Sitting of 22 March 1906

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS 66 AND 67 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Orders 66 and 67 have not been complied with, viz:—Cork Link Railways Bill; Cork and Waterford Railways Bill.
  Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
  Millwall Dock Bill; North Metropolitan Tramways Bill. Read the third time, and passed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 2).
  Sir JOHN DICKSON POYNDER reported from the Committee on Group 2 of Railway and Canal Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 24th April, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Dowlais Gas Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That Mr. F. W. Verney, one of the Members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Mr. H. J. TENNANT reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Wednesday next, at Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Cork City Railways and Works Bill, Report [20th March] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to fee read a second time.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Acts relating to the Milford Docks Company to extend the time limited for the completion of certain works; to enable the Company to acquire lands compulsorily; and for other purposes." [Milford Docks Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further provision with respect to the capital of the Crystal Palace Company and to empower them to raise additional capital." [Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for authorising the Kidderminster Gas Light and Coke Company to alter their name, to construct new gas works, to provide for the conversion and consolidation of certain of their existing capital, to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Kidderminster Bas Bill [Lords.]
  Milford Docks Bill [Lords]; Crystal Palace Company Bill [Lords]; Kidderminster Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.

  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; From Abercarn; Abersychan; Abertillery; Abram; Airdie; Alloa; Altrincham; Alva; Alyth; Anglesey; Annfield; Annan; Anstruther; Easter; Arbuthnot;Ardrossan; Arklow; Arlecdon and Frizington; Armagh; Ashton in Makerfield; Ashton-under-Lyne; Aspull;

  571
  Auchterarder (two); Auchtergaven; Ayr; Balbriggan; Balfron; Ballybay; Ballycastle; Ballymena; Baltinglass; Banbridge; Bandon; Barmouth; Barrowford; Barrow-upon-Soar; Barry; Barton-upon-Humber; Bathgate; Battersea; Beckenham; Bedwellty; Belfast; Belford; Benholm; Billesdon; Billinge; Bingley; Birkenhead; Bir-stall; Blackburn; Blackford; Blaena-von; Blairgowrie (two); Blantyre; Blaydon; Bodmin; Bolton; Bolton-upon-Dearne; Bonhill; Bothwell; Bournemouth; Bower; Bradford (two); Bray; Brechin; Brecknock; Bridlington; Brighouse; Briton Ferry; Bryn-mawr; Burnley; Burton-upon-Trent; Bury (two); Cadder; Caerphilly; Callander; Calverley; Cambuslang; Cam-busnethan; Campsie; Canisbay; Car-dross; Carlow; Carluke; Carrick-fergus; Cashel (two); Castleblayney; Castleford; Cathcart; Cavan; Cel-bridge; Chapel en le Frith; Chester le Street; Chingford; Chipping Norton; Chipping Wycombe; Chiswick; Clackmannan; Cleator Moor; Cleethorpes with Thrunscoe; Clonakilty; Clonmel; Coatbridge; Colne; Colwyn Bay and Colwyn; Congleton; Connah's Quay; Cowdenbeath; Crediton; Crewe; Crieff; Crompton; Croydon; Cumnock and Holmhead; Dairy; Dalserf; Dalton-in-Furness; Dalkey; Dalziel; Darvel; Denny; Denny and Dunipace; Desborough; Devonport; Dewsbury; Dornoch (two); Drogheda; Droylsden; Dublin; Dunbarton (two); Dumfries; Dunblane; Dundalk; Dundee (two); Dunfanaghy; Dunfermline (two); Dunnet; Dunstable; Durness; Eastwood; Eday; Edmonton; Egremont; Enniscorthy; Enniskillen; Eyemouth; Falkirk; Failsworth; Fareham (two); Farnworth; Farsley; Fenny Stratford; Fenton; Festiniog; Firth; Flint; Fleetwood; Forehoe; Forres; Fraserburgh (two); Fulham; Galashiels; Galston; Gateshead; Glasgow (two); Glassford; Glossop; Gorton; Gourock; Govan (two); Grangemouth; Greasbrough; Great Harwood; Greenock; Hale; Halifax; Hamilton (two); Hampton; Harrington; Hartlepool; Haslingden; Hasting; Haydock; Hayfield; Hazel Grove and Brambull; Heaton Norris; Hebburn; Heage; Hendon; Hessle; Heysham; Heywood;
  572
  Hinckley; Holmfirth; Holsworthy; Holyhead; Hoylake; Holywell; Holywood; Hoole; Horwich; Houghton le Spring; Hoylandswaine; Huchnall and Hirthwaite; Huddersfield; Hunslet; Hurst; Ince in Makerfield; Inveresk; Isle of Wight; Itchen; Keighley; Keith; Kenmare; Kennoway; Kettering; Kettle; Kilbarchan; Killarney; Kilbrandon and Kilchattan; Kilfinan; Kilmacolm; Kilmallock; Kilmarnock; Kilmory; Kilmuir Easter; Kingarth; Kingoldrum; Kingston upon Hull; Kingstown; Kirkburton; Kirkby in Ashfield; Kirkcaldy; Kirkcaldy and Dysart; Kiriemuir (two); Ladybank; Lanark (two); Largs; Larne; Leadgate Leek; Lees; Leith; Lepton; Leven; Levenshulme; Leyton; Limavady; Liskeard; Lismore (two); Littleborough; Little Hulton; Llandrindod Wells; Llandudno; Llanelly; Llanfairfechan; Llangefni; Llanrwst; Lochmaben; Logie Pert; Longton; Lurgan; Luton; Lymington; Lytham; Maesteg; Mains and Strathmartine; Mauchline; Mansfield; Market Rasen; Marple; Maryport; Meltham; Menai Bridge; Merthyr Tydfil; Middleton; Middlewich; Midgley; Mold; Montrose; Morpeth; Moulin; Mountain Ash; Mytholmroyd; Nantwich; Narberth; Navan (two); Neilston; Nelson; Newcastle-upon-Tyne; New Cumnock; Newmill; New Mills; New Monkland; Newport (Fife); Newry (two); Newton Stewart; Newport Pagnell; Newton and Llanllwchaiain; New Quay; Norden; Northampton; Ochiltree; Old Cumnock; Omagh (two); Old Monkland; Ossett; Oswaldtwistle; Oystermouth; Paisley (two); Pateley Bridge; Penarth; Penistone; Penrith; Penmaenmawr; Pembroke; Pershore; Perth; Peterculter; Peterhead; Pollokshaws; Poplar; Portrush; Prestwich; Queenstown; Ramsbottom; Rawtenstall; Reay; Renfrew; Rhondda; Rhymney; Risca; Rochdale; Romford; Rotherham; Rothesay; Rothwell; Rosneath; Royton; Runcorn; Ryton; St. Austell (two); St. Neots; St. Pancras; Salford; Saltash; Salt-burn by the Sea; Saltcoats; Sandown; Sanquhar (two); Scunthorpe; Seisdon; Selby; Selkirk; Shaftesbury; Shanklin, Sheffield; Shildon and East Thickley;

  573
  Shoreditch; Shotts; Skibbereen; Slaithwaite; Smallthorne; Southall Norwood; Southampton; South Bank in Normanby; South Darley; South Shields; Southwick; Sowerby; Springhead; Stewarton (two); Stornoway (two); Stranraer; Swansea (two); Swindon; Tavistock; Thornhill; Thrapstone; Thurmaston; Thurso (two); Tipperary; Tipton; Torthorwald; Tottenham; Tredegar; Tynemouth (two); Tyldesley with Shakerley; Uphall; Urquhart; Wallasey; Wallsend; Walsall; Warminster; Warrenpoint; Wemyss; West Ashford; Westhoughton; West Kilbride; Weymouth and Melcombe Regis; Whitburn; Whitfield; Whitley Upper; Whitstable; Whittington; Whitwood; Whitworth; Wick; Wigan; Wigston Magna; Willington Quay; Wilmslow; Wishaw; Wolstanton and Burslem; Wolverhampton; Wombwell; Workington; Worsborough; Worsley; Worthing; Yeardsley cum Whaley; Yeovil; and Ynyscynhaiarn; to lie upon the Table.

  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Alveston; Baxenden (two); Beadnell; Bradfield Combust (two); Burnley; Chichester; Cranham; Doddington; East Clandon (two); East Whitton; Euxton (two); Fitz (two); Folkestone; Fulmer (three); Great Calworth (two); Gumley; Hatfield Heath; Hedsor; Kibworth; Kilburn; Linton; Lockwood; More-combe; Mossley; Nelson; Newchurch in Pendle; Patrick Brompton (two); Royton (three); Royton St. Annes; Rusholme (two); Rustington; St. Andrew's, Manchester; St. Peter's, Manchester; Shadwell; South Kilworth; Standish (three); Stannington; Stowlangtoft; Streat; Sway; Thurston (two); Tottenham (two); Wapley (two) Westhoughton; Widdrington; Wors-thorne St. John's, and, Zennor; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account presented, of the Gross Amount of all Bank Annuities and
  574
  Annuities for terms of years transferred, and of all Sums of Money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the Gross Amount of Annuities for Lives and for terms of years, etc., granted within the year ended 5th January, 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 90.]

  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY.
  Copy presented, of Letter of Instructions to the Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire and report upon certain matters connected with the future Constitutions of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the proceedings of parish councils in regard to Allotments and Common Pasture under Section 26 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; and (2) the proceedings of county councils in regard to representations by parish councils for orders under The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease compulsorily for Allotments during the year ended the 15th day of May, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 227, of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)
  MAGISTRATES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "of the number of Magistrates appointed in the different counties of Ireland, with their names, addresses, and occupations or descriptions from March 1905, to present time (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 118 of Session 1905)."—(Mr. Flynn.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Inmates of Scottish Prisons.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the average aggregate number of prisoners detained in all Scottish prisons during each of the last three years.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The information required by the hon. Member is as follows:—

  Return of Commitments to Prisons in Scotland, 1903–4–5.

  Year ended.

  Ordinary prisoners and forfeited and revoked licence-holders.

  Convicts. New sentences of penal servitude and sentences to death.

  Lunatics for detention in criminal lunatic department.

  Inebriates.

  Total of all classes.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  1903

  41,638

  18,370

  60,008

  67

  1

  68

  12

  1

  13

  4

  4

  8

  41,721

  18,376

  60,097

  1904

  39,289

  17,173

  56,462

  71

  4

  75

  9

  —

  9

  —

  10

  10

  39,369

  17,187

  56,556

  1905

  40,355

  16,902

  57,257

  84

  3

  87

  7

  2

  9

  1

  11

  12

  40,447

  16,918

  57,365

  Total for three years

  121,537

  52,481

  174,018

  Average

  40,512

  17,494

  58,006

  Average daily number of Prisoners in Custody in Scotland, 1903–4–5.

  Year.

  Estimated population of Scotland.

  Classification of total.

  Total of all classes.

  Civil.

  Criminal lunatics.

  Inebriates.

  Convicts under sentences of penal servitude.

  Ordinary prisoners.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  F.

  Total.

  1903

  4,579,223

  —

  —

  —

  46

  8

  54

  4

  10

  14

  266

  8

  274

  1,983

  621

  2,604

  2,299

  647

  2,946

  1904

  4,627,656

  —

  —

  —

  45

  6

  51

  4

  12

  16

  266

  5

  271

  1,971

  574

  2,545

  2,286

  597

  2,883

  1905

  4,676,603

  —

  —

  —

  44

  4

  48

  1

  13

  14

  275

  8

  283

  2,000

  529

  2,529

  2,320

  554

  2,874

  6,905

  1,798

  8,703

  Average for three years

  2,302

  599

  2,901

  Barrack Accommodation in the Punjab.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the necessity of moving a Moplah regiment last winter from the hot, humid climate of South Western Madras, where it was recruited) to Dera Ghazi Khan, in the Punjab, where the temperature was under freezing point when it arrived; what was the barrack accommodation prepared for this regiment; and whether 400 out of its strength of 820 men were in hospital a few weeks afterwards.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The 78th Moplah Rifles was moved in relief to Dera Ghazi Khan in September, 1905. I am unable to answer the rest of the Question without a reference to India.

  Defence of India's North-West Frontier.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will lay upon the Table of the House the scheme of Lord Kitchener for the defence of the North-West Frontier of India, or such an outline of it as will enable this House to judge whether an outlay of £9,000,000 is being efficiently incurred; and whether he will guarantee that the soldiers of the Native Army, Sikhs, Brahmins, Rajputs, Gurkhas, Biluchis, and others, will not be employed on work such as building, which, according to their customs, they regard as servile and derogatory to their caste feelings.
  578
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The scheme is under the consideration of the Government, and I hope to be able, in the annual survey of Indian affairs, to give such an outline as the hon. Member desires, so far as the public interest permits. I am assured that there is no intention whatever to employ soldiers of the Native Army on work derogatory to their caste feeling.

  Chatham Dockyard—Discharges of Workmen.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any further reduction in the number of men employed at Chatham Dockyard is contemplated during the ensuing year; and, if so, what number; and whether time can be allowed for any such reduction to be accomplished by ordinary normal wastage instead of by fresh discharges.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) A further reduction in numbers of men at Chatham dockyard is rendered necessary by the programme of work for the ensuing financial year. It is contemplated that some 425 men in all will be affected, but it is hoped, in adjusting trades, to find employment at other yards for some 225 of these. It is not practicable to bring about the reduction of staff wholly by natural wastage, but allowance has been made for this method to operate to the fullest possible extent.

  Ballynahinch Postal Arrangements.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster - General if he will give

  579
  instructions for the letter-box at Ballyna, hinch to be cleared each morning previous to the mails being sent out, so as to expedite the delivery of letters in the surrounding towns.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The box in question is cleared every morning in time for the letters to be included in the early despatches made to the surrounding district, and in the despatch to Belfast at 10 a.m.

  Muckamore Mails.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on 1st October last the 9 a.m. mail despatched from Muckamore was withdrawn and a despatch at 7.20 p.m. substituted, with inconvenience to the inhabitants of the district; and whether, seeing that the 9 a.m. despatch was established for thirty years, and a memorial has been presented for its continuance, he will consider the advisability of restoring the morning despatch.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There was reason to believe at the time when the change referred to was introduced that it would be acceptable to the residents generally; but I will have further inquiry made, and, if I find that the new arrangement is not giving satisfaction, I will consider the question of reverting to the old arrangement.

  Discharged Soldiers as Vagrants.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: To ask the Pre-
  580
  sident of the Local Government Board whether the Department have Returns showing the number of vagrants relieved in each Poor Law area in 1905 or 1904, and the proportion of them who were discharged soldiers; and, if so, whether he will cause such information to be made public.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Returns as to pauperism in England and Wales, which are published half-yearly, show the number of vagrants relieved in each Poor Law union on the 1st January and the 1st July in each year. The last of these Returns which has been published relates to the enumeration taken on July 1st, 1905. I have no Returns showing the proportion of the vagrants relieved in 1904 and 1905 who were discharged soldiers. The latest Parliamentary Return on this subject of which I am aware is one which was made in 1898 by the War Office, and which related to the number of discharged soldiers relieved on December 20th, 1897.

  Scottish Fishery Board—Members' Fees.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the sums received from the Treasury for fees and expenses by each of the members of the Scottish Fishery Board during each of the years 1900–1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The information required by the hon. Member is as follows:—

  1900.

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  Fees.

  Expenses.

  Fees.

  Expenses.

  Fees.

  Expenses.

  Fees.

  Expenses.

  Fees.

  Expenses.

  Fees.

  Expenses.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Mr. Angus Sutherland

  —

  4

  4

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  14

  6

  Mr. D. Crawford, K.C.

  —

  5

  2

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  7

  0

  —

  8

  13

  3

  Professor D'Arcy W. Thompson, C.B.

  —

  28

  16

  10

  —

  23

  4

  2

  34

  13

  0

  31

  18

  5

  —

  —

  —

  26

  4

  0

  15

  15

  0

  23

  16

  8

  The late Mr. J. Ritchie Welch

  —

  28

  17

  4

  —

  20

  17

  3

  —

  25

  9

  5

  —

  5

  5

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dr. W. R. Duguid

  —

  53

  9

  11

  —

  54

  3

  0

  —

  57

  9

  0

  —

  47

  17

  6

  —

  52

  13

  3

  —

  54

  12

  11

  Mr. L. Milloy

  —

  35

  9

  9

  —

  19

  19

  0

  —

  36

  17

  5

  —

  18

  14

  11

  —

  20

  9

  0

  —

  13

  12

  8

  Mr. D. Mearns

  —

  14

  15

  0

  —

  38

  7

  0

  —

  50

  7

  1

  —

  32

  12

  0

  —

  23

  12

  0

  —

  17

  18

  9

  Mr. H. Watson

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  5

  7

  —

  14

  18

  2

  Note.—The expenses incurred by Professor Thompson in the year 1903 were not paid until 1904.

  Indian Finance.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will consider the suggestion of the Royal Commission, over which Lord Welby presided, that the financial year for India should end on the 31st December instead of the 31st March, in order that the actual result of the expired year might take the place of the revised estimate which is now presented, and in order that the Indian accounts might be laid before this House at an earlier date, and an earlier discussion of Indian finance thus be made possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) On reference to Parliamentary Paper 169, of 1902, the hon. Member will find that the suggestion was fully considered in 1900 and 1901, and that the Government of India drew attention to the administrative inconvenience that would result from the adoption of the course proposed in paragraph 69 of the Report of the Royal Commission, viz., that the Budget should be introduced two or three months after the beginning of the financial year to which it relates. It was accordingly decided to make no change. As at present advised, I do not propose to modify this decision.

  Irish Land Judge's Court.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number and aggregate annual rental of estates now in the Land Judge's Court in Ireland in respect of which an absolute order for sale has been made and receivers appointed; have their holdings on all those estates been offered at a fair price to the tenants as required by statute; have the offers of the tenants been rejected on other grounds than that of value; will the Land Judge be asked to furnish particulars of all those insolvent properties to the Estates Commissioners; and will the Commissioners intervene under Section 8 of the Regulations now in force.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) A Return, No. 256, of the estates for sale in the Land Judge's Court over which receivers
  584
  have been appointed was last year laid upon the Table pursuant to an Order of this House. This Return dealt with the estates in Court on 31st December, 1904. I am informed that the Land Judge has ordered a similar Return for the year ending 31st December, 1905, to be prepared, and there will be no objection to laying this Return upon the Table if it should be moved for. The learned Judge informs me that a great number of the estates in his Court have been sold under Section 40 of the Land Act of 1896 and Section 7 of the Act of 1903; and a still larger number have been sold by mutual agreement between the parties under the supervision of the Court. Many cases have been dismissed out of Court on the consent of the parties. A considerable number of the estates remaining in Court are non-agricultural. In all other cases every possible step has, I am informed, been taken to bring the estate to sale. In no case, so far as is remembered, has the tenant's offer been rejected on grounds other than that of value, and rarely for that reason. The Land Judge is prepared to furnish the Return mentioned to the Estate Commissioners. Section 8 of the Regulations referred to applies to cases in which differences as to terms of sale exist between landlord and tenant, and is not applicable to cases in the Land Judge's Court.

  Functions of the Land Judge's Court.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the gross cost to the State, year by year, of the Land Judge's Court in Ireland since its establishment, including every office and position whatsoever appertaining thereto, are the functions of that Court analogous to those of a Bankruptcy Court; what statutory authority, if any, does that Court possess for refusing to sell insolvent property at its value, assuming to itself the role of a permanent landlord, and appointing and maintaining permanent land agents under the name of receivers; and whether, seeing that Parliament has repeatedly ordered the insolvent estates in that Court to be sold, what steps does His Majesty's Government propose to take to expedite this work.

  585
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the cost to the State of the Land Judge's Court can be ascertained by a reference to the Estimates from year to year, but it should be remembered that the cost is diminished by the duties levied, in pursuant of statute, on sales made and accounts passed by the Court. The Land Judge informs me that the functions of his Court are in no way analogous to those of a Bankruptcy Court; that the Court has never refused to sell insolvent property at its value, and has never assumed the role of a permanent landlord or appointed permanent land agents as receivers. The learned judge adds that his tribunal has been always kept busy, and that nothing has been left undone to clear the Court of the estates under its jurisdiction, those which had accumulated in it during the last thirty years having amounted to almost one-fourth of the whole of Ireland.

  Case of Patrick Murphy.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the nature of the offence preferred by the Crown against Patrick Murphy, in March 1898, in which Sergeant Sheridan was the principal witness; and will he say whether Murphy pleaded guilty.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the charge preferred by the Crown against Patrick Murphy was that of maliciously maiming an ass. Murphy eventually pleaded guilty at the assizes, but it is only right to add that, at the prior magisterial investigation, he strongly asserted his innocence, and that when arraigned before the court of assize he first pleaded not guilty, but finally pleaded guilty upon the advice of his friends, who suggested to him that the evidence against him, which was principally that of Sheridan, was very strong, and that if he should plead guilty he would probably get off with a lighter sentence.

  Sergeant Sheridan, ex R.I.C.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say on what date was Sergeant Sheridan dismissed from the force; what was the date of the
  586
  secret police inquiry held to inquire into the case of Patrick Murphy; on what grounds or information was this inquiry ordered; and what are the names of the officers who conducted it.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that Sergeant Sheridan was dismissed from the Royal Irish Constabulary on the 9th February, 1901. The police inquiry into the cases of Patrick Murphy and others was directed by the late Government on the 18th May, 1901, and the inquiry was held between that date and the 15th July, 1901, when the Report of the inquiry was received by the Government. The grounds for holding the inquiry were fully stated in this House by the right hon. Member for Dover on the 23rd July, 1902.† Briefly, the object of the inquiry was to make reparation, if that were possible, to Murphy and others in the event of its being shown that they had been improperly convicted upon the false evidence of Sheridan and others. The officers who conducted the inquiry were District Inspectors Morrison and Hobbins of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

  Constable Anderson, R.I.C.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can say whether Constable Anderson gave evidence in any case in which Sergeant Sheridan was concerned, except in the case of Patrick Murphy; did Anderson receive any gratuity or inducement from the authorities for the evidence he gave at the secret or any other inquiry in connection with Murphy's case, and, if so, what; and whether he will lay a copy of Anderson's evidence upon the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that Constable Anderson gave evidence in only one case in which Sergeant Sheridan was concerned, in addition to the case of Patrick Murphy. In that case, which was one of larceny from the person, the accused was acquitted. Constable Anderson received no gratuity or inducement to give evidence at the inquiry, beyond the assurance that if he should tell the truth
  † See (4) Debates, cxi., 1072 et seq.

  587
  he would not suffer. The Answer to the final inquiry is in the negative.

  Gun Licences in Tipperary—Jeremiah O'Dwyer's Case.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Jeremiah O'Dwyer, District Councillor, of Mohorough, Cappawhite, county Tipperary, who farms ninety acres of land, was refused a gun-carrying licence by the local resident magistrate, Mr. H. Turner; whether he can state the grounds of the magistrate's refusal; and whether, seeing that it is usual, except in very special cases, to give farmers the means of protecting, their crops from vermin by the use of firearms, and that O'Dwyer's application has been supported by at least one of the local justices, he will advise the resident magistrate to grant the licence in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I understand that the fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. A discretionary power in regard to the issue of licences under the Peace Preservation Act is vested in the resident magistrate, who is the licensing officer for the district, and it would be contrary to practice to state the grounds of the magistrate's refusal in any case. I presume there were special reasons why the licence should not be granted in this case; and I am not aware of any reason why the discretion vested in the resident magistrate should be interfered with.

  Irish Surveyors of Buildings.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether a candidate for the position of surveyor of buildings has to be nominated by the Board of Public Works, Ireland, before he can compete; whether nominations for those appointments are practically in the hands of the secretary; and whether he can explain how it happens that, out of a total staff of nineteen surveyors of buidings at present employed by this department, eighteen are of the same religious denomination.
  588
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, to the second in the negative, the nominations are not in the hands of the Secretary but of the Commissioners, who personally examine into the qualifications of each candidate, and nominate several candidates for each vacancy. As regards the third part of the Question, the Board have no knowledge of the religious denomination of their surveying staff; they do not inquire into it.

  Dooner Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware if an application has been made by the owner for sale to the tenants of the Dooner Estate, Bally roan, Queen's County; whether the application of Peter Singleton, an evicted tenant, to get back his former holding has been considered; and, if so, can he state the result.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for the sale of this estate have been instituted before them, and that the case of Peter Singleton, who has applied for reinstatement as an evicted tenant, will be considered at the earliest opportunity.

  Irish Butter Industry.
  MR. A. ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the value of the total amount of butter produced in Ireland in the year 1905; how much of it was produced in the centrifugal factories; what financial aid has his Department given to this branch of the trade; how many of its officers are employed or engaged in furthering this work, and at what cost; and what aid, if any, financial or otherwise, has his Department given towards improving the quality of the remaining quantity of butter produced in the farmers' dairies.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The value of the butter produced in Ireland in 1905 is estimated by the Department of Agriculture at 5¼ millions sterling. There are no means at present of estimating

  589
  the proportion produced in centrifugal factories. Five officers of the Department are engaged in furthering the butter industry, mainly on its creamery side, namely, two in general inspection of creameries, two instructors in creamery management, and one clerk. The total cost of these officers amounts to about £1,930 per annum. Loans to the amount of £4,840 (of which £2,996 have been repaid) have been issued for the erection of Pasteurising plant in creameries. With regard to the production of butter in farmers' dairies, provision has been made during the current year (1905–6) by twenty-five county committees of agriculture for the employment of thirty itinerant instructors in butter making at a total cost of £3,530, of which the Department will contribute £2,017. Instruction in home dairying is also given at each of the following rural domestic economy schools under the Department or county schemes: Munster Institute, Dunmanway, Portumna, Loughglynn, Westport. The cost of the instruction in butter making cannot be conveniently separated from that of the other instruction in these schools. Other officers of the Department, namely, four transit inspectors one inspector for the detection of frauds, and two inspectors under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, are partly employed in the interests of the Irish butter industry.

  Evicted Farms in County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have sent an inspector to visit the farms of the following evicted tenants: Michael O'Sullivan, Doaghs, Glenbeigh, and Daniel Murphy, Dromin, Killorglin, both of county Kerry; and, if not, whether a man will be sent down at once to report fully as to their condition and as to the possibility of reinstating them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that they have received applications for reinstatement from the two evicted tenants named, and that they will make inquiry into the case of these and other evicted tenants as soon as possible.

  Fenit Pier.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the amount of the original loan for the construction of Fenit pier; how much was given as a free grant; what is the rate of interest, sinking fund, and period of repayment; whether he is aware that the Royal Commission (Allport Commission), appointed in 1886, recommended grants in aid of Irish harbours to the extent of £400,000 specifying Fenit and Rosslare as first entitled; whether the full amount of the loan is part of local loans stock bearing interest at 3 per cent.; what would be the difference annually between the interest at 3 per cent.; and the rate at present charged; what would be the amount of that difference from the commencement of the loan to the present day at 2½ per cent, compound interest; whether in the construction of any other pier in Ireland since 1881 interest at so high a rate was charged; and whether steps will be taken to give credit to the guaranteeing baronies for the profit made by the Treasury on this loan from the commencement to the present day, and also to reduce the rate of interest to be paid henceforth.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) (1) Amount of original loan, £95,000. (2) No grant was made. (3, 4, and 5) The loan is repayable by an annuity of £5 1s. per cent. per annum for forty years, which includes interest at 4 per cent. (6) The Allport Commission recommended the grant of £400,000 for the provision of proper harbour accommodation available for fishery and general purposes. They specified, amongst objects that should take precedence, Rosslare and Fenit for grants in aid of the extension of the piers at these places, under (b) of their recommendations (pages 22 and 23 of the Report). (7) The loan was advanced out of the Consolidated Fund, now represented by Local Loans Stock. (8) The loan being repayable by way of annuity, the interest in each instalment is not a fixed proportion, but decreases with each payment. The average annual interest received on the loan amounts to £2,817. If the loan had been made at

  591
  3 per cent. the average annual interest would amount to £2,113. (9) The difference, £704, annually accumulated at 2¼ per cent. would amount to £22,773. (10) The minimum rate of interest charged for loans for the construction of piers and harbours in the period from 1881 to 1897 was 4 per cent. Since 1897 the rates have been varied from time to time in the case of loans secured on local rates, the present rate for such a loan for forty years being 4 per cent. (11, 12) In the circumstances the Treasury cannot reduce the rate of interest or grant any remission in respect of past payments.

  West Kerry Fishing Industry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of boats and men employed in the fishing industry along the West Kerry coast, from Brandon to Dingle which industry is the main if not the only industry along this entire district; whether he is aware that the coast is a dangerous one, rendering the landing of fish difficult; and whether, seeing that repeated applications have been made by the fishermen for better piers, an inspector will be immediately sent down to report on the piers, the boats, and fishing gear, protection from steam trawlers, methods of curing, etc., with a view to more thoroughly develop and protect this industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the number of vessels and men employed in the fishing industry in the district referred to are about 340 and 1,100 respectively. Apart from such agriculture as can be carried on in a rough and mountainous region, fishing is the main industry in that district. The coast is admittedly a dangerous one, but the facilities for landing have been improved by the construction of piers and slips. The district is partly within and partly without the congested districts. The Congested Districts Board have improved Brandon Pier and placed a light there, built a pier and made an approach road at Brandon Creek, made a landing at Smerwick Harbour, and built a pier at Dunquin, the total cost of these works being over £2,600.
  592
  The Board have also offered £400 towards the cost of dredging Dingle Harbour. A slip at Minard has also been made at the joint expense of the Department of Agriculture and the county. It is not considered necessary to send an inspector to report upon the matters referred to in the concluding part of the Question, as to which the Department and the Congested Districts Board have full information. If any specific application in reference to these matters should be made to either body, it will receive careful attention. The enforcement of the bylaws relating to trawling along this coast, is carried out as part of the general scheme for the protection of Irish fisheries. I am informed that there is no part of Ireland where the curing of mackerel is better understood.

  Lamberts' Minors Estate, Athenry.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations have been going on for some time between the receiver and the agricultural tenants on the estate of the Lamberts' Minors, near Athenry, for the sale to the tenants of their holdings; can he say what was the price demanded from the tenants, as also what offer was made by the tenants; and whether, having regard to the fact that the receiver is now suing the tenants for rent and arrears for the purpose of forcing them into agreements, he will ask the Estates Commissioners to offer their friendly offices to try and bring about a just and honourable settlement.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the estate in question is not for sale in the Land Judge's Court, but is, however, managed by the Land Judge on behalf of the Lord-Chancellor, who has given permission to the receiver to negotiate for a sale to the tenants. I am informed that the terms of sale offered to first term tenants were twenty-one and half years purchase, which would give a reduction of 6s. in the pound; and to second term tenants twenty-four and two-thirds years purchase, which would give a reduction of 4s. in the pound. The tenants have offered eighteen and one-half years and twenty-one and one-half years purchase, respectively, which

  593
  offers were considered entirely inadequate. The receiver is not suing for the recovery of rent, but has called upon the tenants to pay the half year's rent due on 1st May, 1905. The case does not appear to be one in which the Estates Commissioners could intervene under Section 8 of the regulations.

  Clonkeen Evicted Tenant.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if the Land Judge gave his consent to the eviction of Joseph Brooks and his family, of Clonkeen, Queen's County, which was carried out by the receiver, Mr. Kennedy Mullingar, last month; and whether, as other evictions are threatened on the M'Neale estate, the Estates Commissioners will intervene to effect a settlement, proposals to purchase their holdings by the tenants having broken down.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that, so far as he can ascertain, no proceedings for the sale of the estate referred to are pending in that court. The Estates Commissioners have no information in the matter, but if any application should be made to them by any of the persons concerned they will consider whether the matter is one in which they can properly intervene.

  Kiltullagh Branch of the United Irish League.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that John Murphy, of Kiltullagh, county Galway, received a letter on the 3rd instant threatening him with death if he continued to work for Michael Forde, of Kilarriff, who is boycotted because he refused to give up, at the request of the Kiltullagh branch of the United Irish League, a farm purchased by him under the Ashbourne Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that on
  594
  the date mentioned a threatening notice directed against John Murphy was found on the roadside. The notice, which alleged that Murphy was a supporter of Michael Forde, appeared to have been exposed to the weather for a considerable time, the paper and ink being much faded. Murphy has not been employed by Forde for the past year. Forde was at one time unpopular because he had purchased a portion of grazing farm, but he is not now boycotted as stated in the Question.

  Agrarian Outrage at Pollnashinnagh.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 12th February last eleven tons of hay belonging to Captain Persse was maliciously burned at Pollnashiimagh near Kilchreest, county Galway; whether the police have discovered the person responsible for this; and, if not, what steps are being taken to protect property in this district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The police have not yet succeeded in discovering the offender. They are fully alive to their duty as regards the protection of property.

  Irish School Grants—Report of Inter-Departmental Committee.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee of 1902 on School Grants in Ireland has ever been made public; and, if not, whether he will now lay it upon the Table, together with the decision of the Government and the Treasury on it.
  (Answered by McKenna.) The Report referred to was a confidential document, and the late Government decided that it should not be published. I do not feel able to take any different view of the matter.

  Rossmore Evicted Tenants.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the

  595
  Estates Commissioners will inquire into all the circumstances connected with the eviction of Mrs. Evans from her farm at Rossmore, Durrus, county Cork, which is to be sold by public auction on the 26th instant
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements for three holdings at Rossmore, on the estate of Lord Bandon, have been signed and lodged with them by William Kearney, who, the Commissioners understand, has now advertised these farms for sale by public auction, subject to the annuity of £15 19s. 2d. payable to the Land Commission. The Commissioners have no power to interfere with the sale by Kearney of his interest in these holdings, nor could they purchase them subject to the annuity. They will, however, inquire into the circumstances of the eviction of Mrs. Evans at the earliest opportunity.

  Sale of Kearney's Farms.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been called to the proposed sale, on the 26th instant, of three farms at Rossmore, Durrus, county Cork, by Mr. William Kearney, who holds the fee simple of them; and whether, seeing that three tenants on adjacent estates are willing to migrate to these holdings and surrender their farms, in order to enlarge other holdings on the Bird, Beamish, and O'Donovan estates, urge the Congested Districts Board to buy Mr. Kearney's interest.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board are making inquiries into this matter with the object of considering whether they will make an offer for the purchase of the farms referred to.

  Tenant Farmers and the Land Sub-Commission.
  MR. HAMMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that a
  596
  feeling prevails amongst the tenant farmers, over a large area of Ireland, for the re-adoption of the former practice of having two lay members on each Land Sub-Commission, one of whom should be a practical tenant-farmer enjoying the confidence of his own class; and, if so, whether he will introduce a reform in the personnel of the Sub-Commission, so that the tenant should enjoy a proportional representation thereon.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am not aware that there is any widespread desire for a reversion to the former practice of having two lay Assistant Commissioners in each Sub-Commission. The present system was provided by the Act of 1903, and until His Majesty's present Government have gained more experience of the working of that Act I am not prepared to make any statement as to possible legislation.

  Library Buildings in Dublin.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what decision has been arrived at by the Committee appointed by the Treasury, early in 1905, to consider the question of accommodation in the library buildings, Dublin, now under the control of the Department of Agriculture; and whether he is aware of the increasing demand for accommodation, seeing that a great number of publications have been acquired during recent years, and that the usefulness of the library is shown by the increase in the daily average of attendances, from 528 in 1899 to 677 in 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The decision of the Committee cannot be explained within the limits of an Answer to a Question, but I shall be happy to give the hon. Member what information I can if he will communicate with me in writing. The facts stated in the second part of the Question are correct.

  Intermediate Education Examination Programme.
  MR. McKEAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  597
  aware that the unpunctuality of the Intermediate Education Board in publishing the annual programme of examinations has been complained of by head masters and teachers for some years past; whether he will urge on the Board the necessity of publishing the programme early in April, as was originally the practice; and whether he will further represent to the Board the inconvenience to schools and teachers occasioned by prescribing for study text books which at the time have not been edited or published.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Intermediate Education Board that they have not undertaken to publish their rules and programme for any year at any fixed date, and that consequently no question of punctuality arises. It is expected that the rules and programme for the year 1907 will be ready for publication next month. The Board are taking steps to obviate the inconvience referred to in the concluding part of the Question.

  Militia Bands.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the cost of maintaining the bands of Militia regiments falls very heavily on the officers; and whether, therefore, he is prepared to increase substantially the allowance now made for that purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Haldane.) The present band allowance of £25 was granted in 1899. No complaints, of the nature alluded to in the Question, have reached the War Office. No increase of the allowance is at present contemplated.

  Militia Officers' Chargers.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he is prepared to extend to mounted officers of Militia regiments the same privileges as to the provision of, or allowance for, chargers as are enjoyed by officers of other branches of the Service.
  (Answered by Mr. Haldane.) The grant of such a privilege would involve con-
  598
  siderable expenditure, for which at the present time there is no money available. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot undertake to make the concession suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

  Dalston Barracks.
  MR. T. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the rent formerly paid for the Dalston Barracks of the 7th battalion of the Rifle Brigade; whether the rent was at any time redeemed, and for what sum; also what was the length of the unexpired portion of the lease in 1904, when these barracks were vacated, and for what sum the premises were disposed of by the War Office; and what is the rent now demanded by the purchaser in case it is found advisable to return the battalion to its former quarters.
  (Answered by Mr. Haldane.) The original rent was £113 3s. 6d. In 1893 the lease was bought for £3,750, subject to a ground rent of £50. In 1904 there were forty years of the lease to run, and a sum of £1,150 was obtained for the surrender of the lease. No information with regard to the rent that would now be demanded is available.

  Volunteer Sergeant Instructors.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the sergeant-instructors allowed by Parliament to Volunteer corps are being withdrawn for courses of instruction during the training season March to September), when they are urgently required with their units; and whether he will issue instructions that they shall only be withdrawn between September and March.
  (Answered by Mr. Haldane.) It is left to the discretion of general officers commanding to decide at what time of the year these men shall be attached to a regular unit or depot for period of instruction lasting fourteen days. It is impossible, therefore, to reply to the Question without referring to all general

  599
  officers commanding, with whose discretion it would not appear expedient to interfere.

  Physical Standard for Volunteer and Yeomanry Recruits.
  MR. VIVIAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of now relaxing the regulations as to the physical development and teeth of recruits for the Volunteer and Yeomanry forces.
  (Answered by Mr. Haldane.) I am not aware of any reasons for considering that the physical standard laid down for recruits of Imperial Yeomanry and Volunteers is too high, nor does my hon. friend suggest any. As regards teeth there is no fixed standard, and the matter is left to the judgment and discretion of the examining officer.

