Sitting of 10 May 1906

Preamble
The House met at Quarter before Three of the Clock.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  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, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—;Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STAND ING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO 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 Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—;Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  London County Buildings Bill, Peterborough Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Standing Order 157a, relating to Private Business, was read and amended, in line 3, by inserting, after the word "Trade," the words "and His Majesty's Office of Works." And in line 6, by inserting, after the word "Trade," the words "and His Majesty's Office of Works."—;(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7.) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Carnarvon, Sheffield, the South West Gloucestershire United Districts, and Whitby," presented by Mr. Runciman; supported by Mr. John Burns; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petition's for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bude, Camborley and District, East Barnct Valley, Exeter (Extension), Frome (Amendment), Higham Ferrers, Rushden and Wellingborough (Rural District), Mid - Durham, Wealdstone, Wisbech (Amendment), and Yardley (Amendment)," presented by Mr. Kearley; supported by Mr. Lloyd - George; read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Sheffield Assay Office Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill to be read the third time.
  Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]; Holyhead Water Bill [Lords]; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Middlesex County Council (Tramways) Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bristol Corporation Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 5).
  Mr. ASHTON reported from the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills that the parties promoting the Cork Link Railways Bill had stated that the evidence of Timothy J. O'Mahony was essential to their ease; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Timothy J. O'Mahony do attend the said Committee upon Monday, May 14th, at Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Timothy J. O'Mahony do attend the Committee on Group 5 of Railway Bills upon Monday next, at Eleven of the clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for dealing with the arrears of dividend on the preference and Second Preference Shares of the Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways, Company, Limited, and the accumulated balance to the debit of its revenue account; and for the increase and re-arrangement of its capital; and for other purposes." [Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [Lords.]
  Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways Bill [Lords]; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BUILDING LANDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  (COAL MINES EIGHT HOURS BILL.)
  Petitions in favour; from Alvecote; Amington; Ansley Hall; Arley; Attle-borough; Baddesley; Barnacle; Bed-worth; Bell Green; Birch Coppice; Bulkington; Chilvers Coton; Coalville; Collycroft; Dudley; Duffryn; Exhall (two); Glascote; Hawkesbury; Highley; Kinlet; Longford; Nuneaton; Oaken-gates; Pensnett; Pooley Hall; Rates Hill; Ringsbury; Sowe Waste; Stockingford (three); Tunnel Pit; Tyrergyd; Whiteley; Wilnecote; and, Wyken Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Clapham, against, to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Acton Beauchamp; Aikton (three); Alburgh; Alcester; Alveston; Amble-cote; Ansley; Ansty; Aston Cantlow; Barlaston (two); Barmington; Bedworth; Blackburn; Bowness on Solway and Aikton; Bramham; Brinklow; Bursle-don (two); Catton with Stamford Bridge; Carlisle; Cathedine (two); Chilvers Coton; Chorley (two); Clifton on Duns-more; Colne (two); Combroke; Coventry (two); Cubbington; Cuckfield; Eastern Green (two); "Elton; Ettington; Foles-hill; Forton; Freshford; Gaydon; Glastonbury (two); Grandborough; Halford; Hanging Heaton (two); Harbury; Hartshill; Haselor; Houghton in the Dale; Hulme Walfield; Hunningham; Hurdsfield; Idlicote; Kenilworth (two); Keresley; Kilmersdon; Leamington; Lillington; Little Walsingham (two); Loxley; Lydd; Macclesfield (four); Manchester; Monks Kirby; Moreton Morrell; Newbold Pacey; North Stoneham; Nottingham; Old-berrow cum Morton Bagot and Spernall; Old Milverton; Oxwich (two); Preston Bagot; Priors Hardwick; Priors Marston; Ratley; Ringwould (two); Snitterfield; Soothill Upper (two); Stockton; Sutton with Macclesfield (two); Swanington; Twickenham (East); Tysoe; Wappen bury; Warwick (three); Wesperton; Wellow (two); West Dean with Binder-ton (two); Westgate on Sea; Woston (Warwick); Whichford; Wolford; Wolvey; and, Worsthorno with Hurstwood; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; From Dorset; Sandwich; and, Trowbridge; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Portsmouth, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition of the Incorporated Society of Law Agents in Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES TAXATION &c. (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from the Royal Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL TENANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Forfar, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EAST INDIA (ESTIMATE).
  Copy presented, of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of
  1456
  India for 1905–6, compared with the results of 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 164.]

  EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS.)
  Copy presented, of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for 1904–5 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented, of Home Accounts of the Government of India [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 165.]
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended March 31st, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Rule amending the Time Table of Examinations for 1906 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3582 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NORTH SEA FISHERY INVESTIGATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Reports of the British Delegates attending the Meetings of the International Council for the Exploration of the sea in 1903, 1904, and 1905, and Reports and Correspondence relating thereto [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Fixing of Irish Rents.
    Mr. HALPIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the assessor who attends the head Land Commission on the 12th June next at Ennis, in the County of Clare, will fix rents on

    1457
    the assumption that Canadian cattle will be admitted in the near future.
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that the appeal court referred to will fix rents after hearing the parties, and having regard to the interest of the landlord and tenant respectively, and having considered all the circumstances of the case, holding, and district. The assessor must hear the evidence, and on the application of either of the parties inspect the holding and report thereon to the Judicial Commissioners in the prescribed manner.
    MR. HALPIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state who is the assessor appointed to attend with the head Land Commission announced to be held at Ennis, county Clare, on the 12th June next; what are his qualifications and experiences as a land valuer; is he to value holdings according to their appearance without regard to the quality of the soil and subsoil; will he, when valuing lands, allow for the top dressing put on this spring; and whether he will give instructions to the sub and Chief Commissioners to do justice to the tenants in view of their buying their holdings?
    (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that it would be irregular and undesirable that they should state for the purposes of a reply in Parliament the names and qualifications of the assessors who are to sit with the Judicial Commissioners in cases which have yet to be heard. The discussion in Parliament of such pending cases, and the subjecting of the assessors to criticism in advance of the hearing would, in the opinion of the Land Commissioners lead to serious embarrassment, and render it increasingly difficult to carry on the business of the Land Commission. Upon the hearing of appeals the assessors sit in open court, and all persons concerned then become aware of the composition of the tribunal by which their cases are to be decided. The existing assessors wore appointed in 1903 as being persons of skill and experience in agriculture, in accordance with the 89th Section of the Act. The qualifications of these gentlemen have already been stated in Parliamentary Papers.

  Improvements of Irish Lands.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the fact that the Land Commissioners have power, under Section 12, Sub-section 1, of the Irish Land Act, 1903, to improve lands purchased by them, will he state how much land has been improved, drained, or reclaimed, and to what extent they have otherwise exercised the powers conferred on them by Section 12, Subsection 2, of the Act of 1903, or have the Land Commissioners issued any Return showing the amount of small or congested holdings which have been enlarged or exchanged by them?
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform mo that it would not be possible to furnish a statement of the exact area of land improved, drained, or reclaimed. They have, however, furnished me with the following summary, which indicates the matters on which sums have been expended by them for the benefit or improvement of estates or untenanted land under the section referred to. The figures given indicate the amounts sanctioned up to 31st March last for expenditure on the different matters enumerated, portion of the sums being still in course of expenditure, and the sums expended being drawn from the Reserve Fund pursuant to Section 43 (1) of the Act.

  £

  Buildings and repair of houses

  17,465

  Drainage, fencing, and amalgamation of holdings

  2,508

  Improvement works generally

  4,495

  Advances and grants for stock

  5,420

  Special purposes

  594

  Total expenditure sanctioned to date

  £30,482

  Up to the present the Commissioners have not exercised the compulsory powers given them by Section 12, Sub-section (2), which have reference only to a congested estate. As appears by the Commissioners' Annual Report to 31st March, 1905, eighty-eight holdings had up to that date been enlarged by the addition of parcels, and from that date to 31st March, 1906, 170 additional holdings had been similarly enlarged, making a total of 258 holdings enlarged.

