emphasis upon denominational instruction, but he was not there to take any part but that of a judge, so far as one possibly could, and to

  717
  weigh as impartially as possible both sides of the question. The principle of toleration meant the recognition of the existence of separate denominations which did not and could not agree as to what were the essential principles of Christianity. If every sect said simple Bible teaching was the foundation upon which they built their particular sectarian edifice then it would be altogether unreasonable and illogical for the representatives of those sects to say that Clause 4 was a necessary corollary of the debates and divisions upon Clause 1. But that was not a correct description of the religious state of the country, and therefore the application of the principles of toleration to religion could not possibly be satisfied by the Bill. Having voted as so many hon. Members did the other day, they were bound to say that so far as they reasonably could they had to recognise the right of denominations to retain their schools, and appoint, at any rate, the headmasters of those schools in order to retain their religious atmosphere. The Committee were bound to see that in giving effect to the principle of toleration they did not reduce the efficiency of the education given in the denominational schools. He thought the Committee would be perfectly unanimous that they could not give effect to the principle in any way which would reduce the efficiency of education. Therefore the Committee were bound to reject the Amendment allowing certain schools to contract themselves out of the operation of the Bill. They could not give effect to this principle of toleration by allowing premises to be used as a schoolhouse if unfitted for that purpose, and they had already safeguarded themselves against that; and the Board of Education had powers quite apart from the Bill under which they could reject such premises. So far as the Bill was drafted it gave them all the safeguards from an educational point of view that were necessary, and then it imposed the simple mechanical test that if four-fifths of the children attending a particular schools asked, by means of a secret ballot, that that school should be denominational, the local authority might accede to their request. The question was, Ought this to be left in the hands of the local authority? He was not going to reason from
  718
  the special point of view of any denomination. He wanted to consider the matter from a political point of view, because that was the view he and his friends were more interested in than the religious aspect of the question. They might just as well draft a Factory Bill and provide that the local authorities should do certain things and then stipulate that those provisions of the Factory law which were placed under the control of the local authorities should come into operation only if the local authoriries so decided. Any such stipulation would immediately bring the law into absolute chaos, and the House would at once object to any local authorities having such a power What they were laying down in Clause 4 was that denominational schools followed as a necessary consequence on the basis of the Bill as drafted. They were laying down as part of civil rights that under certain circumstances a certain proportion of parents should be able to claim certain privileges for their children. It was not a question of expediency, it was a question of denominations that differed from the great majority of the people of the country. If that was not the position, Clause 4 ought never to have been included.
  But, if the meaning he put on the general idea and the consequence of that idea was embodied in the Bill, then he said this was not a question of local self-government, it was a question of a declaration on the part of the legislative authority of the country that such and such should be the civil right of the parents, and under certain conditions that civil right should be mechanically recognised on the part of the administrative authorities created by the Bill. He could not conceive for a moment of any theory of local self-government which demanded that this question should be handed over for final settlement to the local authority. It was not a question of local administration. Why should the education authority in his own constituency declare that no special facilities should be given, and the education authority of an adjoining constituency say that they should be given? Surely the clause did not lay down a clear principle of law in such a way as to gain

  719
  or it the confidence of the denominations which they were asking to remain passive and administer the Bill in a fair-minded way. He and his friends also looked at the matter from another point of view. They had hon. Members on town councils or county councils, and there was one thing they were keenly alive to, namely, the introduction of sectarian strife into the contests for efficient local administration. He could assure hon. Members that that was going to continue if the clause was left in its optional form. Those hon. Members who had gone through local elections would agree with the view he had expressed. ["No."] Surely Members must have a vivid recollection of school board elections, and the municipal elections that followed the Bill of 1902. Hon. Members must surely pause before they said they were prepared to face municipal elections after this Bill became law, when the first thing a local authority was to be asked to do was to decide whether Clause 4 should be put into operation or not. Were they prepared to face such elections when this question would be put in the forefront of the considerations that would influence the voting at such elections? Did they seriously imagine that the principles of sound municipal administration were going to be the main considerations in these elections? There was another point. Even if they left the clause optional and inserted provisions enabling the Board of Education to intervene if it found it desirable or necessary so to do, they were opening the doors for serious conflict between the Board of Education and some local authorities. Opinions would differ as to how great was that risk, but surely they had Wales as an example to warn them in that direction, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, as to the great temptation that would be placed in the way of local authorities to take the line of least resistance, a most objectionable course from the point of view of sound and efficient education. He did not look forward with any degree of pleasure or hope or expectation to the methods by which local education authorities would have to decide whether or not this or that school should be taken over, or whether special facilities should be given,
  720
  and following that, an appeal to the Board of Education and an inquiry and possibly a decision against the local authority. He thought it very likely that local authorities, knowing that, reference could be made to the Board of Education, would be inclined, as a matter of convenience and policy, to refuse to give these special facilities. It was in fact an invitation to the local authorities to refuse these facilities in the first instance and refer the whole question to the Board of Education. One could easily imagine that expedient being made an election cry in certain places. Candidates would pledge themselves to refer the matter to the Board for final decision, and he thought such candidates would be credited with being cute electioneered. That was not a desirable position to occupy, and therefore he was going to-vote for the clause being made mandatory. If that was defeated he would undoubtedly support the Government Amendments with the exception of that which gave the schools power to contract out of the Bill. He regretted that the very simple and straightforward word "shall" was not introduced into the first clause, for that would have given the Catholics and the Church some guarantee that toleration was going to-be exercised, which was not the case so far as this Bill was concerned.
  MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMSassured the Government that they would have the undivided support of the vast majority of their supporters if they were pro pared to stick to their Bill and to their Amendments. It was not question whether their followers were willing to support the Government; it was a question whether the Government were willing to support their own Bill. In the last few days the Members who had been most vocal on the Liberal side were those who opposed the Government, but he asked the Government not merely to regard the views of those Members, but also to regard the views of those who silently followed the Government into the Division Lobby. He was one of those who supported the secular Amendment and he regretted ever since that more Members had rot had the courage of their opinions to support

  721
  that solution. It was the logical and inevitable solution, but the Government had not accepted it. The Bill had been built on the principle of local option. Clause 4 as it stood gave the local authority the option to give extended facilities, and he urged the Government, as they had after mature thought introduced a Bill based on the principle of local option, not to allow themselves to be bullied out of that position or to be blandished out of it by speeches made on either side of the House. The hon. Member for the Chichester Division had said that 50 per cent, of the Catholic schools would be destroyed by Clause 4. Nothing surprised him more than to hear that reiterated.
  MR. DILLON: Clause 4 leaves 50 per cent, of the Catholic schools outside its operation.
  MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Member mean to say that if 50 per cent, do not come within the operation of Clause 4 they will not come within the operation of Clause 3?
  MR. DILLON: Clause 3 is no use to us at all.
  MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMSsaid that was another matter. If a school could not be brought within the conditions of Clause 4 he contended there was nothing to prevent its being brought within Clause 3. That was not the extinction of denominational teaching in this country. As to contracting out, if he thought it would be used by the Board of Education indiscriminately or that its powers would be evoked to a large extent, he would view it with great apprehension. But he did not conceive that anything of that kind would happen. He assured the Irish Members that the Welsh Members, who represented the greatest body of Nonconformists in this country, only asked that local option should be allowed them because they had not got a Parliament of their own to decide what they wanted.
  MR. DILLON: We are going to support your part of the Bill.
  MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMSsaid he was glad to hear that, but that dealt with only a small part of the Home Rule question. If this clause was made mandatory a greater flame would be kindled in Wales than the present Government would be able to put out. But if local option was allowed, if they trusted the local authorities in Wales, the Bill would work smoothly and well. Someone had said: suppose there was a pig-headed authority. No one knew better than he did that things were done during the last three or four years, both in Wales and outside it, which in their sober and calmer moments none of I them would like to justify. There was a state of war, and the Welsh Coercion Act as it was called was passed against the protest of Welsh Members and he was sorry that the Irish Members voted for it.
  MR. DILLON: I never did.
  MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: Some of the Irish Party did. The Coercion Act was passed to coerce these people into doing what they did not want to do. This Bill could not be passed without the consent of the vast majority of the Liberal Members. It had met with the approval of the President of the Board of Trade, who was the greatest nationalist leader they had yet produced, and a Bill that was supported by him was not to be flouted by the Welsh authorities. The Bill would go to the constituencies in a different way from that of 1902 and it would go with greater sanction behind it. He asked hon. Members who were interested in Clause 4 and the provision it made for the voluntary schools within the four-fifths area, to trust the people to do the right thing, and not to try to coerce them. That was the real argument in favour of leaving the clause as it stood. He agreed that contracting out was nominally, at all events, a breach of Clause 1 of the Bill. Let him remind hon. Members of what happened in Scotland. The Scottish system, if he was rightly informed, was precisely the sort of system which was proposed by the Government in this Bill. Local option was given. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Let him explain what he meant. He