  Macedonian Gendarmerie.
  MR. CAMERON CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether satisfactory progress has been made during the past year in the re-organisation of the gendarmerie in Macedonia.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Grey.) Information on this subject, more complete than I can give in Answer to a Question, will be contained in the Papers regarding affairs in Macedonia, which will be laid before the House within the next few days.

  White Labour in the Australian Gold Mines.
  MR. CHARLES McVEIGH: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what wages are paid to white men employed on the Australian gold mines, and what it costs per ton to mine and mill the ore in each of the States of Western Australia, Victoria, and Queensland; and whether he can state what wages are paid to the Chinamen imported to South Africa, and what it costs to mine and mill the ore per ton on the
  600
  mines they are employed in on the Transvaal gold fields.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The wages paid to white men employed in Western Australian gold mines appear to vary from a minimum of about 10s. per shift to surface labourers, to a minimum of about 15s. or 16s. for rock-drill men in shafts; men working in wet ground being paid 1s. 8d. per shift in addition to the ordinary rate of pay. In Victoria the wages of surface men vary from £1 to £2 5s. per week, and of miners and pitmen from £2 5s. to £3. The cost of mining and milling varies largely; the average cost of working, per ton, in twenty-two companies in Western Australia in 1905 varied from 16s. 5d. to 38s. 8d.; adding to this the average cost of development, the variation was from 22s. 7d. per ton to over 40s. per ton. The average working costs, per ton, over the whole amount of tons mined and milled, do not appear to be given in the Reports of the States mentioned; but some indication is afforded by the dividends paid. Thus, in Western Australia in 1903, dividends to the amount of £2,024,152 were pa d on a total product of the value of £8,770,719, or about one-fourth. The ore value appears to be about one ounce per ton, or about 72s. In Victoria the amount of ore treated was 1,078,433 tons in 1903, and the dividends of the principal lode mines were about £500,000. In Queens and the value of the gold yield of 1904 was £2,714,934 and the dividends paid by gold mining companies amounted to £831,966. The average wages paid to Chinese labourers in the Transvaal were, for the year June, 1904, to June, 1905, £1 13s. 6d. per man per month; for the year 1905 the average monthly wage was£1 17s. 7d. The cost of mining and treating the ore in the Transvaal mines is variable, and no average figures are given by the Mines Department, but the working costs of the subsidiary companies of the Rand Mines, Limited, are cited as representative of the working costs of the gold mines in the Witwatersrand area, and these are £1 2s. 8d. per ton. Every effort has been made by this Department to provide my hon. friend with a full and

  601
  accurate reply; but I must observe that, having regard to the very complicated and extensive nature of the Question, it would have been more convenient had he found it possible to give me somewhat longer notice.

  Stornoway Post Office.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of letters, inwards and outwards, and parcels, inwards and outwards, at Stornoway post office during the year ending 31st December, 1905, and the corresponding numbers for the year ending 31st December, 1896.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The estimated number of letters and parcels dealt with in the Stornoway post office are as follows: — Year ended 31st December, 1896. Letters delivered, 458,328; Letters posted, 353,704; parcels delivered, 19,708; Parcels posted, 11,180. Year ended 31st December, 1905. Letters delivered, 796,172; Letters posted, 644,852; parcels delivered, 46,890; parcels posted, 25,428.

  Postal Accommodation in Crossdoney District.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster - General whether he is aware that a large district, densely populated, in the Crossdoney postal district of Cavan has no postal accommodation other than the mail car driver, who stops to take up letters from the country people between Drumconnick and Crossdoney; and whether, in view of the inconvenience inflicted upon the country people, who have to wait for the uncertain arrival of the mail car, he will give the matter his immediate attention.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware of the circumstances referred to, but I will have inquiry made on the subject and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result.

  Swine Fever.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he
  602
  will state how many cases of swine fever, traceable to Irish pigs, occurred in each particular county of England during each of the six months ending 31st January, 1906.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The only case of swine fever in England which has been traced to Irish pigs during the six months ending 31st January last, is one of a consignment of pigs sent from Waterford to Cardiff, via Milford, in November last, which were found diseased when exposed for sale in Routh Market, Cardiff, two days later. The safeguards against the introduction of disease provided by the Swine Fever Movement from Ireland) Order of 1904 were, of course, in operation during the whole of the period.

  Caithness Sea Fisheries.
  MR. MILDMAY: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government have any intention of acting upon the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the sea fisheries of Sutherland and Caithness, of which he was a member, and of enabling the fishermen concerned to obtain improved boats by the loan system, so successful in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) It is too early to form a definite opinion on the success of the Irish system, and at present the Government do not propose to resume the system of loans to fishermen for this purpose.

  Imports of Frozen Meat.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say how much frozen mutton and frozen beef were imported during the year 1905 from Australasia and from South America respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Frozen meat is included with fresh meat in the official statistics of imports. The following statement shows the registered

  603
  quantities and values of fresh beef and fresh mutton imported into the United

  Description of meat, &c.

  From Australasia.

  From South America.

  Fresh beef:

  Quantity

  cwts.

  164,363

  2,620,321

  Value

  £

  239,740

  3,812,376

  Fresh mutton:

  Quantity

  cwts.

  2,030,394

  1,516,918

  Value

  £

  4,152,761

  2,567,322

  Railway Transport of Fruit.
  MR. NAPIER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the recent development of the fruit-growing industry and to the inadequacy of the facilities for transport of fruit on railways, and the rates charged for such transport, the nature of the present classification of goods and their effect upon the Home fruit industry, the Government is prepared at an early date to legislate in the direction of greatly cheapening procedure before the Railway Commission, and giving such Commission power to revise the present classification of goods, and more effectively to deal with rates and facilities.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I may remind my hon. friend that a Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture has recently reviewed the position of the fruit industry in this country, and reported on the subject last year. The Committee did not think it necessary to recommend legislation of the nature proposed in my hon. friend's Question.

  Foreign Seamen on British Vessels.
  MR. HOUSTON: To ask the President of
  Kingdom from Australasia and South America during the year 1905—
  the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the increase in the employment of Chinese and other foreigners on board British vessels; and whether he will introduce legislation compelling British vessels sailing from British ports to engage British subjects, to the extent of at least 75 per cent. of the total number of the crews.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) My attention has been called to the increase in number of foreigners employed in our mercantile marine. I do not propose to introduce legislation compelling British vessels sailing from British ports to engage any specified proportion of British subjects; but the Bill now before Parliament provides that no seaman shall be engaged in the United Kingdom before a superintendent who has not sufficient knowledge of English to under-stand the necessary orders. I understand that the majority of the Chinese on British ships have been engaged at Singapore and at Hong Kong, and therefore the hon. Member has no right to assume that they are not British subjects.

  Foreign Pilots in British Waters.
  MR. HOUSTON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether

  605
  his attention has been drawn to the increasing numbers of foreigners engaged in piloting British vessels in British waters; whether, with the view of preventing danger to Great Britain in time of war, he will take measures to prevent pilots of any other nationality than British being engaged in home waters.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) If the hon. Member will refer to the debate on the First Reading of the Merchant Shipping Amendment Bill, he will see that I intimated that I was considering the question whether provision can be made in that Bill for prohibiting or restricting the grant of pilotage certificates to masters or mates who are not British subjects.† The question is one of Treaty obligations, which is now being considered by the law officers.

  Income-Tax on Unoccupied Furnished Houses.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will direct the income-tax authorities in Dublin to give a definite answer to the town clerk of Blackrock as to whether the owners or holders of unoccupied furnished houses are liable for income-tax on the same during the periods they happen to be unoccupied and during which period no profit is derived from the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The liability to income-tax depends on the precise circumstances of each particular case. In the present instance the applicant has been informed that the question is one which must be determined by the Special Commissioners of Taxes, when they are next on circuit in the district, and that in the meantime payment of the duty assessed will not be demanded.

  Old-Age Pensions.
  MR. LIDDELL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 291.
  606
  he will cause inquiries to be made with a view of ascertaining what annual charge would be imposed on the Imperial Exchequer were old-age pensions of 5s. a week granted to all persons Over seventy, and whether he will take into consideration the feasibility of conferring old-age pensions upon persons over seventy, thus benefiting a smaller class of the population, though possibly at an earlier date than would be possible were the old-age pensions to be conferred at the age of sixty-five.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) At the last census the number of persons aged seventy or over enumerated was 1,205,069. It would therefore require over £15,500,000 to provide pensions of 5s. a week. I have nothing to add to the statements I have already made on the subject in this House, except that no aspect of the question will be lost sight of.

  Olympic Games.
  MR. WATT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the French Government has granted 10,000 francs towards the expenses of competitors at the approaching Olympic games, and that the German and United States Governments have also made grants for the same purpose, he will make a similar donation from the British Exchequer for British competitors.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have received no application for such a donation, and, as it present advised I see no reason for granting any subsidy from public funds.

  Rating of Forest Produce in India.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, under the orders of the Government of India, No. 22, of

  607
  19th October, 1894, villagers are entitled to the free use of forest produce from unreserved land for local industrial requirements, but that, under the orders of the Government of Madras, dated 1st December, 1905, the collector of Tanjore is levying from the inhabitants of the Tanjore Delta a rate on account of wood required for agricultural implements and leaves required for manure; and whether, looking to the scarcity now prevailing in those districts, he will cause inquiry to be made into this complaint.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Resolution of the Government of India of 1894, to which the Question refers, does not entitle villagers to the free use of forest products in unreserved districts, but merely says that "every reasonable facility should be afforded to the people concerned for the full and easy satisfaction of their needs; if not free, as may be possible where a system

  Ulster.

  Munster.

  Leinster.

  Connaught.

  August, 1905

  4

  75

  5

  —

  September, 1905

  2

  24

  —

  —

  October, 1905

  2

  —

  1

  —

  November, 1905

  —

  —

  2

  —

  December, 1905

  —

  —

  —

  —

  January, 1906

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Total

  8

  99

  12

  —

  Total for Ireland, 119.

  Advances under the Labourers Acts.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the
  of regular cuttings has been established, then at low and not at competitive rates." As to the order stated to have been issued with respect to the Tanjore forests, I have no information, but I presume that it was duly issued under the Madras Forest Act, which gives a certain discretion to the Madras Government with regard to the regulation of unreserved tracts. As at present advised I see no sufficient reason for ordering an inquiry.

  Swine Fever in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many cases of swine fever occurred in each province of Ireland during each of the six months ending 31st January, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The following table gives the number of swine which were affected with swine fever during the period mentioned:—
  amounts which have been advanced year by year for the purposes of the Labourers Acts Ireland) since 1883.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the amounts referred to are as follows:—

  Year ended.

  Advanced.

  £

  s.

  d.

  31st March 1884

  Nil.

  31st March 1885

  Nil.

  31st March 1886

  106,114

  13

  10

  31st March 1887

  116,288

  6

  0

  31st March 1888

  194,439

  8

  5

  31st March 1889

  242,597

  1

  5

  31st March 1890

  139,450

  7

  10

  31st March 1891

  139,135

  0

  0

  31st March 1892

  115,132

  15

  8

  31st March 1893

  111,497

  16

  6

  31st March 1894

  71,627

  5

  0

  31st March 1895

  89,875

  0

  0

  31st March 1896

  100,060

  0

  0

  31st March 1897

  139,005

  0

  0

  31st March 1898

  107,750

  0

  0

  31st March 1899

  110,013

  0

  0

  31st March 1900

  47,203

  0

  0

  31st March 1901

  54,745

  11

  9

  31st March 1902

  157,809

  17

  0

  31st March 1903

  251,367

  10

  0

  31st March 1904

  287,764

  0

  5

  31st March 1905

  300,642

  0

  0

  21st March 1906

  252,115

  14

  10

  Total advanced to date

  3,134,633

  8

  8

  Fishing on the Stobs Estate.
  SIR JOHN JARDINE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of a notice, published on the 1st March, 1906, by R. L. Hippisley, Colonel, Chief Engineer, Scottish Command, to the effect that the fishing of the Slitrig, and other waters on the War Department's estate of Stobs, is closed to the public from that date, and that all free permits for such fishing are thereby cancelled, and that a limited number of permits will be issued at a small charge; and whether the limitation of the access of the public for fishing heretofore enjoyed is made necessary by military considerations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the public have hitherto had the right of access to the Stobs estate for the purpose of fishing; the fishing has always been preserved. Certain free permits were, however, issued by camp commandants under a misapprehension. It is intended that the preservation of the waters shall be continued.

  Donegal Militia.
  MR. CHARLES MCVEIGH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many recruits have the Donegal Militia got for the past three years; and how many recruits did they get for the last three years they were stationed at Lifford.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The recruits taken for the last three calendar years were as follows:—1903, 75; 1904, 66; 1905, 72; for the last three calendar years in which their headquarters were at Lifford the recruits taken were:—1896, 123; 1897, 111; 1898, 154.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Naval Officers' Retired Pay.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that an Order in Council, of the 20th November, 1905, under Section 7, confers powers on

    611
    the Admiralty over the retired pay of officers of an absolute character, rendering the Admiralty the sole judge as to the actions of the retired officer, and empowering them to forfeit his pay without any form of trial other than that of the consideration of his case by the Lords of the Admiralty; and whether the Admiralty will take immediate steps to limit these powers.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The Order in Council was obtained in order to define in precise form the powers exercised by the Admiralty in the past, and it was drawn up on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
    CAPTAIN HERVEYasked if the word "misconduct" as used in the Order could be construed by the Admiralty as an offence—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice.

    Foreign Steam Trawlers in the English Channel — Plymouth and Brixham Fishermen's Losses.
    MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the damage lately caused by foreign steam trawlers in the English Channel to the fishing gear of the Brixham trawling vessels "Salem," "Iris," and "I'll Try," and to the effect the repeated cases of such damage are having on the fishing industry; and whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of placing a gunboat or other suitable vessel on patrol duty on the fishing grounds, in order to give security to the industry and to prevent a recurrence of such cases.
    MR. DOBSON: May I also ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that owners of eight fishing.smacks from Plymouth have had nearly 300 of their nets either destroyed or seriously injured by foreign steam trawlers; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing a gunboat on patrol duty on the fishing grounds, in
    612
    order to give security to the industry and to prevent a recurrence of such cases.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No report of the circumstances stated has so far been received in the office, but directions have been given for the area to be patrolled by a coast guard cruiser.

    Seamens Cap Ribbons.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the frequency with which seamen and stokers are moved from ship to ship, so entailing on them the expense of purchasing new cap ribbons; and whether the Admiralty will in future issue two cap ribbons free of charge.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The matter is at present under consideration.

    Naval Manœuvres—Insurance Scheme.
    LORD TURNOUR(on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Government are taking out a policy of £10,000,000 to cover the possible risk to private property owing to the approaching naval manœuvres; and whether any, and, if so, what arrangement is or will be made to provide compensation in the case of injuries to persons and loss of life which may accompany the contemplated loss of property.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty have agreed to indemnify the owners of ships co operating in the manœuvres against losses arising from such co-operation, including injuries to person as well as property. The Admiralty have in turn insured themselves against the liability so undertaken by them. The sum of £10,000,000 mentioned in the Question is the estimated value of the ships, including cargo, expected to co operate. The agreements are still under consideration by the Admiralty legal advisers and an advisory Committee representing the other interests involved.
    In answer to Mr. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton) and others, Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON repeated that the

    613
    negotiations were still going on, and nothing definite had been completed.

    Tristan da Cunha.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in view of the fact that January, 1904, was the last occasion on which one of His Majesty's ships sailed with mails and parcels from Cape Town to Tristan da Cunha, he will favourably consider the petition, addressed to the Government of Cape Colony by the relations of these islanders living in that colony, praying that the custom of despatching a war ship annually from Simon's Bay to that island may be revived.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty have no knowledge of any such petition.
    MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman had better communicate with the Foreign Office.

    Discharge of Pembroke Dockyard Workmen.
    MR. GIBBS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government propose further to reduce the number of men employed in the Pembroke dockyard.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It will be necessary to discharge 200 men from Pembroke dockyard, eginning from the 1st April.

    Tibetan Indemnity.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the final arrangement come to between the Government of India and the Tibetan authorities in September, 1904, was that the Tibetan Government should pay to the Government of India an indemnity of Rs. 25,00,000 payable by annual instalments of Rs. 1,00,00, the first instalment being payable on January 1st, 1906; whether this instalment has been paid; and, if not, whether it is proposed to allow payment to lapse or to take any measures to enforce payment.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): The indemnity payable by Tibet is as stated. The first instalment of one lakh became due on January 1st last. Communications as to the payment are now proceeding between the Government of India and a Tibetan official who has been instructed by the Lhasa Government to arrange for the payment.
    MR. FLYNNasked whether the House was to understand that the Tibetan Government had to pay an indemnity of Rs. 10,000,000 rupees a year for being invaded.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I can only go by the Convention.
    SIR H. COTTON: Are we to understand that no part of the indemnity has been paid?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Proceedings are going on, as I have said, at Calcutta, between the officials of the Government of India and the Tibetan Government.
    MR. J. WARD: The last part of the Question is the most important. Is it proposed to use any force to compel payment if the Tibetan Government refuses to pay?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: That Question the Government will consider when occasion arises.

    The Chumbi Valley.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what is the character of the temporary occupation of the Chumbi Valley in Tibet by the British Government, the name of and powers exercised by the civil officer who is in responsible charge of the valley on behalf of the Government, the strength of the British and Indian garrisons stationed in this territory, and the estimated annual cost of the occupation.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Our temporary occupation of the Chumbi Valley is based on a system of allowing the people to manage their affairs through their headmen with a right of appeal in certain cases against their headmen to the assistant political agent. After discussion

    615
    with the local headmen, proposals to raise a revenue estimated at Rs. 4,075 per annum on the lines of the existing system of taxation have been sanctioned by the Government of India. This is less than the amount hitherto raised. The civil officer in responsible charge of the valley is Mr. J. C. White, political officer in Sikkim, with an assistant stationed in the Chumbi Valley. The strength of the troops is two and a half companies of Native Infantry (about 200 men). I have no separate figures of cost. But the total annual cost of the occupation of the Chumbi and of the trade agencies at Gyangtse and Gartok, including military expenditure is Rs. 3,85,600.
    SIR H. COTTON: Looking to the fact that the occupation of the valley was to last for three years only, I should like to know whether the omission to pay the indemnity will protract that occupation.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: We must wait, and see whether the indemnity is or is not paid.

    Tibetan Trade Marts.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in accordance with the terms of the Convention of 1904 between Great Britain and Tibet, trade marts have been opened out at Gyantze, Gartok, and Yatung; whether British agents have been appointed at these marts; and, if so, what are their names and official rank, the strength of the escort, if any, which has been provided for each place, and the estimated annual cost of maintaining those agencies.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Trade marts have been opened at Gyangtse and Gartok under the terms of the Convention of 1904. The mart at Gyangtse has taken the place of that at Yatung, at which no trade agent is stationed. Captain O'Connor has been appointed trade agent at Gyangtse and Thakeer Jai Chand at Gartok. There is no escort at Gartok. The escort at Gyangtse consists of seventy-five native infantry.

    Indian Military Administration.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Committee appointed last year to advise His
    616
    Majesty's Government on the question of Indian military administration stated in their Report that they invited opinions from Lord Cromer, Lord Elgin, Sir H. Brackenbury, Sir E. H. Collen, and others, and whether he is now aware that these opinions were obtained for the use of the Committee, and not privately by Mr. Brodrick for his own information; whether, as these opinions were obtained by the Committee for a public purpose, and were twice referred to by them in their Report, which has been laid before Parliament, he will, in accordance with ordinary usage, present them to Parliament also; whether any opinions from the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief were laid before the Committee other than those which have already appeared in the Blue-book; and, if so, whether he will also present them to Parliament.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am aware of the statement in the Report, but I have reason to believe that the Answer which I gave on the 2nd inst. represents accurately what took place.† It is certain that such opinions as were given in writing were regarded by my predecessor as private and confidential documents; for, as I have already stated, he left no copies of them at the India Office. This being so, I am of course unable to present them to Parliament. I am not aware of any opinions that were laid before the Committee other than those which appeared in the Blue-book.

    Colonial Immigration Bills.
    MR. HUGHLAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of Bills passed by colonial legislatures having reference to immigration from which the Royal Assent was withheld during the ten years from 1885–95, and from 1895–1905 respectively.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The only Bills relating to immigration passed by colonial legislatures to which the Royal Assent was refused between 1885 and 1905 are the four mentioned in the House of Commons Return No. 362 of 1901. Immigration Acts of the Province of British Columbia
    † See (4) Debates, clii., 1388.

    617
    have been disallowed by the Governor-General of Canada at our request, but the Question of my hon. friend would scarcely apply to these; for the provincial legislation of Canada is not subject to Royal Assent, but is subject to disallowance by the Governor-General.

    Cable Communication with the West Indies
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the frequent interruptions of cable communication in the West Indies owing largely to submarine volcanic disturbances; and whether, in these circumstances, His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of extending the system of wireless telegraphy now in use between Trinidad and Tobago to others of the islands also.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The Secretary of State is aware of the desirability of improving telegraphic communication in the British West Indies; and in considering this Question he will certainly not lose sight of the possibilities of wireless telegraphy.

    Foreign Steam Trawlers in the English Channel—Losses of Gear by Brixham Boats.
    MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the losses of fishing gear sustained by the owners of the Brixham trawling vessels "Salem," "Iris,"and "I'll Try,"through the action of foreign steam trawlers in the English Channel, and to the effect the repeated cases of such damage are having on the fishing industry; and whether he will make representations to the foreign Governments concerned, with a view to securing compensation for such losses, and preventing their recurrence in the future.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): Representations have been made with regard to the "Salem," and the same course will be taken with regard to the "I'll Try." No action is possible in the case of the
    618
    "Iris," unless the offending vessel can be identified.
    MR. MALLET: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the losses sustained by Plymouth fishermen, owing to the recent action of foreign steam trawlers in the English Channel, and whether he will make representations to the foreign Governments concerned, with a view to securing compensation, and to preventing such losses in future.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer I gave to the hon. Member for the Torquay Division is also a reply to this Question.†

    Russian Duties on Indian and Ceylon Teas.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Indian and Ceylon tea, shipped to Russian European ports, either direct or via United Kingdom, is subject to a differential duty of one penny per pound as against tea produced by other countries; and whether, seeing that recent telegrams give ground for supposing that the Russian Government contemplate still further imposts on British-grown tea, and that orders for Indian and Ceylon tea have consequently been held back, pending further information on the subject, he will say whether any remonstrances have been addressed to the Russian Government; and whether His Majesty's Government will use every effort to prevent this industry being thus handicapped in Russian markets.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. I have no reason to suppose that the duty will be further increased. It is not proposed to make further representations to the Russian Government, as those made a few months ago led to no result.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: Will the Government consider the advisability of retaliating upon Russian oil?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: These particular duties which the Russian Government have imposed are by way of retaliation
    † See preceding Question and Answer.

    619
    for the prohibition of Russian sugar under the Sugar Convention. I do not think it will be desirable to carry the game of retaliation any further.

    Turkey and the Sinai Peninsula.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Turkish garrisons have been reinforced at points near the Sinai Peninsula, now the subject of negotiations between the Egyptian Government and the Sublime Porte; and, if so, do His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have no information as to the despatch of reinforcements to the posts now occupied by Turkish troops in the Sinai Peninsula. According to the latest information in their possession there are three battalions at Akaba.

    British Vice-Consuls on the Congo.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Consul Nightingale has now returned to his post on the Lower Congo; whether the British vice-consuls on the Upper Congo have yet started on the inland tour decided upon by His Majesty's Government; and whether their itinerary will include an extensive visit to the portion of the Congo territories known as the Domaine de la Couronne.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Consul Nightingale arrived at his post on the 19th ultimo. We are expecting to receive very shortly estimates of the cost of the tours which the two vice-consuls are to make in the interior. It is proposed that the Domaine de la Couronne shall be one of the districts visited.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are we to understand there are only two vice-consuls on the Congo?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Oh, no. I am not sure what the total number is, but I will ascertain if the hon. Member wishes.

    Macedonian Budget.
    MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Budget has
    620
    been prepared by the Commission of Financial Control for Macedonia; and, if so, what sums have been allotted to the departments of police, works, justice and civil administration.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Budgets of the three vilayets of Salonica, Monastir, and Kossovo have been settled by the International Financial Commission, and forwarded to the Sublime Porte. The sum which it is proposed to allot for civil administration is £768,697. This includes £26,803 for the department of police and £76,691 for the department of justice. A sum of £77,851 is provided for public works.

    Inland Revenue Abatements.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Board of Inland Revenue have made new regulations, which deprive persons from the relief to which they are statutorily entitled under Section 8 of 61 and 62 Vic., c. 10, except under such conditions as they admit are practically impossible to be complied with.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): The regulations are designed merely for the purpose of obtaining satisfactory proof of a claimant's title to relief. They only operate to deprive a claimant of relief when he cannot produce such proof, and in the view of the Department they can be complied with.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether claimants entitled to relief from Income Tax, under 61 and 62 Vic, c. 10, Part 3, s. 8, can be deprived of any part of the repayment to which they are entitled, on the ground that some of their dividends are upon stocks and shares which are not exclusively inscribed or registered in their own name.
    MR. ASQUITH: No. But they must produce satisfactory evidence of their beneficial interest in such stocks and shares.
    SIR WILLIAM BULL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when the Board of Inland Revenue require documentary legal evidence of a

    621
    claimant being entitled to a certain proportion of an income, whether inscribed or registered in his own name or in the names of others, they will supply him with a form to be executed in Great Britain before a magistrate, justice of the peace, or a commissioner for oaths, or abroad before the British consul, justice of the peace, or a notary public, that the claimant may know their requirements.
    MR. ASQUITH: What the Commissioners of Inland Revenue require in cases of securities registered in names other than that of the claimant is not an instrument in the form of a declaration made for the express purpose of obtaining a repayment of Income Tax, but some documentary evidence which shall establish the fact of beneficial ownership, on the part of the claimant, in stocks or shares standing in some other person's name. What such documentary evidence should be must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, and cannot well be prescribed beforehand or be embodied in a form.

    Taxation on Sport.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the fact that he is not prepared to impose a special tax on deer forests, salmon fishings, and grouse moors, he will consider the expediency of imposing a special tax on other objects of sumptuary expenditure, such as yachts and motor cars, other than those used for professional or business purposes.
    MR. ASQUITH: The question of widening the range of taxation upon luxuries will have my serious consideration; but I cannot with advantage deal with specific proposals, except in connection with the financial system of the country as a whole in the annual Budget statement.
    MR. WEIRhoped the right hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity of considering the matter, as Scotland was much in need of money for public purposes.

    Abstractor Clerks in the Customs.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scale of overtime payments for
    622
    abstractor clerks was calculated on the maximum salary of £150; and in view of the fact that a number of these clerks in the Customs Statistical Office are in receipt of a salary and allowance rising to £180, for checking the work of other clerks who are engaged upon the duties of compiling and preparing for publication the Board of Trade Returns of Imports and Exports, whether he will amend the scale of overtime payment in such a manner that the rate per hour shall not be less than that earned during the day.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): With regard to the first part of the Question I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave the hon. Member on the 1st instant.† It is a fact that the checking allowances are not taken account of in fixing the rate of overtime payment. These allowances are intended to cover all work, whether in or out of official hours, for which they are given, and do not form an integral part of the rate of salary, on which a rate of overtime payment can be equitably calculated.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Arising out of that, am I to understand that overtime pay is less than scale pay earned day by day?
    MR. McKENNA: These are extra allowances and not overtime pay.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is it not quite clear that overtime is paid for at a lower rate than ordinary duty?
    MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir, it is not quite clear.

    Agricultural Holdings on Crown Lands.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many agricultural: holdings there are on Crown lands in England (excluding Wales) of the following size respectively: over three and up to ten acres, over ten and up to twenty acres, over twenty and up to thirty acres, over thirty and up to forty acres, and over forty and up to fifty acres.
    †See (4) Debates, clii., 1315–6.
    MR. MCKENNA: The number of the agricultural holdings on Crown lands in England, is as follows:—

    Over 3 and up to 10 acres…

    147

    Over 10 and up to 20 acres…

    50

    Over 20 and up to 30 acres…

    18

    Over 30 and up to 40 acres…

    12

    Over 40 and up to 50 acres…

    9

    (A number of small holdings in Monmouthshire have been sold by the Crown during the last two or three years.)

    Army and Navy Meat Contracts.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any instructions were issued by the late Government that the supplies of meat to the Army and Navy should be drawn as far as possible from colonial scources; if so, whether these instructions have resulted in preventing British subjects who deal in foreign meat from tendering on equal terms with other British subjects who deal in colonial meat; and whether any additional burden has, in consequence, been placed upon the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Treasury has no information on this subject. I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should address his inquiry to the Admiralty and War Office respectively.

    Prosecution of Passive Resisters.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have there been during the last three years in England and Wales, including London, for resistance to the Education Acts, or to any of them, or to their administration; in how many of those cases has sentence of imprisonment been pronounced; and in how many of those cases has the sentence been quashed or remitted, the term shortened, the rigour of imprisonment modified, or other relief been given in recognition of popular principle, the absence of moral criminality, or on any other than legal grounds.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am not aware of any prosecutions having been instituted in consequence of resistance to the Education Acts. There have of course been many cases of refusal to pay the rates
    624
    levied for the maintenance of denominational schools, but such refusal is not a criminal offence. The payment of the rates is enforced by civil process, and when in default of distress the defendant is imprisoned he is imprisoned as a debtor. The Executive Government has no power to relieve any person from the liability to pay rates, nor to interfere with the legal process whereby that liability is enforced.

    Metropolitan Police Fund.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the balance of the Metropolitan Police Fund now stands at £711,155 14s. 1d.; whether that, notwithstanding this accumulated balance, the maximum rate of 5d. on the local authorities is still levied; and whether he will consider the advisableness of reducing the amount of the rate, having regard to the increased rateable value of London in the new quinquennial valuation now coming in force.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The amount mentioned represents the balance on the 31st March, 1905, as stated in the accounts presented to Parliament; but the overdrawn balance of the Police Pension Fund has to be deducted from it, leaving a net balance of £533,196 0s. 2d. The balance of the Police Fund at the close of the financial year is always large, owing to the fact that during the last few days of March heavy payments are made from the Local Taxation Account, as well as by various Government Departments, for the service of the police. The amount so received during the last ten days of March, 1905, was £273,887. But at other periods of the year it falls so low as to be at times insufficient to meet the actual needs of the service: for instance, taking the current financial year, pending the receipt of the sum due on the January rate warrants the balance had disappeared altogether, and it was necessary to borrow money to meet the pay of the force. I will give the whole matter my careful consideration before the next rate warrants are issued: but having regard to the constantly increasing demands for augmentations of the force, I am afraid I can hold out no hope of a reduction in the amount of the police rate.

    Aliens on Strike—Case of Hyam Goldstein.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Hyam Goldstein, a master, charged (with two others) at the Thames Police Court, on 2nd March, with committing an assault in a strike; whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the officiating magistrate, Mr. Dickinson, in refusing bail, and to the fact that, after Goldstein had been kept in custody for a week, he was discharged by the same magistrate, on 9th March, with the admission that there was a doubt whether he committed the assault; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have no authority to interfere with the discretion used by a magistrate in deciding when bail may be allowed. When the hearing of a charge is adjourned under Section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, the statute expressly gives the Court a discretion in this matter, and having made careful inquiry into the facts of this particular case, I see no reason to doubt that the discretion was wisely exercised.

    Railway Servants—Hours of Duty.
    MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to introduce any legislation providing for a reform of the Railway Hours Act, 1893; and whether, in view of the hours still being worked on railways, he will consider the advisability of having each case reported where a man is employed for over twelve hours at any one time, as obtains in France.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I am advised that the provisions of the Act of 1893 are sufficient for the purpose, and that the Act has been of great value in bringing about a reduction in the hours of labour, but if the hon. Member is prepared to lay before me his suggestions for an amendment of the law, I shall be happy to consider them. I shall be quite ready to move for periodical Returns which will bring out the information desired by my hon. friend, but, as at
    626
    present advised, I cannot adopt the suggestion made in the Question. If he will read the Report of the Select Committee of 1892, he will find that that proposal was made but was not adopted by the Committee.

    Foreign Tariffs.
    MR. MOND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what tariffs, if any, of foreign countries are framed on the principle of differentiating between raw materials and manufactured goods.
    MR LLOYD-GEORGE: I cannot attempt, in Answer to a Question, to lay down the principles which have been followed by foreign Governments in framing their customs tariffs.

    Railway Superannuation Funds.
    MR WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the deficit disclosed in connection with the superannuation funds belonging to certain railway companies, established under statutory-powers granted by this House, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Com mittee to inquire into the scope, management, and present position of all such funds.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no jurisdiction with regard to these superannuation funds. I gather that they are established under special clauses inserted in Private Bills, and I shall be happy to discuss with the authorities of this House whether any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a Committee.

    Trade Disputes.
    MR. CLYNES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many disputes, causing stoppage of work, occur because of the refusal of the employers or their agents to meet the appointed representatives of the workmen; and whether he can present to the House any record showing the number and extent of such disputes during recent years.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that the refusal of one or other of the

    627
    parties to trade disputes to meet the representatives of the other party has sometimes tended to cause and more frequently to prolong the stoppage of work. The records of trade disputes published by the Board of Trade only take into account the principal and direct causes of the disputes, and not the contributory causes or incidental circumstances, and the cases in which a refusal of the parties to meet has figured as the principal cause of the dispute have been comparatively rare.

    Industrial Census.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is in contemplation to take a compulsory industrial census of the United Kingdom, for the purpose of obtaining statistics of the home trade of the country and the freight earnings of the British mercantile marine; and, if so, when the Government intend to ask for legislative sanction to this proposal.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The matter is under consideration, but I am not at present able to add anything to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne on the 1st instant.†

    Dearne Valley Railway Accident.
    MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to hold an inquiry, under The Notice of Accidents Act, 1894, into the cause and circumstances of the accident which recently occurred on the Dearne Valley Railway now in course of construction at Laversall, near Doncaster, by which three men were killed and four others seriously injured.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I shall be very glad if my hon. friend will see me some time this afternoon as to what he wishes the Board of Trade to do in this matter.

    Mercantile Seamen's Wage Advances.
    MR. L. HASLAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps, by legislation or otherwise, so that merchant seamen shall have the right to claim
    † See (4) Debates, clii., 1310.
    628
    that a portion of their wages, while they are away on voyage, shall be paid; to persons dependent upon them for support, to banks, to trades unions, or similar institutions, as they may appoint.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A seaman can already (under Section 141 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894) allot half of his wages to a near relative or to a savings bank. I will consider whether it is desirable to extend the provisions of this section to trade unions, or similar institutions as the seaman may appoint.

    House of Commons Post Office.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if a larger and more convenient Post Office can be arranged for in the House of Commons' Lobby.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): As I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. Members for the West Riding of Yorkshire and the West Derby Division of Liverpool,‡ I have arranged for certain measures to be taken under which the facilities afforded hon. Members in the transaction of Post Office business in the House will be improved.

    Grants-in-Aid for Agricultural Land
    MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, inasmuch as the annual grant received by some unions is not now sufficient to cover the relief intended to be granted to agricultural land under The Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, he will take steps to have that Act so amended as to again ascertain the amount which should be paid to the local taxation account for distribution amongst each spending authority.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): As I stated on the 5th instant, in reply to a Question by the noble Viscount the Member for the Thirsk and Malton Division,§ I could not undertake to bring in a Bill for the purpose suggested.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cliv., 374.
    § See (4) Debates, cliii., 93.

    Local Taxation Grants.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the present distribution of the grant on account of indoor poor under Section 43 (1 b) of the Local Government Act, 1888, which is still based upon the average number of indoor poor maintained during the five years ended Lady Day, 1888, and that owing to the variations which have occurred in local pauperism since that date certain unions and parishes suffer an annual loss on the grant, such loss being equal in the case of Poplar to a rate of 1·59d. in the £ on the rateable value of the union, while certain other unions receive a grant considerably in excess of their present pauperism, one parish in the East End receiving a sum of 4·3d. in the £ upon the rateable value more than it is entitled to on its present rate of pauperism; and whether he will bring in a Bill to provide an equitable adjustment of the grant.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the basis upon which the grant is made as required by the enactment referred to. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation recommended the abolition of this grant and the substitutisn of another for it. The whole subject of the grant must be considered when the Government deal with the question of Local Taxation, and in the meantime I could not promise to propose legislation with regard to the basis upon which the grant is distributed.
    MR. CROOKS: Am I to understand that the question will be dealt with on the Equalisation Bill which the Government are supposed to intend to bring in?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I cannot promise that.

    Lambeth Farm Colony.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state the grounds upon which he has refused to allow the Lambeth Board of Guardians to purchase certain lands upon which to establish a farm colony, and for other purposes, in order to relieve the overcrowded state of the workhouse.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The area of the land which was proposed to be purchased is 567 acres. It is situated fifty miles from the parish of Lambeth and the price asked for it was £12,000. In a letter which I caused to be addressed to the guardians on 27th January last, it was pointed out that in addition to certain objections which had been previously indicated (viz., those arising from the size of the farm, and its distance from the parish), no evidence had been produced to show that the guardians had any definite scheme for using the land, or as to the number and classes of the persons to be sent there, and the means for classifying them according to sex, age, and condition. It was also pointed out that it would ultimately be necessary to provide extensive accommodation, including administrative buildings, and the appointment of an adequate staff of officers and servants, and that the history of experiments similar to that contemplated did not appear to warrant the assumption that the proposal would be likely to be attended with such a measure of success as would justify the large expenditure involved. It was added that the guardians would have no power to detain on the farm men who, accustomed to a town life, would probably frequently avail themselves of their right to take their discharge, and return to their old surroundings. It was for these reasons that it appeared to me that the proposal was one which I could not properly entertain.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Does the £12,000 represent the cost of the land only, or does it include the cost of establishing the colony?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The land only.

    Returns of Local Indebtedness.
    MR. G. A. HARDY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the character of the Returns that are periodically issued from Government Departments respecting the debt of local authorities, the Government will consider the desirability of issuing a general intimation to the effect that all future Returns shall differentiate between loans contracted for reproductive and unproductive purposes, or, alternatively, that the

    631
    value of assets shall in every case be placed against the debt.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: The only Returns periodically issued by the Local Government Board respecting the debt of local authorities are the annual Local Taxation Returns for England and Wales. In these Returns separate particulars are given of the loans contracted for various purposes, including most, if not all, the undertakings which may be regarded as reproductive.