  Temporary Assistant Land Commissioners.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the names of all persons who have been appointed for the first time to the office of Temporary Assistant Commissioner (non-legal) in the Irish Land Commission under the Rules of 13th March, 1899; the date on which each of them was appointed; whether he did or did not pass the examination for such appointments which was prescribed by the Civil Service Commissioners; and if he did not pass it, by whom was he examined with the view of ascertaining that he possessed the qualifications required by the said Rules.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The following is a list of all persons who have been appointed for the first time to the office of Temporary Assistant Commissioner (non-legal) under the rules made by the Irish Land Commissioners, on the 13th March, 1899:—;

  Name.

  Date of first appointment.

  Bomford, G.L.

  3rd June 1899.

  Cochrane, G.A.

  3rd June 1899.

  (a) Croasdaile, L.

  3rd June 1899.

  (a) Esmonde, T.L.

  3rd June 1899.

  Greene, R.W.

  3rd June 1899.

  Humphreys, W.D.

  3rd June 1899.

  (b) Macoun, J.

  3rd June 1899.

  Owen, R.H.

  3rd June 1899.

  (b) Pinkerton, R.D.

  3rd June 1899.

  Smith, S.E.

  3rd June 1899.

  (c) West, A.W.

  3rd June 1899.

  (a) Not re-appointed 1st April 1906. But is employed for a few weeks to ccomplete unfinished work.
  (b) Not re-appointed 1st October 1903. Staff then reduced. Has, however, within the past few days been appointed for temporary duty under Estates Commissioners.

  Name.

  Date of first appointment.

  (b) Dobbs, A.C.

  26th August 1899.

  (c) Green, T.S.

  26th August 1899.

  Harvey, R.

  26th August 1899.

  Marsh, KM.

  26th August 1899.

  Smyth, P.R.

  26th August 1899.

  (d) Strain, D.

  26th August 1899.

  (d) Wark, J.A.

  26th August 1899.

  Bagot, J.C.

  4th September 1889.

  (d) Stuart, W.H.

  16th May 1900.

  (c) Kyle, W.H.

  8th May 1901.

  Flanagan, M.

  2nd April 1906.

  Gill, J.

  2nd April 1906.

  Howard, J.J.

  2nd April 1906.

  Lafferty, P.

  2nd April 1906.

  Linehan, T.

  2nd April 1906.

  The statutory rules of March 13th, 1899, which state the qualifications necessary for Assistant Commissioners, do not prescribe examination. The late Government, however, thought that an examination would be useful in enabling them to select gentlemen out of a nominated list, and the first twenty-one gentlemen named in the above statement were examined accordingly. The present Government considered that examination was not necessarily a suitable mode of selection for men whose wide practical experience was fully established by sufficient evidence, and the last five on the list were accordingly appointed by the Government who were satisfied, after they had all been seen and questioned, that they possessed the statutory qualifications in an eminent degree.
  (c) Not re-appointed 1st October 1903. Staff then reduced. But subsequently re appointed to a vacancy by the lute Government.
  (d) Not re-appointed 1st October] 903. Staff then reduced.

  The New Forest as a Military Training Ground.
  MR. FIENNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that large tracts of land in the New Forest belonging to the Crown are valuable for the camping and training of soldiers of all branches of the service, owing to the practical and natural facilities they afford, he will consider the advisability of taking stops to make use of this land on a large scale for military purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I am glad that my hon. friend has given me the opportunity of pointing out how much the War Department is indebted to the Office of Woods and Forests for the facilities which they have granted every year for training in the New Forest. At the same time I am glad to draw attention to the great assistance given to us by the venderers. I can assure my hon. friend that, in view of the constant help given to the troops by both the Office of Woods and Forests and the verderers, there is no necessity to take any steps of the nature suggested in the Question.

  Accommodation at Fort George.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the casemates at Fort George Barracks were built in 1745, and that casemates have been condemned for many years by every officer quartered in these barracks, will arrangements be made for the erection of new barracks or suitable sleeping accommodation for regiments quartered at Fort George.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that officers quartered in barracks have the power to condemn any portion of them. There is no present intention of providing new accommodation.