  723
  understood that the local authorities could appoint if they liked Catholic teachers, and he was told that where there was a vast predominance of Catholic children such teachers were so appointed. There was not one uniform system of schools in Scotland, for he believed that one-tenth of them were outside the national system. He did not believe that contracting-out would be operative in more than a few cases; indeed, not at all in Wales. But he believed in the policy of justice, of trusting the people, and of leaving to each locality to decide what was best for its own community.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that some remarks which fell from the last speaker were of great interest, because they showed that he, in common with other Members of the Committee, believed that this Bill did not leave anything in effect to the determination of the local authority; that the Government, in fact, did not trust the local authority. Without going over the ground already covered, let them see how Clause 4 stood. They began by giving directions to the local authorties, and said: "You are not to allow denominational schools to go on unless certain conditions are fulfilled." These conditions were:—the school had to be suitable; the area had to be an urban area; the parents in favour of the extended facilities must be in the proportion of 4 to 1 of the other parents having children at the school; there must be an alternative school in the area; the population of the area was to be 5,000; there was to be no rent; the salary of the teacher was to be paid by the denomination. So that, so far from leaving this matter to the good sense and discretion of the local authorities, the Government started by saying that the local authorities were not to recognise any one of those schools unless these seven conditions were fulfilled. He was not saying that these conditions were too numerous or too stringent. That was not the point; but if they were to have so many conditions then the whole trend of the argument was in favour of saying that if the whole of the conditions were fulfilled the denominational schools should go on. Not only, however, had all these conditions to be fulfilled before the local authorities
  724
  had a word to say, but after the conditions were fulfilled three appeals were granted against their conditions in certain circumstances. One sprang from Clause 2: if the local authorities wished to give the go-by to the whole situation, then there was to be an appeal. The second was if the managers or owners offered to enter into a treaty with the local authorities to take over a school, and the latter did not wish to do so, the tribunal of appeal might say either one of two things—first, that if the conditions were fulfilled, the local authority must take over the schools, or, secondly, they might say that under certain circumstances the denominational schools were to be State-aided schools. What then were the local authorities to do if they had conscientious objections, because they might have taken a reactionary step previous to 1902, or even worse? Then as to the third appeal. Supposing the local authorities ostensibly afforded the extended facilities, but did not in practice give satisfaction in the matter, the Board of Education might spring the teachers' question. The local au-authorities might say: "The teachers here do not hold the religious views of the owners of the schools," and the Board of Education might then say: "This is a bad business, and we will take away the rates from that school, and only give the Parliamentary grant." But there was another set of facts. The local authorities were elected every three years; and did anybody suppose that the election would not turn in many places to a considerable extent on points arising out of the religious difficulty?
  Not content with that, the Government brought in another alternative by saying that these arrangements were to be reviewed every five years so as to obtain, by ballot, the sanction of the parents of four-fifths of the children attending the schools. Thus the Government had added another election to the many existing elections, and in fifteen years they might have five ordinary local authority elections, and three by ballot, in which the religious difficulty would be prominent. All these difficulties had arisen because the Government would not have the courage to say that where the conditions,

  725
  however numerous or stringent, were fulfilled, religious freedom should be accorded to those who desired that the denominational schools should be continued in practice. It had often been said that the religious difficulty was more theoretical than practical. That might be, but in practice the difficulty would remain, because it would be complicated by these new definitions, by these appeals, by these elections, and would become so acute in the districts j in which it existed at present, that it would extend to other parts, and so spread bitterness all round.
  MR. GEORGE WHITE (Norfolk, N.W.)said he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had added much to the enlightenment of the debate, and he confessed he did not follow the right hon. Gentleman's logic. His hon. friend the Member for Leicester, who ought to have contributed to the debate something worth listening to, was, however, influenced by his predilection for secular education. For his part he denied that the Stats had any right to pay for the religious education which any citizen might demand. The right hon. Member for Dover deprecated very much the sectarian strife which was likely to be engendered if the Clause now before the Committee was accepted. He (Mr. White) confessed he had no such great fear of evil resulting from the religious question being dealt with by the local authorities. Indeed he thought it might be a means of stimulating the interest of the people in education generally. It had been said that the School Board elections had been influenced by the religious question, but he knew that there were many other interests concerned which influenced those elections. He was quite certain that since 1902 education had fallen much more into the background than was the case when the school boards existed, and their elections were fought. He wished to press the point that the Bill itself was a compromise. It was not a Bill which many of them would have drawn. It was not a Bill which, in its essence, represented the views of Nonconformists, although it had been asserted that such was the case. If it had been a Bill for the establishment of a really national system
  726
  of education, and if the Bill had abolished all denominational schools, there might have been something to be said for it. But it was a compromise on the part of the Government to do something for education. It had been with some little reluctance that many of them had found the Minister for Education making one concession after another, in the best possible spirit, but a spirit he was bound to say which had not been reciprocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He confessed he did not understand why hon. Gentlemen opposite were so unwilling to put themselves into the hands of the local authorities, being sure that where the conditions existed which demanded a Roman Catholic school such a school would be granted. The Bill was in principle a local option measure, and he was strongly opposed to making the clause mandatory. It seemed to him contrary to the spirit of the Constitution that religion should be made in any sense mandatory. As a last resort in very peculiar circumstances he was prepared to support the contracting-out clause, and he thought the other provisions in the Government Amendments would commend themselves to the majority of the Committee. They were an honest and reasonable attempt to meet conflicting interests, and enabled him and those who thought with him to accept the clause in a way they could not otherwise have done. As to rent, he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were acquiring really better terms than under the 1902 Act. The ballot was a satisfactory way of ascertaining the opinion of the parents. They knew under what circumstances numbers of petitions were sent up to the House, how they were prepared under great misrepresentation and misunderstanding. The ballot would be a safeguard to both parents and local authorities against such evils as he had alluded to. The fact that the Bill did not suit either Party might be taken as a proof that the Government had hit on a happy medium.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that n discussing the Amendment he could not without violating the rules of order allude to some of the points in regard to the whole clause

  727
  with which they on the Irish Benches were most shocked. He could not accept what had been said about the 5,000 limit. If that 1imit were retained he was informed that 50 per cent, of the Catholic schools in England would be excluded from this clause. ["No."] He was in a better position han the hon. Gentlemen who aid "No" to know that that would be the result; and if it were really t ue that by the limitations of this clause 50 per cent, of the Catholic schools would be excluded, he could not b lieve that the right hon. Gentleman would be a party to such an act of injustice. Therefore it would be no consolation to them to know that the third clause might be made applicable to these schools He repeated that about 50 per cent., or nearly 500 schools out 1,043 would be excluded under Clause 4, if this limitation was persisted in. He did not say that anybody contemplated an act of in-justice, and he was not prepared to dissent from the proposal that the local authorities would be fair and just generally. Accepting the view, however, that local authorities were generally tolerant, he desired protection against the intolerant things which it had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon might be done in a state of war, but which would not be done in cool blood. He accepted the analogy, but when they came to deal with questions of religion, one was never certain when one was in a state of war, especially if the question was mixed up with practical considerations. They knew, for instance, that in one great district of England teachers were penalised by a reduction of 10 per cent, in their salaries because they did not give religious instruction; that, he considered, to be an intolerable grievance and constituted a grave danger to the Catholic schools which afforded secular education. Distinctions were made if the parents of children preferred that they should go to a Catholic instead of to a Protestant school. There had been cases in Wales, such for instance as that at Barry, in which fuel had been refused for the purposes of denominational schools to which the majority of the members of the local authority were opposed. While accepting the statement that these things were done in a state of war, surely they ought
  728
  to protect themselves against this state of things. In regard to local option a very small local option was left in this; Bill. Had hon. Members read the Law Reports in The Times? Did they not know that at this very time the Minister for Education was applying for a mandamus to compel a Yorkshire local authority to do that which in his opinion ought to be done? Whatever was the cause at issue between the West Riding and the Minister for Education — his right hon. friend was on one side and the local authority was on the other. That being so, his right hon. friend had to go to the court to get a mandamus. In view of that it was rather too much to ask them to accept the theory that local bodies under all circumstances and at all times might be trusted to do what was right. It was said that the local authorities ought to be left with discretion, but his answer was that there were certain fundamental liberties which ought not to be at the mercy of any imperial or local authority, and one of these was religious equality. If it were the opinion of this Committee that the Catholics, the Jews, and the Anglicans who fulfilled the conditions of the Bill should be allowed this religious equality, then they ought to make that the subject of statute law, and not leave it to the caprice or the goodwill of the local authority. The question of the rent was one of those small petty niggling acts, which very often created a great deal more resentment than more important things. Religious equality meant exactly the same position for the schools of the Catholics as for the schools of the Nonconformists, and if they devote voted rates and taxes to the teaching of what they might call undenominational Christianity, but what Catholics called Protestantism, he could not understand the consistency and logic of denying the rent to a Catholic school because Catholic instead of Protestant doctrine was taught in it. These Catholic schools appealed to him and to every educationist as the schools of the poorest, and if any inequality was to exist it should not be in favour of the schools of the better-to-do classes. It was all very well for the representatives of some of the great Nonconformist bodies to speak of the withholding of this rent as no grievance