    Butter Adulteration.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has seen certain recommendations recently made by Professor Long, with a view of safeguarding the natural purity of butter in Great Britain and Ireland against adulteration with fatty substances from Chigago stock yards, commonly known as margarine; that, with a view of making analytical detection possible, it be made compulsory on manufacturers of margarine to use harmless substances, such as sesame or dehydrated starch, in its manufacture; and that any substance, chemical or preservative, except pure salt, should not be allowed in the manufacture of butter; and whether, seeing that this system of facilitating detection already prevails in Germany, Belgium, and other European countries, steps will be taken to carry Mr. Long's recommendations into effect.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The suggestions made by Professor Long, to which the attention of my noble friend has been directed, will no doubt be considered by the Select Committee on the Butter Trade which has recently been appointed.

    Suggested Legislation against Sutter Adulteration.
    MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg further to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the fact that the production of a warranty as to the purity of butter, obtained by the vendor from the previous dealer, is held to be sufficient guarantee of the good faith of the vendor, and that the liability to a penalty is sometimes thus shifted from one dealer to another,
    632
    until it becomes almost impossible to trace the original offender, steps will immediately be taken, in the interests of pure butter making, to so alter the law as to facilitate the detection of fraudulent practices.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am afraid I cannot undertake to initiate legislation on this subject pending the Report of the Select Committee on the Butter Trade.

    Precautions against Cattle Disease.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the United States of America, while admitting store cattle from Canada, have put restrictions on the importation of hay and straw as liable to carry disease; and whether the Board of Agriculture intends for the safety of our flocks and herds to restrict the importation of hay and straw.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: So far as we are aware, there are no restrictions on the importation of hay and straw from Canada into the United States, but hay and straw from European countries are required to be disinfected before importation is allowed. The desirability of adopting some similar measure in this country has frequently been considered, but the evidence of actual danger is not clear, and the inconvenience to the trades concerned would be out of all proportion to the risk involved. There is, of course, power to seize, detain, or destroy hay or straw in specific cases where there is reason to believe that disease might be introduced.

    Denominational Teaching in Public Elementary Schools.
    MR. MASSIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the fact that endeavours are being made throughout the country to induce the parents of children attending public elementary schools to sign a petition to Parliament in favour of the continuance of specific denominational teaching, on the ground, amongst others, that it is the intention of the present Government to abolish religious teaching altogether in the schools; whether he is aware that some

    633
    pressure is being put upon elementary teachers to secure parental signatures to this petition; if so, whether any teacher who declines so to canvass the parents will have the support of the Board of Education.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I have received a large number of petitions, and I believe others are being prepared, asking that in any Amendment of the Education Act care may be taken to secure to their children the right to be taught the Christian religion as set out in the Church Catechism by Christian masters and mistresses and other teachers in regard to whom we may have some real assurance that they believe what they teach. No teacher has complained to the Board of such pressure as the Question suggests. Any teacher who declined to canvass parents would receive the Board's support, but the powers of the Board in this matter are very limited, and an aggrieved teacher would probably have a better chance of redress at the hands of the local authority.

    The Mall Improvement.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state what price was paid by the Government in 1883–5 for the four houses north of Messrs. Drummonds' Bank necessary for the further widening of the opening of the Mall into Charing Cross; and what is the estimated value of the freeholds to-day.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The Answer to the first Question is £33,529. It would not be to the public interest to reply to the second Question, even if I knew the Answer, which I do not.

    Clifford's Inn.
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General what is the present position of the scheme for dealing with the funds arising out of the sale of Clifford's Inn; and what share of the said funds will be devoted to providing legal education in universities and institutions in London or the provinces.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)said that a deadlock occurred in connection with the scheme, owing to the objection taken by two of the Inns of Court. An amended scheme was framed with a view to dealing with the matter for immediate purposes. By that scheme half of the revenue of the consolidated fund would be paid to the Council of Legal Education and the other half to the Incorporated Law Society for the purpose of making further provision for the education of law students. In that form the scheme was now in temporary operation, and he trusted that before long some effort would be successfully made to effect a much wider provision which would result in creating a school of law, in which members of both professions might receive their education.

    Stornoway Light Railway.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if, in view of the fact that the Lewis District Committee are unable to comply with the Treasury conditions for the construction of a light railway between Carloway and Stornoway, and on the 14th instant passed a Resolution urging that the Carloway new road should be completed and rendered available for a motor car service, he will state the approximate cost of completing this road; and whether the Government propose to put the work in hand at an early date.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The cost of completing the road was stated in 1902 to be not less than £10,000, but this sum might be quite insufficient if the road were to be rendered available for a service of motor waggons. There are no funds now available for the purpose.

    Scottish Fishery Board.
    MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the advisability of remodelling the Fishery Board for Scotland, by putting it on the same footing as the Local Government Board for Scotland, with the Secretary for Scotland as president, and a chairman and legal and

    635
    scientific members, with salaries, responsible to himself and to Parliament.
    MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir, the Government have under their observation the working of the Fishery Board, and if any changes in the system seem necessary, they will be carefully considered.

    Irish Collectors of Income-Tax.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what provision, if any, has been made to compensate collectors of income-tax, under Schedule A, in Ireland, for loss of poundage fees consequent on the sade of estates under The Land Act, 1903; (2) if he is aware that poundage fees for 1903 and 1904 are yet unpaid; (3) whether, in view of the promise made by the Comptroller of Inland Revenue to make good the diminution of poundage fees between the former and present collections, he will say how many claims were sent in; (4) if payments have yet been made; (5) if not, when will payments be made; (6) if he is aware that a clause was formerly inserted in the terms of appointment, providing that as the tax had been decreased, or increased, the rate of poundage named was computed to yield about the same remuneration as the previous year, and will he explain why this clause has been omitted from term of appointment for 1905 and 1906; and (7) whether he can say if the work of collection has been increased and the poundage reduced, and (8) if steps will be taken to bring up the salary to the amount it formerly was, and collectors be paid fair wages for the work they perform.
    MR. MCKENNA: (1) No general regulation has been made on the subject, but the Board of Inland Revenue have undertaken to consider cases of hardship on their merits; (2) poundage fees for 1903–4 have all been paid, and also those for 1904–5 with a few exceptions, where the accounts have not yet been finally closed; (3) no promise, other than that indicated above, has been made. In accordance with it thirty-two claims have been received in respect of the two years, of which twenty have been granted, three have been refused on the ground that the Land Act has made no material change in
    636
    the collector's duties, and nine are still under consideration; (4) payment of the twenty claims admitted has been made; (5) claims cannot be paid until they are admitted; (6) the clause in question is only applicable in years in which a change is made in the rate of the income-tax; (7) the tendency of the sale of estates is to diminish the amount of tax to be collected, and therefore the amount of work in collecting. Poundage has certainly not been reduced, except when the rate of income-tax has been increased; (8) every endeavour will be used to make wages appropriate to the work performed, but until the effect of the Land Purchase Act on the business of the collectors has been more fully developed, it is not possible to fix a new scale of remuneration that will be appropriate to the new conditions that are in course of being established.

    South African Committee of Inquiry.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is yet in a position to announce the names of the Committee of Inquiry which is to proceed to South Africa, or the terms of the reference for its guidance.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): My hon. friend the Member for South Huntingdon has also given me private notice of a similar Question. The Members of the Committee, which will proceed as early as possible to South Africa, are, Sir West Ridgeway, who will be Chairman; Lord Sandhurst, Sir Francis Hopwood, and Colonel Johnston, R.E. The last named member is already in South Africa. The terms of reference will be best gathered from a letter addressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Chairman which I will lay on the Table to-day.

    Trinity College, Dublin.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give the Return asked for in the Order Paper this day relating to the revenues and method

    637
    of government and administration of Trinity College, Dublin.†
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not see any objection whatever in principle to accepting the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but having regard to the fact that a Commission is shortly to be appointed to go into the whole question, and that all the facts and figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks will no doubt be brought out in the course of the inquiries, I think the authorities of Trinity College should not be put to the trouble of obtaining the material asked for and that there is really nothing to be gained by providing such a Return.

    Purposes of the British Army.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will now consider the advisibility of carrying into effect the suggestion which he made to the late
    † MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Trinity College, Dublin): Return of Revenues and Statement of method of government and administration of Trinity College, Dublin, in the following form:—(a) A Statement of the Revenues of the College, and of the sources from which they are derived; (b) As to the Fellows of the College—their number; method of election; tenure of office; the duties and emoluments of each individual Fellow, and the sources from which these emoluments are derived; how many, and which of them, hold professorships or other collegiate offices; (c) As to the Professors—their number; method of election; tenure of office; the duties and emoluments of each Professor; whence are those emoluments derived; how many, and which of them, hold other collegiate offices; (d) A Statement of the method of government and administration of the College (distinguishing the duties of the Board and of the Academic Council), and of the number, duties, and salaries of the persons, other than servants, porters, &c., employed in the College; (e) A Statement giving particulars as to the four professional schools showing— (1) The number of Professors and Teachers in each school; (2) The emoluments received by each such Professor and Teacher; (3) The fees paid in each school for professional instruction; (f) A Statement giving particulars of the amount and employment of the Fund received as compensation for the Church livings of which the College was deprived in 1869, showing— (1) The original amount of the Fund; (2) The method of investment; (3) The employment of the interest of the Fund; (4) The present amount of the Fund; (g) What provision is made for pensioning Fellows and Professors and other persons in the employment of the College. How many pensions have been granted since 1870. Age, employment, and cause of retirement of persons to whom such persions have been granted. How many of such persons are now living.
    638
    Government, on May 11th,‡ 1905, to the effect that an official Memorandum should be issued stating for what purposes the British Army is maintained, and what is the number of men required for the defence of the country and for its oversea obligations.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot trace any demand made by myself for an official Memorandum on this subject, though I did ask for information. I interpret the hon. Member's Question, therefore, as inviting me to give that information as to the purposes for which the British Army is maintained and the number of men required. The hon. Member and his friends were in power for ten years and they had all the advantage of a succession of War Ministers with fresh ideas and relays of energy. The Committee of Imperial Defence has also been in existence under the guidance of the late Prime Minister for two or three years. But the late Government appear to have been unable to arrive at and state publicly a conclusion on this subject. The hon. member now expects me after a few weeks of office largely occupied by a general election, and after attending four or five meetings of the Committee of Imperial Defence, to do what the late Government failed to do with all their advantages of both time and talent. I think the hon. member must have patience for a little longer.
    MR. ARTHUR LEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of endeavouring to give this information to the House before it is called upon to discuss the reductions in the Army which were foreshadowed in his speech during the recent Army debate and were not contemplated by the late Government?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Gentleman may be sure that no time will be lost in the matter.

    Ministers' Salaries.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the propriety of making an arrangement, commencing with the financial year 1906–7, by which substantial reductions may
    ‡ See (41) Debates, cxlvi., 88.

    639
    be effected in the salaries of Secretaries of State, Under-Secretaries, and other members of the Government, with a view to effect such economies in the public service as may help to provide sufficient funds for carrying into effect the declared views of the House of Commons.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not of opinion that the officials in question are overpaid for the duties they discharge.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take the necessary measures to ensure that the salary of the President of the Board of Trade shall in future be fixed at £5,000 a year, and the salary of the President of the Local Government Board raised to £3,000, the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board to be fixed at £1,500 a year, and the salary of the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade and of the Local Government Board at £2,000 a year, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee appointed by Treasury Minute, dated July 18th, 1903, so that the status and pay of the staffs of these Departments may be proportionately increased.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe there have been proposals for a re-adjustment of salaries, and the late Government announced a Bill for that purpose in the King's Speech last year; but the matter went no further. I am not prepared to promise any legislation on the subject during the present session.
    MR. CROOKS: Was the proposal bracketed with the redistribution scheme?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It has gone the same way.

    Ministers and Company Directorships.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Secretary to the Board of Education is a director of the Tower Tea Company, Limited; whether the Secretary to the Board of Trade is a director of the International Tea Company's Stores, Limited; whether the Paymaster - General is the chairman of, or a director of, Sir Joseph Causton & Sons, Limited; whether
    640
    these companies are private companies; and whether he has satisfied himself that these companies have not tendered for the supply of goods to any department of the public service.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am imformed that information as to the directors of companies may be obtained at Somerset House on payment of the very moderate fee of a shilling per company. Another source of information is a volume entitled "The Directory of Directors," for which I am afraid I cannot with the best will in the world claim to be an adequate substitute. However, as I am anxious to save the hon. Gentleman any unnecessary trouble and expense I may tell him at once that my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education is not a director of the Tower Tea Company, that my hon. friend the Under-Secretary to the Board of Trade is not a director of the International Tea Company's Stores. The company of which my right hon. friend the Paymaster-General is a director is a private family company. Whether the companies named in the Question have tendered for public contracts I do not know, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman can ascertain if he puts himself into communication with the various departments.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will define the private companies of which he deems it proper that Ministers of the Crown should hold directorships.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is impossible to give a definition in precise terms. What is meant is that class of company in which the interest of the Minister, if a director, is substantially the same as the interest of a partner in a business firm.

    The Artisans' Dwellings Company.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will explain why the Under-Secretary of State for War has been allowed to remain a director of the Artisans', Labourers', and General Dwellings Company, Limited, a company which has paid, from 1879 to 1904, dividends of 5 per cent. per annum to its shareholders, and whose ordinary stock stands at 111.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the Artisans' Company is not an ordinary commercial company. It devotes the whole of its profits after paying 5 per cent. to its shareholders to keeping down the rents for the working classes who are its tenants. It, therefore, seems to me to be a philanthropic society, but a microscopic investigation has revealed to me the fact that a director does receive a very modest remuneration, and therefore I have advised the noble Lord to resign his directorship.

    ALLOTTED DAYS OF SUPPLY.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURremarking that some doubt still existed in the minds of a large number of Members whether Monday was to be counted as a day allotted to Supply—a Question on which point had been put by the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire on the previous day†—asked the Speaker for further information. He said the matter was of great importance, because the number of days allotted to Supply was limited under the Standing Order, and by cutting off one day great injury might be done to those whose business it was to criticise the Government. The Standing Order provided that a day occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of the preceding session should not be included in the computation of twenty days. He did not, of course, suggest that Monday was occupied by the consideration of the Supplementary Estimate then taken, but when he was responsible for the management of the business of the House he would have thought he had very seriously impaired the probability of this being a counted day if he had permitted anything but the financial business of the year to come under the consideration of the House. He would be glad to know definitely whether Monday was to be a counting day, although business had been done which did not come under that prescribed by the Standing Order. He quite admitted that the matter was a small one in so far as the actual time occupied by the Vote was concerned, for that time was insignificant, but the Speaker's ruling would be of great importance not only as regulating their
    † See (4) Debates, cliv., 398.
    642
    affairs for this session, but also as regulating the manner in which this rule was to be worked in the future.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry I did not make myself quite clear yesterday. What occurred was that when the business of Supply set down for Monday terminated at 10.30 a number of Reports of Supply were taken, and among them was one relating to the Navy which was a Supplementary Vote of last year. If my attention had been called to it at the time I should have warned the Government that they were endangering the possibility of the day being counted as an Allotted Day. But nobody raised the point that day, and it was only on the following day that my attention was called to it. Now the rule states that not more than twenty days are to be allotted to Supply, provided that a day occupied by the consideration of Estimates supplementary to those of the previous session shall not be included. The Report of a certain Supplementary Estimate was taken on Monday, but I cannot hold that the day was "occupied" by its consideration, as the time occupied on it was not more than a minute or two. Therefore in my opinion it ought to count as an allotted day, although had my attention been called to the point at the time I should have recommended the Government not to press that Report.

TIME LIMIT FOR SPEECHES.
MR. CATHCART WASONwas understood to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the limited time devoted to business, the constant repetition, the redundancy of adjectives, and the fact that in ten minutes a Member could speak sufficient to fill a column of The Times, he would allow the question of imposing a time limit to be submitted to and considered by the Committee on Procedure.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not noticed whether there is any Bill or Motion on the Papers of the House on the subject of a time limit for speeches. Personally, I am in favour of such a limit, and have often voted for it on past occasions. I do not know whether that is a subject of which the Procedure Committee will naturally take

643
cognizance, but I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. friend the chairman of that Committee.

COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked when if the House would have an opportunity of discussing the interim Report of the Committee on Procedure presented that day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the House certainly ought to proceed with the consideration of the first Report of the Procedure Committee in reference to the hours of meeting as early as possible, as the subject was urgent.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to ask what is the business of the House for next week, and if it is proposed to take the Army Bill after twelve o'clock, seeing that it has only been circulated this morning, and it is desired that hon. Members should have an opportunity of considering the alteration which it is proposed to introduce.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On Monday the Workmen's Compensation Bill and the Trades Disputes Bill will be introduced.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Under the Ten Minutes Rule?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No. On Tuesday it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill. On Wednesday we shall proceed with the introduction of certain other Bills; probably the Justices of the Peace (Qualification) Bill will be taken. On Thursday there will be Army Estimates to be followed by Civil Service Estimates. I understand that the Amendments to the Army Annual Bill are not of a controversial character, but it will not be proceeded with after twelve o'clock to-night if there is any objection. In view of the early rising of the House of Lords for the Easter holidays it is desirable to put that Bill through all its stages in good time.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was very far from desiring to interfere with the convenience of the other House, but he did not know that in such a matter they need modify their own arrangements for business. Personally he had no desire to object to the Second Reading of the Bill, and might not feel moved to object to any of the details, but he had a lively recollection of the great difficulty he experienced when in office in dealing with this measure. He well remembered how Amendments were always opposed, and how he had the unpleasant duty of suppressing the zeal of the successive Secretaries of State for introducing modifications. He hoped the Government therefore was not attempting to force the measure. Was it proposed to take any other business that day?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Committee Stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a stage on which there can be no debate. Will no other debateable matter be taken except getting the Speaker out of the chair?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, up to twelve o'clock if there is time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate, with Amendments, the Enactments relating to Naval Prize of War." [Naval Prize Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amending the Law relating to the Administration of Oaths for the purpose of Proceedings in Prize Courts." [Prize Courts Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1894, with respect to the Persons in whom the power of making Rules of Court under those Acts is vested." [Judicature Bill [Lords.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).
First Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 89.]
NEW BILL.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  "To amend The Municipal Corporation Act, 1882," presented by Mr. Henry Vivian; supportedby Mr. Russell Rea, Mr. Charles Fenwick, and Mr. Maddison; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

  SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES).
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. MURPHYsaid that as he happened to be fortunate in the ballot it was his duty to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the provision for education in Ireland in all its branches (primary, secondary, and university) is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and that the interests of the Irish people have been and are suffering most ruinous injury from the long delay in applying a remedy." Just one year ago it was his lot to move a similar Motion dealing with university education; and, though only a short period had passed away, he confessed the changes in place, position, and condition were as great as if a quarter of a century had elapsed. He was glad of the change so far as it brought into the House a progressive and radical force, from whom Irishmen could expect more friendly consideration for their demands; but there was one disturbing thought for those who could be called old Members, and that was the wonderful improvement in strength and length of the speeches of new Members, who were overshadowing those who were there before. He had the knowledge himself that his Motion was to be seconded by one of the new Members who would acquit himself ably; and these considerations altogether created an uneasy feeling in the mind that was hard to get rid of. He had been thinking, therefore, whether he would adopt the method of using a jolt of silence instead of the half-dozen kicks in regard to educational matters in Ireland. There were, however, so many points to be
  646
  stated that he supposed he should tackle some of them, and leave it to his colleague to supply the deficiencies as might be necessary. He would not trouble to ask them to decide whether it was the highest or the lowest rung in the educational ladder that was most defective. There were opinions both ways, but there was absolute unanimity on all sides that every part was unsound. That was the view of the Irish Party and the view of the Members led by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh. The opinions on this question were the same when the hon. Member for South Belfast riveted the attention of his Queen's Island followers upon it, or when the hon. Member for West Kerry discoursed upon it down in Kerry where the Dingle railway dragged its slow length along. Even the hon. Member for North Louth, whose seat was untouched in the excitement of the last election, spoke for his Party in no uncertain voice upon these educational topics. Therefore, they were presenting a united demand to a new Chief Secretary and a new Government that could not be denied and ought not to be delayed. If they took the equivalent grants for education in Ireland, what did they find? At first they were to get the Goschen ration of England 80, Scotland 11, and Ireland 9; but it was never observed, though a promise was given that it should not be varied. After a lot of disputing an attendance ratio was fixed instead, though if that were adopted at first the proporton would have been England 80, Ireland 10·8. England's population, however, went up and Ireland's went down unfortunately, and they had lost accordingly over £260,000 in the last ten years. Even in the last Estimates they did not give Ireland nearly as much as England or Scotland per head of population. To make matters worse the equivalent grant was merged for sinister purposes in what was called the development grant, in order that it should be diverted from proper and necessary purposes; and the late Chief Secretary made it a defence for using the money for other purposes that he was asked by Irish Members to do so. The money was spent on broken-down landlords and broken-down railways, instead of in building up Irish education as it should be. For whom was the system of education necessary to be built up? For the children of to-day who would be the men and women

  647
  of to-morrow. 28 per cent. of those children were under seven years of age, and, without doing it decently or openly, or after consultation with the managers, the parents, or the teachers, they inflicted serious injury on them under cover of the simple title of Rule 127 (b). What cared the Lords of the Treasury for the preservation of that "nicety of feeling and reserve for which Irish girls were remarkable" if an opportunity arose to save money due to Ireland? What did it matter to them if the morals and character of Irish boys were depreciated so long as the means were at hand for effecting "savings" out of Irish education? Then, what about the other 72 per cent. of children attending these primary schools? Was the teaching staff sufficient? Were the opportunities reasonable? Could the clever boy or girl go as far as ability would entitle them? He thought to these questions there would be an emphatic "No" from all quarters and sections of the public. Was there a bit of character building in the primary system and its methods? Certainly the fault could not be placed against the teachers, but against the methods. Who had charge of the primary education of the country? The Commissioners of National Education—four judges, five clergymen, ten gentlemen of no occupation, and Dr. Starkie. It had often been pointed out to the House that they were not responsible to Parliament or to anyone. Their meetings were secret, and Dr. Starkie was their mouthpiece. How fitted he was for the post let the following facts indicate. He went down to Belfast in September, 1902, to traduce and misrepresent the Catholic managers of Ireland. He acted as a Catholic himself to give substance to his statements. He sighed for independent and educated Catholic laymen, and gave an example of what might be expected from them if they resembled himself. For the entertainment of a number of strangers he indulged in criticisms and suggestions on matters connected with education which had only an academic interest in it. He (the speaker) would deal with only one point. It was a sample of the value of the whole. Dr. Starkie made some quotations from inspectors' reports. In one case the quotation he gave was—
  "With a few auspicious exceptions, managers take no part in the working of the schools."
  648
  The inspector from whose report these words were taken actually said two sentences before—
  "The managers, as a body, show considerable interest in the welfare of the schools."
  Dr. Starkie deliberately omitted those words in order to discredit the Catholic managers of primary schools, and, as was shown clearly by Father John Curry, he was guilty of similar indecent and improper action of suppression throughout his address. Yet this shining example of truth, honesty, and politeness was the administrator in whose hands the fortune of the children and teachers of Ireland was retained. With him at the head of an unrepresentative and irresponsible board there was naturally no progress on proper lines in primary education. They asked that the national schools should be models of perfection, and yet, where they gave an English headmaster 30s., and a headmaster in Scotland 35s., the Irishman only got 20s. Where they gave an assistant 24s. in England they gave him 20s. in Ireland, and into the bargain made rules to destroy his position altogether. They asked the Irish teacher to be a paragon with a salary beginning at £56 for men and £44 for women, and they made rules that were servile in their spirit and intentions. They then laid down a system of grading as to promotion, which it was difficult for the teacher to surmount. The poor assistant teacher was left in a hopeless position. Little wonder that out of the 495 who left the teaching body in 1904 the number who emigrated or sought other positions was 188 and the number who died 172. For all this state of muddle and confusion the country had to pay for administration in Ireland 6s. 6d. for every 3s. 10d. spent in Scotland and 3s. in England. What the Irish people wanted to know was what plan of action the Chief Secretary proposed to follow to remedy these things. How was he going to construct a ladder whereby the child of ability, whether rich or poor, could go from the primary school to the University? The right hon. Gentleman had no right to ask Irish representatives for a plan. His Government undertook the administration of Ireland and the duty was theirs. Irish Members could ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, to state definitely if he proposed to

  649
  reform the Board of Education and Dr Starkie, and how he was to do it They could ask him how he was going to deal with the equivalent grant and to secure to Ireland the share she was fairly entitled to. That was a most important item as, in the first place, while England and Scotland got their full share, Ireland was allowed to suffer; and even what Ireland got was given to purposes other than education altogether. Surely if the very pivot of the system was to work it could only be by offering decent salaries to induce men to work and to draw others towards the high profession of teaching. What was the right hon. Gentleman going to do about the pension fund of the teachers? The teachers had been led into believing that their future was secure, but the House would judge of the shock to the 13,000 teachers when they learned that though premiums were trebled and gratuities abolished twenty-four years service brought one of their number a pension of £4 6s. 8d. per year. It was not surprising to hear the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Government admitting that there were cases of hardship or to see the late Irish Solicitor-General scratching his head to invent an explanation of his advice to the teachers that their bargain with the Treasury would hold good in a Court of Law. An English teacher got ten times as much in pension as an Irish teacher. The thing in all its aspects was glaring and unsound. How did the Chief Secretary propose to deal with this question of pensions they were all desirous to know? Then there was the question of the civil rights of teachers. In England teachers could become magistrates, town councillors, and even Members of Parliament —there was no limit to their legitimate ambition. In Ireland they could do nothing but endeavour as the rule said, "to be imbued with a spirit of peace, of obedience to the law, and loyalty to the Sovereign; and to avoid fairs, markets, and meetings, and above all political meetings, and abstain from controversy." The English teacher could have his intelligence widened by taking a proper part in every legitimate public duty. The Irish teacher was locked up in a circle of rules as ridiculous and injurious as could be framed. Would the right hon. Gentleman sweep them away and raise a deadweight from a body of men
  650
  on whom an undeserved and improper restriction was placed, the effects of which were harmful not only to themselves but to the community? Imagine the absurdity of a rule which prevented Mr. Maher, the President of the Teachers' Organisation, from becoming a member of a local education committee, while third grade teachers in Birmingham could engage in discussions about trade or engage in municipal administration in Glasgow? When this question was last discussed the last Chief Secretary saw merit in suggestions about conveyances for school children, his predecessor saw a gleam of light in technical instruction. Something better than trifles such as these were wanted—something more radical than trifles in dealing with an important subject. He had now known three Chief Secretaries, and the other day he heard it said of them—
  "The first in plenitude of words surpassed,
  The next was no wise equal to the last;
  A third he came and this at least is true,
  He's surely better than the former two."
  Well, now was the day and now was the hour for the right hon. Gentleman to take his courage in his hands. The other day he spoke to a deputation in the Irish language. Would the right hon. Gentleman now tell them that it was not merely lip service, but an indication of a real friendship for the Irish language and customs, and that he would do his part in restoring the language in the schools of Ireland to the place it ought to occupy? In London a few days ago he had evidence of the spirit of those who were taking the subject in hand, and they wanted some information from the Chief Secretary as to how it was to be treated in the future. What was the good of striving to build up technical and higher education on a bad foundation? No doubt, in spite of the efforts of the originators and administrators of primary education in Ireland, good had been got out of it, but that was because, as the Royal Commission said, Ireland had within its shores a people with a genuine love for learning and great natural ability. Why not give them the means and the facilities for exercising these qualities to the full? What was the good of spending thousands on Sir Horace Plunkett's Department, the only result of which was a controversy between the hon. Member for South Donegal and himself as to how much was spent in

  651
  patronage? What was the good of making the existence of intermediate schools difficult by restrictions and drawbacks that were unnecessary and unwise? Without any notice they reduced the intermediate grant after allowing managers to go to extraordinary expense. The Intermediate Board said that there had been a fall of customs and excise—that was to say less drink had been consumed, and consequently Ireland was to have less money for education as she spent less in drink. A preposterous proposition surely, but not less so than many others similarly advanced in relation to Irish education. And when the management pointed out to the Board a means of relief their appeal was disregarded. Then just for the fun of the thing the Board withheld exhibitions to which in 1905 the middle grade were entitled, an arrangement by which he was told the largest intermediate school in Kerry and one of the best in Ireland lost £200 together. He might go on stating point after point about primary and secondary education, showing they were in a bad state, but they were not a bit worse off than higher education. It was admitted by every Chief Secretary that Ireland ever had, saving of course Mr. Jackson and the temporary Member for South Dublin, that University education was in need of reform. The present Secretary of State for War said last year—
  "It was an urgent question; and the condition of primary, secondary, and university education in Ireland was simply deplorable."
  Well he had other urgent and deplorable questions on hand at present, but what had the Chief Secretary to propose to remedy the conditions described by his colleague? How far and how soon would he apply a remedy? One central idea should fix itself in his mind in dealing with these questions, and it was this—the Irish people preferred simple faith to Norman blood—or University education. It was no good trying to separate religion and education in Ireland—they did not want it and they would not have it. Wellington wrote—
  "If you educate men without religion you make them clever devils."
  They did not want any more clever devils of the type of Dr. Starkie in Ireland—there was no room for them. It was all nonsense to say that because the writer of the immortal ballad of "Who
  652
  fears to speak of '98" walked through Trinity, the "Traill of the Carson" was not over it all. The Catholics and Nationalists had not time to wait till they were dead for the benefits of higher education. They wanted it now, and whilst they would look with satisfaction on any effort to settle the revenues, the representation and the regulations of the University of Dublin, they demanded an intellectual headquarters for the faith, the intellect, the language, and the literature of Ireland. They wanted the form of their motherland lifted up out of the ashes and the poverty where her beauty lay hidden and restored to her ancient position—Insula sanctorum et doctorum. They believed that could be done only by a revolution in the Government of Ireland, but in the meantime they wanted the pathways of progress cleared—the primary schools made bright and cheerful and efficient, and the teachers properly dealt with; the secondary schools developed and made suitable; and the University created on proper and necessary lines. The Chief Secretary could turn from the study of Bulgarian to Hibernian atrocities and at every point find them staring him straight in the face. The right hon. Gentleman might ask how could it all be done—where was the money to come from? He knew better than any of them the waste and ridiculous excess of Irish administration generally. Look at the lawyers, from the Lord Chief Justice, who could smile and smile and be Lord Chief Justice still, down to the Crown prosecutor in every town. His opportunities for reform were great. The police force gave him another field to reap, and the horde of Land Commissioners who, whilst ignorant of the difference between oats and barley, could easily detect the change from whisky to water, and every other department under his control afforded him scope to do anything and everything. Would he make the effort in a genuine and earnest way? If he did he would have the sympathy and encouragement of the people, who were quick to recognise friendly help when freely given. There was a current of opinion flowing in Ireland, deep but strong, between the banks on either side. It went towards the haven of a real Irish nation, and could not be forced back. Let not the right hon. Gentleman try any of the pitchfork pranks of his predecessors upon its waters; but sail along upon its

  653
  bosom in the confidence that it would carry him onward towards solid ground, on which he could lay the foundations of a better and happier Ireland.
  MR. RICHARD HAZLETONin seconding the Motion said it was a comprehensive one, covering, as it did, the whole field of education in Ireland. The statement it contained could not with truth be contradicted and the plea for reform which it put forward could not with justice be denied. This subject had been discussed over and over again in this House, and the urgent necessity for reform had been admitted by successive Governments, Liberal and Unionist alike, and yet little or nothing had been done in the direction of securing these reforms and removing the grievance which had so long hampered and restricted the progress of education in Ireland. The House might think that the fact that their grievance had been admitted on previous occasions—and no doubt it would be admitted again to-day by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government—was to a certain extent satisfactory. He would point out that that fact was only an additional cause for irritation, because when the grievance was admitted on all sides they naturally and rightly expected that some effort would be made to remedy it. Until now the treatment of Irish questions in this House had seemed to him somewhat similar to the treatment meted out to a certain motorist not long ago who was summoned before a bench of hostile magistrates for driving at a greater speed than thirty miles an hour. He proved to demonstration that his car was incapable of travelling at a higher rate than ten miles an hour, but the presiding magistrate, after consulting with his colleagues, gravely informed him that although the bench admitted that he had proved his case they felt called upon to fine him 30s. and costs for loitering. When Ireland made an unanswerable case for justice, as she had done in connection with the subject of education, equally with other great questions such as financial reform and self-government, there had always been some excuse found for withholding from her that justice to which she was entitled. As to Irish university education, for instance, the present Leader of the Opposition, when occupying the position of Prime Minister, admitted the case for the establishment
  654
  of a university in Ireland which would be acceptable to the great majority of the people. The right hon. Gentleman advocated it; he sent the great grandson of Lord Edmund Fitzgerald to Dublin Castle; he endorsed the appointment of Sir Antony Macdonnell under conditions which had yet to be fully disclosed; and yet he had excused himself from action on the preposterous ground that he and his Government could do nothing in the matter without the approbation of the little clique of reactionary Orangemen, who had no right to claim that they spoke for Ulster, or, as the hon. Member for West Belfast had shown, for the city of Belfast itself. If he had referred to the treatment which Ireland had received from the Imperial Parliament in the past, it was because he wished hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand that they expected something very different now. They welcomed sympathy when it was sincere, but they were not going to be satisfied with it. What they wanted was action. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech on the subject of old - age pensions the other evening enumerated a few of the chief things which this House had done since it came together after the general election. The House seemed rather to enjoy listening to a recital of its own achievements. Perhaps it was even proud of them. He would not presume to criticise the House on that score, but he hoped there would be in this House, so far as Ireland was concerned, a closer association of theory and practice, of promise and performance, than they had met with in the past. He would confine himself to the broad outlines connected with the question of education without going into details, financial or otherwise. His hon. friend who proposed the Resolution dealt with the financial grievance that primary education had been subjected to. He showed the grievances under which the national school teachers had suffered in Ireland, and he showed the non representative character of the Board which controlled national education in Ireland. There would be no doubt that next in urgency and importance to some settlement of the University question which would be satisfactory to the majority of the people of Ireland, was the necessity of better provision for, and of a radical alteration in, the system of primary education. But over and above the University question, the primary

  655
  education question, the intermediate or technical education question, and apart altogether from the details of finance or of systems or methods, there was one great question on which any English Government which approached this question had got first of all to make up its mind, and that was—Is education in Ireland to be controlled and conducted on Irish lines and in accordance with Irish ideas, or is it not? Unless that principle were conceded and allowed to be carried into effect, if it rested with him he would tear to shreds any University Bill or proposals for so-called reform which might be brought forward from any quarter of the House. Hon. Members representing Great Britain might or might not know that owing mainly to what had been called the Irish revival which had been going on in Ireland for the past decade, but was still in its infancy, the whole aspect of this education question had undergone a material alteration, amounting practically to a revolution. He did not expect hon. Members to understand the altered situation. He said that without any disrespect. It was one of the inevitable consequences, where one nation was governed against its will by anothor, and seeing that Irishmen had been trying without success for years to get the National Board of Education to understand this alteration, he was not going to attempt to explain it to this House within the short time at his disposal to-day. The fact remained that if in dealing with this subject the Government were to ignore that revival—he hoped and believed they would not—all their efforts and all their energies would be wasted to no good purpose whatever. There were, however, one or two points which he would like to make clear to the House. If there was one thing more than another which Ireland was absolutely determined on it was that for the future the education of its youth must, in the broadest sense of the words, be Irish and national. That under existing systems had been all but impossible. Anything that had been done in the desired direction had been done in spite of the existing conditions. The aim of the Board of Intermediate Education and the Board of National Education would appear to be not to turn out good Irish citizens educationally, but automatic machines ignorant of
  656
  everything that concerned their own country, its language, history, literature, traditions, industries, and resources. He would give the House one or two examples of what he meant. Until quite recently hundreds and thousands of children were brought up in Ireland absolutely ignorant of the fact that there was such a thing as the Irish language, although it was the spoken language of the people to-day over vast tracts of the country. When the Gaelic League stepped in and succeeded to a limited extent in getting it taught in some of the schools as an extra subject, the National Board, in conspiracy with the late Government and with the Treasury, last year sought to stamp it out by withdrawing the miserable £12,000 a year which the extra teaching of Irish involved. Children who did not know a word of English were being taught by teachers who not only did not know but would not learn one word of Irish; and it was a common practice in many districts for the unfortunate children to be severely punished for daring to speak the only language they knew well or could properly understand. Examples without number might be given to prove all that he had put forward, and to show the rotttenness of the system which was miscalled education in Ireland. Although it might be said that things were not so bad now as they were, he said that the system under which such things were possible stood self-evidently condemned. The National Education Board had been tried and found wanting. It had shown itself to be out of touch with the sympathies of the Irish people. It had proved itself to be incapable of understanding the true educational needs of the country. No one had a good word to say for it. The teachers were against it. Their status and their financial prospects had been seriously impaired by the unfair rules imposed upon them in the performance of their duties. The school managers were against the Board; the parents and every public body in Ireland was against it; and he did hope that when the Irish Government came to make an inquiry into its action, it would also be against the Board. The money difficulty was the great crux of the situation. Education in Ireland had been starved for want of financial support. They did not want extravagant liberality in that regard; but only the purest financial justice which they had hitherto not

  657
  received. They were, at least, entitled to claim proportionate treatment with England and Scotland. Not only, however, had they not received the money intended for educational purposes, but these moneys had been diverted into other channels. The Development Grant was the most glaring instance of that. Apart from the injustice involved in the distribution of the Irish Development Grant and the injustice done to Irish education, he contended that this financial juggling was a serious thing in itself. If a municipal body ventured to do the same thing, the long arm of the law would be brought down upon it by the Local Government Board, and if a private corporation were discovered employing such methods, those responsible would very soon find themselves in the dock, facing a very serious charge. It had been said that one could drive a coach and four through any Act of Parliament. That had been done in Ireland, not only in regard to Acts of Parliament, but in regard to the Constitution itself; but he trusted that such practices would not be continued under a democratic and Liberal Administration. This financial grievance clamoured for redress. His hon. friend had referred to the financial injustice inflicted on Ireland in regard to the case of the intermediate schools. They in Ireland had once been told that if they drank less their taxation would be less. He had little faith in that Shylock-like argument, because last year, owing to the increasing sobriety of the people of Ireland, the income from the local taxation duties for intermediate education had suffered a loss of £6,000. Was that an encouragement to sobriety? He believed that they could not have progress in Ireland without temperance; but he protested in the strongest possible manner against a system by which they could not have education in Ireland without drink. They asked that Ireland should receive the money, no more and no less, that she was entitled to for educational purposes. They asked that the present system of robbing Peter to pay Paul should cease, and that the money—their own money—intended for a specific object should be devoted to that object and no other. They asked that the education of the youth of Ireland should be Irish, and not, as at present, out of accord with the
  658
  feelings and sentiments of the great majority of the people of Ireland. They asked that a change should be made in the constitution of the present non-representative and anti-Irish Boards of Education, whose conception of their duty seemed to be not to educate the children, but to flout, outrage, and insult the deliberately expressed public opinion of Ireland. Solong as these Boards in Ireland, not responsible to any one but themselves, but always subservient to the whims of the Executive, were allowed to play fast and loose with these great interests entrusted to their charge, and with which the well being of the Irish nation was so inseparably bound up, so long must true educational progress in Ireland be hampered and restricted and delayed. Finally, they asked that England should give them those facilities for higher education which were now withheld from their people, without which they could not hope to develop to their full extent for their own benefit and for the benefit of the land they loved those natural abilities and those intellectual gifts with which in such a high degree so many of them had been blessed. Or else they asked—and surely it was not an unreasonable request—that if the Government would not settle these problems for the Irish people, they would acknowledge their right and extend to them the power to settle them for themselves.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the provision for education in Ireland in all its branches (primary, secondary, and University) is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and that the interests of the Irish people have been and are suffering most ruinous injury from the long delay in applying a remedy'—(Mr. Murphy)—instead thereof."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BUTCHERsaid that as an Irishman profoundly interested in Irish education and profoundly dissatisfied with the present system of education in that country, he wished to take part in the debate. He found very little to quarrel with in the words of the Resolution which had been moved, but