  Exhibition of the New Short Rifle.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the cause of the delay in placing the now short rifle in the Tea Room.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The rifle was handed in to the office of the Sergeant at Arms on May 3rd, and is, I believe, on view in the Cloak Room. The Tea Room was found to afford no con-
  1462
  venient facilities for an exhibition of the qualities of this weapon.

  Disturbances at Brunei.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now any information from the Resident thowing light upon the unrest and disturbances in the Sultanate of Brunei.
  (Answerered by Mr. Churchill.) The information is being asked for by despatch, and cannot be received for some time to come.

  Examination for Veterinary Inspectors of the Board of Agriculture.
  MR. ROWLANDS: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the examination of veterinary inspectors of the Animals Division of the Board of Agriculture for promotion to the permanent staff is the same as the examination for fellowship of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; if so, whether those inspectors now holding the fellowship degree of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons can be exempted from the veterinary portion of that examination; and whether he is aware that in the Army veterinary service it is the practice to exempt fellows of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons from undergoing the examination on promotion from captains to majors
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The scheme of examination for our veterinary inspectors has not yet been finally settled, but it is probable that it will differ materially from that for the Fellowship of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. This being the case, and in view of the special character of the work of our veterinary inspectors, it is doubtful whether the suggestion made by my hon. friend is one which could with advantage be adopted, but the matter is one for determination by the Civil Service Commissioners and not by the Board themselves. The reply to the concluding inquiry of my hon. friend is in the affirmative.

  Erection of New Elementary Schools at Trelogan and Gwespyr.
  SIR. THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the President of the Board

  1463
  of Education whether he will take steps to send down an official to ascertain on the spot the local circumstances before sanctioning the erection of new public elementary schools at Trelogan and Gwespyr (Flint).
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In both of the cases named the question of the provision of a council school by the local authority has already been definitely decided by the Board in the affirmative. In the first-named case, however, there is an outstanding point as to the size of the school, and on this I shall be happy to send an official to the locality, as requested, to ascertain the circumstances with precision for the information of the Board.

  Pay of Peterhead Prison Guard.
  MR. JAMES MURRAY: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the sergeant, corporal, and privates of the prison guard in Peterhead Convict Prison, while performing similar duties to the guard of convict prisons in England, receive a lower scale of pay and of pension; and whether he will put them on the same footing as similar offices in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) My attention has not before been directed to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, but it was inquired into in 1903 and it was then resolved to make no increase in the scale of pay. I may add that owing to differences of classification no very direct comparison can be drawn between the prison staffs of Scotland and England.

  Passive Resisters in Prison.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state whether the Return issued on the 26th April, showing the number of prisoners on the 26th day of March, 1906, includes passive resisters; and, if so, how many of such prisoners are so included.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Return includes all persons imprisoned for non-payment of rates. The number of passive resistors in prison could not be stated separately. As I said in reply to a Question in this House last Tuesday there is no legal distinction between a "passive resister" and an ordinary "rate defaulter."

  Promotion of Post Office Second Division Clerks.
  MR. MICKLEM: To ask the Postmaster-General whether Second Division clerks permanently in the employ of the Post Office, such as those in the Accountant-General's Department and in the Savings Banks Department, are debarred either by reason of their Second Division certificate, or in practice, from appointment to higher posts such as assistant surveyorships and postmasterships which are open to sorting clerks and telegraphists; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the restriction removed; and, if not, whether he will have the fact brought to the notice of the heads of Departments, as misapprehension exists on the subject; and whether he will state the number of Second Division clerks so appointed during the last six years.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Second Division clerks are not debarred from appointments to the higher posts referred to. During the last six years seven Second Division clerks have been appointed second class assistant surveyors, but none have obtained postmasterships.