  729
  when the members of those bodies need not send their children to these elementary schools unless they liked. They could send them to a grammar school or a private school; but the parents of the children who went to the Catholic schools were too poor to do that. It was almost the worst act of the great Irish tragedy that the people of the Irish race who had come to England or Scotland had to take the unhealthiest work and the work which involved the greatest drudgery and was the worst paid. These were the people whom it was proposed to penalise by withholding the rent, and, what was more, to contract them out of the Act. He regarded contracting-out, and still more to be contracted-out, as a reactionary step. There had never been an instance in this country of a Catholic school once established having been surrendered. He might well appeal not to the generosity, but to the justice of tolerant, fair-minded men. The proposal was that if a local authority could not be persuaded or bullied into taking these schools they should be contracted out. That meant ill-paid teachers and ill-ventilated schools. There was no class which could bear these disadvantages less than the people for whom he spoke. He hoped that the majority in this House would rise above Party, and see that the rights of these people were respected.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there was one peculiarity which must have struck the Minister for Education. The right hon. Gentleman, like the mover of the Amendment, desired that this clause might be a reality, and he had put down Amendments of his own to achieve that object. He desired, like the mover of the Amendment, that no voluntary school which fulfilled the general conditions of the clause should by the action of a local authority be excluded from the advantages which he wanted to give it. But whom had he found to defend his proposition? The only gentleman in the House who had risen to defend the Government and to speak against the Amendment was the hon. Member for the Morley Division of Yorkhire who had spoken in favour of local option, and local option was no longer the Government policy in regard to this clause. Therefore, the only gentlemen who had spoken against the
  730
  Amendment differed fundamentally from the policy which the Government desired to carry out by the Amendments they had put upon the Paper. He thought it was one of the most singular incidents of a Parliamentary debate he had ever known that the only defenders of the Government were those who differed from the Government's policy. They had not to-day to concern themselves with the gentlemen who were in favour of local option, but to compare the two alternative methods which were now before the Committee. There was, firstly, the proposition of his hon. friend, the perfectly simple, direct, and intelligible proposition that a local authority which, according to the Government, ought to give these facilities was to be obliged by the Act to give them. That was a plain, straightforward, honest, direct, and intelligible way. It did not commend itself to the Government; and what they had got to do was to compare this plain and simple method with the tortuous, ambiguous, and, he thought, wholly unjustifiable plan which the Government had put before them in the Amendments the right hon. Gentleman had explained, but, if he would allow him to say so, not defended in the speech which he had addressed to the Committee. The first criticism he had to make was that the Government proposal aimed at taking the responsibility off the local authority, which they agreed was not in all cases to be trusted, and handing it over to the Education Department. But was the Education Department to be wholly trusted in these matters? Some hon. Gentlemen had talked of the Education Department as if it were, necessarily, a judicial body, absolutely to be trusted to decide, without respect to Party prejudice, religious opinion, or political opinion, questions which by hypothesis were tearing asunder public opinion in some constituencies. Was the Board of Education, even in the opinion of the head of the Department himself, a judicial body of that kind? And if it were a judicial body under the right hon. Gentleman himself, had the Committee the smallest security that it was going to remain a judicial body under the right hon. Gentleman's successors, from whatever party they might be drawn? The drafting of the clause made it obligatory

  731
  that there should be a revision of these arrangements every five years. Every five years some Minister for Education— and he could not think the right hon. Gentleman desired to be Minister for Education for more than five years—had got to revise all these arrangements. Was there the smallest probability, or any reasonable hope, in the absence of statutory directions or any clear indication of what the policy of Parliament was, that the right hon. Gentleman or his successors would look at these difficult problems in the pure, dry light of justice? The right hon. Gentleman himself, in one of his speeches, indicated this exact weakness, and deprecated responsibilities being thrown either on himself, or upon his successors, or upon the Department, which, in a number of cases, must bring him and them into collision with bitter divisions of religious opinion, and, it might be, even with bitter differences of political opinion. That was the first objection to the Government's proposal to which the plan of his hon. friend was not open. The second objection was that the Government plan was clumsy beyond expression. They set up in Clause 4, as originally drafted, the most elaborate machinery, and all that was, or might be, doubled in any particular case by the Amendment of the Government, because the Government, or the Education Department, had got to revise the decisions come to by all this elaborate machinery, and, for the life of him, he could not see how a decision arrived at by that machinery could be upset unless they first put in operation machinery not less elaborate and not less complicated. All that had to be done in order to carry out an object which his hon. friend would accomplish by the change of a single word in the clause. It was a curious thing that the Government were not content with substituting an unsafe tribunal for a safe direction of the House of Commons and establishing clumsy machinery, but must needs accompany it with this amazing clause about rent. He did not think the provision had been defended by any one except the Member for North Camberwell, who, in the course of a speech, with much of which he agreed, made an apology for this kind of rent. He did not himself
  732
  think any apology was possible. This was the second instance of what appeared to have become an habitual proceeding; with the Government. The Government were driven by argument to concede something to the voluntary schools. They made a concession on Clause 2, and they were now making what they regarded as a concession on Clause 4. In each case they appeared to have-thought that they would conciliate their Nonconformist supporters by putting a pecuniary fine upon those-whose religious convictions they were endeavouring to satisfy. In the first case they said they would carry out their deliberate pledges, but as the price of their fidelity to their own promises, would require that every owner of a private school as well as of a trust deed school should hand over that school to the local authority if required. Now the Committee had the second case. What relation could the most ingenious dialectician in the House suggest between an arrangement by which they were to meet the consciences of the owners and parents connected with a particular voluntary school and the rent paid for that school? What connexion could there be between making a local, authority carry out what the Government said was its duty and handing: over to it as a bonus for carrying out that duty the rent of some voluntary school? There was an extraordinary want of logic in these proposals which amazed him. If the Government had said from the beginning that they did not think any voluntary school ought to exact rent, he would have thought their position grossly unjust; But they would have said, "We have a majority and we mean to take the school." But to bring this forward as if it had some connection with satisfying the conscience of schools intended to be benefited by Clause 4 was a thing which no man could justify, and which the Minister of Education had thrown upon the Committee without a word of explanation or justification. He considered it not only extremely petty and unreasonable, but he ventured to think it would have consequences of a very serious character The object of the Government, it was said, was to induce the local bodies to carry out their admitted functions.