  659
  he must say he found himself in disagreement with a great deal that had been said by the hon. Member for East Kerry. He agreed with him, however, concerning many of the grievances of the teachers, as regards their scale of salaries and pensions. He would add that they bore burdens which were not laid on teachers in any other part of the world. For instance, they were often obliged to contribute out of their small salaries £5 or £6 a year for the maintenance of the school fabric. Much indeed was amiss in primary education, more in University education, and most of all in secondary education. He could not, however, pass over the sharp attack which had been made upon two public servants of great distinction. One of these was Dr. Starkie, who by his courage and reforming energy had done more for primary and secondary education in Ireland than had been done by anybody else in the last fifty years. The other was Sir Horace Plunkett, whose signal and disinterested patriotism had been shown in a life devoted, without respect to party, to the good of Ireland. While there was need of reform in all parts of the educational system in Ireland, yet he thought that any thorough reform must begin at the top. It was from that point of view he wished to say something about University education. The moment was in some respects favourable in this regard, as there appeared to be in Ireland an awakening of new intellectual life, and a revival of that native love of learning which had been long dormant, but never extinguished. He went back first to the Catholic Relief Act of 1793, which opened the degrees of Trinity College to Roman Catholics. But that was only one portion of a great scheme. Had it been carried in its entirety, he did not think that they would have been debating the question of University education in Ireland to-day. A part only of that great emancipating measure was carried; still it was noteworthy that in the struggle for Catholic emancipation which followed, the representatives of Trinity College, Dublin, were among the supporters of the movement, and Plunket was its foremost champion. For fifty years and more after the Union almost every Catholic of distinction was educated at Trinity College, and with the tacit sanction of the Church. These included Judges, leaders of the Bar,
  660
  leaders in medicine, and there was even one Catholic graduate of Trinity who became Archbishop of Cashel. During the first part of the nineteenth century it might safely be said that so far as the upper classes or the upper professional classes were concerned, religious barriers were being broken down and there was in progress a movement towards the fusion of different denominations. The effect of this on public life was a sweetening and a liberalising influence. He came next to the period beginning with the year 1845, when Sir Robert Peel brought in his measure for creating the Queen's Colleges. That measure was at the outset received with divided opinion in Ireland. Catholic opinion was divided, and even among the bishops many were in favour of it. The Young Ireland party were for it, and he would like to read to the House an extract from a speech by T. O. Davis, the poet, in reply to O'Connell's son. They were words which seemed still to ring in their ears the moment they touched upon the question of an Irish University. Davis said—
  "Will you take the boys of Ireland in their earliest youth, and deepen the differences between them; will you sedulously exclude them from knowing the virtues, the genius, the spirit, the affections of each other? If you do, you will vainly hope that they who are carefully separated in youth will be united in manhood and stand together for their country."
  Looking back in the cool retrospect of history upon that measure of Sir Robert Peel's, he believed that a little more compromise in the House of Commons and also in Ireland would have given to the Catholics of Ireland a University education which they could well have accepted. He wished to quote some words from the eloquent and masterly evidence given by Dr. O'Dwyer before the last Commission—
  "I have no doubt from reading the debates in Parliament in 1845 that it was the intention of Sir Robert Peel to set up in Ireland in substance a system of education pretty much like that which we are asking now."
  He went on to say that—
  "My present belief is that if we could get now at what was in Sir Robert Peel's mind, and compare it with the offer that Mr. Balfour has made, there would not be a hair's breadth of difference between them."
  But the synod of Thurles in 1850 pronounced against the scheme by a majority of one, and when once the ban

  661
  of the Church went out against the "godless" colleges, the condemnation of "mixed education" was carried out with strict and fatal consistency against Trinity College. Henceforth the religious and social cleavage in Ireland became more marked. Cardinal Cullen's influence, strongly ultramontane, accentuated the distinctions between creeds and classes. In 1873 already society was divided into two hostile camps, with, as some one has said, "clerical sentinels pacing up and down between them." In 1873 Fawcett's Bill was brought in. They all knew what that Bill was, and how it opened up all posts of honour and emolument, fellowships and scholarships to Catholics and all others. He would just like to add that it was brought in not merely with the acquiescence, but at the instance of Trinity College. But Fawcett's measure was too late to yield the hoped for results. And since 1873 the gap had rather widened, and the number of Catholics who went to Trinity College had been dwindling, and there had been a growing divergence between two ideals of University education—the Catholic and the more modern ideal. Chief Baron Palles, himself a Catholic and educated at Trinity College, had witnessed before the Royal Commission that—
  "The relations between Catholic and Protestant are not as cordial as they were some fifty years ago,"
  and a Methodist witness, Sir William Whitla, said—
  "The early friendships which were often formed in olden days are now no more…and Catholic and Protestant youths are brought up without knowing each other, and with every probability that they will come to regard each other as natural enemies."
  One could therefore understand why it was that in 1903 the latest offers made by Trinity had been rejected by the Roman Catholic authorities. The Board offered to provide religious teaching on exactly the same terms as it was given to members of the Church of Ireland and to Presbyterian students. They proposed that the teachers should be nominated by Cardinal Logue or by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. They consented to the erection of a Roman Catholic chapel within the precincts of Trinity College if sufficient funds were provided, and to grant similar privileges to Roman Catholic divinity students as the divinity
  662
  students of the Church of Ireland. Cardinal Logue's answer was brief and decisive—
  "I can be no party to the arrangement proposed."
  All this brought them face to face with the question, Could this breach be healed?
  How singular was the contrast between the action of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and its action in other parts of the world. In Germany the denominations met together within the Universities by means of dual chairs, separate faculties of theology, and other arrangements not unlike those now offered within the walls of Trinity. Formerly in the United States Roman Catholic students were, if not forbidden, yet discouraged from attending Harvard University. But within recent years the voice of the laymen and of the younger clergy became articulate upon this question, and now Harvard was as free and open to the Roman Catholics as any university elsewhere. It was not necessary to cross the Atlantic for illustrations. Let hon. Members look at what had happened at Oxford and Cambridge. Up to 1895 the same warnings were issued, the same perils pointed out to Roman Catholic students proposing to go there as to those proposing to go to Trinity. But laymen made their voices heard and after a severe struggle within the Church the petition of the laymen was granted, and young Roman Catholics have now free access to any of the colleges in Oxford or Cambridge. They were free to attend any lectures on philosophy or history or other subjects hithereto counted "dangerous." And he was told that the Church authorities were entirely satisfied, and said that the faith and morals of the students were in no way imperilled. A year ago he attended a Hibernian Club's dinner at Cambridge, where the undergraduates included Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. They had a very pleasant evening. But he came away from the dinner in a state of profound discouragement and dejection, for two questions crossed his mind. One was this: Is it necessary that young Irishmen must cross the water and come to England if they wish to know and to understand and to respect one another? There in Oxford and Cambridge they met and mingled in one common life, engaged in debates, attended

  663
  lectures, fraternised in clubs, and went back to Ireland better citizens and more patriotic Irishmen, because they had learned to understand one another instead of being brought up, as in Ireland, in a paralysing atmosphere of mistrust and misrepresentation. The other reflection that came to his mind was: Can it be right and reasonable that if an Irishman, had sufficient money to leave his own country and come to England, he should be able to enter an English University with the sanction of his Church, whereas if he attended such lectures in Ireland he would do so, if not under the ban of the Church, certainly without its blessing? Bishop O'Dwyer, when asked before the Commission whether there was any hope within a time that could be foreseen of similar concessions being extended to Roman Catholic laymen in Ireland, replied—
  "If it is asked is there any probability that within a reasonable time we will shift our ground as regards the mass of the Catholic people who want education, there is not the slightest probability of it."
  In his opinion it was futile to attempt any solution of this University question which did not go on lines that would be approved by the Homan Catholic bishops. But in saying this he was far from thinking that the last word had already been spoken. He was not one of those who said, "There is Trinity College: its doors are open: if you will not enter, the fault is your own." They could not deal in that way with the religious sentiments of three-fourths of a nation. Nor could they say, "Wait till that sentiment changes." Ireland could not afford to wait. He himself had long hoped that within the walls of Trinity itself the solution of this problem might be found, but there were few, however sanguine, who would cling to that hope to-day. He accepted the facts as they stood and looked them in the face. But he still thought that this House ought not and would not despair of finding a solution, though it might be that hon. Members would have to modify and reconsider some cherished views of educational policy. Personally, he did not shrink from the words "Catholic College," or "University." For his own part in any scheme put forward he should look to one thing only, and that was whether in that scheme there was a hope of a University which would work on something like true
  664
  academic lines. The problem was one of paramount and pressing importance to Ireland, and ought not to be shelved. Outside Trinity College what was there for Irish Catholics in the shape of University education? They had the Royal University, founded in 1879, endowed with £20,000 a year. That University was a political makeshift which Lord Beaconsfield resorted to because he could not get a direct endowment for Roman Catholic education. It had two fatal defects. First it had a defect which was inherent in all purely examining Universities, namely, that examination was entirely divorced from teaching; and that in itself was sufficient to condemn the University. An incidental defect was that for some reason or other, rightly or wrongly, it did not command public confidence as regards its results. The second defect was graver, and resided in its constitution. Every senator who was a Protestant must be balanced by another who was a Catholic. The basis of the system was one of denominational equilibrium. It was strictly carried out, this curious principle of an even balance of religious creeds. At the head of affairs were two secretaries, one a Protestant and the other a Catholic, and the system was so perfectly maintained that there were two hall porters guarding the entrance to the University, one a Catholic, the other a Protestant. Besides, as the Commission pointed out, the influence of the Royal University had been one of "positive destruction." The Queen's University, which was a federal University, containing the three colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway, each college being an independent academic unity, was swept away, and displaced by a mere examining board. What had the result been? The classes in the Queen's Colleges had been depleted, sometimes almost to one-half, because residence was no longer necessary, and academic training was supplanted by mere coaching. Belfast had suffered almost as much from this as had the other colleges, and when he urged the need of remodelling the University system in Ireland, it was not only in the interests of Catholics, but quite as much in the interests of the Protestants of the North. The numbers in Trinity College had similarly decreased by the action of the same cause. The greatest disservice which the Royal University had done to Ireland had been to lower the ideal of

  665
  University life and education; in fact, as was summed up in the words of the Report—
  "Though created to meet the religious difficulty, it has neither solved the difficulty nor satisfied the educational needs."
  There was one other point in the Report to which he would call attention. Among the evils due to the want of sufficient University education in Ireland were some which affected the whole social and administrative system in Ireland. They often heard of the dearth of trained candidates whenever the question arose of Roman Catholic appointments in Ireland. Sir Horace Plunkett, who gave evidence before the Commission, said that this particular defect met him at every point in his work. And from another side Bishop O'Dwyer argued that with the new social order in Ireland there was an urgent need of educating the leaders of the democracy. Perhaps hon. Members would recall some pages that were written by John Henry Newman in 1854, just after he went over to Ireland as rector of the Catholic University in St. Stephen's Green. Newman had turned his back upon Oxford, he renounced it, and said that he looked for a University in a more central position than Oxford had to show, and a country closer upon the highway of the seas. He looked towards a land both old and new; old in its Christianity, young in the promise of its future; a nation which had received grace before the Saxon came to Britain, and which had never quenched it. And turning his eyes towards a hundred years to come, he dimly saw the island he was gazing on become the road of passage and union between two hemispheres. Thither, as to the fountain-head of their Christianity, students were flocking from east, west, and south, all speaking one tongue, all owning one faith, all eager for one large, true wisdom. Those words were written fifty years ago. They might say it was only a vision, and perhaps with parts of that vision they might not all be in equal sympathy; but, still, was it not pathetic to think, pathetic to ask, what had arisen in Ireland since that day? What, indeed, except the fabric, the overshadowing fabric, of an examining body? Think of young Irishmen, with their social instincts, their spirit of fellowship, their genius for
  666
  friendship, asking for a University, and being given — an examining board! Those in this House who looked back fondly to their college days were aware that they learned quite as much from one another as they learned from their teachers. It had been said that "men unlearn in this world what they learned in the University." True, indeed, it was that our store of positive knowledge in any department of learning was apt to run rather low as years went by; but there was one thing which men did not unlearn and did not forget: they did not forget the hours they had spent in human intercourse, in the rivalry of games, in the frank interchange of talk, in the invigorating discipline that came from the clash and collision of sympathetic minds. Nor did they forget, either, the value of their friendships, those friendships of youth, disinterested and unbought; nor, again, the sense of corporate existence which bound together the present and the past. Imagine what it would be if their own memories of college life gathered only round the examinations they had passed, or—hardly more dismal —those in which they had failed! He asked this House, in the interests of the young men of Ireland who were endowed with great gifts, and whose opportunities for using them were so sadly crippled, that, as soon as might be, it would address itself seriously to the duty of opening to them some better prospect of University education than an examining board.
  MR. DILLONspeaking for himself and all his colleagues, said that not for many years had they listened to a speech which moved them so profoundly as that just delivered by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. He believed it was the first time the hon. Member had addressed the House, and it was to them a touching thing that his first speech should have been a plea for his native land. Perhaps they might be able to draw a happy augury from the fact that no speech from the Irish benches, he thought, ever created more enthusiasm and profound gratification among them than did the speech which the hon. Member had just delivered. If the hon. Gentleman's colleagues sitting round him approached the subject in the same spirit, the task of any

  667
  Government in endeavouring to settle this great problem would be very considerably smoothed. The hon. Member was perfectly right when he said that in solving the problem of Irish education, which up to the present had proved to the British Government insoluble, they must begin at the top. They could not have any satisfactory system of education in Ireland until they solved this great question of higher education, and that was a lesson which had yet to be learned by those who approached this problem. He was particularly struck in the speech of the hon. Member by the moving and beautiful picture he drew of his own feelings when leaving the social gathering of Irish Catholics and Protestants in Cambridge, and when he contrasted with it the condition of feeling in Ireland. He would ask the hon. Member did it not occur to him that there might be something to account for that state of things in the social system and in the system of government of the two countries? It was quite true that Irish Catholics and Protestants, no matter how wide the gulf that might have divided them in Ireland, became friends the moment they left their own country and went across to England or to the Colonies or to America. The examples the hon. Member had given of what occurred in Oxford and Cambridge might be paralleled by what he himself had seen in the Colonies, in America, and in Australia of men in various walks of life. Was not that a matter which ought to set people thinking as to what was the cause of this spirit which lived among the people in Ireland only? The moment they left their native land the cursed spirit which divided Catholics and Protestants was exorcised, and, like all civilised and Christian people, they became good friends. Must there not be something in Ireland—it was not the atmosphere nor the colour of the soil—must not there be something peculiar to Ireland that was the cause of this? If the hon. Member looked into this question and approached the whole Irish question in the same spirit of sympathy, he would find that outside the University question, in the political sphere, was to be found the Origin and source of this bitterness which had cursed Ireland. The hon. Member had said that he never could understand why it was that Catholics disapproved of a mixed University in Ireland, while they approved
  668
  of it in England, in Germany, in Harvard. He might tell him that this disapproval was not a matter of fixed principle; he meant the disapproval by the prelates of the Roman Catholic Church was not a matter of invariable principle applicable to all circumstances. It was to a large extent modified and controlled by circumstances, and if the hon. Member wanted to know why it was that the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, speaking on behalf of the Roman Catholics, made the declaration which he had quoted, and which correctly represented the situation, the reason was, in his opinion, that the circumstances of Ireland, historical and social, had been such that, in the judgment of the Catholic bishops and of the vast majority of the Catholic laity, it would not be wise or safe for Irish Catholics or Nationalists to go into Trinity College or to avail themselves of the other mixed systems that prevailed. The hon. Member had quoted to the House the last proposal made by Trinity College to the Irish prelates and rejected by them. He had told them that Trinity College had offered to the Catholic prelates a Catholic chapel within the College grounds, that they had offered a theological faculty, not endowed by them of course, but paid for by the bishops, and certain other privileges to Catholic students. Yes, they offered these things, but they did not offer any share in the government of the University or College. They would still have left Trinity College and the University of Dublin in the hands of the bitterest enemies of the Catholic Church. That was the reason, and the all sufficient reason, why the prelates refused to accept the offer as a just or a safe settlement of the question. The hon. Member had also overlooked the fact that that very division which existed between Catholics and Protestants, which he truly said was worse now than fifty years ago, that very division which made Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants distrust each other, made it impossible for them to accept as a satisfactory University for their people a University which, with all its concession, still left the government of the institution in the hands of the bitterest enemies of the faith of the people. Trinity University was founded for the avowed purpose of putting down the Catholic faith in Ireland, and it had been true to

  669
  that tradition, and Roman Catholics were asked to accept in satisfaction of their claim the fact that the doors would be thrown open, while the government remained for the next fifty years in the hands of men whose whole spirit was opposed to the Catholic religion. There was another reason which weighed with him, and in this he presumed he should not carry the hon. Member with him. The hon. Member had astonished him, he confessed, because he did expect a very different speech from him. He thought he would have shared the opinions of those sitting around him on the Opposition Benches and would have spoken in a bitter and hostile spirit. But although he had shown so broad-minded a spirit, he was afraid he should not carry the hon. Member with him when he stated a further reason why they declined to accept the offer of Trinity College as a settlement of the claims of Irish Catholics. Trinity College had been from its foundation the fortress of political ascendancy in Ireland. He would take this opportunity of congratulating his hon. friend the Member for North Galway upon delivering one of the best modern speeches he had ever heard in the House of Commons. The hon. Member had said that a new spirit had arisen in Ireland, and that they wanted education to be Irish and not a kind of bastard education imported from across the channel and applied by English methods to Irish needs. The Irish system was a bastard imitation of English education with all the life taken out of it. The hon. Member for North Galway was right when he said that this consideration was becoming more and more important. Irish Nationalists declined to accept Trinity College on the terms upon which they offered to throw open their gates to Roman Catholics because it was and had always been a political institution, the centre and fortress of all that was narrow and bitter and hostile to the national life of Ireland. With all the concessions which had been recapitulated by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and if the Catholics were to throng into Trinity College to-morrow, for fifty years the enemies of the Irish nationality and the Irish race would be the masters there, and Nationalists declined to be under their government.
  670
  The hon. Member had spoken truly of a great intellectual awakening amongst the young men of Ireland, but he had forgotten to say, or at any rate he did not dwell upon the fact, that that awakening was in connection with the Celtic revival.
  MR. BUTCHER: I know that.
  MR. DILLON: But what had Trinity College done for the Celtic revival? They had simply sent their professors before the Commission in order to cover it with contempt and opprobrium. They declared that the old Irish literature was indecent and that no respectable parent would allow his children to look at it. That was the contribution of the professors from Trinity College. On the Education Board, the Primary Education Board, and other boards where the Trinity gang were represented, they blocked the teaching of the Irish language and obstructed and ridiculed by every means in their power the settlement of this question in Ireland. For the last fifty years Trinity College had thwarted every attempt to improve Irish national life. He rejoiced that to-day they had a resolution which dealt with the whole field of Irish education, because on previous occasions they had been confined to one particular part of the question. Before he passed away from the question of Trinity College he wished to say that he thought the present Government was entirely too tender to that institution. He was much interested in the Chief Secretary's statement that he did not believe there was any person in Dublin who could pass the portals of Trinity College without emotion. As a citizen of Dublin he, himself, passed the portals of Trinity College every day when in Ireland, and he felt very deep emotion, but very different emotion from that which the right hon. Gentleman meant. He looked upon those portals as one of the last fortresses of political oppression and religious ascendancy in Ireland. Until that was understood the Government could not deal properly with the question. If the representatives of Trinity College would come forward and say, "We are willing next year to give half the government of Trinity College and the University of

  671
  Dublin to the Irish Nationalists," he did not say they would accept it, but still they would recognise the honesty of the offer. But so long as the government of the place was kept under their own control the offer was dishonest. He hoped that if a Commission was appointed to inquire into the management of Trinity College it would not, like the last Commission, sit for three years and then report in four voluminous Blue-books which he supposed not ten people in Ireland had read. He hoped that one of the chief purposes of the Commission would be to inquire into the position which Trinity College occupied in the whole scheme of Irish education. They wanted to know, no doubt, what was the amount of Trinity College funds and what it did with them. Trinity College had always shown a great disinclination to make the amount of its funds public. They wanted to know about the government of the College, but above all—and this was far more important—they wanted to know, and this House should know, what part the College played in the general education of the people of Ireland. It was absolutely impossible to have any settlement of the Irish education question until they had settled the University question, because, unless they had a genuinely popular system of University education, they could not have in the country men who were capable of carrying out every branch of education. They therefore required a popular and widely accepted system of University education if there was to be any progress in the matter of education at all. The general state of education in Ireland was most deplorable, and no parallel to it could be found in any other country in the world. The first thing that struck one was its enormous complexity. Here was a very poor people, in a very poor country, but the people were distinguished, as the hon. Member had said, by an intense desire to acquire education. A variety of education boards had been set up, overlapping each other, all with staffs of inspectors and secretaries, and of many of them organised on the preposterous principle that the boards should have on them an equal number of Catholics and Protestants, without reference to the capacity of the men. The one test for holding office was their religion. There
  672
  were the Royal University, the Board of Intermediate Education, the Commissioners of National Education, the Technical Education Department of the Board of Agriculture, and the Congested Districts Board, all doing similar work, interfering one with another, and each with different ideas. In 1903—the last year for which there was a complete report—the administrative expenses of the Board of Intermediate Education amounted to £15,000, or £1 17s. 9d. per student, for the distribution of £7,000. Could there be a more extraordinary state of things than that? This was in spite of the fact that the intermediate schools were also operated on by the Board of Agriculture and the Commissioners of Education. It was a most deplorable thing that there should be this evil system in Ireland. He would quote one or two statements from the report of Mr. Dale and Mr. Stevens, two English inspectors who were sent to Ireland a year or two ago to report on the state of intermediate education. Mr. Dale said that their inquiries left them in no doubt that the desire for higher education in Ireland was greater than in England. That was a remarkable statement coming from an English inspector, in view of the fact that for two centuries the Government had put every obstacle in the way of the people acquiring education. In Mr. Dale's report he also found the statement that the desire for education was greater in the southern provinces than in Ulster. The number of male scholars in the superior schools of Ulster was 4,541, while in the corresponding schools in Leinster the number was 12,286, and in Munster 8,003. Yet they were told that all the education and intelligence was to be found in the province of Ulster. He quoted these figures only to show the extraordinary cruelty of the policy which put obstacles in the way of the acquisition of education by people who were so anxious for it. The next point in the system of intermediate education commented on by Mr. Dale was the deplorable want of coordination between the primary, secondary, and the university systems. There was no system by which a boy of exceptional ability could climb from the primary school up to the secondary school and then to the University. Mr. Dale said that this was peculiarly needed in Ireland, because the boys in the primary schools possessed

  673
  in a remarkable degree that ability which fitted them for climbing to the higher schools. Consequently, because the parents of the boys were poor, the children were unable to go up the educational ladder. One of the most remarkable paragraphs in the whole report was that relating to co-ordination. The report stated that the problem had been solved by one body of men in Ireland, namely, the Christian Brothers. Was it not characteristic of the English Government in Ireland that it was the one body in all Ireland to which the State gave no assistance? The report showed how the Christian Brothers out of their own resources and funds, charitably collected, had solved the problem. Their schools were most admirable, and boys who were specially fitted for the secondary schools were advanced by a most perfect system of co-ordination. That was an illustration of the way in which education in Ireland had suffered by the policy of the Government. The Government had always refused to give any encouragement to these schools because the Christian Brothers, to their immortal credit, had absolutely refused to subordinate their system of teaching to the National Board or any Government interference. The Christian Brothers were perfectly willing to have certain inspection which would go to show whether their work was well done or not, but they refused to accept the cut-and-dry programme of the National Board. Because they stuck to that, and had the best teachers in the country, they were boycotted, and every effort was made to starve them out. They were therefore thrown back on collections from the people, by means of which, he was happy to say, they had been able to carry on their splendid work. The Agricultural Department had set up a system which clashed with the system of the Board of Intermediate Education in regard to science and art teaching, and now every schoolmaster in Ireland had at least two authorities over him, and he had to be continually consulting both as to the programme, the time table, and every detail of the arrangements of the school. From these two authorities the teacher drew his income. Now the Agricultural Department had taken over into its own hands the whole control of the teaching of science and art in Ireland, and since the Agricul-
  674
  tural Department had done so they had succeeded in getting the programme altered so as to give a more favourable position to what they called science and art than had been the case before. At first there was a great deal of exultation over the success of the Department of Science and Art. He had never believed in it. He believed there was no greater danger to a system of education such as they had in Ireland than to overdo this system of so-called teaching of science and art in primary and lower secondary schools, at the great risk of undermining and destroying the really sound elementary teaching on which all genuine systems ought to be founded. And it was apparent as this had gone on that that was what had been done. He read in this report grand descriptions of the enormous advance of scientific instruction among the people, and how happy these young boys and girls were in the laboratories. He had had experience of laboratory working himself when medical student, and he maintained that it might be very amusing for children to watch the changing colours in tubes; but when they sought to substitute that class of education for arithmetic, reading, grammar, and a real foundation for education, he held that they were doing a most dangerous thing. He asked the Government to look more closely into these matters. They could very easily get up a system of examination in these so-called laboratory experiments which might look all very well; but at the same time they might be undermining the whole substance of the system. Therefore, when he read these reports showing the enormous number of young children passing in laboratory work he must confess he was still very sceptical and wanted to see how this was going to work out. There was another point—the secondary schools in Ireland under this system, which was condemned in this report, got their income by result fees based largely on a system of examination. He was convinced that that was a bad system. It had been condemned by the Board themselves. They decided that it was a bad system, and they call d upon the Government to substitute for it a system of inspection. He agreed with that condemnation, because he

  675
  thought the old system was unsound. But he wanted only to dwell upon the great grievance that had arisen in consequence of this system. He thought every hon. Member who knew anything about education would agree that it was of vital and primary importance that a school should know from year to year what its income was to be, and that sometime ahead. But what had happened in the case of these Irish schools? They never knew from year to year what the amount was going to be, and the consequence was that last year they suddenly got notice, actually when the grant was being paid, that the grant was going to be reduced by 30 per cent. The Board had denied that they had reduced it, but as a matter of fact they had reduced the per capita grant. What had been the result? Some schools in Cork had lost £500, others £300, and others £200 a year. How could any man conduct his school if he never knew from year to year what his income was to be? How could he engage his teachers? and what teacher having any real capacity would take service in a country where he did not know on the 1st of January what his income was going to be for the coming year? He asked the Chief Secretary to look into this matter and remedy the grievance pending a general settlement of the whole question. The Intermediate Board had put by, he was told, a reserve fund of £100,000. He thought they should have drawn on the reserve fund and paid the full grants and then told the Government what the condition of affairs was. The present system was one calculated to carry despair to the heart of any man responsible for the secondary schools in Ireland. They were starved; they were incapable of obtaining proper teachers, because there was no university in which to train them. It was based on a totally unsound foundation, because, when the intermediate system of education was being set up in 1878 nobody ever considered whether it was a good educational system or not: the only question was what political promises could be got. Therefore, they had a system condemned by every expert; and, finally, they added to all the other horrors the element of uncertainty. There never was a
  676
  country which more required a really sound and well co-ordinated system of education than Ireland. There never was a country which had been more cruelly treated in regard to education than Ireland. Until a hundred years ago education was a penal offence; and people were alive who remembered that the schools had to be held in the hedges and that pickets were placed on the neighbouring hills watching for the approach of the police in case it should be discovered that the children were being taught. Therefore there was a great educational debt due to Ireland; and a great wrong to be undone. Yet when this Imperial Parliament gave Ireland an educational system it gave Ireland the most stupid and rotten system in the world. Again, they in Ireland complained that they did not get a fair share of the educational endowments, although as a matter of fact, Ireland, being such a poor country, steeped in poverty, ought to have been granted more than her proportionate share. What share Ireland got, if allowed to do so herself, she would administer economically. But the money which was given was wasted on extravagant Boards. Therefore, he insisted that Ireland had been peeculiarly cursed in this matter, although it needed a co-ordinated system of education more than any other country. It might be thought that he was a Cassandra in this respect, but he held that there was nothing in the long list of Irish grievances, nothing which had struck a more deadly blow to the aspirations of the Irish people, than the way in which Parliament had dealt with Irish education. What were they going to do for it? Dr. Dale had said that the present system of education in Ireland was absurd and futile. All the Reports, including the last Report of the National Education Board itself, condemned strongly the delay that had taken place in making the building grants to the Irish National Schools. Practically thousands of these schools stood in need of such aid; and the Report went on to show that vast numbers of the schools were in a state of ruinous disrepair. Last year in July a Question was answered by the Secretary

  677
  to the Treasury,† who in his reply said that the matter had been under consideration for six years, and that they could not come to an agreement, but that they were upon the eve of one. It was a fact however, that in the year 1902 an Inter-Departmental Committee was appointed, which reported in 1903. The Government would not, however, publish their Report, and for over six years they had been considering this subject with the Treasury. On 25th of July last the hon. Member for South Dublin said that the Government had made a special new grant of £100,000 for this purpose.‡ He asked the right hon. Gentleman if that was in substitution for, or in addition to, the £30,000 or £34,000 a year which used to be allowed on the Estimates for this purpose. The Chief Secretary seemed rather confused and could not answer the question offhand, but ultimately said it was an additional grant. They had never, however, since heard of either the additional or the original grant. He wanted to know what had become of the grant of £110,000 or the other grant of £30,000 or £34,000. Applications by managers had been sent in for four years and the only answer they had received was that the Treasury were considering the matter. He hoped they should also have some general explanation of what was to be done for Irish education, and he reminded the House that a former Chief Secretary sitting on the Front Opposition Bench said in 1904 that it would be intolerable if the English people were to allow any disparity to arise between the Irish and the English people.
  MR. MASSIEsaid he should not have ventured to intrude upon the House had he not been greatly interested in the subject of Irish university education, not only in private, but to same extent publicly. He deeply sympathised with the hon. Member for East Mayo who had described the grievances of Ireland in this matter, and how much Ireland had suffered from the want of a system of public education.
  They felt the charm of the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge, but he had been anxious to see in the course of
  † See (4) Debates, ch, 616.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cl., 246.
  678
  that speech some practical way of putting the desires into effect. He himself approached the subject from rather a different point of view, but he knew that if he expressed his differences with moderation he should have a hearing from his hon. friends opposite. He instinctively and he thought reasonably approached the subject of Irish university education, and in fact the subject of Irish education altogether, just as he approached the question of English education, with an earnest longing for national unity. He had had it borne in upon him that any suggested solution which did not work in that direction did not deserve the name of a solution at all and had no pretence whatever to finality. What was it which in the history of legislation had precluded a solution and prevented finality? He thought they would all admit that the difficulty had arisen in what was called the cause of religion. If they were to draw their conclusions from the spirit and actions of a certain class of religionists they would be inclined to say that these men regarded as the primary and fundamental word of the Founder of their religion—
  "I come not to bring peace on earth but a sword."
  That seemed to be their first commandment. But it was a slander to say that that was the spirit either of the Founder of the religion or of the religion which He founded. The sword did not come from those who understood that in that religion all men were equal, but from those who were always craving for preeminence. It must be, and it was one of the perversions of the Christian religion, that warfare was inherent among its followers. If Churches had not fulfilled their proper functions in making peace among mankind, then it became the duty of the State to take up the much neglected Church role, to cast out preeminence by equality, and to assuage bitterness by civil companionship. There was nothing which tended more effectually towards peace and towards the solution of difficulties than mutual understanding, and there was nothing which tended more effectually towards mutual understanding, as Matthew Arnold said, than companionship in the same school or university. He believed the spirit of unity was abroad in England, at any rate

  679
  among the laity, and this had spread just in proportion as the ascendancy of a particular Church was being modified. They were all most anxious that this spirit of peace and unity should pervade Ireland as he believed it had begun to pervade England more and more. Surely it must be the aim of every Irish and English patriot that Ireland should cease to be two nations and become one. The cause of this desirable consummation not having been arrived at was the failure of Irishmen, both Catholics and Protestants, to accept and to work out a combined system of education, and both parties had been somewhat in fault. In the great Irish Parliament of 1783 a petition was presented to the Irish House of Commons by Mr. Grattan, exemplifying that toleration which was so characteristic of him and those who worked with him, against the exclusion of Protestant professors and students from an educational institution then proposed to be created. The petitioners were Roman Catholics but they said—
  "The exclusion of persons professing the Protestant religion appears to the petitioners to be highly inexpedient, inasmuch as it tends to perpetuate that line of separation between His Majesty's subjects of different religions which the petitioners do humbly consider it is the interest of the country to obliterate; and the petitioners submit that if the youth of both religions were instructed together in those branches of education which are the same for all, their peculiar tenets would in all probability be no hindrance hereafter to a friendly intercourse, and that the petitioners having, in common with the rest of their brethren the Catholics of Ireland, received as one of the most important benefits bestowed on them by His Majesty and the Legislature, the permission of having their youth educated along with the Protestant youth of the kingdom in the University of Dublin, and experience having fully demonstrated the wisdom and utility of that permission, petitioners see with great concern the principle of separation and exclusion, then, as they hoped, removed for ever, now likely to be renewed and re-enacted."
  The Catholic Bishop Doyle having been asked in 1825 whether he considered it desirable that the Roman Catholic laity should be educated conjointly with Protestants said he thought that it was desirable, if thereby the harmony of the different sects in Ireland could be promoted, and he added that professors of their own faith were not necessary if the students could receive religious instruction where they pleased, and, for
  680
  those residing in Trinity College, there were sufficient opportunities on Sundays. When the Queen's Colleges were started one section of the Roman Catholics endeavoured to rally the country to the denominational cry, but the Young Ireland party, headed by Davis and Duffy, was against them. The Young Ireland party appealed to the spirit of national unity. A great Catholic educationalist, Sir Thomas Wyse, the Secretary of the Catholic Association, left behind him these words written seventy years ago—
  "To class our national schools under partial designations of Protestant and Catholic, and I Presbyterian, is a contradiction. By becoming sectarian they cease to be national. By parcelling our people into lots, by thus keeping them parqués in their respective pasturages, we recognise a sort of inherent incompatibility; we tell the student that it is in his nature to live apart and hostile; we grow Protestants and we grow Catholics for future conflicts; and lest, if confided to their own untutored feeling, they should seek in religion only that in which all agree, we take care to point their attention to that in which each differs. We convert into a law of hate what heaven gave us as a law of love, and degrade seminaries for the universal mind of the country into rival garrisons for a faction."
  In 1897 the late Mr. Lecky in this House, looking back to a long experience, gave utterance to these words—
  "There could be no greater misfortune to Ireland than that members of the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions in their early days should be entirely separated."
  Let them remember that on one side no. 1 the Prelacy of the Roman Catholic Church, what might be called the Irish party, were in favour of these Queen's Colleges when they were started. The other side was headed by Cardinal Cullen. That gentleman was sent to Ireland when he had been thirty years in Rome, and, in the words of Bishop Doyle, was "intruded" into Ireland contrary to all precedent without the recommendation of the Church of Ireland. It had been the practice of the Papacy to appoint such Church dignitaries on the recommendation of the Church of Ireland. Cardinal Cullen, more a foreigner than an Irishman, was the head of the party opposed to the colleges, and it was through him that in 1850 an embargo was put on these unsectarian colleges by a decision of the Synod of Thurles, but only by a majority of one, an abbot irregularly introduced by the Cardinal.