  Alleged Drunkenness of Postman on Duty at Portadown.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a report that on the night of Saturday, the 17th February last, a postman attached to the office in Portadown arrived at the Great Northern railway station, with the mail bag in his possession in a state of intoxication; that, instead of delivering the bag at the post office, he went into the third class waiting room and threw himself on the floor, in which position he remained till 2 a.m.; and whether any notice has been taken by the authorities of this neglect of duty.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will make inquiry, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Professor of Sanskrit in the Presidency College of Calcutta.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the proposal to appoint a European officer to be professor of Sanskrit in the Presidency College of

  1465
  Calcutta has given rise to unfavourable comment in India; and, seeing that the general feeling in that country is in favour of adhering to the practice of employing properly qualified Indians to be teachers of Sanskrit in the Government colleges, will he state what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) No proposal as to the professorship of Sanskrit in the Presidency College, Calcutta, has reached me. I do not propose, therefore, to take any action in the matter.

  Processions in India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India in view of the fact that Mr. Pugh, the late Advocate-General of Bengal, has given it as his opinion that the executive order of the Government of Eastern Bengal, prohibiting processions and the singing in public of the national hymn Bande Mataram, or Hail Motherland, to be illegal, will he stats why this opinion has been ignored by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The matter is entirely one for the Courts to decide; and I understand that a case is now pending that raises this point.

  State Aid to the Blind.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the advisability of granting State-aid to the blind; whether he is aware that the International Conference held at Edinburgh last year reported that the present voluntary system is totally inadequate, and that Continental countries have a systematized method of dealing with this afflicted class.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I beg to refer to my reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for South Belfast on 27th March,† when I stated that the question of reintroducing the Irish Education (Afflicted Children) Bill of last session was under consideration. I hope it may be possible to introduce that Bill this session.
  † See (4) Debates, cliv., 1077.

  The Woodrooffe Estate, County Waterford.
  MR. O'SREE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are in negotiation with the owners of the Woodrooffe Estate, county Waterford, which comprises about 800 acres of untenanted land; and whether they have yet made an offer for this portion of the estate.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not been able to trace the owner of the estate referred to; but if the hon. Member will furnish them with the name and address of any person who can give information, they will make inquiries.

  Irish Poor Law Medicine Contracts.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland for what reason the Local Government Board of Ireland refused to sanction the action of the Kilmacthomas Board of Guardians in giving the contract for the supply or medicine to the union to Messrs Boileau and Boyd, of Dublin, a well-known firm; is he aware that Messrs. Boileau and Boyd's tender was only one and a quarter per cent, higher than the tender of Messrs. Sumner, of Liverpool; and that the Local Government Board sanctioned the action of the Dungarvan Board of Guardians, who gave the contract for the supply of medicines to Messrs. Boileau and Boyd, though in the case of Dungarvan the tender of Messrs. Boileau and Boyd was one and a quarter per cent, higher than the tender of Messrs. Sumner.
  (Answerer by Mr. Bryce.) The Board of Guardians of Kilmacthomas Union advanced no reason for their proposal to accept the higher tender, and upon their attention being called by the Local Government Board to their regulation on the subject the guardians decided to accept the lower tender. The Dungarvan Board of Guardians advanced good reasons for not accepting the lower tender, and the Local Government Board accordingly assented to their application that they might accept the higher tender.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Dockyard Workmen.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the adjustment of the workmen's service in His Majesty's dockyards has now been completed; if not, when it will be completed, and whether such adjustment will necessitate a decreased number of men being employed.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): It cannot be stated at present when the adjustments will be completed, as the details are still under careful consideration.

  Boer Ex-Civil Servants.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by General Smuts to Het Volk on March 23rd, and containing the statement that it would be the work of Het Volk to try its utmost for the Boer ex-civil servants now out of billets, and that men who had sacrificed everything for their country and who today had nothing for their sacrifices must be put back in their old positions; and, whether His Majesty's Government intend that the grant of representative government to the Transvaal shall be accompanied by guarantees for the lights and interests of the British civil servants employed under the existing administration.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): I have read the speech of March 23rd referred to. I cannot add anything at present to my reply of May 7th to a similar Question,† For his convenience I shall be glad to send my noble friend a copy of the Answer to which I have referred.