  733
  Why did the Government put into their Amendment every inducement to the local authority to ignore the obligations which they said ought to be obeyed? If his hon. friend's Amendment were carried the local authorities would have no alternative between dealing fairly by Clause 4 or breaking the law directly. But the Government had literally bribed the local authority by their Amendments not to carry out the policy which they said the local authority were bound to carry out. First there was the rent. If the local authorities did not come to an arrangement with the voluntary schools they would be relieved of paying the rent and of repairing the schools. They would therefore have a direct pecuniary motive for quarrelling with the managers of voluntary schools and either refusing to make an arrangement with them or refusing to make an arrangement which they could work tolerably, so that the voluntary schools would beg the Education Department that they might be relieved of this unnatural alliance and allowed, even at the cost of inefficiency and poverty, to be placed in a position of something like liberty. But the bribe to the local authority was not merely a money bribe. Everybody knew that the Government had got themselves into a great mess over Clause 4, because that clause, whether in its new or in its old; form, required that the man who had been a passive resister since 1902 should go on resisting passively to the end of time. In every area in which a voluntary school was kept going at the expense of the rates every conscientious passive resister was bound to continue to uphold his principles. There was no loophole from that embarrassing situation under Clause 4 as it originally stood. But a loophole would be provided if every voluntary school within an area; in which there was a passive resister was driven by the local authority to become a State-aided school. Then and then only would the conscientious passive resister be at peace; then
  734
  and then only would he be justified in obeying the laws of his country. He would no longer allow his goods to be restrained, even if he had no kind friend to relieve him from that obligation. Everybody would admit that that was a strong temptation to the local authority to drive or exclude every voluntary school out of the educational system of the country. As it rested with the local authority alone to decide whether or not a voluntary school should be paid out of the rates or entirely out of the taxes, who could doubt that in places where there was a passive resister—places, for instance, like the West Riding of Yorkshire and Wales—the local authority would without hesitation choose the course which relieved them of this difficulty of their own conscience and that of their friends at the price of the efficiency of the school? He confessed he wholly agreed with the hon. Member for North Camberwell that the contracting-out clause was a retrograde clause. Never had he heard such warm eulogies of the Act of 1902, even from the supporters of the Act, as he had heard that night from the Ministerial Benches; and never had he so fully realised the truth of the opinion he had always been bold enough to entertain that that Act was a great and permanent educational measure as when he heard it admitted with such frankness that night. The hon. Member for North Camberwell had always been consistent in that view, but the significant thing was that no one on the Ministerial Benches had ventured to contradict the hon. Gentleman. No one could deny that to allow any school now supported out of the rates and taxes to be henceforth aided out of taxes alone was a retrograde step, from the point of view of secular education, and thoroughly and completely reactionary. It not only put the schools back into the position they occupied before 1902, but it emphasized that evil by bringing them down from the high position to which the Act of 1902 had raised them. The Government solution of the great

  735
  religious difficulty was to turn well-equipped schools into ill-equipped schools by compelling them to give up the advantages of the rates which were conferred upon them by the Act of 1902. Surely that was one of the most grotesque results of the fortnight's debates on the Bill. It was in the fullest sense in direct contradiction to the most emphatic promises and pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman himself. They all had fresh in their minds the speech made on the introduction of the Bill which had raised so many hopes that had been already dashed to the ground. ["No."] It raised among other hopes the hope, indeed the certainty, that wherever the owners of denominational schools desired the system of denominational teaching to be continued it would be continued subject to the restrictions in Clause 3. The Government promised that on the First Reading, but they now attempted to give a different interpretation to their unmistakable pledge. Might he remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said? The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "That after the appointed day no elementary school should receive a penny of public money, either from the rates or taxes, unless it becomes a provided school within the meaning of the Education Act. Unless electoral pledges were fustian and fudge, unless they were mere sound and fury signifying n tiling, no one man could ignore that."
  Was there a man in the House who could interpret the right hon. Gentleman's explicit statement in any other sense than this, that henceforth every public elementary school was to be, in the first place, under public management, and, in the second place, to receive aid out of rates as well as out of taxes? Could there be a clearer renunciation of the idea that there were to be what were now called Stated-aided schools — schools entirely outside the general system of the county schools which were to subsist or starve, as the case might be, upon taxes, and taxes alone, which were to have no connection with the local authority either byway of control or assistance, which were
  736
  not to receive a single penny out of the rates. That was for ever to be abolished. [Hear, hear," from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] Did he understand the cheer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as indicating that the Government viewed that policy with satisfaction? The right hon. Gentleman adopted a prudent reticence. At all events, the reported and corrected words of the Members of the Government indicated that they never contemplated, when they brought in the Bill, any such class of school as State-aided schools, but that they deliberately thought they were introducing a reform which went further than the Act of 1902, not, indeed, in giving more rate aid, but in giving public control over the schools. One word by way of summing up. The Government found among those who were going to support the Amendment only those who were in favour of local option. Those who were in favour of local option were, indeed, opposed to the Amendment, but they were equally opposed to the policy of the Government They were quite opposed to the policy of the Government. They relied, therefore, upon the somewhat hollow support of those Who fundamentally differed from them in the object to be attained. In the object to be attained there was no difference between the Government and his hon. friend. His hon. friend proposed a clear and straightforward method of dealing with it. The Government method was not clear, and not straightforward—it involved the greatest injustice to voluntary schools, it carried with it the most reactionary result upon general education, and it was in direct and explicit contradiction to the promises made by the Minister for Education himself.
  MR. BIRRELLmoved to report Progress.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired if the Government were going to do anything else.
  MR. BIRRELLreplied that they intended to take nothing except the Worcester Election Petition Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would in that case be unnecessary to divide.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again"—(Mr. Birrell)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [June 19th], "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
  Question again proposed.
  MR. MORTONrose to move, "That the Bill be considered that day three months." He maintained that the railway ought to provide third-class as well as first-class sleeping carriages upon trains going north and west and travelling all night. It was said that this change would not pay, but it was a well-known and admitted fact that the profits of the railway company come from third-class passenger traffic. The third-class passengers were surely entitled to the same accommodation as the first class. They were not going to ask too much, because they knew the railway companies only had limited accommodation, but he thought the railway companies should on notice supply to the third-class passengers the same accommodation they supplied to the first class. Nor did they ask that all railways should supply this accommodation, but only the five railways travelling north and west, and those other railways connected therewith. They were obliged to deal with the matter in this way because they could not put a clause in the Bill, and therefore the only course to adopt was to move to reject the Bill. They did not want to throw
  738
  it out, but he warned the railway companies and their supporters that they meant business and were determined, so far as lay in their power, to insist that all classes of His Majesty's subjects should be treated alike in both railway and other matters. And unless the company met them they would do their best to throw out the Bill whatever the consequences might be. The railway company must remember that all these concessions granted to railway companies by Parliament were not granted to them for the purpose of making money, but for the convenience of the public. He felt that the time had now arrived when Parliament ought to say that the: people should be considered first and the railway shareholders afterwards. He moved the Motion standing in his name upon the Paper.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYformally seconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed.
  "To leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon, this day three months."—(Mr. Morton.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty)said he was amazed that not a single member of the Treasury Bench had risen to reply to his hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Essex whom he saw sitting opposite had promised to give some information at the earliest opportunity; he promised to consult the railway companies, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the representative of the Board of Trade had thought fit to reply to his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland. The commercial traveller was greatly interested in this question. Resolutions; from all parts of the country had been passed, and it was only right that the railway companies should redress a grievance which was felt by so many. If hon. Members wanted anything done they

  739
  must avail themselves of every opportunity to place their desires before the House, notwithstanding the blandishments and fair promises of the Front Bench. He waited with anxiety for some statement from the hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Trade, and unless he had something to say of a satisfactory nature he should join his hon. friend the Member for Sutherland in the stand he was taking in regard to this railway and other railways.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)said that when this matter was under discussion about a month ago he gave an undertaking that he would place himself in communication with the railway companies and represent to them what he believed to be the growing feeling in this House that some facilities should be afforded in the direction desired by his hon. friends. In pursuance of his
  undertaking he suggested a conference at the Board of Trade. The Great Northern Railway Company sent its general manager, who was accompanied by other representative railway men. They gave an undertaking that the general managers of all the long-distance railway companies should meet to consider the question. The consultation was now going on, not in any spirit of trying to burke the issue, but with the firm determination of arriving at some decision which would be communicated to the House. A matter of this kind could not be decided off-hand. There were many practical questions to be considered, such as the increased length of trains, the extension of platforms, and so on. It was only fair, therefore, that the railway companies should have the opportunity of fully considering the matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 114. (Division List, No. 150.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Agnew, George William

  Cave, George

  Glover, Thomas

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Clough, W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

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

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

  Hill, Henry Staveley (Staffs'h.)

  Barker, John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Duckworth, James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Beale, W. P.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

  Kelley, George D.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Keswick, William

  Bennett, E. N.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kitson, Sir James

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamont, Norman

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

  Brigg, John

  Fell, Arthur

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Bright, J. A.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H,

  Levy, Maurice

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robertson, Sir G-.Scott(Bradf'd.