  681
  He obtained on April 18th, 1850, a Papal rescript issued by Pius IX, in which it was stated it would be the duty of the bishops—
  "To frame rules to be everywhere observed for withdrawing the faithful from frequenting these colleges."
  They might be forgiven, many of them, for looking back with regretful yearning to the policy of the Irish party at that date. It was something to remember that half the Irish Prelacy were in favour of the mixed education of Protestants and Catholics. That was the true Irish party. It savoured of Irish soil and possessed Irish ideas, and he would like to see such Irish ideas carried out. On the other side they had the ultramontane party savouring of foreign soil and having ultramontane ideas which had been the leading ideas in Ireland ever since. Curiously enough Pope Pius IX, who issued that rescript, supported a very different policy in America. When the two sections of the Roman Catholic Church there were quarrelling over the propriety of making a raid on the State for public money, Pope Pius IX sent over Monsignor Satolli to deal with the question. He calmed down the militant section of the Roman Catholic Church in America, and at the Conference of bishops and archbishops the following Resolution was passed—
  "That the Church of Rome does not disapprove of the public schools; that it absolutely forbids priests and bishops from excommunicating parents because they send their children to the public schools, or from depriving their children of the Sacraments because they go to the public schools; that so far from disapproving of public schools, it approves them provided they can be carried on in such a way that the moral and religious training of the children can be provided for."
  Monsignor Satolli suggested three ways in which that provision could be made. First, by religious education by the Church in the school building out of school hours; second, by religious education by the Church not in the school building but in a building provided for the purpose, and, finally, where neither of these methods were practicable, then in the family. The same Pope sanctioned the entry of Catholic students at Oxford and Cambridge on the condition that provision was made at the universities for the religious supervision of the Catholic
  682
  students. That was the principle for which he for one stood with regard to Irish university education—-united secular education and separate religious education. He had been told in some quarters that such a system would not now be accepted, but it was not a question only of what would be accepted, there was also the question of what could be justly offered. Equality was always just, and those who rejected equality took upon themselves the responsibility of their refusal and the result of a demand for special treatment, namely, the separation of citizens. It was continually said in Ireland that conscience prevented students going to the Queen's Colleges, but he could not understand how that could be when half the bishops at the Synod of Thurles were in favour of their going. He could not help thinking that if the proposal had been carried into effect to establish religious residences, under the charge of Catholic Superiors, for the Catholic students attending those colleges, the educational problem would have been very largely solved. The Bishop of Limerick, when before the Royal Commission in 1901, said the prohibition of the attendance of Catholic students at the Queen's Colleges was not exactly a prohibition, but a warning that the colleges were dangerous places. On the question of conscience he said it was not so much a matter of the individual conscience as an objection to a system for the whole country. If it had been a matter of individual conscience, then an absolute prohibition would have been issued. With regard to the Oxford and Cambridge Universities the Bishop said that the student minimised the risk by his own personal precautions. The objectors to these Queen's Colleges had been challenged to produce evidence that they had perverted a single student from the faith, and they had failed to do so. The only instance that had been brought forward was a case which had resulted from private conversation, and a private conversation might take place anywhere. The head of the Jesuit College in Dublin, Father Delany, took credit, and rightly, for the fact that Protestants attended the classes of his college. When he was asked how that was, he said that their public teaching was not connected with Roman Catholic doctrine. When he was

  683
  asked how they provided for definite Catholic training, he said: "Oh, we provide for that at another time." Then what difference was there between the Catholic College on St. Stephen's Green in its public teaching and the Queen's Colleges in their public teaching? The difference lay here, it was not in the teaching of the teachers, but in the authority that appointed them. The Crown appointed the professors in the Queen's Colleges, and the Church appointed the professors at the Jesuit College, and it came out in the evidence before the Commission that in the appointment, or the warning, or the dismissal of professors at a Catholic university, the archbishops would be the final court of appeal as to a question of faith and morals. But the scope of faith and morals was a very wide scope. Cardinal Cullen, in a letter to the clergy dated November 26th, 1850, said that the Divine commission to the episcopacy included faith and morals, but these had a—
  "direct or indirect connection with the various departments of human knowledge, and the exercise of the Divine commission must consequently extend to the supervision and control of every system of education proposed or instituted for Catholics."
  That claim was said by some Catholics to be no longer advanced, but if so, why was the embargo upon the un-sectarian colleges still maintained? This policy was not the policy of the Irish party of bishops, but the policy of Cardinal Cullen, backed by Rome, and whilst he would not venture to ask whether that policy was wise, he would ask whether it was national and unifying. Experience had shown that, so far as faith and morals were concerned, it was unnecessary. He did not regard Trinity College, Dublin, as yet national, in spite of the fact that the tests had been abolished, any more than he regarded Oxford and Cambridge as altogether national. Trinity College, Dublin, was too definitely Protestant and Anglican. Oxford and Cambridge were too distinctly Anglican, though he would rather hesitate to say, in addition, they were always too definitely Protestant. But, so far as Oxford and Cambridge had been changed in their atmosphere and in the conduct of university affairs—it had been largely because they had not been boycotted by the Nonconformists, who had gone
  684
  pluckily to those universities and taken the risks. He did not for a moment believe in the Protestantisation of Trinity College, nor did he believe in its Catholicisation. Protestantism and Catholicism should be, in his view, two things entirely outside university recognition. Neutrality was not Protestantism any more than Undenominationalism was Nonconformity. A university was a place where all could be taught on equal terms. Without equality there could be no finality in any educational legislation. What was equality? It was—
  "[the realisation of] the principle which gives equal privilege to all men, irrespective of their creed, and refuses to give privilege to any man because of his creed."
  That was the definition given in the course of a very striking piece of evidence before the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland by the right hon. Thomas Sinclair. He had been told that what he (Mr. Massie) desired was a dream. All he had to say was that he must go on dreaming still, in the hope that in time his dream would come to pass; and meanwhile he could not support any plan which put the fulfilment of that dream into the dimmer distance. And so he, and those who agreed with him, must go on working for that happy day for national unity in Ireland when the divisive policy of Cardinal Cullen should be abandoned, and, in harmony with the views of Bishop Doyle, the Irish party, and Young Ireland, a system of education should be established which should be a uniting ground for all the youth of that great country.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid the question of Irish university education had arisen upon many ocasions in this House since he had had the honour of being a Member, and he was afraid it was a great many years ago since he first ventured to address the House upon this subject as Member for Trinity College—which always came necessarily into these debates—and said that, so far as he was concerned, although it might not be his own ideal, this House ought to face the real facts as they stood in regard to university education in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who had

  685
  just sat down had ideas with which a great many might possibly agree; he dreamt the dream of taking away religious teaching altogether from the Universities of Ireland; he saw the youth of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, growing up together, learning the same lessons, reading the same literature, and exchanging their ideas in the class room and on the cricket field; and he said: "Let us bring about national unity." That was a consummation they would all desire. That was a solution they would all devoutly hope for, because it was to that stage of men's lives, by intercourse one with another, whatever might have been their earlier associations, that they learnt to respect the views of those who differed from them, and the necessity of modifying the extremity of their own views. But there was no use in talking of that as an ideal for Ireland, for the simple reason that the majority of the Irish people would not have it. The hon. Member for the Cricklade division of Wiltshire had spoken of the Queen's Colleges. The Queen's Colleges were established as absolutely undenominational, and were promptly described as "godless colleges," of which the Irish people would have none. What was the good of going back to a system which had absolutely failed in Ireland? No progress would be made on this question by such violent attacks as the hon. Member for East Mayo had made on Trinity College. His description of it as the bitterest enemy of the Irish people was without any justification. A considerable percentage of the students at Trinity College had come there, notwithstanding the discouragement of their own church, amounting to 10 per cent. of the whole of the students. Had any instance ever yet been brought forward, since Trinity College was thrown open at the commencement of last century to Catholic students, of either the faith or morals of any student having been in the slightest degree interfered with? He had himself made many Catholic friends there, and, although they had differed since, not merely in religion, but fiercely in politics, they had remained his friends. If it was an historical fact that Trinity College was established 300 years ago with a design to put down the hon. Member for East Mayo's religion,
  686
  was it not all the more to its credit that it should have been the first of the Universities to ask that its doors should be thrown open to Roman Catholics? A full generation, moreover, had now elapsed since its prizes, Fellowships, and even a share in the management had been thrown open to the hon. Member's co-religionists. Was anything to be gained, or any approach to a settlement of this question to be reached, by harking back to the past, with bitter attacks upon an institution which, so far as Trinity College was concerned, had at all events for the last fifty years been only too anxious heartily to welcome Roman Catholics? Trinity College had made further offers. It had offered to the Roman Catholics to pay for sectarian teaching according to their religion by persons chosen by the Roman Catholics themselves to the students who came within the walls of Trinity College. They offered also, if they so pleased, to have a Catholic dean in residence within the college. Trinity College could do no more than they had done, because they had offered to the Catholics exactly the same equality as the Protestants of various sections enjoyed within the walls of that institution. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that even if they eliminated the religious question he would still object to Trinity College because it was hostile to the national life of Ireland. He did not know exactly what the hon. Member meant by that phrase. If he meant that the majority of the students in the college were Protestants and Unionists his statement was perfectly true. But why were the majority of the students Protestants and Unionists? For the simple reason that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy would not allow the Roman Catholic population to go there and the Nationalists would not allow the Nationalists to go there. Could anything be more unfair than to say that in Trinity College the majority were Protestants and Unionists without stating the reason? It was the Roman Catholics themselves who had brought about the very matter of which they complained. If tomorrow the ban was withdrawn and the Roman Catholic vouth of Ireland were

  687
  allowed to go to Trinity College, then in time they all—because they were dealt with solely on merit—would be just as much entitled as Protestants to obtain Fellowships, Professorships and a place in the management. There was nothing to prevent the whole Board of the College in the course of time being a Catholic Board under the system which prevailed. It was true that if Catholic students were admitted it would take them a long time to attain to that, but anybody who knew University life knew that there was no other proper way of selecting a governing body than to select the members from its own corporation. The moment they departed from that system they got into the old difficulty that had been described by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, whose speech they had all listened to with so much pleasure. But even that hon. Member felt bound to ridicule the system which prevailed in trying to keep up the constitution of the Royal University Ireland.
  The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that—
  "If Trinity College was sincere in desiring to get Catholics into the University, will you make us an offer to put a large number of Nationalists on the Board of Trinity College next year."
  What a way to appoint the board of a University—to select politicians, and not members of the corporation of the University itself! In his opinion the fault of all the systems of education in Ireland outside of Trinity College was the fact—and it was a lamentable fact to have to state—that on every occasion on which a vacancy occurred in the management of the Board, whether elementary or intermediate, or University, as carried on by the Royal University, they had to consider not who was the best man for a particular place, but whether it was the turn of a Protestant or of a Catholic; be he an inferior Protestant or an inferior Catholic he must get his turn and they must put up with him in the government of the University. He was proud to think that the one thing in Trinity College that was never asked in relation to these matters was—What is your religion? [Laughter.] They might laugh, but it
  688
  was the fact, and that was why the most distinguished men and the most hardworking men had always in Trinity College reached the highest eminence there. He remembered asking the late Dr. Salmon about the proportion of students, and he said he had never asked about the religion of anybody who entered the College. He asserted that in Trinity College the sole way in which a man could get on the board of management was by competitive examination, with the object of obtaining Fellowships and degrees, so that he could pass up by promotion until he reached the board. He certainly felt somewhat nervous the other evening when he heard the Chief Secretary announce his idea of an inquiry into the system of government in Trinity College, until he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman himself was a University man. He felt nervous lest there should be introduced into the governing body of Trinity College the idea of any selection except by the corporation and from the corporation themselves. What would happen if they were to put any portion of its government under the Executive in Ireland? They would go back to the same ludicrous system that prevailed in the Royal University. Instead of inquiring into the qualifications of a man, it would be the old story — whose turn is it, Protestant or Catholic? Therefore when Trinity College was abused as not being the great national University they would all wish it to be, let them face the actual facts and see what was the real truth in relation to the matter. It had a majority of Protestants and Unionists, but that was not by reason of anything in the government of the College, but by reason of the fact that Catholics and Protestants had not been allowed to work together. He had said this in defence of the University he was proud to represent, and he went back to the arguments with which he started. There was nothing they could do with Trinity College which would satisfy the demands of the Irish Catholic populalation. They were not satisfied when it was Protestant, they were not satisfied when they were asked to have it mixed by having all religions equally recognised and taught inside its walls. There was only one other alternative and that was

  689
  to turn it into a purely Catholic institution. That was quite impossible. But they were faced with the fact that if the hon. Gentleman's ideals had not been fulfilled by undenominational colleges, such as Queen's Colleges were, and if Catholic Ireland had not been satisfied with all the concessions Trinity College had made, Ireland must go on with the present state of affairs. He was always being accused of being a bigoted Orangeman, but whatever he might be called he knew far too well the benefits to be gained from University education to wish to deny any solution that could be found which might be of benefit to his country. He had said on every occasion that the necessity for it, so far from decreasing, was increasing. Session after session they gave more control to the majority of the people. Since he came to the House great changes had taken place. They had set up a great system of local government in the country and a large number of offices, more or less under popular control and influence. These places must be filled by properly educated men, for it could not be expected that progress would be made in the systems they had set up unless they were prepared as far as possible to supply the proper means for carrying out such an education in the body politic of Ireland itself. He had always said that an effort ought to be made to secure some settlement of the question of Irish education. While he said that, he said also that there was no reason why they should in any wise interfere with Trinity College.
  MR. DILLON: If you will not block the way.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he had never hesitated to speak of Trinity College as having no intention or desire to block the way. Trinity College had no intention or desire to block the way. For his own part he looked upon this subject as so important that he would rather lose his seat for Dublin University than oppose this demand for a settlement of the Irish University question. At the same time, there was plenty of work for Trinity College to do for the Irish people. They might want more practical schools, and a teaching more suitable to the larger class of students
  690
  who went there now. The hon. Member for East Mayo had talked about the objections to an English education in Ireland, and had said he desired to have something different. He was not going to argue with the hon. Gentleman as to what was the best sort of education to give to Irishmen; but in Trinity College they gave an education which suited the class which went there not merely for the sake of preparing to obtain office in Ireland, but which fitted the students for taking the great part which they had hitherto taken in high offices throughout the Empire. They wanted to see that education continued in Trinity College for those who desired to take advantage of it; and they took no narrow view of the educational needs of their country.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he had long watched in despair the languishing condition and the neglect of Irish education by successive Governments. It had been said that the reform of Irish education should be begun at the top. He did not much care where they began; but they must begin somewhere, and be quick about it. He, however, had a prejudice in favour of beginning at the foundation, and, therefore, he would direct attention to the condition of the primary schools in Ireland. The late Government sent over to Ireland a skilled English inspector, Dr. Dale, who made a number of very valuable reports on Irish education. In regard to the town schools Dr. Dale said—
  "It is difficult to give in words any adequate conception of the buildings which are classified by the Irish inspectors as bad. In point of unsuitability and unhealthiness they far exceed any premises which it has ever fallen to my lot to condemn in England."
  Then in regard to country schools, Dr. Dale said—
  "It is also necessary to point out that in the country, as in the town, there exist schools which fall far short of the standard attained even by the worst schools in the rural districts of England. The schools at Keelogs in the Omagh district, Lakagh, and Kilmorgan in the Sligo district, are among the examples I encountered. They are old thatched cottages, with low roofs, broken floors and tiny windows. The ventilation was most unsatisfactory, and in the winter, when the door cannot be kept

  691
  open, they must be unhealthy. There were either no out-offices, or they were of the most primitive kind."
  There had been a disposition in Ireland to dismiss Dr. Dale's report, as it was said that his visit was only a cursory one, and that he had the fatal defect of being an Englishman. But he would turn to the current reports of the Irish inspectors for 1904–5. Mr. Dewar, who was head of the Sligo district, said—
  "There are still, especially in the eastern and northern sections of the circuit, houses which are not fit to be used as schools. … These comfortless hovels are of one type. They have thatched roofs, which admit rain, uneven earthern floors, low walls, small windows, no grates, little space, rickety desks, few maps, no playground, and no offices. They differ little from the surrounding cabins, and if there be a difference the advantage is often on the side of the cabin."
  Dr. Beatty gave a series of sketches of individual schools in the Ballymena district. Of school A he said—
  "No out-offices, school house shaky, sunken and adjoining graveyard; floor loose; ceiling low; both floor and ceiling broken; 90 on rolls, but accommodation for only 42; desks insufficient; nine children at a desk of eight and a half feet."
  School B—
  "Accommodation for 41; maximum attendance 71; ventilation and light bad; whitewash urgently needed; maps, press, and teacher's desk old, worn and unsuitable; clock stopped."
  Probably the clock was ashamed to chronicle time under such miserable circumstances. School C—
  "Walls and windows low; ventilation imperfect; desks worn and narrow; one broken and shaky; no clock; no ball-frame; no table; no modulator; no music charts; no drawing charts; no black board for attendances; no map of Ireland or British Isles; map of Europe small and without a roller."
  School D—
  "Floor broken; no clock; out offices facing back door within a few feet; offensive smell in room; room dirty; floor not washed during the year; teacher thinks never washed."
  He need not further labour this deplorable problem. The Commissioners said that practically a thousand schools in Ireland stood in need of having out - offices provided. Provision should also be made, they said, for the periodical cleaning of these offices, the cleaning of the windows and the scrubbing of the floors. They also said that they considered that
  692
  all National schools should he provided with suitable seats, desks, maps and charts and with fires in the winter months. Leaving the question of the premises, he would take another highly characteristic feature, and that was the scale under which the Commissioners undertook the equipment of schools with apparatus. A first stock of school requisites was furnished gratuitously to each school in proportion to the attendance of children, and the Commissioners undertook to make a payment of 25s. for these requisites for a new school with fifty children. That was 6d. a child. In London for new schools there was allowed from 5s. to 6s. 8d. a child, but the Irish were fobbed off with 6d. for the first year. After the first year in London we provided 2s. 9d. additional every year, and every school hall had £5 for pictures alone. In Nottingham for the last opened elementary school 7s. 10d. was provided for school requisites in the first year, against the Irish sixpence, and 2s. 10d. was given in the succeeding year. Turning to the teacher, he had to face day by day a mountain of difficulties which were unknown to English teachers. He was confronted with grotesque and humiliating regulations which would never be tolerated for five minutes in any other part of the United Kingdom. What sort of man was the Irish teacher? He was the most fertile and resourceful teacher in the world. Mr. Dale said—
  "The Irish teachers whom I saw impressed me—with but few exceptions—as a conscientious body of public servants anxious to do their best for the children entrusted to their charge."
  That testimony was in the Blue-books cordially endorsed by every Irish inspector. Then as to emoluments, the Irish headmaster received last year the average stipend of £100, while the headmaster in England and Wales received £151 9s. 11d., and the Scotch headmaster £176 14s. 2d. The Irish assistant masters received an average of £79, while England and Wales the average was £110 3s. 1d., and in Scotland £120 11s. 3d. An Irish headmaster was paid less than an assistant master in any other part of the United Kingdom. But that was not all. A charge was laid upon his slender purse which would not

  693
  be tolerated by the school teacher in any other part of the United Kingdom. Mr. Dale stated—
  "In the country schools minor repairs seem to be more often done at the expense of the teacher; while the arrangements for cleaning the school are commonly left to him. In some cases the teacher pays a caretaker, but most small schools are cleaned by the older children with help from the teacher. The fuel—on the form of turf—is generally provided by the children or the parents, though, in a good many cases, the teacher has to make up any deficiency. In addition to this, the teacher has, in very many cases, to find money for the children's prizes."
  In addition to all this, might he point out what was expected from the teacher? The Commissioners' rules in regard to school houses stated—
  "The Commissioners expect that all teachers shall have done at their own expense the following, viz., limewashing; cleaning and repairing glass; cleaning privies and ashpits; gravelling yards and walks, and keeping surface channels in order; sweeping chimneys; making good any damage arising from carelessness or neglect; maintaining fences and gates, except damages from lapse of time, and in case of residences built by grants for teachers of National schools, vested in the Commissioners of National Education, or in trustees. The Commissioners will inflict such penalty as they may deem adequate if the teacher fails to fulfil these conditions."
  When he had done cleaning privies and sweeping chimneys, the Irish teacher was adjured as to how he should occupy his time. He was told—
  "To avoid fairs, markets, and meetings, but above all, political meetings of every kind; to abstain from controversy."
  Fancy laying such a restriction upon an Irishman—
  "To be imbued with a spirit of obedience to the law and loyalty to the Sovereign."
  He remembered that not many years ago, after a political meeting, at which Lord Londonderry, he thought it was, made some comments, the Commissioners issued a most fantastic rule for the guidance of teachers should they drift into a meeting where the topic might be of a political nature. It was laid down that each teacher present should be responsible for all that was said or done by all the other persons present. That was a pretty considerable order, but it was also laid down that the teacher must promptly disavow everything of an objectionable character which was said or done. He did not see how he could do it. The Speaker in this House
  694
  would promptly rule Members out of order if they intervened in that way. The objectionable things included anything bearing upon political authority or any criticism of the Board. The public disavowal was to be followed by the withdrawal of the teacher from the meeting. If he followed this course of instruction he would probably have a brickbat thrown after him. But that the Commissioners would not, of course, mind.
  As to what was to be done he spoke with some hesitation, as he recognised that we could not have the same system in Ireland as was applicable to Wales and England, and the converse was also true. He had read the Commissioners' Report, and for the first time in thirty years he found a sentence with which he could agree. It ran—
  "It seems to us to be involved in the legislative union, and to be a necessary consequence of the identity of taxation in Great Britain and Ireland that the Irish child should enjoy equal advantages, so far as education is concerned, to children in English and Scotch schools."
  In spite of that pronouncement, however, everybody knew the deepening and widening of the disparity which was growing up. This was not only grossly unfair to the Irish child, but it robbed the British Empire of the fruit of its most fertile and adaptable and imaginative class of intellect. What ought to be done? First of all, more money was wanted, and then he thought the money ought to be spent more economically than at present. They should, he thought, overhaul the central executive authorities controlling public education in Ireland, which at present conflicted, overlapped, and duplicated machinery and wasted money. If they took a sovereign which was raised for education in England and Wales, they would find that 3s. was spent in administration; in Scotland 3s. 10d. was spent in administration, but in Ireland no less a sum than 6s. 6d. went in that way. First of all there were the Commissioners, twenty in number, who spent £1,500,000 a year, which was practically obtained from Exchequer grants. He believed that the House and nobody else had any control whatever over their proceedings, and of course they were entirely non-representative. Whom they represented

  695
  Heaven only knew. Then there was the Intermediate Board with twelve Commissioners and two assistant Commissioners, and the usual greedy army of officials. It was the most egregious body that he had ever come across. They developed higher education by paying grants on examination results and this system entirely perverted educational aims. They spent last year £85,000. They took nearly £2 a head to examine an intermediate scholar, although the entire elementary education of a scholar in Ireland did not reach that figure. Then with regard to technical education, when he turned to the appendices he found some very curious headings with regard to agriculture. For instance, "Scheme for encouraging the improvement in the Breeds of Horses." "Registration of Stallions," "Nominations of Mares," etc., etc. That no doubt was interesting and fruitful work, but he would scarcely call it technical education. He would sweep away the various central exective bodies which controlled public education in Ireland and substitute for them a single unified central council representative of the people of Ireland. By that means alone could they get educational co-ordination and administrative economy. He thought it was high time that the Irish people were associated in some way with the local control of the primary schools. There were already the beginnings of municipal interest in public education, and they should be developed. It was all to the advantage of the Irish child that the Chief Secretary was a man with a great and detailed knowledge of the educational advantages offered to the children of England, Wales and especially Scotland. He hoped his right hon. friend would, courageously and determinedly, do all in his power to secure the same advantages to the Irish children.
  MR. CLANCYsaid it would be quite impossible in a debate like this to deal with the whole subject of education, and therefore he would only deal with one or two topics which he thought of importance.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  WATERFORD CORPORATION AND BRIDGE BILL (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. In doing so he must confess that his interest in this Bill was very recent. It was the cruel fate which another Bill met with in this House a few days previously which led him first to take an interest in the fate of this Bill. Upon looking into it he found the county council of the North Riding of Tipperary very strongly objected to this Bill and had petitioned against it, and on that ground alone he hoped the hon. Member for North Tipperary would assist him in defeating it. They objected to the cost of this scheme which would do them no good and which only affected the City of Waterford. They said, perfectly reasonably and fairly, that if Waterford wanted this bridge at all let them pay for it. The nearest administrative point of Tipperary under the control of the North Riding County Council was forty-three miles from Waterford and the country between that district and Water-ford was intersected by very few roads Tipperary was in no sense in the neigh-bourhood of the borough of Waterford.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN(Kilkenny Where is it at all?
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid that, the Members representing Tipperary in this House being silent and gagged, he was compelled to say something on behalf of the people of Tipperary. Waterford was not used as a market by anyone residing in the North Riding of Tipperary and the object to which this Bill was devoted did not benefit them to the extent of a single halfpenny. Why then should Tipperary be asked to contribute to the cost of an improvement local to Waterford?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Not a single penny is asked from the people of Tipperary.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the people of Tipperary might be and could be called upon to pay for the freeing of this bridge. There was neither reason nor justice in the demand of the Corporation of Waterford. On what did Waterford rely for forcing through this unjust proposal? They relied on the Leader of the Nationalist Party in this House. Though the power of the hon. and learned Gentleman was very great below the gangway and upon the Opposition Benches, as was seen recently when a Second Reading was refused to the Rathmines Bill, the House would, he hoped, not allow him to carry this Bill. The North Riding of Tipperary was not alone in its plea for justice in this matter. The county council for South Tipperary had also protested against this measure, and in the petition which they presented against it, they described the Waterford Corporation as having been grossly unjust. Those were not the words of a Unionist district, but of Nationalist Tipperary, and he hoped the House would remember them to-night, and support him in his Motion to reject the Bill. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGseconded the rejection of the Bill. He said that there was only one bridge across the Suir at Waterford and it belonged to a body of Commissioners who objected to the Bill.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Oh no, they are in agreement with us and support the Bill.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Because under it the compensation to be paid was to be decided under the Land Clauses Act.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That has been arranged.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: And they would suffer a very severe loss. If the Bill passed its Second Reading, he should put down an instruction to the Committee
  698
  to insert a clause providing that the compensation must be so measured as to give at least 3½ per cent. or the capital sum when invested.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words, 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Thomas Corbett.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDdeclared that the object and meaning of the opposition was explained in a paragraph in to-day's Times. At a meeting of the Irish Unionist Members, held at the House of Commons yesterday, Mr. Long presiding, a Resolution was passed expressing the opinion that the precedent created by the Rathmines Bill would paralyse the entire proceedings relating to Private Bills and that by way of reprisal on the Nationalists they would do all in their power to impede the progress of the Waterford Corporation Bill.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: On a point of order. That is not the case.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND,proceeding, said he therefore asked the House to judge of the bonâ fides of the proceedings. He reviewed the history of the bridge, showing that a Commission had recommended that a new free bridge should be built and that the courts of law had held that the Bridge Commissioners had exclusive rights to have a bridge over the Suir. A wealthy citizen had left a legacy, a new through railway had contributed £15,000, and they had obtained a promise of £33,000 from an old fund in the hands of the Treasury towards the freeing of the bridge; and they now came for permission to buy out the old toll bridge. They could not do so without asking the permission of the British Parliament, which had never even heard of the bridge. The Commissioners objected to the method adopted for fixing the price, and suggested another method, which they had adopted. The Commissioners had therefore withdrawn their opposition, and were in favour of the Bill.

  699
  The hon. Member for North Down had said that they were making a demand for contributions from Tipperary and other neighbouring counties. They did nothing of the kind. There was hot a syllable in the Bill as to levying a single contribution upon anybody. The promoters were simply asking to be allowed to buy the bridge. It was an aggravation of the conduct of Members who came down to the House to oppose the Bill in retaliation for something with which it had no connection, that they had not read the Bill. This was not a question affecting merely the city of Waterford. It affected the whole of that part of Ireland, and he had had the pleasure to-day of meeting representatives of all the counties concerned, and not one of those counties was asked for a penny under the Bill. There was no power under the Bill to levy a sixpence on any of the counties in question or on any living being. Under these circumstances he thought it was an abuse of the forms of the House, that hon. Members, having publicly announced that they were doing it for the purposes of retaliation, to offer this opposition. He did not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Trinity College was interested in this, but he would like to tell him that it had been agreed to withdraw the provision in this Bill dealing with the fixing of price under the Land Clauses Act, and to substitute the Bridges Act. In that way the Bridge Commissioners had agreed to the Bill. There was no provision in the Bill to levy any contribution on the neighbouring counties, and all the representatives of those counties were in favour of the presentation of the Bill. All that the Waterford Corporation were asking was that they should be able with their own money to carry out the purchase of the bridge, and thus remove from that part of Ireland a great bar to its prosperity.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid from his earliest recollections he knew a great deal about this bridge, and he was rather inclined to say that he wished the bridge had been bought up before, and that there had been some greater facilities for passing over it. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had appealed to him in reference to this Bill.
  700
  Might he Say that his view was that all these private Bills ought to be allowed to be examined by Committees of this House upon their merits alone, and he rather anticipated that a good deal of the objection that had been raised had really been raised because in the past that which he had laid down as the proper principle had not been accepted by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. Some of his friends still had rankling in their minds what happened on the Rathmines Bill. [Laughter]. It was all very well to laugh, but it was a very serious business to leave a district without drainage because it happened to be a Protestant district. [NATIONALIST dissent]. It was the only reason put forward.
  MR. CLANCY: Nobody gave any such reason.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: The hon. Member for Dublin gave it.
  MR. CLANCY: I absolutely deny it. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to quote a single sentence to that effect.
  SIR EDWARD CARSON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman I do not carry his words about with me.
  MR. CLANCY: It is not the first time you have been offensive.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that neither was it the first time the hon. Gentleman had said that to him. He really had been accustomed to him all his life. He wished English Members knew the hon. Gentleman so well. [Cries of "Order."] He did not feel the slightest ill-feeling towards the hon. Member—they were extremely good friends. After all, whatever might be their feelings about the Rathmines Bill, and whatever might be the irritation felt by the hon. Member for Dublin towards him, he hoped it would not last very long. He only hoped that in future Bills which might affect districts in which they were concerned would be considered by the House upon the merits alone. They could leave all these questions outside the pale of Party politics. He earnestly hoped the bridge in question would be freed, and

  701
  with that object the Bill should go to a Committee.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.

  SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question 22nd March, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the provision for education in Ireland in all its branches (primary, secondary, and university) is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and that the interests of the Irish have been and are suffering most ruinous injury from the long delay in applying a remedy '—(Mr. Murphy).—instead thereof."
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CLANCYsaid after the speeches that had already been made he did not think he would be justified in dealing at any length with the question now before the House, but there were one or two remarks he would like to make upon the subject of University education. He entirely agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for East Mayo when he said that he thought reform in this matter ought to begin not from the bottom but from the top. It was too much the habit to assume that University education was intended for the higher or richer classes of the population. They had been for so long accustomed to the fact that the revenues, the honours, and the emoluments, of the great Universities in this country and in Ireland had been appropriated for the purposes of the rich classes that he thought many people had come to the conclusion that such an appropriation was in fact right and proper. For his
  702
  part he thought that those who took that view entirely forgot the history of the University. The Rev. Charles Kingsley, in the original preface to "Alton Locke," drew attention to the fact that the Universities were founded not for the rich but for the poor, that the endowments of the universities were provided by bequests and gifts of generous testators and others especially for the education of the poor, and for many years after their foundation it was a matter of fact that both the great English universities were devoted almost exclusively to the training of the poor. In course of time that had been changed, and the rich had come to regard as for their own benefit that which was left for the benefit of the poor. It had been going on for so long that people now had come to think that that was the proper way in which University endowments should be appropriated. Ireland, being a poor country, took a different view. The majority of people in Ireland being poor they were the very persons for whom the Universities ought to be especially provided. It was no answer to this demand to say that they had not many students in Ireland to attend any new or old University, for they would have plenty of students if endowments were opened to the children of the poor just as they had been open for many years to the children of the poor in Scoland. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Cricklade division of Wiltshire with a feeling of despair. The hon. Gentleman was one who had presumably made himself acquainted with the history of the question, and yet he thought it right to give the House a re-hash of all the secularist arguments which the most advanced secularists in Enrope, Ireland, and Scotland had been advancing in vain for the last twenty-five years. Granting for the sake of argument that what he said about the bishops and priests coercing the conscience of the Irish on this matter was true, how much further did it carry them? Whatever brought about the present state of things—whether it was the bishops or priests, or the innate objection of the Catholic people to enter institutions which they regarded as hostile to their faith and nationality—the fact was plain that

  703
  they would not go there. They were faced with a situation in Ireland in which the overwhelming majority of the Catholics, for one reason or other, were resolutely opposed to availing themselves of the benefits of higher education, and the question was not as to who brought this about, or the cause' of this state of things, but how it was to be remedied. Did anyone in the House, even the greatest secularist, think it better that the people of Ireland should be ignorant than that they should follow the course that they had themselves selected? The secularist arguments did not carry the matter one whit beyond the stage which it reached twenty-five or thirty years ago, and those arguments, if prolonged until the Day of Judgment, would not effect a revolution. He would not refer to the religious difficulty, but he wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that he as a Nationalist rejected the idea of being forced, as some of them had been forced, into halls of learning where the spirit of English oppression in the past had been the principal thing met with. When he was at Queen's College he felt he was in a kind of glorified police barracks. He felt the hand of the police on him. He felt the hand of the Lord-Lieutenant and his Proclamation. He felt the hand of the Privy Council in Dublin Castle. He felt the hand of the resident magistrate. He thought they all pervaded the place, and he made up his mind that if ever he had any children they should never enter an institution like that, to be converted by force, perhaps, into English Protestants. Trinity College, Dublin, was not only an anti-Catholic institution; it was also an anti - Nationalist institution. As recently as last Saturday when the Nationalist Lord Mayor of Dublin was having his annual procession through the streets of Dublin, the only place where any insult was offered to him was at Trinity College, where the students came out and threw mud and flour at him. That was the spirit of Trinity College, and that was the institution which the children of Nationalists were asked to enter. They would reject, and would always continue to reject, any such invitation
  704
  What gave this country at the present time the right to say to the Catholics of Ireland: "We offer you this because we think it right?" If there was a single thing in which every man ought to be supreme it was in that of the education of his own children, and it was not for any hon. Member who differed in religion and perhaps in politics to say: "You are wrong; we know better than you, and because we are stronger we will force our opinions upon you." That was not liberation according to his opinion, nor was it democracy. It offended against the just principles of liberty. They could not go into Trinity College because, in the words of the late Prime Minister, it was Protestant in every sense in which it could be. Catholics of Ireland asked for a college open to everybody who chose to come in and work for its honours, its prizes, and its emoluments. They might get there, if they wished, by public examination. There should be no tests, and on the governing body there should not be a majority of bishops. Start by making it as Catholic as Trinity College was Protestant, and they would be perfectly satisfied whatever happened afterwards. He could not see on what ground that could be objected to by the hon. Gentleman for the Cricklade Division of Wiltshire, except that in the botton of his heart and, perhaps without knowing it, he was going on the old principle of persecution, namely, that the Catholic religion ought not to be tolerated. He would give every man what he wanted in this respect. Those who were opposed to him would only give what they thought right themselves, and force that upon others. Such a thing was intolerable, and he warned the Government that any such doctrine might have a serious effect upon the political conduct of the Nationalist Party. He would not allude to the religious difficulty, but he would say that reform in university, intermediate and primary education must proceed on Irish lines, and not on anti-Irish lines. All these systems at present were from top to bottom not only anti-Catholic but anti-Irish as well. The object of them all had been the anglicisation of the Irish people. The whole system of education in Ireland—university, intermediate, and primary—

  705
  needed reformation. The education offered to the Irish people was essentially anti-Irish. Here was a verse which Irish children in the national schools were expected to get by heart—
  "I thank the goodness and the grace
  That on my birth have smiled,
  And made me in these Christian times
  A happy English child."
  Here was their geography—
  "On the east of Ireland is England, where the Queen lives. Many people who live in Ireland were born in England."
  The children were not told, however, that they lived in Ireland on good, fat salaries. Every other nation taught its history to the children of its citizens, but in Ireland Irish history was banned and forgotten. But the campaign against the nationality of Ireland had failed, because it was a fight against nature. There was, however, something in the soil of a country, something in being born on that soil and brought up on it and taking breath amongst its mountains, lakes and rivers, and something in the thought that beneath that soil lay the ashes of their fathers. There was something in the thought that they lived amid scenes of past deeds and past glories. It was this something that created within them a genuine spirit of patriotism and a feeling of love for one's own country, a reverence for its past, and a desire to help it along the path of happiness and prosperity. He believed most solemnly that if they could clear the whole of the inhabitants out of Ireland to-morrow morning and plant there a race of the strongest Protestants they could get from England or Scotland, in five, ten, or fifteen years at the most they would develop a spirit of Irish patriotism which would astonish the people of this country. Every wise Government in the world had recognised this spirit of patriotism, but in Ireland it was dreaded, and the love of Ireland, which was what was meant by patriotism, was confounded with hatred of England, which it did not mean. People often confounded the two. The patriotism of Ireland was a love for their country, which was totally distinct from that spurious form of patriotism which consisted of the hatred of any other country. It was this genuine spirit of patriotism
  706
  which great statesmen for generations had sought to crush, but they had failed. They had now eighty-three Irish Nationalist representatives as against sixteen hon. Gentlemen who were still standing on the banks of the Boyne. With regard to the Gaelic League movement, it was conquering its opponents, who were being forced to teach the Irish language which they despised, and the thing was bound to go on. But to-day, as in the past, the education offered to the Irish people was essentially anti-Irish; that was proved by the fact that there was not a University College or any recognised school or class of Irish history. England taught English history to its children, and the children of France, Germany, and other countries were taught the history of their own country, and only in Ireland was Irish history banned or forgotten. What was the result? Had it been beneficial to England? Those who had been reared up in these anti-Irish institutions—had they become good Englishmen? They were bad Irishmen, but they were worse Englishmen. As a matter of fact they were citizens of no country, and there were some specimens of them in this House. He thought they had a right to ask the Chief Secretary to ponder deeply over this question and to insist that the Irish language should be taught in every school over which he had control. The Chief Secretary himself had written two volumes of Irish history which he thought might be put into the hands of Englishmen generally with great benefit to the Irish Nationalist cause. He hoped he would do what he could for the circulation of that book.
  MR. BRYCE: I may say that I have no pecuniary interest in that book.
  MR. CLANCY,in conclusion, assured the House that, speaking for the laity, they would refuse to avail themselves of any system of education, whether University, intermediate, or primary, which was anti-Irish and anti-Catholic. He warned the House that if they persisted in denying to Ireland what they wanted in this matter the result would not be to the political advantage of England.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think we shall have a much better chance of making some practical progress with education if we separate it altogether from other considerations. I will, therefore, not allow myself to be led away by the undoubted relation of this question to political considerations. When I came down to the House this afternoon I did not intend to speak, but that intention was altered by the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge University. All who listened to that speech must have been deeply impressed by its logical cogency and scholarly charm. He put the case clearly and well, because he did justice to the view sincerely entertained by many that a system of mixed education is better than a system of denominational education, and because he confessed that so far as Ireland was concerned we must abandon the hope of the success of mixed education, and consider the advisability of giving denominational education. Any hon. Member of this House who happens to have been Chief Secretary for Ireland in his day must address himself to such a subject as this with a certain amount of disability, for he lays himself open to the charge "Why did you not do something yourself? "My excuse, if not my justification, is twofold. The hon. Member for East Mayo referred somewhat pointedly to a speech I made two years ago, in which I stated that in my opinion there is a great and growing disparity between the opportunities for education enjoyed by Ireland and those enjoyed by England. The hon. Member for North Camberwell later expressed his opinion that if that disparity is to be diminished we ought in Ireland to begin by way of primary education and not by way of the University. For my own part I take the opposite view, and the view which I stated two years ago is the view I hold now. Time will not admit of my proving that there is a great and growing disparity between the opportunities for education in Ireland and in England. As a Unionist, the temptation is for me to gloss over that fact. My second argument is that while I was in Ireland three separate investigations upon education were conducted and no one who read those three separate reports can
  708
  doubt this great disparity between the opportunities in the two countries. The hon. Member for North Camberwell said he preferred building up from the foundation. This metaphor drawn from architecture is altogether out of place in talking of education. Education must always start from the University. England enjoyed the advantages of University education for a thousand years before we thought of elementary education. If education is given by men who know what education is, that is to say, by men who have had the advantage of a University training themselves, then the advantage of that education will flow down and irrigate all ranks of life in Ireland, and I should expect greater things of intermediate and primary education. But until the opportunities for University education in Ireland are greater, it is wasting money to spend more upon the primary and intermediate systems. The hon. Member for North Camberwell dealt with primary education, but his arguments were directed more to matters of finance and not education, for he spoke of the school houses in Ireland not being good enough, and the teachers not being adequate for the needs of the schools. But that is not a question of education. As to primary education, which is acceptable to the people of Ireland it is cheap, but it is not good education. The intermediate education is not acceptable to the people of Ireland, and it is dear and bad. As to University education, I believe that that which may be obtained at Trinity College is very good, but it is not cheap and it is unacceptable to a great number of people in Ireland. In saying that I do not utter a word of criticism on Trinity College, which is a sort of sister to Oxford and Cambridge. Such a fountain of higher learning ought to be a source of national pride to any country, but it doss not follow that it meets the needs of the great majority of the population. I will accordingly leave Trinity College out of what I am going to say, with my best wishes that it may in the future produce great Irishmen who will reflect great honour upon their country. The disparity to which I have referred is more obvious in respect of higher education than of intermediate or primary education. In England, besides Oxford and