  St. Helena.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the economic loss that will accrue to the inhabitants of St.
  † See Col. 962.
  1468
  Helena as the result of the withdrawal of the garrison from the island, His Majesty's Government propose to devote any sum of money to their relief in the form of a grant-in-aid.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It would be premature to determine the question of a grant-in-aid from St. Helena until it is seen what effect the withdrawal of the garrison actually has upon the finances of the island. But my lion, friend may rest assured that the interests of this small colony which has so long been used for Imperial purposes, sometimes of capital importance, will not be a matter of indifference to the Secretary of State or to His Majesty's Government.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will consideration be given at the same time to similar placed Colonies such as Barbadoes?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I should like to have notice of that Question.

  Johannesburg Labour Day Demonstration against Indentured Labour.
  MR. VIVIAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at Johannesburg on Labour Day, April 13th, a demonstration of labour societies was held in the market place, consisting of several thousand persons, at which a resolution was carried that the mass meeting reaffirms its unaltered opposition to the importation of indentured labour, and urged the Home Government to take seriously into consideration the threat of some mine owners to close down the mines and throw over all construction work, thereby accentuating the present distress which existed long before the advent of the present Government; and whether the Government is aware that this labour demonstration against Chinese labour was preceded by a similar one in December, and another in October last; and whether these expressions of opinion by miners have been brought before the Secretary of State; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.
  I beg further to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a letter addressed by the General Secretary of

  1469
  the Transvaal Miners' Association to the Secretary of the Cape District Trades and Labour Council, in which the Transvaal miners allege that until the importation of Chinese coolies the British miners on the Rand received 25s. a day, but that at the Comet Mine, the first mine where the skilled miners had to work with Chinese in hand drilling, the wages were reduced from 25s. to 16s. 8d. a day; that the alleged increase of 5,000 white miners employed is due to white men being employed at 5s. a day; that whereas before the war there were 13,000 skilled men employed with 109,000 Kaffirs, to-day, there are not 13,000 skilled men employed with 147,000 unskilled labourers; and that the more Chinamen come the more skilled workmen will be out of employment; and whether the Government have received any of these statements.
  MR. CHURCHILL: With my hon. friend's permission I will give an answer which embraces both his Questions. The Secretary of State has seen the account of the demonstration on April 13th, the resolution then passed, and the other expressions of opinion by the miners which are referred to. He has not seen the letter addressed by the General Secretary of the Transvaal Miners' Association to the Secretary of the Cape District Trades and Labour Council, bat he is, of course, well acquainted with the issues which it raises. There seems good reason for believing that the general trend of opinion among a considerable section of the British mining population in Johannesburg has, during the last year, become increasingly adverse to the continuance or extension of the system of Chinese indentured labour; and the growth of such local opposition must, I think, be regarded as of good augury by those who support the policy of His Majesty's Government.

  Indian Viceregal Council Budget Debates.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the protests made in India against the narrow limitation of the time now assigned to the Budget debate in the Viceregal Council; and whether he will consult with the Government of India as to the desirability of such an extension of the time as would enable a reasonable review to be made
  1470
  of the wide field of subjects covered by the Budget.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): I am aware, and I am not surprised, that it has been suggested that the debate should extend over three days instead of one; but my attention has not been called to any protests on the subject. I will bring the hon. Member's Question before the notice of the Government of India.
  MR. O'GRADYasked whether the Indian people had any voice in the control of the finance of their country?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think the hon. Member is well enough aware of the constitution of the Government of India to know that I cannot give him any answer which is satisfactory to him.
  MR. O'GRADY: But have they?
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Was that a proper answer to give, Mr. Speaker? The Question was perfectly civil, and surely the hon. Member was entitled to a civil reply.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I think my answer was quite civil, and not discourteous.

  Shooting by Soldiers near Village Sites in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to what is known as the Dadri case in the Bulandshahr district of the United Provinces in India, in which some soldiers, who are understood to have been disobeying departmental orders by shooting near a village site, were molested by the villagers, with the result that one of the villagers was shot dead and five others have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for rioting and whether, looking to the character of these cases, which are not uncommon in India, he will issue peremptory instructions which shall effectually prevent the practice of shooting by soldiers near village sites.
  MR. JOHN MOELEY: I have at present no knowledge of the case referred to, but I will make inquiry.