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robinson, S.

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitbread, Howard

  Marnham, F. J.

  Runicman, Walter

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Murray, James

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

  Whiteley, Geo. (York, W.R.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nicholls, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Williamson, A.

  Norman, Henry

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

  Willoughby De Eresby, Lord

  Nuttall, Harry

  Simon, John Allse brook

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

  Paul, Herbert

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Huddersf'd

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Starkey, John R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Abel Smith and Viscount

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Turnour.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Thomson, W. Mitcliell-(Lanark)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hazelton, Richard

  Radford, G. H.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Reddy, M.

  Billson, Alfred

  Hogan, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Hudson, Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Boland, John

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

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

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Joyce, Michael

  Richardson, A.

  Brocklehurst, W. D.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Roche, Augustine (Cork)

  Bryce, J.A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Russell, T. W.

  Clancy. John Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  Clarke, Cs. Goddard

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Seddon. J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Silcock. Thomas Ball

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Crooks, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Mac Veigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

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

  Delany, William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Killop, W.

  Summerbell, T.

  Dillon, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Murnaghan, George

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wardle, George J.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Field, William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Dowd, John

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Grady, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Winfrey, R.

  Ginnell, L.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Young, Samuel

  Gulland, John W.

  O'Malley, William

  Halpin, J.

  O'Mara, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr

  Hammond, John

  O'Shee, James John

  Morton and Mr. Claude Hay

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendments made.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a third time."—(Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  MR. MOONEYasked an explanation why this extraordinary procedure was proposed in favour of this Bill. The Standing Orders laid down that no private Bill should get through two stages at one sitting of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman objects to this Motion being taken now, it must stand over.
  MR. MOONEY: I do not object if there is any explanation.
  MR. EMMOTTstated that this Bill had passed through all its stages in the House of Lords. The Bill had been several times postponed in this House, and it was quite usual for such facilities as he was now asking to be granted in the case of Bills which had been delayed owing to the action of the House, and through no fault of the promoters. He therefore asked the House to pass this Motion.
  MR. MORTON: I object to this being taken. I do so on the ground that we have had no explanation from the railway company.
  Motion accordingly opposed.

  THE WORCESTER ELECTION.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)apologised to the House for asking at that late hour for consideration of the Motion standing in his name. It only invited the House to adopt the course prescribed by Statute. He was not aware that in any previous case had any objection been made to it. He begged to move.
  Question proposed, "Worcester Election—That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament
  744
  assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty that Sir John Compton Lawrence, knight, one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice, and Sir Joseph Walton, knight, one of the Justices of the High Court of Justice, being two of the Judges appointed for the trial of Election Petitions, pursuant to The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879, have reported to the House of Commons that there was reason to believe extensive corrupt practices had taken place at the last Election for the City of Worcester.
  "We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made, pursuant to the powers of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, intituled 'An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' by the appointing of Edward Tindal Atkinson, esquire, one of Your Majesty's Counsel, Attorney-General for Your Majesty's County Palatine of Durham, and Recorder of Leeds; Horace Edmund Avory, esquire, also one of Your Majesty's Counsel and Recorder of Kingston upon-Thames; and Charles. Willie Matthews, esquire, Barrister at Law and Recorder of Salisbury, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices."—(Mr. Attorney-General.)
  Ordered, That the said Address be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto. — (Mr.Attorney-General.)
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve O'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
North and South Shields Electric Railway Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill. Reported without Amendment.
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Bill; Kettering Water Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Metropolitan Railway Bill. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill. The consent of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in right of his Duchy of Cornwall, signified; and Bill reported with Amendments.
Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Channel Ferry Railway and Quay Bill [H.L.]; Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Hackney Electricity Bill. Committed.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill. Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Con-
562
firmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]. House again in Committee (according to order): Amendments m9.de: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill; Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Twickenham and Teddington Electric Supply Bill; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill; Edinburgh Corporation Bill; Lancashire Electric Power Bill; Middlesex County Council (General Powers) Bill; North West London Railway Bill; Bristol Corporation Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.) L. Clifford of Chudleigh (Chairman), L. Colchester,. L. Wynford, L. Ritchie, L. Sanderson;, agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday the 4th of July next, at Eleven O'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (KESTEVEN, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Amendment of which I have given notice. I have seen the Board of Agriculture and am satisfied with the Bill as it stands.
Moved, "That the Bill do pass."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETITION.
  THE EDUCATION BILL.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I desire to present to your Lordships a petition from the parents or guardians of children attending the Blackburn Church of England higher grade school, being a public elementary school in the diocese of Manchester, in favour of a continuance of denominational teaching.
  EDUCATION.
  Petition in favour of maintenance of existing religious teaching in Church of England schools; of parents and guardians of children attending school at Blackburn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3651. France (Martinique).
  No. 3652. Turkey (Erzeroum).

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1905. Report and statistics.
  (Dangerous Trades)—Statement of the action taken by the Home Office under the Factory and Workshop Acts, 1891, 1895, and 1901.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Return of advances made under the the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the month of February, 1906.

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSION AT BLACK BECK, LANCASHIRE).
  Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the circumstances attending an explosion which occurred in the gunpowder factory at Blackbeck, Lancashire, on April 30th, 1906.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Return of all loans raised in India chargeable on the revenues of India outstanding at the commencement of the
  564
  half-year ended March 31st, 1906, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, &c.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT, 1888.
  Order made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries under the provisions of the above Act for the variation of an order for uniting the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries District.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  CONVEYANCING BILL [H.L.] (No. 137). SETTLED LAND BILL [H.L.] (NO. 138). MARAIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL [H.L.](NO. 139).
  Report from the Select Committee (with Proceedings of the Committee), made, and to be printed. (No. 136.): Bills reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended.
  EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWrose "To call attention to the proceedings of the International Council for the investigation of the North Sea; and to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries whether he would lay on the Table of the House the Reports of the British Delegates attending those meetings since the year 1902; and whether the investigations were likely to be continued after next year; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government intended to take further part in them; and to move for Papers."
  The Noble Earl said: My Lords, in putting these Questions I ask leave to direct your attention to the circumstances which have led up to the present state of affairs in connection with the International Council. The subject arose as long ago as the year 1885. At that time a Trawling Commission reported that there was undoubtedly a progressive diminution in the supply of edible fish in the North Sea, and shortly afterwards

  565
  an invitation was received from Norway and Sweden to take part in some Internation Conference or Council to inquire into this important subject, affecting as it does the food supply of a large portion of the population both of this country and of our Continental neighbours. The Foreign Office replied that Great Britain would join—
  "if it is clearly understood that the main object with which the proposed researches are to be undertaken is the question as to whether any existing methods of fishing are or are not exercising a detrimental effect on the supplies of fish."
  That has been the key note of the position of this country throughout the whole of the sittings of the Council, but I am afraid that it has not, at any rate not until quite recently, been regarded with that weight and deference which I think are due to a country so largely interested in fishing as is Great Britain and Ireland.
  The delegates who were sent to the preliminary conference were instructed to propose a thorough scheme for obtaining statistical information as to the quantity and quality of fish obtained by different methods of fishing; and it was agreed that we should join for two years provided that before the end of that time the Council had collated and analysed the sea fishery investigations already made by the different countries. It was then proposed that Great Britain should charter a special steamer to carry on the work of the Council; but it was pointed out by the officials of the Department concerned—namely, the Board of Trade—that a steamer working 280 days at fifteen hours a day could only cover seventeen square miles, whereas the trawlable area of the North Sea was 100,000, and that it would therefore be of little use to collect statistics only by special steamers.
  Further meetings were held, and, in the year 1901, this country agreed to adhere to the scheme and to grant a sum of £42,000 in three years, and, if satisfied with the work, to extend that grant for two more years. That, my Lords, will bring the termination of the period during which this country agreed to contribute to the International Council to the month of July, 1907. I am, therefore, anxious to know whether His Majesty's Government have taken into consideration the results of the work of the Council, whether they are satisfied with it, whether
  566
  they have been invited to continue beyond the period of five years, and, if they have, whether they intend to do so. I venture to think, from the short experience I had when at the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, that we have not received value for our money, and I am very anxious indeed that His Majesty's Government, while there is yet time, should take this into their serious consideration, and that if they are pressed to continue the work of the Council and to act with other nations on the Council, they will, at any rate, see that we get good value for our money.
  The money allotted by this country has been administered by a Committee consisting of representatives (1) of the Treasury; (2) of, first, the Board of Trade, and afterwards, when the Fisheries Department was transferred to the Board of Agriculture, of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; and (3) of the Scottish Office. The expenditure, however, has not been incurred in the collection of statistics, which from the outset it was the intention of His Majesty's Government should be the principal work of the Council, but it has been incurred on the two steamers, one the property of the Scottish Fishery Board and the other the property of a private association called j the Marine Biological Association.
  The Conference met in Copenhagen in 1902. The British delegates were instructed that statistics should be obtained from a sufficient number of vessels to be representative of the whole of the trawling trade. They were told that—
  "His Majesty's Government cannot help feeling that with the small number of surveying vessels available, investigations may be of too superficial a character to inspire confidence."
  What was true then is true to-day. In; 1903 an Act was passed transferring the Fishery Department from the Board of Trade to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, being at the head of that Board, I called for a report from the Marine Biological Association and the Scottish Fishery Board as to what extent the instructions given to the delegates, which had been the policy of His Majesty's Government from the very beginning, had been carried out We were informed by the Marine Biological Association that they were quite unable to supply that information, as it would cause serious inconvenience to the