  709
  Cambridge, there are a number of Universities of another type. You have a multiplication of Univers ties at Liverpool Manchester, Glasgow, and Sheffield, which administer to local sentiments and local needs. I hold as strongly as ever I did that the great need of Irish education at the present moment is that Ireland should receive facilities such as are afforded in England by Universities like those of Birmingham, Live pool, Sheffield, Glasgow, and Edinburgh. That is not an object which need evoke either religious or political contention. Would it injure Trinity College? If these needs, which are different from the needs supplied by Trinity College, are satisfied, that feud will be appeased, and I believe more Irish Catholics would go to Trinity, because the men who require that class of education will not be abandoning the cause of the men who require University education of another type. I think it would improve Trinity College, and I do not think any injury would be done to the existing colleges where undenominational education is given. I think they would be improved. As has been pointed out, undenominational education has been tried and has failed everywhere except in Belfast. Mixed education has been tried at Trinity College, and has succeeded only partially. The problem is to provide in other parts of Ireland an education which is acceptable because it is denominational and within the means of those who sought to obtain it. That is a practical question, not a political or religious question. The plea for denominational education in my opinion becomes stronger the higher the grade of education. In elementary education, which is confined perhaps to reading, writing and arithmetic, a strong case can be made out for even secularisation, but when you come to the higher branches of learning it is only fair that the son of any parent should have the denominational view as well as other views of religion and philosophy placed before him. Hon. Gentleman opposite desire that education should be undenominational. But unless the education provided is acceptable and within the people's means there will be no higher education in Ireland in adequate quantity, and intermediate
  710
  and primary education will be largely wasted. If the Chief Secretary attempts to deal with the question of Irish education I will do my best not to embarrass him either by what I say or by what I leave unsaid.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The debate has covered so wide a range that it will be impossible for me to deal with all the points which have been raised in the limited time at my disposal. The debate has been remarkable for some eloquent contributions from hon. Members who I hope will often join in our debates. Let me express first of all the pleasure with which I am sure we all listened to the vigorous and luminous speech of the hon. Member for North Galway. Let me also express my admiration of the speech made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University, a maiden speech which I have seldom heard equalled in this House, for it was remarkable not only for its elevation of tone, but also for its singular beauty. It is extremely difficult for me to-night to attempt to cover such a wide field, I and I must apologise for my imperfect knowledge of many of the subjects which have been brought forward. I? have endeavoured since I took office to acquire some knowledge of the extremely difficult and complicated system of education in Ireland. Perhaps the best thing I can do under the circumstances is to deal briefly with the points raised, and then pass on and express my views on the general question of education in Ireland. The first and certainly one of the most important is the question of teachers' salaries. There is no doubt that the salaries of teachers are inadequate. They are, as the hon. Member for North Camber-well pointed out, very much below the salaries of teacher in England and Scotland. That is largely due to a fact to which I shall presently advert—the small size of the schools. The schools in Ireland are very much smaller than the schools in England and Scotland. It is the more regrettable on account of that excellence of the Irish teachers to which the hon. Member for North Camberwell referred. Some years ago I had

  711
  occasion, as a member of a Royal Commission, to inquire into the endowed schools of England, and I found that a number of Irish teachers were employed in them, and I was much struck with the excellence of their work. I was told how glad the people there were to get teachers from Ireland. It was because they had the art of throwing sympathy into their work, and getting the best work out of their pupils. The result is that the best Irish teachers are apt to be drawn away to England, as they can get better salaries and better chances of promotion there. Complaints have also been made as to the system under which money is awarded to Ireland under the Equivalent Grant, and the way in which money is taken from Ireland out of the Irish Development Grant instead of being taken from the National Exchequer. It would be quite impossible for me to enter into that dark labyrinth of the relation of Irish finance to the Imperial Treasury, and especially the relation of the Imperial Treasury to Irish education. Successive Irish and British Governments in the course of the last fifty years have tied a series of knots which it is almost impossible to unravel, and I do not see that anything short of systematic inquiry can clear up the difficulties. I can assure the House that light must be let into it, and that the whole of the relations of the British Treasury to the Irish educational system requires, I think, to be made more intelligible, more practical, and more conducive to the benefit of Irish education than they are at the present moment. As regards the question of salaries and pensions I must be content for the moment to say that I fully admit the teachers have a case for consideration. It does not rest with me, as the House knows, to grant the demand. These demands have practically to be settled between the National Board and the Treasury, and the Irish Government is somewhat in the position of Bismarck's honest broker between these two authorities. But the Irish Government will give a sympathetic support to the National Board in all it may do to obtain funds for educational purposes. I pass from that to the question of building grants. There also, no doubt, there has been a great and
  712
  regrettable delay. It happened very unfortunately that the matter was on the point of being settled when the late Government went out of office, and for two months after that it was impossible for the present Government to take it up effectively. I am glad to say, however, that an arrangement is on the eve of being made which I hope will put the matter on a better footing, and on the Estimates of this year there is a grant of £35,000 proposed for school buildings, and of that £5,000 is to be free to be applied in any way outside pre-existing arrangements to which the National Board may wish to have it applied. It is estimated that not more than that £35,000 can be practically applied within the coming financial year. At the end of that year, of course, further grants will have to be made, and I will do my best to see that those grants meet what I admit to be urgent and pressing needs.
  Reference was made by the hon. Member for East Kerry to the rule which goes by the name of 127b. I cannot attempt to enter into detail in regard to that. That is a rule which is intended to secure that the education of tender children shall be chiefly conducted by mistresses. That is a point on which all educational experience in England, Scotland, on the Continent, and above all in the United States is in favour, namely, of having that education conducted by women, and I cannot believe that Ireland is an exception to the experience of other nations. The hon. Member for East Kerry went out of his way to make an attack on Dr. Starkie. Dr. Starkie is one of the most able civil servants in Ireland and I do not think anyone doubts his ability. Even the hon. Member did not doubt his ability, but he complained that Dr. Starkie had read a paper in Belfast in which he exposed somewhat freely the existing defects in Irish education. In regard to his statement to the British Association, I do not think that as a patriotic Irishman Dr. Starkie was debarred from stating those facts merely because there were some visitors from England and Scotland present. I hope on the contrary that what Dr. Starkie said there will have the effect of making visitors from England and Scotland realise how much England and Scotland ought to do for Ireland in

  713
  educational matters. I may say the same thing with regard to what was said by Mr. Horace Plunkett, who, whatever opinion may be entertained as to the working of his department — a matter on which I do not enter now because it is going to be the subject of an inquiry—has certainly shown a warm and patriotic zeal for the material prosperity of his country. I pass to another question which was raised by the hon. Member for Kerry and was also touched upon by the hon. Member for North Camberwell—the civil rights of teachers. The hon. Member for North Camberwell read a number of rules which restrict the actions which Irish teachers may take in regard to going to political meetings and taking part in political controversies. It must be remembered that school teachers in Ireland are members of the Civil Service to a greater extent than they can be said to be either in England or Scotland. They are all paid by the State. I do not therefore think they can expect to have quite the same freedom as ordinary private citizens of taking part in politics, because everybody knows that civil servants in England do not take the same part that ordinary private citizens do. But the rules, though unduly stringent, are in point of fact not enforced. Teachers in Ireland enjoy a good deal more practical freedom than might be gathered from the statement made by the hon. Member for East Kerry.
  MR. MURPHYindicated dissent.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not know the nature of the case referred to by the hon. Member, but, of course, it can easily be understood that for a teacher to be concerned in the local government of the area where he is a teacher might be open to some difficulty. But not knowing the particulars of the case, or how far that principle finds application in it, I cannot say more.
  Let me say a word about the Gaelic language. I am entirely in sympathy with the desire to promote the study of the Irish tongue. I think it impossible to suppose that it can ever encroach on the study of English. It is the duty of the education authorities not to infringe on the study of the necessary subjects of elementary instruction, but, subject to that, I believe it to be a good thing
  714
  for the Irish people that they should take a patriotic interest in their own tongue, which is ennobled by a rich and very interesting literature, with a peculiar imaginative quality of its own, and is associated in their minds with the traditions of their country, which I hope they all desire that they should cherish. I look upon the Gaelic revival with nothing but sympathy, and I hope that such provisions may be made as will give encouragement to the study of Irish in the Irish schools. I do not think that the plan under which the Irish language was taught was satisfactory. I do not think it gave satisfactory results, and I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject of framing a plan which I hope will give due encouragement to the teaching of the language, and be attended with satisfactory results. The Treasury has received in a sympathetic spirit the proposals I have made to them: I hope to be able before long to announce the result of these negotiations.
  Some reference has also been made to the grants made by the Intermediate Education Board. It is quite true that these grants had to be cut down, and I sympathised with the hon. Member for North Galway when he said it was a little hard that the only way in which Irishmen could get education was by drinking more. It is particularly hard because the more education you get the less you want to drink. I am told that the study of Irish and the influence of the Gaelic League has been everywhere accompanied by a diminution in intemperance. I think the subject of the grants by the Intermediate Education Board does require to be inquired into. I agree also that the cost of administration in connection with that Board is a great deal too high. It is an extravagant proportion of the total funds at its disposal to spend so large a sum as £20,000 in the actual work of administration and examination.
  These are only a few of the many points on which I should have liked to dwell in detail. I think I shall do better to pass to some general considerations. Let me state briefly what seem to be the salient defects in Irish education at present. I am afraid I must say of Irish education, on a survey of it as a whole

  715
  what Mephistopheles said in Goethe's Faust about human nature—Ich finde es herzlich, schlecht ("I find it heartily bad.") There is no branch of Irish education which can be pronounced to be satisfactory. I begin with the defects of primary education. The Irish schools are much too small, and the payments to the teacher are low partly because the schools are so small. In Ireland there are 9,000 primary schools, and in England, 30,000, but the proportion to the population of Ireland and the population of England is one-seventh. There are more than three-fifths of the primary schools in Ireland where the average attendance is less than fifty. Of course it is impossible that these small schools should pay such good salaries or give such efficient instruction as larger schools. The number of schools in Ireland with only one teacher is inordinately large, and it is in consequence of that that there has been so little promotion and so very little relation between the size of the school and the teacher's pay. A school with an attendance not exceeding fifty pays to the teacher as much as an English teacher receives, but an Irish teacher in a larger school, with greater work, and where there ought to be promotion, is paid very much worse than an English teacher. The report of the Commissioners on National Education of 1901 shows that the smallness of the schools in Ireland is due mainly to two causes which certainly ought to be removed. One is that the population is sparse in the country districts, and the other is the objection on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy to boys and girls being taught together, and the disinclination of the various denominaations to use each other's schools. In the north of Ireland most of those small schools owe their origin to the claims of the various Protestant denominations to have schools provided at the cost of the State for each of them. The amalgamation of the schools is desirable so that there may be two teachers in each. I refer particularly to the existence of small Protestant schools maintained by different denominations in the north of Ireland. I understand, but I do not argue at this moment, why Protestant and Catholics desire to have separate
  716
  schools. We shall hear more than enough of that before long, but with regard to the different Protestant denominations —Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Methodist, and so on—what possible reason is there why they should keep up separate schools? It is the sheerest waste of labour and money. I respectfully appeal to hon. Members from the north of Ireland, some Presbyterian and some Episcopalian, to consider whether they cannot induce the members of their respective denominations to get rid of this waste of labour and waste of money.
  Now I come to the case of buildings. It is one great evil in the Irish schools that the buildings are so inferior, and the matter is more serious than has been mentioned in the House. One result of the insanitary buildings is that when any epidemic disease breaks out all the children in the school take it at once, and these epidemics break out far more frequently than in English and Scotch schools. The consequence is that the work of the school is disorganised, much time is lost, and the educational results obtained in the year are perhaps only half what they should be. That brings me to another branch of the school system—the irregular attendance and the want of compulsion. There is a very partial compulsion in Ireland under the Act of 1892. Under that Act school attendance committees were appointed, but compulsion was very imperfectly applied. Not only is attendance extremely irregular, but the hours are short. I remember that I as a boy, I am sorry to say, went to school at nine o'clock and continued there until two or three. We got at least five hours good hard schooling every day. That was in Scotland. But in some Irish schools the children do not attend until half-past ten or eleven o'clock, and leave at two, the average of school time being two and-half or three hours. [Cries of "No, no."] I do not say it is the case everywhere, but it is so in many instances. Add to this the irregular attendances, and the interruptions from epidemics, and it is quite plain how educational results have been comparatively poor. [An HON. MEMBER: Long distances.] Yes, no doubt the difficulties are great, and it is a country where, I think, the people do not get up so early as they ought to do. But these are curable defects, and they would be largely

  717
  remedied if the education was better, the schools more comfortable and attractive, and the teachers had greater encouragement. There is another great defect which militates against the efforts of the best teachers in Ireland. There is a want of local interest and local co-operation which when it exists does very much for schools, and which certainly has been one of the principal causes of the excellent results obtained in Scotland and England. I do not say anything against the managers of the Irish schools. Many of them, I think, have a difficult task. They stand alone in districts in the north and the south in communities where the doctor and the priest are almost the only educated men. The priest in many cases makes the best efforts in his power to bring the children to school. I have had a great deal of testimony as to the effort which the priests make, and as to the support they give to the schoolmasters, but, of course, it is a great drawback not to have an active local public opinion. One of the best things that could be done for the schools of Ireland would be to create something like a body of local managers, or something like local government which would endeavour to give an interest in the school. I am well aware of the enormous difficulty of the task. I am prescribing this as a counsel of perfection. I cannot say that at present I see my way to perfect such a scheme. It has been constantly suggested that the schools ought to be supported out of the local rates, but having regard to the poverty of Ireland it would be very difficult to impose on the local rates a burden equivalent to the school rates in England, and unless you have local contributions you lack one of the most powerful motives for bringing in the people to assist in the work of the schools. I do not despair of some remedy, but I do not think it can be done by any legislation which can be proposed to this Parliament. It must also I think be added that the centralisation of Irish education, the practice of referring everything to the National Board which appoints and pays the teachers, has an unfortunate effect on the system. A highly centralised system of that kind is obliged to become rigid; it cannot have the flexibility of the English and (Scottish systems. Therefore I should not only like to see the people associated with the work, but I should
  718
  wish for less centralisation than we have at the present time.
  Now I pass to intermediate education. It fulfils one of the most important functions in the country. It ought to provide for the whole of secondary education. What is the Board of Intermediate Education? It is only an examining body awarding grants to schools and pupils on the results of passes—in other words it, holds out prizes which can be obtained by crammers, and which I am afraid are very often obtained by crammers. That is the fault not of the board, but of the legislation which called the system into existence, and the system is utterly wrong. What you want to do is to foster the schools, to encourage the best teachers, and to give them the benefit of enlightened inspection. It is also completely disjoined from technical education, which is under the Agricultural Department. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo as to the danger of setting children to work on technical subjects when they are only imperfectly grounded in primary subjects and the earlier part of secondary education. I desire nothing more than to see a complete review of technical instruction as given in Ireland in order to bring it into proper relation to primary and secondary education, and to see that it is not commenced to be given until pupils are properly fitted to receive it.
  From this I come to University education, upon which a good deal of our time has been occupied during the discussion. There has been a universal consensus of opinion that the system in Ireland is altogether unsatisfactory. There are not two opinions upon that. The Royal University has been severely condemned, and I would be the last to differ from the general opinion, for in 1880, when the last step was taken to destroy the old Queen's University and to substitute the Royal University, I was almost the only person who opposed the scheme, maintaining that it would necessarily have the results which experience has shown it has had. The most effective condemnation has been given by the Royal University itself, which has recently passed a resolution with unanimity saying that experience had shown that as an examining board it was entirely unsatisfactory and that it ought to be turned into a teaching University.

  719
  Many appeals have been made as to what could be done for University education in Ireland. I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to make any statement on that subject, and for two reasons. In the first place, the Government have not yet been long enough in office since the general election to enable them to formulate a policy upon a subject of such confused difficulty; and, in the second place, they feel and everybody feels that this is a case in which there is no use proposing a scheme until they have reasonable prospect of carrying it. The shore is strewn with the wrecks of previous attempts to deal with this question. We all remember the famous attempt of Mr. Gladstone in 1873, the attempt made when the Royal University was created, which is admitted now to be a failure; then there was the attempt made by the Leader of the Opposition seven or eight years ago when he was on the brink of launching a new Irish University scheme, but was obliged to abandon it because he could not obtain sufficient support; and we all remember that three years ago the right hon. Member for Dover was also on the brink of launching a scheme, but recoiled from the difficulties before his path. With these warnings before us, I think the House will see that it would not be prudent for any Government to propose a scheme until they were assured that the scheme had some chance of being accepted and carried. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in thinking that this is a reform which ought to be effected, I will not say with the general consent of all Parties, for that is too much to expect, but with the support of different elements of public opinion in the country which would enable the Government to carry it through. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that this subject is engaging the constant attention of the Government. I do not despair. I hope it may be found possible to reconcile the conflicting views which have caused so long and lamentable a delay. I quite agree in the urgency of the case, and I subscribe to the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge University about the supreme importance of Ireland's having University education. I believe that nothing would do more to pacify men's minds in Ireland,
  720
  and also to enable Irishmen to work out in the best and wisest way any scheme of self-government that may be entrusted to them. Therefore, I can assure the House that this subject will not be lost sight of for a moment.
  Having endeavoured to show what are the chief difficulties of the existing system, I hope I may be permitted to pass now to the reforms that can be introduced. I have been a little disappointed at the absence of practical suggestions. The evils of the existing system have been pointed out, but I have had no suggestions which I can submit to the Irish National Board of Education for carrying out reforms. I will enumerate some which occur to me. One is the consolidation of the small schools. Another is the improvement of school buildings. A third is the association of the people in the locality with the work of the school. A fourth is the improvement of the attendance, and, if possible, an attempt to make the so-called compulsory system more effective. I am not saying that these things are easy. But they ought to be done if they can be done, and some day they will have to be clone. Another reform is the union in one system of primary and secondary education. No one can look at Irish Education without feeling that the National Board and the Intermediate Board ought to be consolidated, and technical education ought to be brought into better organic relation with primary and secondary education. At present there does not exist in Ireland the means, which has so long existed in Scotland, of enabling promising children to rise from the primary schools through the secondary schools to the Universities. That is one of the very first things to be done, and I do not see how it can be done while we have the control of primary and secondary education placed under different bodies. We want one education department for Ireland, but how are we to get that? If we were to create an education department for Ireland like the English Education Department and place it under the control of the Irish Government, it would be said that we were bringing another thing into the Castle, and all the prejudice which is supposed to attach to the Castle would immediately attach to the education department. That prejudice is, I think,

  721
  not altogether deserved, for there are in Dublin Castle a great many able and competent men. But I entirely understand that point of view, and I do not say that I have not some sympathy with it. It may be said, Why not have an elected responsible body? But how can you create an elected responsible body in Ireland for education only? If you go so far as that you will have to go a great deal further. [" Hear, hear," from the IRISH Benches, and cries of "Home Rule."] That at once raises the whole problem. And if I were to suggest what would seem to be one of the most obvious remedies, and bring this Irish education department under the control of the Irish Government, there would be great objections to that. Hon. Members from England and Scotland do not know that the Irish Government has no control over the board of education. All that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary can do is to disallow certain rules from having immediate effect. And in regard to the Intermediate Education Board we have even less power. That brings me to the point that the want of money is one of the great difficulties in the way of effecting some of the most necessary reforms. I rather sympathise with the view of Irish Members that it is a pity to draw on the Development Grant except for the purposes of education. It was rather unfortunate that it was drawn upon for other purposes, though these were at the time important and urgent. All I can do is to plead for a liberal treatment of Irish education, for without more money I do not suppose much more can be done than at present. But another difficulty is the great division of opinion that prevails in regard to education and which makes the matter more interlaced with the religious controversy than it is in England. There is hardly a branch of education into which some element of political or religious controversy may not enter. And therefore one asks, when one comes to consider what ought to be done in Ireland, what is the public opinion to which we are to appeal? In England we can appeal to public opinion and get a pretty fair judgment) but in Ireland it is a great deal more difficult to learn, because, owing to the want of local government, owing to the whole
  722
  history of Ireland, public opinion is not accustomed to express itself with the same fulness and freedom on all these questions apart from politics that it does in England. And yet we can do nothing in Ireland without having public opinion behind us. Then, how are we to effect these reforms? The most obvious thing would be to pass legislation in the Imperial Parliament. I suppose I shall be told by some Members of the House that legislation in the Imperial Parliament upon a purely Irish subject would be received, rightly or wrongly, with a certain measure of suspicion. It will be said, and said with truth, that the Imperial Parliament does not know the facts, and it will be asked how can the Imperial Parliament legislate for Ireland knowing so little about the conditions of Ireland? It may be said, why should not the Imperial Parliament pass such legislation as the Irish Members ask them to pass? Well, but the Imperial Parliament does not want to legislate in the dark, and I do not know that it can be expected to do so. I do not think it is fair to ask English Members to vote blindly upon very important questions, and perhaps be ruled by the opinions of the Irish Members, without knowing about the facts with which they are faced. We would not dream of legislating in this Parliament for India, and yet there are many branches of Irish administration and many facts in Irish society, facts social and moral, about which the average English Member does not know much more than he does about India. Scotland is practically allowed to legislate for herself, and if I were asked why, I should say—study the history of Ireland and Scotland since the succession of the Hanoverian dynasty. I will frankly say that I do not think that Irish opinion is by any means ripe for all the reforms which higher education needs, and I am certain that there are some things which ought to be done for Irish education which Irish opinion would not dictate. Yet I would be very sorry to impose those reforms on Ireland by the superior will and strength of Parliament. I think that the reforms when they come ought to be willingly accepted by the people of Ireland. I need not draw the moral. Those who follow Irish affairs

  723
  there will find a great many opportunities of applying the morals which I have endeavoured to set before the House.
  I do not despair of the position. The first thing needed by any one who proposes to administer Ireland is an abundant stock of optimism, and I would be very sorry to preach counsels of despair. After all, things were a great deal worse in many respects in Ireland fifty or 100 years ago, and I do not see why the progress attained in other directions should not be attained in education also. There are some things that I hope we may begin upon at once. I hope that we may begin to improve the position of teachers and the state of the schools, and also to consider by what means the different education authorities may be consolidated. But there are other things which I can not hold out much hope will be done at once by legislation in this House. But I do not see any reason why with good will and a spirit of compromise on all sides something should not be done to settle the problem of University education. At all events it is always something that we should know what the defects are and what are the difficulties which we have to confront. The great trouble in Ireland has been that she has so long been governed on a sort of hand-to-mouth policy and by temporary expedients. The question of education is certainly for Ireland of supreme importance, whether you begin its reform at the top or the bottom. Ireland has a damp climate unfavourable to arable cultivation. She is very imperfectly supplied with rich mineral deposits which have done so much for the prosperity of England and Scotland; and consequently, owing to the unhappy history of the last three centuries, she has fallen behind her sister countries of England and Scotland. But she has one great asset and that is the intellectual capacity of her people, I believe that there is no people in Europe more fond of learning, more anxious for knowledge, or with a readier intelligence than the Irish. Is it not tragic that so little use has been made of this aptitude? There is an Irish legend that off the coast of Clare lay a happy and beautiful island which once a year was visible
  724
  above the waste of the Atlantic, but which the people could never approach. That is the symbol of the possibilities that are denied to Ireland by the present waste of her great intellectual capacity. That capacity it should be one of the first objects of statesmanship to develop as far as possible. It is the duty of this country to give the natural gifts of the Irish people, from which she has reaped so much advantage, their fitting training and due opportunity; and any efforts so made or money so spent would be for the common good of Great Britain and Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: We ought to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very frank and fair statement that he has made to the House. At the same time, those who have listened to the right hon. Gentleman must have come to the conclusion that the debate has not brought much nearer the realisations of those hopes that have been expressed that evening. The right hon. Gentleman has approached the main question with benevolence, but he has not held out any hope of its immediate solution.
  MR. BRYCE: I guarded myself against making any statement for the present; but I said nothing about the future.
  MR. WALTER LONG: At present there is no answer to be made; and I think that that is a justification of the view taken by the hon. Member for North Camberwell. My right hon. friend the Member for Dover says that the only way is to deal with the University question first, but I submit that we must deal with facts as we find them, and it would be a disaster for Ireland if, owing to the difficulties of dealing with the University question, action in regard to elementary and intermediate education, which are of the greatest possible importance, were to be postponed. It was with view to dealing with some of these difficulties in connection with intermediate education that I had arranged a conference of education authorities so as to prevent overlapping. Has that conference reported?
  MR. BRYCE: There was a Report, but I must confess that it did not seeem to carry the thing much further; and I am afraid that the system of co-operation will not get rid of the difficulties which arise from the existence of three independent authorities.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I think it would be within the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman to present the Report of that Conference to the House. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman defend Dr. Starkie and Sir Horace Plunkett. I had the honour to work with Dr. Starkie for some months, and I know that Dr. Starkie deserves the highest praise, as having at all times devoted himself to the cause of education with the single object of advancing education in Ireland. He may have taken a wrong course, but whether he was right or wrong his one object has always been the advancement of education in every way, and to that object he has devoted himself with rare industry and ability. As regards Sir Horace Plunkett, the right hon. Gentleman has defended him from a charge which never ought to have been brought against him, Whatever his failings may be, and, like everybody else, he no doubt has failings, nobody who knows him can doubt that he has spent his life in the service of Ireland without regard to personal advancement, advantage or popularity. In that course he has sacrificed the political career to which he might properly have looked forward, and in regard to his patronage, he has always acted in the most honourable and straightforward manner and bestowed it in such a way as to secure the best servants for the State. I think it is a great pity that any reflection should have been made upon one who has served his country so admirably. Something has been said as to what the late Government did with regard to the teaching of Irish in schools, and with regard to Rule 127 (b). I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in regard to both those subjects, because it has been said that the action of the late Government was intended to put an end to the teaching of Irish. That is not the case, and is not an accurate
  726
  representation of what we did, because Irish can still be taught in the schools in the ordinary way in ordinary school hours. What we did was this. An experiment had been tried under which a small sum was allowed by the Treasury for extra fees which are not paid in England, Scotland or Wales. They were, however, tried as an experiment in Ireland, and they grew to a very large amount. I found when I came to discuss this subject with my advisers what the right hon. Gentleman has said to-night, that while everybody who has any knowledge of Irish education is ready with criticism and condemnations, they are not ready with suggestions for the practical improvement of education. I found that one of the greatest difficulties in connection with Irish education was the number and smallness of schools. The problem I had to face was this: was it better to allow this controversy to go on in connection with the teaching of Irish, or was it not better to come to an arrangement with the Treasury under which the money which they grant for the Irish Development Grant should go to what is of infinitely more value, viz., that in our small mixed schools, where children vary from the age of fourteen to the infant there should be assistant mistresses who would be able to take over and train the small children, who could not unless they had these assistant mistresses possibly be trained at all? The late Irish Government, therefore, took the right course in the best interests of the children, and I believe that the alteration made in the Irish system will prove to be a real blessing to Irish education. As to rule 127(b), the action of the National Board of Education was approved on account of the information the Government were able to obtain that in every country, including America and the Roman Catholic schools in this country, the principle has been adopted. It was in the interest of education and it led to the better general training and education of Irish children. The Irish University question has been discussed with great moderation and a high elevation of tone. There have been suggestions, however that the opposition to the establishment of an Irish university is based on a narrow-minded prejudice and bigotry.

  727
  I believe that in the House, in the country, and in Ireland itself, a much wider division of opinion exists on this question than has been revealed by the debate. In fairness it ought to be allowed that those who view the question with doubt, apprehension, or direct opposition, base their views on grounds as just and right as those who advocate the establishment of such a university. It is not a question of bigotry. ["Oh."] Hon. Members below the grangway who say "oh" refuse to recognise the fact that on the Continent in other Roman Catholic countries this step has not been taken. What is the basis of their own demand? It is that Trinity College, Dublin, has, under the control of a Protestant body, become a great Protestant institution, and their own proposal is to establish a university in which the atmosphere shall be of a different kind. No one can rest content with the present condition of things. No one can say that the benefits of university training can for all time be denied to the great body of young Irishmen, but, nevertheless, all must feel that, if a solution is to be found, it can only be by concessions and advances made on both sides. I ask that there should be justice and fair play for those who have opposed this proposal, not because they take a narrow view of the situation, certainly not because they desire to do any injustice to their own Catholic fellow countrymen, but because they believe, upon educational grounds, that it is not a real advance and that any fresh provision ought to be on purely non-sectarian lines, and be governed by academic traditions. I put in this plea on behalf of many in Great Britain and Ireland who earnestly and conscientiously hold these views, who have an honest desire to deal with the question so that justice shall be' done to the young men who desire university advantages, but who nevertheless bold strong views based upon real convictions, views which will not be moved by attacks upon them on the ground that they are the product of prejudice, or passion, or narrow-mindedness. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his frank and fair speech, although I rather protest against the sting in the tail of it, in which he talked about
  728
  pointing the moral to his hon. friends behind him. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to me to take up a non possumus attitude and to say to his hon. friends—
  "I leave it to you; read the moral, and act accordingly."
  If that is so, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has taken quite a fair opportunity of preaching that doctrine to the House, because if he believes that Home Rule is the solution of all these difficulties let him have the courage of his opinions and put them to the test. If the right hon. Gentleman has no policy, let him not fall back on the Home Rule suggestion as the remedy to be taken failing the one he can present, and let him realise that, while it is easy to find fault with the present situation, the solution is one of intense difficulty. The Nationalist remedy for the situation is Home Rule. That is a proposal which will be resisted to the last by the Unionist Party; but if any practical scheme is put forward it will meet with neither factious nor unfair opposition.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he rose only to record the fact that to those who occupied the Nationalist benches the debate had been eminently satisfactory. He thought there was no reason to continue it. He thought the debate marked a milestone on the road of Irish progress. He appealed to his hon. friend to withdraw the amendment.
  MR. MURPHYsaid that after the remarks which had been made by his hon. friend he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he was anxious to raise some questions connected with the administration of the Home Office. He complained that the charge for licences to cab drivers in the Metropolis had been increased by half-a-crown. The number of men engaged in driving licensed vehicles for hire in the Metropolis was 30,000, and a good many of

  729
  them were his constituents. The Secretary of State on the 26th of December last year signed a document demanding from cab drivers an increased fee for their licences. At the last election it was said that the increase of the fee was due to the action of his right hon friend the late Home Secretary, but a little examination of the subject showed that the action of his right hon. friend was confined to that of making an inquiry and circulating a proposal for a new bylaw. The present Home Secretary on the eve of an election—and he did not hesitate to say that he had a very definite purpose—selected Boxing Day, when he might have been better employed, to increase the charge for licences issued to cab drivers in the Metropolis.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I rise to order, because the statement of the hon. Member is perfectly untrue.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: The statement is perfectly true, because I hold in my hands the document signed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member knows that I had to sign these orders, which had been drawn up by my predecessor, and which I found in print.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that if it were not open to the right hon. Gentleman to exercise his responsibility as a Minister in this matter, how was it that he issued instructions changing the operation of the Aliens Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I also had to sign the orders under that Act which I found in print, and after they had been working badly for some months I altered one of them.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was trying to mix up the Aliens Act with this matter. The present Government had a knack when it suited them of adopting the actions of their predecessors, and refusing to adopt them when it did not suit them. The right hon. Gentleman having signed the document increasing the licence fee allowed the Secretary to the Board of Education to write a letter in which he said that the late Home Secretary was responsible for the Order, and not the present Home Secretary, who signed it. Then there was the question of the Aliens Act. They had no explanation of why the limit in regard to the carrying of immigrants on ships had been raised from twelve to twenty, and it looked as if that action had been taken in order that the Home Secretary might defeat the statute and burden the poor in the East End of London with the keep of human beings who had been refused by every other civilised nation.
  Whereupon Mr. GEORGE WHITELEY rose in his place, and claimed to mover "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put accordingly, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1906–7.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do Report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee Report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged. Bill committed to the Select Committee on the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill.—(Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.)

  POST OFFICE (UNITED KINGDOM.
  Return ordered, "of the Post Offices, Sub-Post Offices, Telegraph Offices, and Public Telephone Call Offices, which are situated on licensed premises in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales respectively."—(Mr. Leif Jones.)
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
  MR. MADDISONdrew attention to a case which he said had arisen that day under the Aliens Act. A Russian Jew possessing only £2 10s. had been rejected at Gravesend by the officer. On reaching St. Katharine's Dock, the immigrant told his informant that he was a deserter from the Russian Army. Shortly afterwards, by some means or other, he contrived to escape, and at the time he received this information the man was at large, the police being in search of him. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make prompt inquiries into the case and cover this unfortunate man with all the protection that could be afforded him. The House would remember that three or four weeks ago an alien immigrant proved to be a deserter from the Russian Army, and it then turned out that he was afraid to tell the truth, as he thought it would mean at once his return
  732
  to Russia and probably certain death. This man, probably a comrade of the former one, followed the same tactics, with the result that he met the very serious fate of being rejected. He thought it was necessary to bring this matter before the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment, as it seemed a most serious thing to happen under British law. Russia was in a state of revolution, and while he candidly admitted that a large proportion of the refugees from Russia were Socialists with whom he was not in agreement, that made him the more anxious that those who came here for asylum in consequence of religious or political persecution should not be turned back. If there was one thing we prided ourselves upon, it was that this country had been the asylum of the victims of religious or political tyranny.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had no knowledge of the facts of the case, but he would at once make inquiries. If the man did not avail himself of his right of appeal, but escaped, he exposed himself to the penalties of the Act. He would make inquiries and communicate with the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LEIF JONESthought that the House was placed in a serious position in regard to this man, whom apparently the police were hunting with a view of punishing him. If they caught him he would be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, convicted as a rogue and vagabond and committed to prison. They were in this position, that a man who stated he was a deserter from the Russian army would be punished in our courts for having escaped from custody because he expected to be sent back to Russia. He thought it should be recognised that every deserter from the Russian army was a political refugee and should be so treated.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

EARL OF BESSBOROUGH.
Petition of Edward, Earl of Bessborough, in the Peerage of Ireland, and Baron Ponsonby of Syonsby in the Peerage of England, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Rugby Subordinate School Bill [H.L.], London Squares and Enclosures Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Churches Bill [H.L.]. Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
Fulwood Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the S Select Committee.
Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [H.L.]. A witness ordered to attend the Select Committee.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 1) Bill [H.L.] ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the First Schedule be amended by the omission of properties numbered 28, 29, 30, and 31 in the parish of St. Leonard, Hythe, and of the properties numbered 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 31 in the parish of Sandgate.
Read, and agreed to.
Fulwood Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill.
514
Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 8th and 13th instant discharged, and Bill committed.
Scottish Union and National Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]; read 2a, and committed.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]; read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [H.L.], Folkestone, Sandgate, and Hythe Tramways (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]; read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Thames Deep Water Dock (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Order of the day for the Second Reading discharged. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
Manchester Churches Bill [H.L.]; read 2a (according to order), and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION.
  Petitions in favour of denominational religious education in schools; of teachers and parents and guardians of children in Yealand Conyers National School; St. Peters, Oldham; Smithhills Dean; Ellesmere School; Little Hutton, St. John Baptist; Crawshawbooth National School; Lower Darwen St. James Guide; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 482. St. Lucia (Report for 1904).
  CHARITY COMMISSION.
  Fifty-third Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  General Abstract of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England and Wales in the year 1905.
  TRANSVAAL AND ORANGE RIVER COLONY.
  Letter of instructions to the Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire and report upon certain matters connected with the future constitutions of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended December 31st, 1905, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871); together with the reports of inspecting officers, assistant inspecting officers, and sub-inspectors of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into. Part I. Returns of accidents.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) ACT, 1879.
  Irish Teachers Pension Rules, 1906.

  SUPERANUATION.
  1. Treasury Minute, dated March 15th, 1906, declaring Aden and its vicinity an unhealthy district for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts, 1859 and 1876.
  2. Treasury Minute, dated March 15th, 1906, modifying Treasury Minute of May 27th, 1884, as to addition of years for purpose of pension to actual length of service of persons appointed to the office of clerk of the Upper Division in the Charity Commission.

  NATIONAL DEBT ANNUITIES.
  Account of the gross amount of all bank annuities and any annuities for terms of years, transferred, and of all sums of money paid to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and the gross amount of annuities for lives and for terms of years which have been granted for the same, and contracts for payments on death which have been made within the year ended January 5th, 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.] (No. 32).
  A Bill to provide for the appointment of a public trustee, to amend the Judicial Trustees Act, 1896, and otherwise to amend the law relating to the administration of trusts.

  CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [H.L.] (No. 33).
  A Bill to amend the law respecting appeals in criminal cases.
  Were presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.

  LORD TWEEDMOUTH AND CHINESE LABOUR.
  The EARL of DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, I would like, with your Lordships' permission, to put to him a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, to ask whether the account, at page 7 of The Times of March 21st last, of a speech delivered by him at the Hotel Great Central Marylebone Road, on the previous evening is correct in attributing to him the statement that "the Chinaman did not, as was claimed by the late Government, come to South Africa of his own free will;" and to ask, if this account is incorrect, in what way it should be corrected.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My

  517
  Lords, the report from which my noble friend quotes is not a verbatim one, and a negative has got into it which absolutely reverses my intended meaning. The passage that the noble Lord quoted should have read—
  "The Chinaman, it was claimed by the late Government, came to South Africa of his own free will, and in future, when in South Africa, if he wished to go back and had not the money in his own pocket, this country would find it for him. That removed some of the taint attached to the system."
  I stated that the late Government had said that they secured to the Chinaman a free choice of going to South Africa, and my argument simply was this, that the present; Government had complemented that, and affirmed it, and strengthened it by also making it perfectly open to the Chinaman, when he got to South Africa and found what his conditions of labour were, to return to China if he wished, and I said that if he had not the money to return at his own expense this country was prepared to find it. In order to confirm the statement I have just made I may quote from another newspaper, which gave what I said in this way—
  "Not only did the Chinaman go to South Africa of his own free will, but in future, if he wished to go back and had not the money, we in this country would find the money for him."