  567
  current work they were engaged on in connection with the international scheme. We then wrote to the International Bureau asking whether the scheme included investigation at various ports of landing into the number and size of fish brought by commercial vessels from the known grounds, and the reply we received was that schemes for investigation at ports of landing were to be prepared by the convener of committees, but none had yet been sent in.
  The instructions given to our delegates attending the next Conference were—
  "It appears now to be generally recognised that the most practically efficient means of extending knowledge of fishing problems is to utilise the material brought in by commercial fishing vessels from known fishing grounds at the termination of each trip, by the examination at the ports of landing of large quantities of fish, with a view to ascertaining their size, sexual maturity, rate of growth, and other conditions."
  I subsequently introduced into this House a Bill which had for its object the prevention of the catching of immature or under-sized fish in the well-known nursery grounds. That Bill was referred to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, who reported that in their opinion there was a continuous and serious diminution of the number of fish in the North Sea, and that it was time some active steps were taken. After that it was necessary to consider the position of this country at the end of the first three years, and it was determined that it was not advisable to interfere with the existing state of affairs until the termination of the five years.
  The question for the consideration of His Majesty's Government is whether this country is sufficiently represented, and whether her views have adequate weight on the International Council. The Council consists of two representatives of each of the participating States, viz., Great Britain, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Russia, and Finland. The Council acts through a bureau, which is composed of three ordinary and four extraordinary members. The ordinary members are Dr. Her wig, Germany; Professor Petersson Sweden; and Dr. Hoek, Holland. The extraordinary members are Dr. Dreeshell, Denmark; Professor von Grimme, Russia; Professor Nanse, Norway; and Professor D'Arcy Thomp-
  568
  son, Scotland. It will thus be seen that on the Council England has but one vote out of eighteen, and on the bureau none. Yet England is by far the greatest fishing Power, her trawling industry being three-times greater than that of all the other Powers bordering on the North Sea combined. In any proposal to reduce the sea area of moderate depth—which is available to trawling vessels of all nations in common—by an increase of the three mile territorial limit, her interests, therefore, are necessarily opposed to those of the other nations, since she has more to lose and less to gain than any other Power. The last meeting of the Council was held in 1905 at Copenhagen, and the delegates were again instructed to press very strongly for an examination of the statistics which had already been collected, and for the formulating of some scheme for further collection. I am glad to say that that was adopted by the Council, but it was adopted in 1905 instead of in 1902, and I am afraid it is very unlikely that much progress will be made in regard to it during this year. The Council was furnished with a report from the convener of Committee B, which is the one that deals with statistics, and he said that the analyses and collection of the data would require considerable time, and that he hoped an opportunity would be afforded for full consideration before the time arrived for drawing up the definitive report of the Committee. In the meantime he submitted an ad interim report, in regard to which the Council returned thanks for the pains he had taken, but declined to accept responsibility for the conclusions contained in his report.
  When I first put this notice on the Paper of your Lordships' House, the Blue-book which I hold in my hand had not been presented to Parliament, and it was my intention to ask the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to lay these Papers on the Table of the House. But, even now, we have not got anything like all the information we wish to have. The Blue-book does not contain the preliminary report of the Marine Biological Association upon which the Council reported adversely; neither does it contain any account of the proceedings which took place in February of this year, and which: account is necessary to elucidate all that is set out in the Blue-book. I do not

  569
  think that the results have been in any way commensurate with the expenditure of the International Council. What we want to know is, Is there over-fishing? Is there destruction of small and immature fish? And on that we have no information whatever, although the Council has been sitting for over four years. It is true that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has made some investigations on its own account, but not out of money provided for the International Council.
  I believe that a much better way of attaining the object we have in view would be to follow the recommendation contained in the Report, of the Royal Commission presided over by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in which it was urged that there should be established in each Department concerned an independent and efficient branch charged with fishery matter only, including the collection of statistics and carrying out of investigations and experiments. If that were done, instead of an expenditure of between £14,000 and £15,000 a year which this country has been incurring for the past five years, we might for a sum of £4,000 or £5,000 have a most important collection of statistics. We might have investigation at all the ports of landing; we might have adequate analyses; we might establish a laboratory of our own; and we might obtain some results which would at any rate inform us as to whether or not we are depleting the North Sea, and, if we are, how we can avoid doing so in future; and that without of necessity communicating the results to rival fishing nations.
  I have not ventured, because I do not consider myself in a position to do so, to criticise the proceedings of either the Scottish Fishery Board or the Marine Biological Association, but I do humbly submit to your Lordships that they are not being conducted on the right lines, because they are being carried out with individual vessels that can only traverse a very small portion of the trawlable area of the North Sea. I wish I could stop there. But I am bound, in view of certain remarks made by the President of the Marine Biological Association at a meeting of the Society of Arts, to call your Lordships' attention to a reflection upon the officials of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries Speaking of the
  570
  Marine Biological Association Professor Ray Lankester said—
  "No kind of assistance or even goodwill had ever been received by the Association from the paid officials connected with fishery matters in this country. Their work had been hindered and threatened by the jealousy of highly-paid officials, who failed to understand the importance of the work of the Association."
  I heard my noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn the other night characterise statements in a notice on the Paper of your Lordships' House as utterly untrue and worthy only of the gutter Press. If that is language suitable to your Lordships' House I can only say, having had the honour of presiding over the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, that it adequately described my feelings when I read that attack by one member of the Civil Service upon other members of the Civil Service officials of that Department who are not in a position to reply except through their representatives in Parliament. I greatly regret that such a statement should have been made, because I am satisfied that the officials of my noble friend's Department are anxious to act only in the public interest, in the interest of the trawling industry, which has a large amount of British capital invested in it, and which provides food for an enormous mass of the people of this country and especially the poorest of the poor. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that His Majesty's Government either have given or will give this matter their serious consideration and endeavour to obtain the scientific and statistical information which we have consistently pressed for, and that if they cannot get that by adhering for a further period to the International Council they will he prepared to get it on their own account.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, before I answer the questions that have been put to me by the noble Earl I wish to thank him in the name of the civil servants in my office for the defence he has made on their behalf. I was not aware that any such attack as that quoted by the noble Earl had been made, and I thank my noble friend very sincerely for his words. Though it may not be necessary to use the strong language to which the noble Earl referred, yet at the same time such

  571
  undeserved attacks cannot be too severely condemned. With regard to the noble Earl's question, I may say at once that I greatly regret that the preliminary Report has been omitted. The unable Earl placed his notice on the Paper some three weeks ago, and in consequence we have issued the Reports of the British delegates attending the meetings of the International Council in the years 1903, 1904, and 1905. The Council met in February this year at Amsterdam, but the British delegates have not yet been able to send in their Report. As soon as we receive it we shall place it at the disposal of the noble Earl and the House. The destruction of immature fish, to which the attention of the Board has been directed, is, I venture to think, a separate question, and I will therefore confine myself entirely to the proceedings of the Council.
  My noble friend the Chairman of Committees has explained the facts to the House and has correctly stated that a grant of £15,000 a year was made by the Treasury towards the expenses of the International Council. The five year as the noble Earl has stated, will end on July 22nd next year, and then, and not until then, it will be the duty of His Majesty's Government to consider how, if at all, the propose to continue this grant. The question has not yet been considered by His Majesty's Government, and therefore it is impossible for me to give any decided statement at the present moment as to what the proposal of the Government will be. But I can assure the noble Earl that we are fully alive to the importance of the subject. The number of the British vessels engaged in steam trawling is seven times as great as that of all the vessels belonging to other countries put together. The instructions to the British delegates have been very succinct and very clear. The delegates attending the Copenhagen meeting in 1905 and the Amsterdam meeting in 1906 clearly contemplated the conclusion of the work of the Council at the end of the five years. In 1905 they were instructed that His Majesty's Government did not intend to continue the expenditure after the expiry of the five years, and this year they have been instructed to impress on the Council the importance of considering the lines on which they will next year draw up their Report, with a view to arriving at a definite conclusion by July,
  572
  1907. They were instructed to impress on their foreign colleagues that it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government to participate in the investigations on the present footing after July 22nd, 1907. I will not go into the practical suggestions which have been made by the noble Earl, but I can promise him that they will receive every consideration and attention at the hands of His Majesty's Government.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries I feel compelled to say something on behalf of the National Sea Fisheries Association, of which I am president. I do not think the answer is at all what we would have expected after reading the Report, and I hope my noble friend is not going back on what has been stated—that the Council were to prepare their Report with a view to the inquiry coming to an end at the termination of the five years. I am quite certain that those engaged in the fishing industry are very much indebted to the noble Earl for having brought this question forward.
  It ought to be pointed out that the fishing industry have never been: consulted from first to last with regard to this scientific inquiry. The National Sea Fisheries Association represent the whole of the industry of Great Britain and Ireland and comprise other trades connected more or less with it; the members of that association have millions of money invested in this trade; and yet from first to last we have never been asked to give any advice or given any representation with regard to this inquiry. Since the association was founded, nearly a quarter of a century ago, with the exception of the three years from 1900 to 1903, we have always had the most friendly relations with the presidents of the Board, but I am sorry to say that those relations became very strained during the last two years of Mr. Ritchie's presidency and during the whole of Mr. Gerald Balfour's presidency, and the result was the Resolution carried at the' Grimsby Conference and the separation of the Sea Fisheries Department altogether from the Board of Trade.
  The Sea Fisheries Association, as I have said, was not consulted in this

  573
  matter. They were not given any representation on the inquiry and no one was sent from the Board of Trade to represent officially the sea fishing interest. It was agreed to spend £42,000 spread over three years, and £18,500 was handed over to the Scottish Fishery Board, which is not at all in agreement with the English fishing industry on many important questions, and another £18,500 to the Biological Society at Lowestoft, £5,000 being retained for incidental and miscellaneous expenses by the Board of Trade. The whole of the interests of the great fishing industry in the United Kingdom were thus handed over to a local fishery board in Scotland and to a scientific body at Lowestoft without any official representatives whatever.
  I should like to remind your Lordships who the representatives were at the first meeting of the Council. The British representatives were the Minister at Copenhagen, Professor D'Arcy Thompson (of the Scottish Fishery Board), Mr. Mills (of the British Rainfall Association), and Mr. Garstang of the Biological Association at Lowestoft. Those were our representatives. There was not on the Council as representing this country one single practical person connected either with the Fishery Board in London or the Association of which I am president In 1904 my noble friend Lord Onslow, who was then President of of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, consulted our association and very kindly attended personally the discussion which took place as to whether we should approve of another two years extension of the inquiry. We emphatically said no. We held that it was doing more harm than good, and that if the Government had that money to spare we would rather they handed it over to the Fishery Board to spend for the benefit of our own nation. We were told, however, that it could not be helped and that for some diplomatic reason or another it must be extended for two years. But my noble friend did manage to get more representation for us. We had Mr. Archer, one of our ablest officials at the Board at Whitehall, Mr. Masterman, and a gentleman from Ireland put upon the inquiry, and they have been upon it ever since.
  574
  But what is the real result of this inquiry? We have gained nothing whatever for the fishing industry in this country. On the other hand, we have handed over a great deal of information which our practical fishermen have gained during the last twenty years or more to foreign countries for their advantage and for which they are paying a very small sum indeed. That is a very serious matter. Only last year the various associations round the coast and the different smack owners were asked to send in returns, not only of how much fish their vessels got, but in what particular parts of the North Sea the fish were caught, and at what times of the year. We are, therefore, handing over to other countries knowledge as to the best places at which to fish, the best times of the year to go there, and the kinds of fish that can be caught at particular times. It is well known that Germany is at the present moment fitting out a fishing fleet which will be ready in the course of a couple of years, and that they have already established in Germany a Fishery Department. Moreover, they have founded a journal for all the information they can get, and anyone who has read that journal will see that they are not very friendly towards this country.
  We have had, as I say, no representatives on the inquiry. Scotland, however has; but on two important points the Scottish Fishery Board is entirely at variance with the English Fishery Board and the National Sea Fisheries Association. In the first place, we distinctly desire to uphold freedom of sale for foreign vessels in all our ports and that hospitality which we have always obtained in consequence from other nations. We also entirely repudiate the idea of the three-mile territorial limit being increased, for it will not be to our benefit, but to the benefit of other countries; whilst the Scottish Fishery Board are in favour both of preventing foreign vessels selling in English ports and of increasing the territorial limits. We cannot consider, therefore, that they represent the great fishing industry in this country, and we certainly do not consider, however scientific they may be, that we can put all our faith in the Biological Association. This inquiry may be of great interest to scientists, but it will be a great loss so far

  575
  as the fishing industry in this country is concerned. I speak for the trawling industry in Scotland as well as the whole of the fishing industry in this country. We desire that an end shall be put at the conclusion of the five years to this inquiry, and that there shall be no more money thrown away upon it.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I understand that my noble friend the President of the Board has no objection to laying Papers on the Table of the House, and I therefore move for Papers.
  Moved, "That there be laid before the House further Papers relating to the procedings of the International Council for the investigation of the North Sea."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  THE MERCANTILE MARINE
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether, if the wages of seamen of merchant vessels are improperly withheld by their employers, it is enacted that the wages shall continue to run and be payable until time of the final settlement thereof; and, if so, to ask whether in view of cases which have happened of improper withholding of the wages of masters of merchant vessels by their owners, His Majesty's Government will be prepared to insert an Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill which will give masters the same rights as seamen in respec to their wages continuing to run when there is any improper withholding of moneys earned by them in the course of their employment.
  As the law stands at preent, the captains of our merchant ships are exposed to the most barefaced robbery. Under the Merchant Shipping Act all persons on board a vessel who have signed on, no matter whether they wear trousers or petticoats, or possess any knowledge of seamanship, are seamen, with two exceptions—namely, the captain of the vessel and the apprentices if the ship carries any. I will tell your Lordships how this injustice works out. A seaman who has some dispute about his or her pay receives from the shipowners every farthing up to the date of the final settlement of the
  576
  dispute—that is to say, the seaman may be on shore for a year or two doing nothing, yet when the matter is finally settled he is paid for every day spent on shore up to the date of the final settlement. The captain of the vessel, not being a seaman under the Act, has not those advantages, and the consequence is that the moment he is thrown out of employment the payment to him ceases.
  Your Lordships may remember that I gave a striking example last year of how this provision works. A certain captain of a sailing vessel met with very bad weather and had to put into port in America to refit. This was an underwriters' job, and the underwriters had such a high opinion of the captain's knowledge of seamanship that they asked him to oversee the repairs that were required. The junior partner of the owning firm, however, went to this port. He found great fault with the captain and finally said to him, "Now, captain, according to your agreement I give you a week's notice and you must go." There was a considerable sum to the credit of the ship, and at the junior partner's request the captain drew a cheque in his favour for that amount. This captain had been in the service of the particular firm for 18 years. The captain naturally did not expect the treatment he was going to receive, and he said, "What about my wages?" The money due to the captain amounted to about £124. "Oh," replied the junior partner, "you may go and be damned. You will get paid when you return to Liverpool and not before. The captain was, therefore, left stranded. He had to cable to England to his wife to send out money to pay his passage home. The wife happened to be an invalid and was away at the time at some watering place, with the result that the money was not sent out. He then managed to borrow the money and returned home. The captain went to the office of this company, which was in Liverpool, and asked for his money, producing all his vouchers, every one of which was duly signed. The reply he received was, "We cannot pay you. You must wait till we hear from the captain who replaced you in the ship." The ship had in the meantime gone to Sydney. Finally, a writ on the captain's behalf was served on this firm, who then applied