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN INQUIRY.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I have to inform the House that the Committee which is to proceed to South Africa has now been appointed. The members will be Sir West Ridgeway, who will be chairman, Lord Sandhurst, Sir Francis Hopwood, and Colonel Johnston. I propose to have laid on the Table the letter of instructions to the Committee.

  THE STANDING ORDERS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, it has been the practice to confine the Committee of Selection to four Peers besides the Chairman of Committees. I have often felt that that is rather a small number, and that it would be
  518
  desirable to add to the Committee a certain number of Peers who are accustomed to work on Private Bill Committees and also the Leaders on both sides of the House, for I think it is very desirable that they should be made acquainted with the services which noble Lords render upon Select Committees, as to which now I think a great deal of ignorance prevails. I therefore ask your Lordships to amend the Standing Orders, and in due course I shall move to add a certain number of noble Lords to the Committee of Selection. I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name be agreed to.
  Moved, that the Standing Orders be amended as follows: 97. The Chairman of Committees and such other Lords as shall be named by the House shall be appointed a Committe to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Local Bill or Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, and shall appoint the Chair man of such Committee, and shall name the Bill or Bills which shall be taken into consideration on the first or any later day of meeting of such Committee. If a vacancy occur in any such Select Committee in the interval between any two sittings of the House, the Chairman of Committees may appoint a Lord to fill such vacancy, and in such case shall report the same to the House at the next sitting—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to. Standing Order amended accordingly to be printed as amended (No. 34.)

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, in asking you to give a Second Reading to this Bill I shall not detain your Lordships long, for it is in the main the same Bill that your Lordships passed last year after it had been referred to a Select

  519
  Committee. The two principal objects of the Bill are (1) to promote and encourage the construction of suitable dwellings of a certain type for the working classes, cottages that are detached or semi-detached, and to free them from some very onerous and, I think I may almost say, tyrannical conditions which, originally intended and suitable for the crowded streets of cities, are now imposed on anyone building cottages of any kind in totally rural districts; and (2) to attempt to provide a solution, easy, cheap, and expeditious, in cases where difficulties arise between would-be builders and local authorities as to the construction, meaning, and interpretation of the by-laws. At present there is no such means of a friendly or amicable solution, and the consequence is that a considerable amount of litigation has taken place all over the country, and a great deal of public and private money has been needlessly wasted and consequent friction and ill-feeling has been caused.
  Twelve months ago the question might, I think, have been fairly asked whether there was any demand for legislation of this kind; whether the grievances which it hopes to meet were of such a character that legislation was necessary; whether the existing building by-laws did, as a matter of fact, check, hinder, and stop building in rural districts; and whether public and private funds were being wasted and frittered away in unnecessary litigation in the matter. But I think that since the debate which took place last year in this House on the Bill that I then had the honour of introducing, and especially since the publication of the evidence that was given before the Select Committee, there cannot be any difficulty in answering all those questions in the affirmative; and I should like, on behalf of the supporters of this Bill and those who feel interested in these topics, to take this opportunity of expressing our best thanks to the noble Marquess the late Leader of this House for having granted that Select Committee, whose evidence has enabled the public to see how widespread and almost universal in country districts are the evils of which I have complained.
  With reference to that point, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to refer to
  520
  the report of the special committee appointed by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to deal with the question of rural building by-laws, which was presented to the Council of the Central Chamber of Agriculture on February 6th last; The committee stated that they had held seven meetings, that they had examined a number of witnesses, and that they would have carried the inquiry much further but for the evidence that was given before the Select Committee of your Lordships' House last year. The committee added that they were deeply impressed by the magnitude of the interests at stake, and that to encourage the erection of cheap and suitable dwellings we required a great deal of elasticity, a quality not to be found in the existing by-laws. They stated that on the proper lodging of the agricultural population depended to a great extent the solution of the problem of the migration of the agricultural population to towns. I think that such evidence from a totally independent body, and one so important, will carry some weight with your Lordships.
  I quoted a great number of cases last year from different parts on the country in which specific grievances occurred, and I have no intention of wearying your Lordships by travelling over the same ground again. I quoted instances where by-laws forbade any materials being used for buildings except brick and stone. As your Lordships may perhaps be aware in many villages in Wiltshire there are excellent cottages built of chalk. This provision would have ruled such cottages out. It would have ruled out any attempt at utilising cement and other material. It would have ruled out all the wooden cottages of the south of England. In fact, the only materials in many cases allowed—they make no exception whatever—are brick and stone. Then, again, I quoted to your Lordships cases where cottages were not allowed to be built because the plans indicated that in one or two bedrooms the mathematical proportion of the window space to the floor space did not correspond to what was laid down in the building by-laws; and the result—the very absurd result—of that was that by reducing the size of the bedrooms in the intended cottages they would comply with the

  521
  by-laws, whereas if they were left larger and better bedrooms, as intended by the builders, they would not comply, and sanction was refused. There are also cases where plans have been rejected because at every point of the ceiling of the attic rooms, by six inches, or even perhaps by so minute a quantity as three inches, the height did not correspond to what was indicated in the bylaws. These cases I brought before your Lordships last year as showing the great difficulties with regard to the present by-laws, and that they all tended to increase the expense of building.
  In bringing forward this measure I do not urge it on your Lordships' acceptance from the point of view of the landowners and builders. I urge it chiefly on behalf of the working people who are to inhabit these cottages because, as your Lordships are perfectly aware, the more expensive the building is the higher must the rent tend to become, and the sufferers are not so much the landowners and the builders as the people who have to live in these cottages. I think that perhaps the principal grievance of all is that there is no court of appeal, no jurisdiction to which would-be builders can appeal to decide on any difficulty that arises between them and the local authorities. I wish to rest my case rather on general grievances, but I should like just to read a few lines from a letter received from the agent of a large landowner in the north of England. Writing from Wakefield, under date 16th March, he says—
  "Here we cannot build a coal-house even, or add on to a farm building, without having to get out plans of the fullest description for submission to the authorities. The erection of a wooden building to protect a wheelbarrow would be illegal. …. Lord St. Oswald was able to erect a shed at his colliery works without reference to anybody, they being exempt; but he could not erect a small building in connection with his farm without the necessity of preparing elaborate plans."
  I should like to refer to the evidence of one witness. Mr. Munro, one of the principal officers of the Local Government Board, was a witness before us; and, in answer to a question whether under the existing law he considered hardships were entailed, he said—
  "Oh, yes, of course there will always be hardships under the existing law."
  522
  "Hard cases," I think was the exact expression he used. I venture to think that the words of that gentleman are alone sufficient justification for an attempt at legislation on this point.
  If hard cases are brought before Parliament in which Chinamen or Russian Jews are concerned, Parliament makes it its business to inquire into them and to endeavour to redress those grievances; and I think I may claim that it is equally the duty of Parliament to examine and, if possible, redress hard cases in which British workmen's interests are concerned, for, as I said just now, this legislation is really not attempted on behalf of landowners or builders of cottages, but in the hope of being able to ensure British workmen a constant provision of good and suitable buildings. I think I am not going too far in saying that the evidence which was elicited before the Select Committee last year showed that in consequence of the tyranny and absurdity of some of the building by-laws landowners and cottage builders were in many districts holding their hands and refusing at present to go on building. There was a case from Lincolnshire in which we were told that a number of gentleman had determined to cease building any more cottages until some reform was made in the building by-laws.
  I will endeavour to anticipate three arguments that may be, or might be, brought against legislation of this character. The first argument is that if you pass a measure of this kind you will let in the jerry builder: that very poor cottages of unsuitable character will be built. I do not think that this Bill will give the jerry builder any greater opportunities than he at present enjoys. Your Lordships will observe that the Bill only applies to detached and semi-detached cottages; and, as we all know, the jerry builder is in the habit of acquiring a small piece of land and building upon it a row or terrace of houses. In cases of that kind the Bill would not apply. Further, my Lords, the exemptions contained in Clause 2 we endeavour to safeguard by many regulations with regard to sanitary matters; so that I hope and trust, if the Bill becomes law, the jerry builder, at all events, will not be able to take advantage of it.

  523
  Then there is another argument that might be used against the Bill, and it is that the building by-laws of 1877, the old urban model, however unsuitable for country and rural districts, can be replaced by the model rural code of 1901. If the Local Government Board had the power of making rural district councils give up the old code and take the new code, there would be a great deal to be said in favour of that course; but your Lordships are probably aware that it is the fact that the Local Government Board, once they have sanctioned a code of building by-laws for any particular district, have no power whatever to force that district to take a new code in place of the old one. The late President of the Local Government Board and Mr. Burns, who is at present at the head of that Department, have very wisely and judiciously issued circulars to the rural district councils, pointing out to them how advisable it would be that the new code of 1901 should be adopted in place of the code of 1877, but in a great many cases no notice whatever has been taken of the Local Government Board's circulars; and there are reasons, I am afraid, why those circulars will remain nothing but waste paper.
  It is far from my intention to make an attack on the administration of rural district councils, but we must not forget that in many cases, I think I may say in the majority of cases, there are people sitting as members of these councils to whom it is rather an advantage that the council should be working under a complicated and inadequate system of by-laws. You cannot forget that on most rural district councils in the country you find very often a builder or his son, or his brother; you find, perhaps, an architect, and you often find that the clerk to the council is a solicitor. Now, to all these people complicated and difficult by-laws under which to work brings grist to the mill, and those are not the people to whom it is at all agreeable that a simple, cheap, easy code of building by-laws should be in force. In cases where litigation takes place between the builder and the local authority, even if the case is won by the landowner or the builder, on
  524
  whom does the cost of the legal proceedings fall? Why, on the successful landowner or builder, because in nine cases out of ten he is the principal ratepayer in the neighbourhood. With him it is a case, I am afraid, generally, of "heads I lose, tails you win," in any case of litigation with the rural district council. There is another argument that is rather more justifiable on the part of rural district councils as to why they will not adopt the new building code. The chairman of a rural district council pointed out to me some time ago that it had taken them years to get the original building code sanctioned by the Local Government Board. An enormous amount of correspondence had passed on the subject; and at last, after considerable delay, a code was sanctioned. He used words to this effect—
  "We know that the new code of 1901 would be a much better one in this district, but we are not disposed to give up our old code and apply to the Local Government Board for a new one when we see reason to fear that we may be another three or four years before we get the new code sanctioned, and in the meantime the whole district will be in a state of confusion, and will not know under what building laws it is. We prefer, therefore, to keep our old code."
  Another argument on behalf of rural district councils against adopting the new code was brought before the Select Committee last year. It is rather an amazing argument, but it was brought forward by the clerk to the East Grinstead District Council, whose view was that if they got a new code for building in their district, building would became cheaper and easier, and that that would be very hard on the people who had invested capital under the old code. Therefore he said they did not mean to apply for the new code. In dealing with this question you must remember that there are gentlemen like the clerk to the East Grinstead District Council and his colleagues who take this—I venture to think unfair—view of the problems that await us in considering how to provide better accommodation.
  There is this further argument against legislation of this kind, that it would be preferable to give rural district councils the power of dispensing, in such cases as they may think fit, with the regulations of their own by-laws. Now, my

  525
  Lords, I venture to think that the majority of your Lordships will not consider the granting of such dispensing power a satisfactory solution of the problem, because it must open the door, at all events, to chances of jobbery, corruption, and favouritism. A council might find some reason for giving a dispensation to B. which they refused to A. But so unworkable are the present building by-laws found in several rural districts, that the councils have actually used this dispensing power, although it is illegal, and it has been declared that any ratepayer may proceed by a mandamus to make a rural district council enforce its own by-laws. I asked one witness who appeared before us last year—I think he was the chairman of the Chelmsford Rural District Council— whether, as a matter of fact, his council did claim this dispensing power, and his answer was—
  "We do not claim it, but we exercise it."
  I think that a practice of that kind is an argument for legislation in this direction, because it shows that the present by-laws are found, at all events in that district, so unworkable that the council adopt a totally illegal course in order to obviate the difficulties. I was an interested witness of a debate that took place not very long ago in this House on my noble friend Lord Harrowby's initiation with regard to small holdings. I think your Lordships will agree with me that if an extension of the system of small holdings, of which my noble friend is so enlightened a promoter, is to take place to any great extent over this country, we shall want a considerable extension of houses in which to lodge the small holders and their families, and, therefore, I venture to claim that a Bill of this character, if it can do anything to promote the building of cottages, is almost entitled to logical precedence to a measure such as my noble friend advocates, and of which I also am a warm supporter. I do not pretend that this Bill is of a wide or extensive character, or that its result may be very wide or extensive, but I do think, as a witness before the Committee last year told us, that it will have in many districts a very considerable and beneficent result, and I therefore trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  526
  I will not trouble the House by going at any length through the clauses of the Bill. I have had the opportunity of conferring with the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on this Bill, and I should like to express my grateful thanks to them for having met me and discussed the Bill with me. I believe that certain Amendments will be moved when we go into Committee, should the Bill be fortunate enough to secure a Second Reading, and I can only say that I shall be most willing to meet the views of the Government. I will defer any explanation of the clauses until the Committee stage.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Hylton).
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, as a Member of the Select Committee which was appointed by your Lordships' House to inquire into this question, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one or two words in support of this Bill. After what my noble friend has said there is not very much to add except to assure your Lordships, which I think is almost unnecessary, that this is not a Bill of a polemical nature; it is not in the least of a Party character, but is an attempt to deal with a difficulty which is acknowledged on almost every side. The Committee to which my noble friend referred examined a good many witnesses from various parts of the country, who almost one and all supported some amendment of the present building by-laws, especially where they did involve a very vexatious restriction upon building schemes. In fact those witnesses who were in a certain measure against the Bill were not so much against its principle as against certain clauses of it, and were in favour of certain modifications. There was an undoubted consensus of opinion in favour of some change. Not only was this fully testified by the witnesses themselves, but it was brought out in evidence that many local authorities would wish to have the change, and were quite alive to the anomalous nature of some of their own regulations.

  527
  I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with much of the evidence, but I should like to refer to that given by Sir William Chance, who gave evidence of one or two very absurd instances of these restrictions. He referred to a scheme to utilise some old buildings in the making of new ones. There was nothing whatever against the scheme from a sanitary or from any other point of view. He said—
  "The scheme came before the committee of the district council. They knew that what they were going to do was an absolute absurdity, but they said that if the scheme was to be carried out the gentleman in question must pull down part of the building, as there was not sufficient open space at the rear."
  The witness was asked—
  "Do you think your opinions are shared by your colleagues on the council?"
  and his answer was—
  "I have given the two cases we had before us last Thursday. We have a by-laws committee, every member of which said the same thing, how absurd it was. But they added, 'We are bound to carry it out, otherwise we should have one law for one and one for another. We must have one law for all.'"
  I think that is sufficient to show your Lordships that the grievance is not only felt from outside, but by many of the local authorities themselves.
  As has been already remarked, this Bill, although at first sight rather technical, goes into deep and wide subjects. It is very intimately connected with the question of small holdings, about which we had an interesting debate some few days ago, because, of course, the success of small holdings very much depends on dwelling houses and buildings suitable for the small holders being erected without involving prohibitive costs.
  One word about builders. It may possibly be that some of the builders object to an easier scheme of building because it would not give them quite such lucrative jobs, but I think the more sensible of them will see that the more restrictions are placed on building the less business there is, and, therefore, it is to their advantage to support any well-defined scheme. The matter is not without difficulty. It may be said to be at once simple and also difficult, but I think that the difficulties are more apparent than real. The matter has been
  528
  thoroughly considered and thoroughly threshed out by this Committee. This is a Bill which attempts a practicable and reasonable solution of an admitted difficulty, and for this reason I hope your Lordships will consent to give it a Second Reading.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am sure the House and the country are under an obligation to the noble Lord opposite for having brought this subject before your Lordships' House. He made a most excellent speech last year on the subject, and his Bill of last year passed a Second Reading and was then referred to a Select Committee. The noble Lord has given us the substance of the Report of that Committee. So far as the principle of the Bill itself is concerned, the Government are entirely in sympathy. They, like everybody else, are fully aware that the bye-laws as they at present exist want considerable revision and amendment.
  But I am bound to say that the Bill, as it stands, does require a certain amount of alteration. I will venture to point out to the noble Lord a few of the alterations which we consider absolutely necessary, and if he can see his way to agree to these alterations, His Majesty's Government will be very glad to give the Bill a sympathetic and kindly support. In the first place, the title of the Bill would have to be altered, because, as it stands now, it embraces an Amendment of the Public Health Act, and we think it should be restricted, and I think the House will agree that it should be restricted, to building by - laws only. Under Clause 2 the Bill would apply to the whole of England and Wales. It would not, of course, touch London, but it would include Manchester, Leicester, and other large towns, which I venture to think is not the object of the noble Lord, and perhaps he would agree that the operation of this clause should be restricted to rural districts, or to urban districts to which it may be made to extend by order of the Local Government Board.
  Then we should like to see another sub-section introduced into this clause

  529
  running on parallel lines with Clause 4. If the noble Lord would agree to my proposal, Clause 4 might be struck out altogether. We propose to exclude from the exemption in Clause 2 by-laws relating to health, and to insert there a new sub-section, to be Sub-section 5, with the object of bringing in the by-laws under Section 157 of the Public Health Act, 1875, with respect to the structure of walls, foundations, and roofs, for securing stability, for prevention of fire, and for purposes of health. I do not think the noble Lord will have any objection to that. Clause 3 can stand as it is. Clause 4, as I have said, we propose to omit altogether. Clause 5 can stand as it is.
  We propose to omit altogether Clause 6, about which I believe there is a very strong diversity of opinion. As the noble Lord knows, this clause entirely alters, and I believe is intended to alter, the position of the Local Government Board as to its relations with local authorities as regards by-laws. The Local Government Board, as the House knows, can suggest an Amendment of by-laws, but they cannot force their own views on the local authorities. They can refuse to sanction by-laws submitted to them by the local authorities, but they cannot enforce a by-law of their own on an unwilling local authority; and, as the noble Lord informed the House, when a by-law is once made the Local Government Board have no power to alter it. Clause 6 of this Bill would give the Local Government Board an entirely new power, and most people think that that would be very strongly resented by local authorities; but if the principal of the exemptions in Clause 2, by the insertion of the sub-section to which I have alluded, and the appeal in Clause 7 are omitted, the main grievance as regards elasticity in the by-laws disappears.
  Sometimes, as the noble Lord said, the borough or district council refuses to pass the plans, and go so far as to decline to give any reasons whatever. That happened to me this year. A district council, which had allowed me to put up four cottages in one part of the district three or four years ago, suddenly turned round and refused to allow me to put up two more
  530
  in another part of the district, though they were to be identically the same cottages, built to exactly the same plans and specifications. I appealed to the chairman of the district council. He was a very sensible man, and the objections were waived. But no doubt councils do decline to approve of plans without giving any reason; and, as the noble Lord asks, What is a man to do under these circumstances? He may go on with his building, but he runs the risk of a prosecution. If he is prosecuted and loses his case he will have to pull down the house, and if he wins his case he has to pay the expenses of the action. It is not thought at all unreasonable to allow a court of petty sessions to determine whether a particular proposal does or does not conform to the by-laws.
  In these circumstances, if the noble Lord will give me a general assurance that he has no great objection to these limitations, I can assure him there will be no opposition, as far as the Government is concerned, to the Second Reading, but my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board looks upon this Bill as an experimental measure, which indeed it is, and one the operation of which must be very carefully watched. It may encourage the building of houses—everybody hopes it will—but my right hon. friend is very anxious that nothing should be done which might, in any way, diminish the safeguards against insanitary conditions and the erection of bad houses.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, as my noble friend opposite knows, I have taken a very deep interest in this Bill, and I also had the honour of being a member of the Select Committee which your Lordships appointed last year to consider the Bill then brought forward by the noble Lord. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will allow me to make a few observations on the statement we have just heard from my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.
  I entirely agree with the noble Earl that Clause 6 ought to come out. Clause 6, if I understand it aright, interferes with the position of local authorities

  531
  in their own districts—a principle which I am sure my noble friend entirely disagrees with. It would also give the Local Government Board a very considerable amount of extra work in sending down inspectors, and would altogether increase the heavy duties which now fall upon that Department of the State. With regard to the alteration of Cause 2 which my noble friend has suggested, I would venture to point out to His Majesty's Government and to my noble friend that there are districts which are not purely urban, and not purely rural, but which, as it were, intermix. I shall be glad to hear during the Committee stage how the Government propose to meet that especial difficulty.
  The only other criticism I would venture to make is with regard to Clause 7. If I understand my noble friend aright, the Government are in favour of retaining that clause as it stands. I personally have had some hesitation in adopting that course. Clause 7 gives to petty sessions—that is, to magistrates—power to interfere with what the local authority has determined, and if it is objectionable for the Local Government Board to interfere with what the district council has settled in its own district, it seems to me to be equally objectionable that the magistrates of the district should be allowed to interfere in local government matters. I venture to think that if this clause is retained it should be so altered that magistrates should be able to adjudicate only on the matters definitely set down in the Bill if they are not carried out by the local authorities. With regard to sanitation and other matters, they should not have power, as it appears to me they would have under Clause 7, to interfere with the determinations which the local authorities themselves had arrived at. I approve of the principle of the Bill, and I am sure that if properly carried out it will be of great benefit to rural districts, and may, in some way, though not entirely, by the creation of cheap, wholesome lodgings for the working classes, prevent that migration from the rural districts to the cities which I am sure all your Lordships deplore.
  532
  On Question, Bill read 2a. accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Bill passed through Committee and reported to the House without Amendment.
  Moved, that the Standing Committee be negatived.—(Lord Avebury.)
  The EARL of HALSBURY: I trust your Lordships will not agree to the Motion which the noble Lord has just moved. This Bill introduces a new system of law altogether, and I think it would be rather dangerous that it should be allowed to go through without being referred to the Standing Committee.
  LORD AVEBURY: I moved the Motion negativing the Standing Committee as the Bill had twice been through Committee in this House without any Amendment being suggested, but in deference to the opposition of the noble and learned Lord, the late Lord Chancellor, I withdraw the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn. Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS (EXTENSION) BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, the matters that affect the consideration of this Measure are but few, and I will state them very briefly to your Lordships. The object generally of the Bill is to extend the operation of the Acts known as the Public Libraries Acts, and

  533
  I assume that your Lordships feel that public libraries, so far as they exist in this country, are of benefit to the community and deserve encouragement. As the Acts that control the existence of these libraries have received the support and assent of your Lordships, I assume also that the legislation, so far as it has gone, equally meets with your Lordships' consent.
  As the matter stands now, the operation of these Acts is confined to limited areas. By the principal Act of 1892 and the Amending Act, public libraries can only be established in urban districts or in a parish. Reasons have lately been brought forward of a practical character to cause some to think that the benefit of these libraries should be extended to counties, and if these institutions are of advantage and utility in urban districts one cannot see why they should be other than beneficial in other districts. I am aware that there are practical difficulties, but I hope they may be overcome, in the way of applying these Acts to counties. At the same time I do not think your Lordships will contend that there is any reason why counties should be deprived of institutions which have been found of great benefit in urban districts.
  The question is, If you apply these Acts to counties, how can you carry them into effect in relation to those counties? You must have a governing body. In an urban district you have, of course, the local council, and if you have a governing body at all in the case of counties, it must be, I presume, the county council. Since this Bill has been printed I have received a great many communications from noble Lords, but though I have been very much struck with the courtesy of the letters I cannot say that I have received much encouragement from them. The objection put to me by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries was that it was not thought well to give the power of approval of the application of the Acts to a representative body. The noble Earl thinks the power ought to remain with the ratepayers as a whole to vote on this question. There is no doubt a great deal to be said in favour of that view, and I hope it will meet with your
  534
  Lordships' approval that it should not be left to the county council alone, but that a plebiscite should be taken of the ratepayers as a whole. That is a provision that I am willing to see inserted in the Bill, and I hope it will remove the objection to the present clause on the part of the Local Government Board.
  A general objection exists to any increase in the local rate, and I find that those who for particular reasons take an interest in this measure think the rate could be reduced by one-half, and that instead of being one penny, as it is in the principal Act, a half-penny rate would be sufficient in the larger areas. In a Welsh county recently a beneficent gentleman offered a certain sum for the provision of a public library, but, much to the regret of everyone, the offer could not be accepted and the county was denied the benefits of this grant because there is at present no power of creating a body to enable the sum to be received and applied for the purposes intended.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to move "That the Bill be read 2a this day six months." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure there is no Member of your Lordships' House who wishes to be in any way lacking in courtesy to my noble and learned friend who has just spoken, and I am very glad he recognises that all those to whom he has spoken with regard to this Bill have not been deficient in kind expressions towards himself, although they may not have been equally favourable to this Bill
  The state of the law at the present time is as has been stated by my noble and learned friend. The Act of 1892 confers upon parishes and urban districts the power, by a vote of the ratepayers, of obtaining a public library, and, of course, any parish in a county which desires to have a public library may, by a vote of its ratepayers, obtain one. Therefore, in this sense, the benefits of the Libraries Acts can at present be obtained by any parish or any urban district within a county. This Bill proposes to go further, and to say that

  535
  there may be a county library as distinct from parish or urban district libraries. I think it is unnecessary to point out to your Lordships that a county is a very unfit district for a library. What centre can my noble friend or anyone of your Lordships name which would be convenient for the ratepayers generally of the county?
  Not only that, but who would use this library? I presume that in most cases the centre adopted would be the county town. To an enormous majority of the rural parishes a library in a county town would be absolutely useless, and it would certainly be so to the ratepayers generally. I can conceive that there may be members of a county council who may go to the county town half an hour too soon, and who may wish to have some convenient sort of club in which to read French novels and otherwise amuse themselves until the time of their business arrives. As your Lordships know, there are always a certain number of persons who live in the vicinity of county towns to whom a library of this kind might be a very convenient lounge. But, apart from them, I do not see how to the county ratepayers generally a library could be of any use. My noble friend said, and he was rather hesitating on that point I thought, that there had been some demand for this Bill. I would ask him, was that demand made by the County Councils Association, or was it made by any county council in particular, because if it was made by one county council in particular, which, for the purposes of its own members, wishes to have a library, let it bring in a Private Bill, but do not let it, simply because it wishes to have a public library for itself, obtain that library by a general Bill of this kind.
  My noble and learned friend goes further. He admits himself that a county is not a suitable area, because he proposes to alter entirely the procedure laid down by the Act of 1892. That Act says that a vote of the ratepayers is to be taken, but my noble and learned friend proposes that the library shall be an accomplished fact by a vote of the county council itself. I think there might be in a county council five or six people who desired a library of this sort, and we know that if half a-dozen people in an assembly set their minds upon
  536
  attaining some object, they will find occasions when members are not attending for carrying their object out, and the ratepayers of the county, without knowing much about it, would suddenly find themselves saddled with a library which it would be impossible for the majority of them to use, but which they would have the satisfaction of paying for.
  Clause 8 of the Bill deals with exemption. It provides that—
  "Where the Public Libraries Acts, 1892 to 1901, have been adopted by any urban authority or parish within the county council district, such urban district or parish shall be exempted from payment of the Public Libraries Acts Rate levied by the county council authority."
  What will the result be? Every district in a county which wishes for a library will have got it, and it will be paying for it. The parishes which have not adopted the Act will alone remain as contributors to the cost of the library in the county town or in the centre of the county. I cannot help thinking that those who drafted this Bill are not very well acquainted with county administration. For instance, it says in Clause 2—
  "For the purposes of this Act, and subject to the provisions thereof, every county council district in England and Wales shall be a library district."
  I am not aware that there is such a thing in existence as a county council district. The administrative area of a county council is the county. When I first read that clause I thought this was a proposal to establish district libraries and. not county libraries. That, at all events, is one instance which I think shows that those who have drawn up this Bill have not studied the question very deeply.
  I do not think that I need detain your Lordships longer. I must say that it seems to me that a county is not at all a proper area for a library. As to the assessment, the county rate is an unfortunate fund into which everybody thinks he has a right to dip his hand, and of late years the additional burdens which have been laid on the county rates have been enormous, and they are constantly increasing. The much-burdened ratepayer has expressed his disgust in a variety of ways. I am not at all sure that he did not do it very largely in the ballot box not long ago, and I submit to your Lordships that we ought to be very careful

  537
  indeed in this House in scrutinising Bills which propose to impose additional burdens on the county rates. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  Amendment moved—
  "To omit the word 'now' in order to insert at the end of the Motion these words 'this day six months.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am bound to confess that, on the Bill as it stands, I think most of your Lordships will be disposed to agree with my noble friend who has just sat down; but there are special circumstances in this case which have induced my noble and learned friend to bring in this measure, and I am empowered to make a suggestion to him. If he will agree that a rural council should have the same power to adopt the Acts as an urban council has now under the Act of 1893, the charge to be on the local rate, but that the county council should have the power to contribute to the library out of the county rate if it so chooses, I am empowered to say that His Majesty's Government will offer no objection to the Second Reading.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I should like to say one word in response to the remarks which have just been made by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I understand his proposal is to bring before the House a totally new Bill. This Bill is to extend to county councils powers which are at present given to urban districts and parishes. The county is already completely covered by powers to every parish and urban council to have libraries in their own district. I can quite understand that it may be desirable, and I do not see any objection to extending that power to rural district councils. But I think that would be a complete redrafting of the Bill, and if it is only proposed to extend to rural district councils the same power that is given to urban councils, it would be much better to withdraw this Bill and bring in a Bill for that purpose. In fact, if that is all that is intended, all the machinery in this Bill would fall to the ground, and there would be very little left of the present drafting except the title.
  The principle of the Bill, that is to say, that local authorities should have powers
  538
  with regard to libraries, has been over and over again admitted. I am surprised at my noble friend bringing forward this Bill without giving the House any reasons, the area being already covered in the way I have described, why a county council should be made the authority for exercising the powers under the Libraries Act. It is an unsuitable area. It would be impossible to choose any place or places in a county which would be convenient for a building of which county ratepayers could make use. As a matter of fact, as has been stated, the county town would probably be the only suitable centre, and in many county towns there already exist very adequate libraries. Not only do they exist for the use of the town itself, or the parish in which it is situated, but there are powers under the existing Acts for the authorities allowing the people outside that area to use the library, either on payment or without payment. It seems to me that that would be a much more convenient way of meeting the case of the neighbouring parishes than by putting a rate on the ratepayers who are living very likely at a great distance, and who would probably never use the powers under the Act at all.
  I join with Lord Camperdown in what he said about rateable powers being continually put on county councils. There is never a meeting of the County Councils Association where there is not some complaint of Acts passed by Parliament giving powers to county councils and putting the whole expense of administering those Acts on the county ratepayers. While we acknowledge that the rating of agricultural districts is not in a satisfactory condition, and while it has been recognised by the Local Taxation Committee that there ought to be material changes with regard to the taxation of the country, nothing has been done, but the ratepayers of the county are continually having fresh obligations thrown upon them, some of them of a very serious nature. Parliament passes these Acts and gives the administration of them to county councils, but makes no contribution out of the Consolidated Fund towards their cost. After what my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has said, I hope my noble and learned friend will consider that it would hardly be his Bill if amended in the way suggested, and personally I

  539
  would hesitate to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill unless it was proved that there is a greater demand for it than has been shown to the House to day.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, in addressing your Lordships for the first time I desire to ask for that indulgence which is always asked for, and rightly asked for, by those who rise under such circumstances. The Bill before your Lordships' House is one which, I think, in substance, in regard to its object, probably all of us would sympathise with, but the question which His Majesty's Government have to consider is as to how far the machinery proposed by the Bill is adequate to carry out the objects which the Bill proposes, and how far in these days, when questions of rating exercise such great influence and excite such great interest, the burdens which would arise under this Bill would be distributed in a manner likely to be generally approved.
  I think there is hardly one of us—especially those, and they are very numerous in your Lordships' House, who are concerned with county administration—who is not aware that from time to time public libraries that had been set up by private effort, after living a more or less flourishing existence for a while, fall on troubled days and gradually disappear. There is no power in our rural districts, such as exists in our towns, of giving institutions of that kind that guarantee of permanence which is the consequence of their having the support behind them of a public body. It was believed, no doubt, by those who framed the original Public Libraries Act that the powers given would be largely adopted, but that was not so. They were adopted in boroughs and in urban districts, and gradually Parliament substituted in our boroughs and urban districts the action of the public local authority for the action of the ratepayers themselves, voting either by ballot or voting paper.
  Now, the idea which underlies this Bill is that we should extend in some way or another to the county districts of England the same power which has been applied under the Acts of 1892 and 1893 to the boroughs and urban councils. But it does not follow, for the reasons just stated by my noble friend,
  540
  if we approve of the object that necessarily we approve of the machinery of the Bill. I think everybody who has had to do with county administration knows that one of the difficulties is the cry that is very often raised against what is called centralisation in the. county town, and what I am afraid of is that under the machinery of the Bill as it stands it will be exceedingly difficult for a county council to put the very machinery into operation which the Bill proposes to entrust to it, because it would be said that the county council was legislating for an area consisting of part of the county in regard to which it could not have such adequate information or such knowledge as would be possessed by the actual representatives of the locality. Under these circumstances my noble friend who represents this Department in your Lordships' House has made a suggestion which I cannot help hoping will go very far to meet both the views of my noble friend who has introduced this Bill and also the objections which have been urged.
  Under the Act of 1892, as the House is aware, the vote of the ratepayers in a district, whether a borough or an urban district or a parish, was the final and determining factor, but it is very curious that immediately following the passage of that Act a most important Amendment was made by another Act; the vote of the urban council sitting as a representative assembly was substituted for the vote of the ratepayers, and that vote is practically final and determines the matter. What my noble friend has suggested is this, that the same power which Parliament gave a number of years ago to urban councils, and which I say, speaking from my own knowledge, has been exercised more and more as time goes on with excellent results, should be given to rural councils. If that were done it would meet one of the injustices of the present situation which was alluded to by my noble friend who preceded me in this debate—I mean that you have a library now set up in an urban district which is charged on the borough or urban rate, and the ratepayers of the surrounding districts get the benefit of that library without paying for it. If this arrangement were adopted, the borough and urban council would be able to say, "If we are to be

  541
  asked to set up a library in our district, we must know what the rural council immediately surrounding us is going to do." In that manner I am inclined to think the suggestion made by my noble friend would be an exceedingly valuable one, because it would enable and encourage districts to combine together, and we should have this great and inestimable advantage, that we should be legislating on uniform lines.
  As being connected myself with a rural district more than with any town, I ask why is the rural district council not to be treated with as much respect as the council of a small town. I think rural councils ought to be encouraged to come into line. I am quite willing to grant, however, that although I hold that view I think there is a sphere for the county council in this matter. Here again I would submit that the suggestions made by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are perfectly in keeping with the general lines of our recent legislation on those matters. We cannot be too careful in trying to legislate upon recognisable lines, and not to increase that confusion from which local government in times past has so greatly suffered, and from which we are only slowly emerging.
  Your Lordships are acquainted with the machinery and working of county councils, and are quite aware that gradually Parliament has enabled county councils to exercise a certain amount of control, and in certain cases also to contribute out of the county rate in aid of the expenses of the local authority. I believe there is no clause in the Local Government Act of 1888, which was passed by the Party opposite, which has been more useful or which has done more to improve our roads than the section which gives power to county councils to contribute to the improvements made by local authorities, not on main roads, but on their own local roads. In that way a county council has very often been able to say, "If you will do certain things which will cost so much, we will give you a proportion." In my own county we always contribute one-sixth to the cost of any approved improvement. I am inclined to think that it would be a great advantage if county councils were able to say to the smaller local authorities in their
  542
  counties, "If you will act in a certain way in regard to these institutions We will come forward and help you in a moderate and reasonable manner." In this way, while throwing the main responsibility and chief cost on the locality benefiting, the county council might play a very useful part in encouraging a movement which I am bound to say I think is a very useful one.
  I know myself how very frequently schoolmasters complain of the difficulty in keeping up their own education and in keeping their minds fresh, if I may use the expression, because when they go to out-of-the-way places it is impossible to get at any books, and I cannot help thinking that, especially in a year when in all probability the education question is going to occupy a large portion of the attention of Parliament, it is well that we should bear in mind that education often is greatly handicapped in our rural districts because of the difficulty referred to. The position of His Majesty's Government is this, that we sympathise with the object of my noble and learned friend, but we do not think the machinery of his Bill is very satisfactory. We cannot help hoping that he will consent to the whole question going to a Committee and these different alternatives being considered. I know from communications which have reached me and from my own experience that there is a real and genuine desire that something of this kind should be done.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I very gladly accept the proposal of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. In fact, I do not feel myself in a position to refuse any reasonable offer of assistance. The suggestion of my noble friend merely carries out, as far as I can judge, the view I have before me. I would suggest that this debate should now be adjourned, and I will put upon the Paper a clause that I think can be carried. I will place it on the Paper before the debate on the Second Reading is resumed, and if it is agreed to it can be grafted on the Bill. Perhaps it would not be in order for me to move the adjournment of the debate, but I should be very glad if some noble Lord would do so for me.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.
  Moved, "That the debate stand adjourned."—(Lord Burghclere.)
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, with regard to procedure, I may perhaps be allowed to say one or two words. If the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill proposes to adjourn this debate in order that he may put new clauses into the Bill—
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Only one clause.
  LORD BELPER: One clause would not enable the suggestions made by the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be carried out. Then there were the further suggestions made by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. At any rate, if it is attempted to deal with the matter in one clause, I hope sufficient time will be given for the consideration of that clause. My own view is that there ought to be a new Bill. The suggestions made on behalf of the Government can hardly be grafted on this Bill. Whatever is done, I hope that ample time will be given for the consideration of any fresh proposal by the County Councils Association.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON AND THE EARL OF HALSBURYboth rose, the latter giving way for the Lord Privy Seal.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I am afraid my noble and learned friend cannot do exactly what he proposes. He cannot give notice of an Amendment until the Bill has been read a second time. According to the rules and practice of the House, notice of all Amendments must be given, and can only be given after the Bill has been read a second time.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Marquess has stated what I rose to say, and, therefore, there is no need for me to do more than endorse what he has said.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I cannot help thinking that the noble and
  544
  learned Lord would be better advised if he withdrew this Bill and introduced a fresh one. There are plenty of opportunities in this House of getting a day for dealing with a Bill, and I certainly think that course would be the best one.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I gather that it is the feeling of the House that I should adopt the course suggested of withdrawing this Bill and introducing a new one. I therefore beg to withdraw the Bill, and I hope that every consideration will be extended to the new one which I shall introduce.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  ADMINISTRATION OF THE ALIENS ACT.
  LORD NEWTONrose to call attention to the administration of the Aliens Act. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in calling attention to the administration of this Act I should like to remind the House that it was founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord James of Hereford; that it was the principal measure of last session; that it was strongly, not to say bitterly, opposed in the other House; that it was carried by the closure; and that when it came up here, owing to circumstances which I need scarcely recall to the memory of the House, it was practically not debated at all; and, finally, I should like to point out that its administration depends very largely upon the views of the Home Secretary. I am not going to waste your Lordships' time in discussing the intentions of the Act, but I should like to insist upon the fact that very great pains were taken not to exclude any angels unawares, and every sort of precaution was adopted that refugees of the genuine type should not be excluded. I believe it is perfectly accurate to maintain that there has hardly been a case in which a genuine refugee has not been admitted. At any rate, there have been doubtful cases, and in each case the

  545
  benefit of the doubt has been given on the side of the alien.
  A very active campaign was conducted against this measure during its progress and after it became an Act, and a large number of allegations have been made against it, allegations which, as a matter of fact, have never been substantiated, and it is extremely difficult to reconcile the unfavourable opinions which have been expressed with regard to this Act, because there appears to be two views. One is the view that it is a grossly tyrannical measure which has excluded large numbers of deserving people from this country, and the other view is that it is such an extremely small and contemptible Act that it is hardly worth noticing at all. As a supporter of the former view, a Member of the other House who really ought to know better has distinguished himself by asserting a certain number of Russian deserters who were refused admission to this country, were returned to Russia, and were there executed.
  I might point out that this is an extremely improbable assertion of itself, for, as everyone who knows Russia will admit, it is an extremely difficult task for anyone to get on board a Russian steamer without having proper papers, and therefore what happens is this: A Russian deserter almost invariably makes his way into Germany and embarks on a German steamer. It is from a German port that he arrives here, and it is obvious that if a deserter arrived in that way and was rejected he would return to Germany, and there would be no means of putting him to death, because there is no military convention between Russia and Germany. As, moreover, no sort of proof has ever been given with regard to this allegation, as it has further been denied by the Russian Government, and as the Foreign Office also professes entire ignorance on the subject, I really am inclined to think that I am perhaps paying too much honour to this Member of Parliament in alluding to his assertion at all.
  Then, on the other hand as representing the other line of argument, we have the Daily News which has consistently poured contempt on the Act by showing how very few people have been affected by it in the sense of rejected aliens. I pass now to another organ—a paper called
  546
  the Manchester Guardian—which has always been noted no less for its unrelenting hostility to the late Government than for its overpowering affection for aliens of all kinds, from Mad Mullahs downwards. This organ, recognising at once in the Aliens Act the lowest depths of political depravity, instituted an inquiry of its own into the working of the Act. I believe that this enterprising organ conducted a most painstaking inquiry, and at the end it was obliged to confess that the Act has been administered in a broadminded and even in a liberal spirit; and the Home Secretary himself has been compelled to admit that in some particulars at all events he has found it an extremely useful measure. If any further proof of the leniency of this Act were required it would be found in the fact that during the month of January only eighty-nine persons were refused admittance to this country, and owing to what I may call the extremely lenient and liberal character of the Act it will be readily admitted that these eighty-nine people must have been so undesirable in their nature that no civilised country would have tolerated their presence for a moment.
  It is this liberal, lenient, and popular Act—for there is no doubt whatever as to its popularity in the country—whose chief defect appears to be that it does not go far enough, that the Home Secretary has set himself to emasculate, and this is easily performed by changing the object of one of the provisions of the Act and by altering one of the rules. I observe that the Home-Secretary, when challenged with having nullified the Act, pleaded in his defence that he had only altered one rule; just as a person who had a charge brought against him might excuse himself by saying he had "broken only one of the ten commandments." The alteration occurs with regard to Section 8, Subsection 2, which defines an immigrant ship as one which brings more than twenty alien passengers, "or such number as may be fixed by order of the Secretary of State."
  When this Bill came up here last session I moved an Amendment to reduce the number from twenty to ten on the ground that possibly by the time the Act came into operation a Liberal Government might be in Office, and that it was,

  547
  therefore, rather dangerous to entrust an unsympathetic Secretary of State with so much latitude. I therefore urged—and, of course, urged unsuccessfully—that it would be safer to reduce the number from twenty to ten. My noble friend Lord Belper, who was in charge of the Bill in this House, and who, naturally, would have nothing to do with my Amendment, because, however excellent it might have been, there was no time to carry it, replied to me as follows, showing that extreme and almost child-like confidence in his successor which one occasionally encounters amongst experienced Ministers, viz.—
  "The Government were aware that if the number was rigidly fixed at twenty the provision in the Bill might be avoided by shipowners bringing in less than twenty aliens. That was the reason why special power was given to the Secretary of State to vary the number if found desirable. He did not entertain intense distrust of the Secretary of State in this matter."
  If I were of a conceited disposition I should be inclined to boast that on this occasion I had proved myself an absolutely correct prophet, or at any rate, far more so than my noble friend.
  What happened? A Departmental Committee was formed for the purpose of making the rules in question; and, after a long and careful inquiry, the number was reduced from twenty to twelve, and I am informed that even this number of twelve was found to be too high, and that many opportunities were thereby afforded of evading the Act. I observed that only a fortnight ago the members of the London Immigration Board met at the Guildhall and unanimously agreed to recommend that the number should be reduced from twelve to five. The reply of the Home Secretary to that is to increase the number to twenty. In view of this fact I think it is quite clear that we are entitled to have the Report which I have alluded to—it cannot possibly be confidential, for there cannot be anything secret about it—and to know the reasons which have influenced the Secretary of State in making this important change.
  So much with regard to the alteration of the rules. The other question to which I shall briefly refer is the action of the Home Secretary with reference to the circumstances under which the aliens are allowed to land. Clause 1 is the clause which deals with the power to
  548
  prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants. Sub-section 3 reads as follows—
  "But in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds leave to-land shall not be refused on the ground merely of want of means or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates."
  I should like to explain that the machinery by which this Act is carried out consists of immigration officers and immigration boards. The immigration officers are under the control of the Home Office; the immigration boards are not. The immigration officer is really the important person, because he is the person who gives the order for admittance or rejection, and, if he refuses, then the board comes into play.
  The action of the Home Secretary has; been as follows: He sent a letter of advice to the boards, over whom he has no control at all, as to how he considers the Act ought to be interpreted. To the immigration officers, who are under his control, he sent a letter of instructions, or, I think it is more correct to say, a letter containing orders, and they are to this effect: that in all cases in which immigrants coming from parts of the Continent which are in a disturbed condition claim that they are flying from persecution, they should have the benefit of the doubt when any doubt exists, and leave to land must be given. Now, supposing my noble friend behind me, the Duke of Bedford, as President of the Zoological Society, were to issue a letter of advice to the council suggesting that impecunious persons might, under certain conditions, be admitted into the gardens, and at the same time wrote to the men at the turn-stiles saying that everyone was to be allowed in who asserted that he had not got the necessary funds. That is what it comes to. Taking this view of the matter, the function of the Immigration Board becomes an absolute farce. The board does not come into play at all. The alien is to be admitted, according to the instructions given to the immigration officer, and therefore the board might, so far as I can see, almost as well not exist.
  The principle of the clause, as it was intended to act, was that the alien had to prove that he was a

  549
  refugee. Now, the onus of proof is thrown on the immigration officer, who before he can refuse admission has to prove that the would-be immigrant is not a refugee, and he naturally is perfectly incapable of proving anything of the kind. It is perfectly obvious that doubt must always exist. Considerable doubt must exist as to what countries may fairly be described as being in a disturbed condition. Turkey, for intance, might be described as in a permanently disturbed condition. The Balkan States can be described as being periodically in a disturbed condition. Austria-Hungary is in a temporarily disturbed condition. In Franco there is a disturbed condition arising through conflict between the State and the Church; and Russia may be said to be indefinitely disturbed. To realise the absurdity of the way in which the Act must work try to imagine, if you can, an impecunious Briton being permitted to land in the United States on the ground that he was a victim of religious or political persecution, and it then transpiring that he was a passive resister or a conscientious objector. On one of these guileless refugees was found a letter telling him to say he had been lying hid in a cellar, that he had seen a number of men butchered, but that he was to conceal the fact that the £5 on him was borrowed.
  By the altering of this provision the Act has been rendered little better than a farce. I learn from a newspaper that over 1,000 aliens have landed in London during the last ten days, and that in not one single case was any objection made and not a single appeal taken to the Immigration Board. We stand, in short, almost exactly as we did before the Act was passed, and the only thing that remains of any value apparently is the deportation of aliens after they have been brought to justice. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more on the subject. All this talk about the sacred rights of asylum being violated is little better than mere rubbish. It is perfectly clear that there is no grievance of that kind at all. What the object of His Majesty's Government can be in encouraging large numbers of aliens to come to this country, when, according to their own statement, between 12,000,000 and 13,000,000 of
  550
  English people are on the verge of starvation under the blessings of free trade, is beyond my comprehension. Neither can I see how effective action can be taken on my part against the majority of 300 in another place. But if this Act is nullified, let us be perfectly clear as to how it has happened, and who is responsible for it.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has taken the most unusual course in this House of confining his remarks entirely to the Motion of which he had given notice, and I shall hope to follow that admirable example. I should like to express my sympathy with one criticism he made of the Act itself, as to the. defects from which it undoubtedly suffers, owing to the fact that it received no amendment while in your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will agree with me that, under these circumstances, the Act has not reached that standard of perfection which we expect from an Act upon which your Lordships have exercised your power of revision. The noble Lord seemed to have been misled by the extravagances of the halfpenny Press, of which, I confess, I am not so great a student as he is. But with regard to the 1,000 aliens who, he says, have been landed in London during the last ten days, I should like to point out that he makes no reference to those who were transmigrants and were going on to other countries. The figures of the noble Lord are unofficial, and cannot be accepted as correct. As to the actual administration of the Act itself, I may point out that the Act came into operation on the 1st January, and it was necessary that certain rules and regulations should be made before that date. The regulations were drawn up in the Home Office, but the late Secretary of State left the Office without signing them and they were signed as they stood by my right hon. friend the present Secretary of State, who does not, I think, accept any responsibility with regard to them as they stood at that time. It is interesting to point out to your Lordships the full figures with regard to the refusals which took place under the rules and regulations sanctioned, though not technically signed, by Mr. Akers-Douglas. In addition to the eighty-nine refusals in the month of January there were only

  551
  fifty refusals in the month of February, so that the total number of refusals under the Aliens Act, which we were told was going to exclude such large numbers of people from competition in the home market, only amounted to 139. If that was continued throughout the year it would not have amounted to anything like a large number. The figures with regard to March are not available, but, in consequence of certain religious festivals which occur at the early part of the month, it is probable that there will not be a large number of refusals owing to the number of Jews travelling being much smaller than in January and February.
  With regard to the new regulations, they in no way interfere with what is considered by many people to be the most important part of the Act, the exclusion of those whom noble Lords on both sides of the House wish to see excluded, the criminal or diseased alien. Nothing in these regulations will interfere with their exclusion. There were three new regulations issued by the Secretary of State in addition to those which, as I have said, were drafted by Mr. Akers-Douglas. The first one had reference to the admission of the Press, and I think that on this matter, while there is any difficulty in getting at the facts, it is exceedingly valuable that we should, with the help of the Press, be able to know exactly what takes place.
  Then, with regard to the second regulation, I might perhaps read to your Lordships part of the letter from the Secretary of State to the Immigration Board—
  "The Act was passed for the purpose of checking the immigration of undesirable aliens. Parliament, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, never intended that in the administration for that object of the provisions of the Act they should be applied with a rigidity which excludes consideration as to whether refusal of leave to land would involve great personal hardship or suffering in the case of women or children. Again, the statements of a man claiming to be a political or religious refugee may be insufficient or inaccurate, yet he may be exposed to serious risk from political causes if he is forced to return. Though the Secretary of State recognises that the absence of corroborative evidence frequently makes it difficult for the board to come to a decision, he hopes that, having regard to the present disturbed condition of certain parts of the Continent, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, may be given in favour of any immigrants who allege that they are flying
  552
  from religious or political persecution in such districts."
  I ask noble Lords opposite if they wish that the benefit of the doubt should not be given to those aliens who come here and say they are flying from religious or political persecution, and I should be glad to take the parallel case with regard to the Zoological Gardens. If the noble Duke who is President of the Zoological Society found that a number of children who had never had a chance of seeing the chance of enjoying a day's liberty, who came from the slums, and who the noble Duke knew on their return to their homes without having been admitted to the Zoological Gardens ran the risk of being severely beaten or badly treated—in those circumstances there is no member of your Lordships' House who would not appove of the action of the noble Duke in allowing them to enter the gardens. The noble Lord also referred to the statements which were made by Mr. Rothschild. Mr. Rothschild is no supporter of His Majesty's Government, and I think the with Mr. Rothschild himself.
  The third regulation to which I have to draw attention raised the number of aliens from twelve to twenty. Twenty is the number in the Act itself. I do not know that it is necessary for any member of His Majesty's Government to defend the selection of that number by the late Secretary of State. Twenty was the number in the Act, and I think I may safely leave the defence of that number to the noble Lord my predecessor who is, I am glad to see, in the House this afternoon. But I should like to say that one reason which I believe actuated the Secretary of State in raising the number from twelve to twenty, was to relieve the pressure on the immigrant ports. The vast majority of the ports in this country have not got immigration boards, and ships which came to non-immigrant ports having fewer than twelve immigrants of course passed in freely. If they had more they were subject to this Act, and had to go round to one of the ports at which the machinery established under this Act was in existence. After only two months experience of this Act only two Office found that more than one case of hardship had arisen, and there were real reasons why the number should be altered.

  553
  I will give your Lordships two instances of the way in which this Act did press hardly on foreigners coming into this country. There was the case of the French onion sellers who arrived at a non-immigrant port. As there were more than twelve of them on board the ship there was a great deal of difficulty as to their admission to this country to carry on a trade to which none of us have any objection at all. There was another case in which a number of Scandinavian sailors came to this country in order that they might join certain ships which were lying in nonimmigrant ports. Under the order it would have been impossible for them to join their ships unless they had gone round to one of the Tyneside ports and travelled from there by train to the port where the ships were lying which they were to join. Under these circumstances, I do not think that it is very easy to blame the Secretary of State for doing what after all is only a matter of detail and not one of principle, and fixing the number at twenty, which His Majesty's late Government themselves thought should be the number necessary to make a ship an immigrant ship. In conclusion, I only desire to quote to your Lordships a statement that was made in the House of Commons the other day by the Solicitor-General in the late Government. Sir E. Carson said—
  "So far as he could see there was no justice in the allegation that the rules and recommendations of the right hon. Gentleman had in any way interfered with the Act of Parliament. Therefore, the only matter in which there might be ground for criticism seemed to be taken away if they looked at the thing fairly and honestly, because all that the Home Secretary had done was to bring to the minds of the immigration officers a sense of their duty. As the right hon. Gentleman was going to give the Act fair play it was only right that he should have a fair chance."
  I am quite unable to add anything to those admirable sentiments of Sir Edward Carson.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess I do not think this matter ought to be treated in the somewhat light manner in which it has been treated. If the Secretary of State has issued the directions that I understand he has issued, I think it is a most serious and important question, and one of far greater importance than the particular matter with which we are dealing, be-
  554
  cause if it was once supposed that an Act of Parliament deliberately passed by the Legislature could be set aside by indirect means at the direction of the Secretary of State, the mischief of such a proposition would extend far beyond the particular controversy we are now engaged upon. I understand that what the Secretary of State said was this—
  "I have issued to all the immigration officers instructions that in all cases in which immigrants coming from ports of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition, allege that they are flying from religious or political persecution, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists as to the truth of the allegation, must be allowed and leave to land must be given."
  I venture to say that the action of the Home Secretary is contrary to the Act of Parliament. The Statute itself contains an express direction. I do not think there is any doubt what the language can mean. Happily it is not a question of doubtful law; it is the ordinary application of the English language, and I venture to think that the words in the Act are not susceptible of doubt.
  After the general proposition that an undesirable alien shall not be permitted to land, the statute proceeds thus—
  "But in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid persecution or punishment on religious or political grounds.— leave to land shall not be refused."
  The Act of Parliament contains an express direction that the intending immigrant shall "prove" that he is seeking admission solely to avoid persecution or punishment on political or religious-grounds. The good sense of that is obvious enough. What can the immigration officer know about the facts, and whether or not a man is flying from persecution? Of course, if the man offers no proof it can always be said that the matter is in doubt, and, according to the Secretary of State's instructions to his subordinates, leave to land must be given.
  I do not know what the facts were that were put before my very distinguished and learned friend Sir Edward Carson, but it is astonishing to me that a lawyer of his eminence should say that the express direction of the statute was satisfied by a mere allegation that the man was flying from persecution; and I can only suppose that a particular and partial view had been placed before my

  555
  learned friend when he made his statement in another place. The whole subject is one of a far more serious character than appears to be imagined. The question here is whether the Secretary of State has taken upon himself to disobey the law; whether a state of law has been created by the Secretary of State's directing persons under his command to disobey the Act of Parliament. I have not the least desire to treat harshly any awkward phrase, and I sympathise with the position of a Gentleman like the present Secretary of State for the Home Department who is not himself a lawyer, and must more or less rely upon the advice given to him; but I want to know if the words I have quoted accurately state the directions he has given to his subordinates. If so, I should like to know from any lawyer whether he can reconcile these two things; and, if he cannot, it appears to me that respect for the law has not been observed.
  The action of the Home Secretary in directing the immigration officers under his control deliberately to disobey the Act of Parliament in this way seems to me a much more serious and grievous infraction of the law than the slight inadvertence in connection with the whipping of the Chinese in South Africa of which we have heard so much during the last twenty-four hours. I speak always with reserve on such a subject. I have not got the words of the directions to the immigration officers. I only gather what they were from a report, which may not be accurate, of a statement in the other House of Parliament; but, if the words are as reported, I say, as a lawyer, that there cannot be the slightest doubt that the directions so given are contrary to the Act of Parliament and constitute an outrage upon the ordinary observance of the law.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: My Lords, if I desired to give a merely debating reply to the noble and learned Earl who has just addressed your Lordships I might be content with pointing out to him that it is highly improbable that the Solicitor-General of the very Government of which he himself was so great an ornament should have committed himself in his place in Parliament to the approval of the action of the Home Secretary of the present Government without adequate and full consideration. But, my Lords,
  556
  I feel that it would be hardly respectful on my part to the noble and learned Earl if I were to confine myself to what I have called a merely debating answer. Therefore I propose to say a few words upon the general question which has been brought forward by my noble friend opposite, and I shall allude more particularly to what has fallen from the noble and learned Earl.
  The Home Secretary has, in the first place, been accused of gross inconsistency. He has been told that whereas upon one of the earliest days on which Parliament met he spoke favourably of the operation of this Act, a very short time after, under the pressure, it was alleged, of excited and fiery speeches made outside and articles written in newspapers, ho altered his position and climbed down from what he had said before. In that matter I desire to say—and it is my duty, I think, to allude to this part of the question—that nothing could possibly be more unfair than that charge against the Home Secretary, because the portion of the Bill of which he spoke favourably was not the portion which has been discussed in your Lordships' House to-night. and which was discussed subsequently in the House of Commons, but another clause of the Bill, namely, Section 3, which is generally known as the "expulsion of undesirable aliens clause," which everyone will agree is a most desirable and excellent clause.
  I feel how almost absurd it is for me, following the noble and learned Earl, to allude to a legal issue, but if so humble a person as a chairman of quarter sessions may be allowed to refer to a legal matter, I may say that I have before now had before me as prisoners foreigners who had committed a long series of skilful crimes, and I unhesitatingly say that I have long wished that legislation of this kind had been passed so that a Judge or chairman of quarter sessions might be able to add to an ordinary sentence a sentence of expulsion or deportation. It was that portion of the Act to which the Home Secretary was alluding, and I hope that, whatever difference of opinion there may be with regard to the operation of the rest of this Act, on the value of that clause we are all agreed.
  But in reality it is not that clause which has excited the feeling that has

  557
  caused this debate. It is the principal clause of the Act—Clause 1—and more particularly that clause which relates to what is popularly called the right of asylum. It is not, perhaps, for me, not having been then a Member of your Lordships' House, to express an opinion, but I do think it was a matter of regret that last year the Amendments which I understand were actually placed upon the Table by the Members of the then Government were not proceeded with, because it would have given an opportunity to this House, in Committee, to consider the various points that had been raised. Nobody, I think, whatever his opinion may be on the general question, and the noble Lord who brought forward this matter did not go beyond general views, can deny that the wording of this Act is in many respects most unfortunate. If ever there was a case where the power of your Lordships' House as a chamber of revision over the work of the House of Commons might have been wisely and judiciously exercised, this was one which particularly called for such action on your part. However, it is too late to lament over that; but, nevertheless, we must bear this in mind, that the Home Office have been called upon to administer an exceedingly difficult Act of Parliament dealing with a most delicate subject and one full of legal pitfalls.
  I am sure no Member of your Lordships' House, whatever his opinion may be, will deny that the right of political asylum is a matter to be spoken of with the greatest respect, to be dealt with with the greatest care, and not to be treated in any manner cavalierly. One criticism of my noble friend's speech would be, I think, that he treated this question a little too cavalierly and lightly, that he did not quite sufficiently realise the depth of feeling and thorough honesty which I claim for those who fought hard to defend what we believed, and what we believe now, to be one of the most cherished institutions of this country—the right of asylum. I do not hesitate to say that in your Lordships' House, because this right has been largely the creation of your Lordships' House. If you were to go back to such chapters of our history as the asylum which was given to Protestant refugees, to the Huguenots and others who came at different times to this country, the part
  558
  played by your Lordships' House would bear comparison to that of any other body in the country, and therefore I claim that this House is just as much the guardian of this valuable and historic right of asylum which we have inherited as the House of Commons itself. The noble and learned Earl has asked that the Government should inform him as to what really has been the action of the Home Secretary in this matter.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The actual language of the directions to the immigration officers.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: The distinction is perfectly clear, if I may say so, between the position of the Home Secretary with reference to the immigration officers in the ports, who are practically his own officers, and the immigration boards. With regard to the first, I am advised that the power of the Home Secretary is undoubted to give such directions as he has given, and those directions to the immigration officers are—
  "In all cases in which immigrants coming from parts of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition allege that they are flying from political or religious persecution, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, as to the truth of the allegation, will be allowed and leave to land will be given."
  Those are the directions to the immigration officers. With regard to the immigration boards, the language of the Home Secretary is that of advice only. I am quite willing to communicate the full text if necessary, though in regard to that I understand from the noble and learned Earl that he would take no objection. But in this connection I am convinced, and I feel here that I may appeal to the noble Earl as one of the greatest legal authorities in this country, that if he will look at the use of the word "prove" in the proviso to Section 1 he will acknowledge that the peculiar use of that word in that direction opens up a great vista of legal difficulties. In terms the Act requires the alien immigrant to prove that he is a refugee. Obviously this would mean strict legal proof. Under the circumstances this would be impossible. Neither the immigration officer nor the immigration board is a court. They have no power to administer an oath, so obviously the proof required cannot be legal proof in the strict sense of the term.

  559
  I urged on the Government last year in another place that these courts should be open courts, and conducted as Courts of Law. As a matter of fact, I foresaw the difficulties which would arise, and I placed an Amendment on the Paper in which I took the actual words of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, which was passed by the noble and learned Earl and his colleagues, and under which all Petty Sessional courts are open courts and held in public places. I desired to assimilate the functions and jurisdiction of these courts of immigration. If that Amendment had been adopted I venture to think that none of these difficulties would have arisen. Immigrant ships arrive at all hours, and the examinations often taken place before the immigration officers in the dark, and on board ship, and in estimating what is meant by proof the conditions under which the examination is conducted must be taken into account.
  The only possible evidence available is the statement of the alien, taken in conjunction with the probabilities of the case. If an alien states that he is a political refugee, and if it appears from the paper which he fills up and signs that he comes from a disturbed part of the Continent, the presumption is that his statement is correct, and the onus of proof is shifted, as the onus of proof is so often shifted in legal matters. The state of certain parts of Russia is a matter of common knowledge. The direction of the Home Secretary that an alien alleging himself to be a refugee is to have the benefit of the doubt is, I may also point out, confined to aliens who apparently come from disturbed parts of Europe, and therefore it would have no application to an alien alleging himself to be a Russian, but arriving in England from a place where there is no disturbance. The statement has been made that in this matter the Home Secretary has not acted in a statesmanlike or judicial manner, but according to the dictates of his inner conscience. Nothing could be further from the mind or the intention of the Home Secretary, and I claim that as he has received in Parliament approbation of his action from the Solicitor-General of the late Government, we stand on exceedingly good ground even when we have to meet so formidable
  560
  an antagonist as the noble and learned Earl opposite.
  I wish that I could stop my argument at the point that I have reached, but I would not be doing my duty, as representing the Foreign Office in this House, if I attempted to conceal from your Lordships that there is another aspect of this question. The Home Secretary was exposed, before he issued these amended regulations, to the attacks of those who suggested that he was indifferent to the right of asylum, and to the attacks of those who sympathised especially with all those complicated movements which at this moment are disturbing so many parts of the world. But there is another aspect of this question and quite as serious a one. I remember the late Sir William Harcourt used to be very fond of laughing at what he called grandmotherly legislation—the covering of the Statute Books with unnecessary laws which did no good and which often worked out in directions which no one expected, and created difficulties which no one foresaw. If I had to criticise this Act again I should renew the criticism I ventured to make upon it last year. This Act is creating difficulties of quite a different kind from those we have so far heard of, and it would not be right of me to leave entirely the brunt of the attack which has come from the other side to the defence of my noble friend who represents the Home Office, because there is a Foreign Office side to this question.
  I alluded just now to the fact that I thought it unfortunate that the Amendments which your Lordships placed on the Paper were never brought forward. I remember that when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading Lord Spencer, whose absence and its cause we all so deeply regret, asked what was the real meaning of sub-section (a) of section 1. And that really is the Act, or rather it is the fighting part of the Act around which all these controversies have arisen. We pressed for an explanation as to what was meant by the words—
  "A person having the means decently to support himself and his family."
  If a man arrived whose arms were strong, whose legs were strong, whose digestion was good, whose head was clear, and who happened not to have £5 in his pocket, was that man, we asked, to be

  561
  rejected on the ground that he had not the means to decently support himself? And was a man of doubtful health and whose constitution was undermined to be admitted merely because he had borrowed £5 from someone? We were unable to get an answer to those questions. But when the Bill was discussed in your Lordships' House the Government said that under those circumstances the man would not be excluded. My noble friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty expressed the same doubts which Mr. Asquith and Sir Charles Dilke have expressed in the House of Commons. He said he hoped there would be an opportunity of clearing the matter up in Committee, and no doubt it might have been cleared up in Committee, but your Lordships never had the opportunity. Owing to words of such dangerous legal laxity being used, I am sorry to say that troubles have arisen frequently, and are likely, I am afraid, to recur, quite apart from the question of Russian refugees or persons arriving in a verminous state. They are arising at these ports in regard to persons whom I am perfectly certain the late Government never intended to be annoyed under this Act.
  I do not for a moment insinuate that any of these evil results came within the minds of noble Lords opposite; but although the Act has been in operation only a few weeks the Foreign Office continues to receive a great number of complaints in regard to the inequalities and the injustices, and, indeed, in some cases almost the cruelties, which arise in some instances under the Act. We have had complaints from Norway in regard to fishermen, whalers, workmen and others who come to this country on temporary jobs, and into whose occupation uncertainty has been introduced. We have had complaints also from Norway in regard to fish packers and others engaged in industries which bring them temporarily to this country, and bring them very often with not a penny in their pockets, and the immigration board have considered it their duty to subject them to all the inconveniences of examination and the delays under the Act. We had the case, to which publicity has been given in the newspapers, of ship-wrecked Americans. Ship-wrecked men have in all ages been the special object of protection; but it
  562
  was found to be the duty of the immigration board to deal in an exceedingly harsh manner with these Americans, and the American Consul had to intervene to get them out of durance vile and had to guarantee a certain sum of money out of his own pocket before the men were released. Then there was the case of the French onion dealers.
  I am not here to pass censure on the immigration boards. They have done their very best to administer the Act judiciously, fairly, and in a sympathetic spirit, but they are in an unfortunate position. They are not a court of law and have none of the machinery which a court of law has to extract evidence and to test it. They have not, like petty sessions, an experienced chairman and clerk to advise them. Therefore I do not attack them if, in administering the Act, they have been, here and there, in pursuance of the Act, the unintentional means of inflicting hardship on people; but that hardship has been inflicted there can be no doubt. We are in the region of the unexpected. We at the Foreign Office have no security from day to day that we shall not have complaints, unofficial complaints as yet, but nevertheless complaints which cause discontent, and which, if they are allowed to go on, may in some cases in the end cause serious trouble.
  There was one particularly touching and painful case. It was the case in January in which two French girls of good position, belonging to families in France perfectly well known, were concerned. They were returning to England, one of them as a governess in a school and the other as a pupil, and they were subjected to such delays and annoyances at Folkstone—they were detained on the boat, then bundled on shore to be examined—that they were almost wild with terror, and the younger girl, twelve years of age, arrived in London in a condition almost dying with cold and hunger. I do not want to exaggerate, but owing to the unexpected operation of this Act of Parliament, which was placed on the Statute Book in a desperate hurry, we live at the Foreign Office from day to day in fear that we may have fresh additions to these complaints. Therefore, I do earnestly pray that my noble friend, who has himself taken an honourable part in diplomacy in former days, and other

  563
  noble Lords will realise our difficulties, and not regard this as a high-handed attempt by the Home Secretary to override an Act of Parliament.
  I feel that we have a full right to call upon noble Lords opposite to give us their assistance, because they themselves were parties to placing upon the Statute Book this Act of Parliament, not in precisely that accurate language, or in that final condition, which they themselves desired. I have to say, in conclusion, with regard to that aspect of the question which more particularly refers to the office I have the honour to represent in this House, that in view of the cases—I have not desired to take up too much of your Lordships' time by referring to others—which I have alluded to, and the fear we have that others like them may arise, it is my duty not to conceal from the House that if, under the new rules and practice introduced by the Home Office, it is not found possible to escape the inconvenience and the complicated controversies which arose immediately on the Act coming into operation, it may become necessary, in the interests of justice and of our good relations with foreign countries, to ask for an Amendment of the Act; and I make that statement with the full authority of the Secretary of State.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given us a most interesting speech about the weather in January, shipwrecked mariners and onion sellers, in whom he appears to be very much interested. But what he said had really nothing whatever to do with the speech of my noble friend, who introduced this subject this evening, and very little to do with the speech of the noble and learned Earl the late Lord Chancellor. My noble friend who spoke first for the Government, and the noble Lord who has just sat down, took a somewhat unusual course in their statement of the Government's case this evening. They have both alluded at great length to things which happened in the other House of Parliament. Your Lordships are generally tolerant, I know, as to what speakers say, and no one has enjoyed that tolerance more than I have; but if your Lordships have permitted noble Lords opposite to refer to what was said by Sir Edward
  564
  Carson in the other House of Parliament, I would ask you to allow me to remind you under what circumstances his statement was made.
  The subject came on in the House of Commons, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department made exactly the same defence as was made by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp. He talked about the immigration boards, but said not one word about the immigration officers. That is our whole case. We have no objection to the letter addressed to the immigration boards. We have the strongest possible objection to the instructions issued to the immigration officers; and my learned friend Sir Edward Carson, as I understand, got up after the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and said that he thought his course had been perfectly correct. That was agreed, Nobody objects to what has been written by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the immigration boards.
  My noble and learned friend behind me Lord Halsbury, put a legal Question which I think merits an Answer from some legal Member of His Majesty's Government. I say this in no disparaging spirit of the noble Lord. Can you tell us straight that in your opinion the word "must," which occurs in the instructions to the immigration officers, is not contrary to the spirit of the Act of Parliament, which placed the onus of proof on the immigrant? That is the keynote of our contention, and that Question has not been answered by any legal Member of your Lordships' House, though there are legal Members opposite both in the Government and supporting the Government. I do not wish to say any more in enforcing that point. Is the word "must" in strict conformity with the Act of Parliament?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: The word "must" does not occur anywhere in the Order.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: I am extremely glad to hear it; but it occurs twice in the Home Secretary's Answer given in the House of Commons.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I read the actual document to the House just now. The word "must" is not in it. The words are "will be allowed."
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Is there really very much difference? Where any doubt exists as to the truth of the allegation, leave to land "will" be given to the immigrant. The Secretary of State says to his subordinates that leave will be given. It is exactly the same thing. I am much obliged to noble Lords opposite for their correction, and I repeat the Question which has been put to them by the noble and learned Earl behind me. The concluding remarks of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs contained an announcement, upon the obtaining of which I congratulate my noble friend behind me. The noble Lord suggested that it may be necessary to amend this Act. I wonder if he means, so far as this particular point is concerned, to repeal it. It is because we have been suspecting that the Government have all along intended to repeal it, but that in this particular case they have not taken the course of introducing a repealing Act, but have altered the regulations, that we have felt it right to make a solemn protest against what has been done. I hope we shall have a straight answer to the legal point raised by my noble and learned friend behind me.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I should have had the greatest pleasure in rising immediately after the noble and learned Earl, who asked a legal Question, had I had an opportunity of considering this point more fully. In point of fact, I had no notice that this legal Question was going to be brought forward, and I do not think it is possible or right for me, after hearing words read out from instructions that I have never seen, in reference to an Act which I do not know by heart, to offer a legal opinion on the merits of these matters. I shall, however, have the greatest pleasure in giving such opinion after I have had an opportunity of looking into them.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, after what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, of course the House will wait with respect and anxious patience to hear his interpretation of the word "prove." I merely rise to ask one or two Questions with regard to matters of fact which I do not think have been answered. A few
  566
  moments ago, Lord Beauchamp, and, I think, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, both said that the word "must" was not used in Mr. Gladstone's instructions to the immigration officers. I have in my hand a copy, verified by Mr. Gladstone's private secretary, of the words he used in the debate, and they run as follows—
  "Finally, I have issued to all the immigration officers instructions that in all cases in which immigrants coming from ports of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition allege that they are flying from religious or political persecution, and if there is a doubt, where any doubt exists as to the truth of the allegation it must be allowed, and leave to land must be given."
  Therefore, my Lords, there is no doubt whatever that Mr. Gladstone's order in that respect to the immigration officers was most peremptory. I wish to ask Lord Beauchamp whether he will lay on the Table the Report of the Committee. All that has been said to-night by way of explanation of this alteration is that it was made owing to a difficulty with some onion sellers and certain Scandinavian seamen who were going to join their ships
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I did not say that at all. On the contrary, I said that that part of my observations was entirely opening up a different chapter from that which had led to the alteration. I pointed out that Mr. Gladstone in another place had had to reply to attacks directed mainly by friends of these immigrants who claimed to be political refugees, and when I brought forward these other cases I was putting before your Lordships a chapter of events which I myself said was quite different.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I accept the explanation. In that case we have had no reason given to us why the number was changed from twelve to twenty.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: That was stated by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then it was Lord Beauchamp who spoke about the onion sellers and the Scandinavian seamen.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: No; I referred to them.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Lord Beauchamp, so far, has given us no other reason except that of these unfortunate men. What we want to know is the reason why the number was changed to twenty. We want to see the documents and the advice which Mr. Gladstone received when he made that change, because, whatever may have been his reasons, and however good they may have been, the result has been most unfortunate. The Act is now made absolutely inoperative by the increase of the number to twenty. I shall be very glad to know if we are to have that Report.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this discussion for more than a few minutes, but there were some remarks made by the noble Earl opposite to which I cannot help referring. I am not at all surprised that the noble Earl should object on this occasion to references to what passed in the House of Commons, because no doubt the speech of Sir Edward Carson is an extremely awkward one for those who take the same line as the noble Earl. There may be some irregularities in these allusions, though they are constantly made in this House. It is the practice, when these things have passed into the pages of Hansard, constantly to allude to them. I think it would be impossible to carry on debates in both Houses of Parliament on the strict rule that neither House should refer to proceedings which had taken place in the other.
  I say it with all respect, but I do not think the noble Earl quite gave a fair account of what Sir Edward Carson said. We laymen are placed in a position of great difficulty when we find such eminent lawyers as the late Lord-Chancellor and the late Solicitor-General taking entirely different views of this subject. I find, on reference to Hansard, that Sir Edward Carson in the debate said that when a Question was put on the matter to the Home Secretary on the previous night he, from only a cursory examination, formed the opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was, by the powers conferred upon him, interfering with the Statute passed in the previous session; but that having heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he found that he had come to an absolutely erroneous conclusion in that respect. It is therefore
  568
  obvious that Sir Edward Carson had considered the subject very carefully, and felt himself bound to admit that he had, in the first instance, formed a judgment he now believed to be erroneous. The noble Earl said that Sir Edward Carson made no allusion to the circular issued to the immigation officers. But Sir Edward's language on this point was very remarkable. He said—
  "The Home Secretary had told the immigration officers that in the cases in which they were in any doubt as to whether an alien was a political or a religious refugee, they ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. He (Sir Edward Carson) himself would have thought that that was the duty of the immigration officers without any instructions whatever. That was an ordinary rule in the administration of Acts of Parliament."
  That is a pretty strong opinion upon the very point which the noble Earl seemed to think Sir Edward Carson had given no opinion at all. I therefore venture to say that whatever weight we are to give to the opinion of the late Solicitor-General, we are entitled to claim him as an undoubted witness in favour of the legal correctness of the conduct of my right hon. friend, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, in the matter.
  LORD NEWTON: I should like to press for a Reply to my Question as to the production of the Report. Are we to have the Report?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: No. The Home Secretary in another place has already refused, on principle, to lay on the Table a confidential document from a Committee of the Department. He has, however, laid on the Table the rules and orders and also a memorandum on the working of the Act, which contains the gist of the Committee's Report. The Report itself will not be laid, largely because it contains certain references to salary to be paid to people and other matters of that kind.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then how are we to learn the reasons which induced the Secretary of State to change his mind?
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I have done my best to state those reasons to the House to-night.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.