  577
  to Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane, in Chambers, to have the action of the writ suspended till they could hear from the new captain, but his Lordship saw no reason for this. "You have all the papers before you," he said; "you have; all the vouchers, and I shall treat this shearing in Chambers as a hearing in Court, and give a verdict for the plaintiff." This is a case which happened last year. I am informed, and believe it to be true, that there is a practice among certain managing shipowners of withholding the payment to captains for some considerable time. The process is known among them as "starving the captain." Eventually they say to the captain who is, of course, losing money, having his family to keep up, "We will give you so much"—possibly a half or a quarter of what is due to him—"and we will give you a good reference." The unfortunate captain accepts that offer and goes off with half, or less, of what is due to him. I contend that that is nothing less than bare-faced robbery. If the captain were a seaman under the Act no managing owner would attempt to do such a thing, because during all the time of waiting for the settlement his pay would be accruing.
  There is another matter which I think ought to be looked into. It is very doubtful whether the sums withheld from the captains ever go into the shareholders' account. The idea is that the managing owner takes the money as a sort of commission. Therefore, I think it is necessary, now that the Government are promoting a Merchant Shipping Bill, that masters should be included in the designation of seamen. It does seem an absurd thing that you should describe a stewardess, say, who goes on board for the first time, and a fireman who may never have been at sea before, as a seaman, and that the captain of the vessel, who occupies his position by reason of his superior knowledge of seamanship, should not be a seaman under the Act. I therefore hope His Majesty's Government will give a favourable Answer to the Questions I have placed on the Paper.
  THE EARL OF GRANARD: My Lords, the law with regard to the payment of wages of seamen has been correctly stated by my noble friend. The Board of Trade take the view that masters are in a much
  578
  better position than seamen to make such conditions as they may consider necessary to safeguard their own interests. Any agreement which a master makes with his employer as to the payment of his salary is separate, and of an entirely different character from an agreement made between the master and his crew. His Majesty's Government, therefore, are of opinion that there is no reason for any special legislation on this subject, and they do not propose to bring it in under the Bill which they intend introducing in your Lordships' House in the course of next month.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, to put myself in order, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. I desire to correct one statement made by the noble Earl. The master of a ship is not in a better but in a much inferior position. There are plenty of masters, but few berths going for masters, and there is considerable difficulty in getting seamen, hence the large number of foreign seamen and aliens in the merchant service. But there are plenty of officers holding masters' certificates. The master is, unfortunately, bound to fall in with the agreement made. He is compelled to accept the terms imposed by the shipowner, and I think it is a monstrous thing that a man with his professional qualifications should be dismissed at one week's notice, which is less than would have to be given to a domestic servant. When the Government's Merchant Shipping Bill is in your Lordships' House, I shall move an Amendment on these lines.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): I do not wish to interrupt my noble friend, but he has made a second speech upon a Question. There is no Motion before the House, and I hope my noble friend will excuse me for saying that he has been slightly irregular.

  AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTIONS.
  LORD BARNARD: My Lords, I rise to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has been able to consider the representations made to the Secretary of the Board, on December 5th last, by a deputation from universities, colleges, and agricultural institutions;

  579
  and whether there is any prospect of an increased grant to such institutions.
  In the autumn of last year the various university institutions of this country which are engaged in the teaching of and research in agriculture, finding that the Government grant was not sufficient to enable them to carry out their work satisfactorily, organised a deputation to the then President of the Board of Agriculture in order to press upon him their claims for an increase in that grant. Unfortunately, on the date fixed for the deputation Mr. Fellowes, the then President, although he had not yet gone out of office, thought that the circumstances were such that he would not be justified in receiving the deputation; but as the gentlemen composing the deputation had come long distances, it was felt that it would be inconvenient to put them off, and with great courtesy the officials of the Board of Agriculture determined that Sir Thomas Elliott should receive the deputation. This he did on December 5th, and in reply to the representations which were then made he gave us a very sympathetic answer, and promised to lay those representations before the new President of the Board as soon as he came into office. I have no doubt that he did so, and that my noble friend Earl Carrington has studied them.
  In asking the Question standing in my name, may I be permitted to impress upon the noble Earl that, as was stated by the deputation, we are not asking for money exclusively for instruction, but that we appeal to be placed on the same footing as other countries in being assisted by the Government with the means for carrying on agricultural research. I know it is a difficult thing to press for Government help for this and that object, but I venture to think that this is one of those objects which, without such help, cannot be attained at all. Very large profits are made in many branches of industry in this country which are represented by technical instruction in the colleges, and the great captains of industry in those centres are no doubt able to assist very largely by pecuniary means the endowment both of research and instruction. But we all know the utter impossibility of obtaining such assistance from the agricultural industry. Therefore we look to be put upon an equal footing
  580
  with foreign countries. I believe that all foreign countries assist very materially in this particular line, and I think I am right in saying that in England we are behind even Scotland, and certainly behind Ireland, in regard to Government help for this particular object.
  I sincerely hope that if the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries cannot promise us a grant in the immediate future, he will hold out some hope of further assistance of some kind. At Armstrong College we found it impossible during the past year, and it will be impossible in the present year, to carry on the agricultural department, of which I have the honour to be president, without additional support. The result is that we had to go to the council of the college last year and beg for an extra grant of £100 a year, and I hold in my hand a letter from the secretary of the college, intimating that the council had agreed to this grant for a further year, but had expressed the opinion that it was high time the State did more for agricultural education. The money voted for this purpose at the-present moment is£10,000. The addition of a few thousand pounds would make all the difference.
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, the deputation to which the noble Lord has; referred was a very important one. as it represented the universities and five or six colleges. It was introduced, I think, by Sir Isambard Owen, and letters of sympathy were sent by the Duke of Northumberland and other noble Lords who were unable to be present. The noble Lord who has called attention to the matter to-day himself made an important speech on that occasion, and probably no one had a greater right to speak than my noble friend, who is chairman of the agricultural committee of the Armstrong College. In his speech the noble Lord then urged that help should; be given to those who helped themselves, and he has brought before your Lordships this afternoon an instance of how the subject being tackled in the Armstrong College and the way in which they have helped themselves.
  I can say that His Majesty's Government appreciate all these efforts to provide better facilities for agricultural education. I think everybody will agree

  581
  that no money could be better spent than that applied in helping farmers to meet the fierce and growing competition which they have to encounter from all sides. The Exchequer has not been ungenerous to my Department. In 1889 £4,500 a year was voted towards this object, and in 1906 the Vote had risen to £11,500. The sum is small, it is true, when compared with the amounts voted in other countries, but it is satisfactory to note that the country has received the full value of the grant owing to the cordial co-operation and good work of the different county councils.
  It must not be forgotten that the burden of public expenditure is already heavy, and that it is proposed to provide an extra £1,000,000 for the maintenance of Church schools. At the same time I think that this question is one which might receive the practical consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I would venture to propose to the noble Lord that some inquiry should be held into the system of agricultural education. There has been no inquiry since 1888—nearly twenty years ago. If it should appear, as I venture to think it would, that there is good ground for an increase of grant, I think those who advocate such an increase would find their hands strengthened very considerably, and it would be possible for us to address ourselves to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject with stouter hearts. The Government are grateful to the noble Lord for putting the Question, as it gives us an opportunity of expressing our full sympathy with the object he has in view and our earnest desire to see those objects carried out at the earliest possible opportunity.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Might I suggest to the noble Earl that the money he saves from the International Council on Fisheries could be given for agricultural education?

  GROUND GAME BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BURCHCLERE: My Lords, this Bill only appeared on the notice paper for Second Reading this morning. As your Lordships are aware, it is usual
  582
  that a Bill coming from the other House, as this one does, should be put down within a certain time; but I am aware that there are many noble Lords interested in this question, and I think it would perhaps be convenient that they should have longer notice before the Second Reading of the Bill is taken. I therefore propose, with your Lordships' permission, not to take the Second Reading until Tuesday, July 3rd.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six O'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Tea O'clock.