  Indian Judges and Executive Offices.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that two civilian chief judges of the Lower Burma chief court have, in succession, been recently promoted to executive appointments, one to the lieutenant-governorship of Burma, the other to the Viceregal Council, with the probable reversion of the lieutenant-governorship; whether, with the view of restoring public confidence in the independence of judges, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing the practice of promoting judges to executive offices; and whether, seeing that a qualified non-civilian barrister, who has no claim to executive office, is now officiating as chief judge in Lower Burma, he will consider the advisability of confirming him in the appointment.
  MR. JOHN MOELEY: I am aware of the facts stated in the first paragraph of the Question. I have no reason to suppose that these appointments tend to impair public confidence in the independence of the judges. The appointment of judges in the chief court of Lower Burma rests by law with the Governor-General in Council, who will no doubt consider the matter referred to in the last paragraph of the Question.

  Tabah
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information showing that the Turkish troops had been at Tabah for two months before the advancing Egyptian troops discovered them, and that Tabah, which is a brackish well in a desert, was previous to that time in the effective occupation of the Egyptian Government; will ho state the distance of Tabah from the line which the Egyptian Government now claims to be the boundary, and from the Suez Canal; whether the Egyptian troops are now in occupation of the island of Geziretel-Faraoun; and whether the Turkish Government claims this island as its own territory; will he also say whether each of the contending parties is now occupying territory claimed by the other, and near to an ill-defined border line; and
  1472
  whether he will consider the advisability of submitting the matter in dispute to international arbitration.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The claims put forward by Turkey in the course of the negotiations have raised issues going far beyond Tabah and other points referred to in the Question. We cannot refer the safety of the Canal and of Egypt to arbitration, and the best method of defining the frontier is by a Joint Commission, which is what we have proposed.
  MR. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer my Question?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have answered it.
  MR. LUPTON: How many miles is it from Suez to Tabah?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It is a good many miles from Suez to Tabah. I understood the point of the hon. Gentleman's Question to be whether we would not refer the question as to Tabah to arbitration. I would point out that, while it is a good many miles from Tabah to Suez, the claims put forward by Turkey during the course of these negotiations have raised issues that go far beyond Tabah and the other places referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question.
  MR. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Baronet kindly say whether it is 130 miles from Tabah to Suez?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not say that it is not 130 miles; but in view of the much larger claims put forward by Turkey in the course of the negotiations, it is a matter of considerable indifference what the exact number of miles is.
  MR. LUPTON: Will the right hon. Baronet kindly say how many miles from the Egyptain boundary line Tabah is? Is it more than two?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will give me notice of the Question I will reply.
  MR. LUPTON: It is part of the Question.

  The Congo Agreement.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Can the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs say if any settlement has been come to with the Government of the Congo Free State as to the Bahr-el-Ghazal, and if so, what are the terms?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: An agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Congo State was signed yesterday. The best way to make known the terms of the Agreement will be to lay the whole Agreement on the Table, and that will be done on Monday at the latest.

  Police Inspector and Testimonials.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state how many police inspectors have left the force during the past year; and in how many of these cases have inspectors on leaving gone round and solicited the publicans in the district to subscribe to a testimonial for them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Forty-two Metropolitan Police Inspectors left the force during the year ended 31st March, 1906. Several of these Inspectors received testimonials to which no publicans are believed to have subscribed, but only in one instance is there reason to suspect that the Inspector may have solicited publicans to subscribe.

  Prison Warders' Grievances.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now state what steps he proposes to take in regard to the alleged grievances of warders of local prisons.
  Mr. GLADSTONE: I fear I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer † which I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for Sunderland, in which I stated that this matter would receive my most careful consideration.
  † See Col. 979.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when an Answer will be given?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I cannot say at present.

  Gravesend Port Sanitary Hospital.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state how many aliens suffering from infectious disease were last year treated at the port sanitary hospital at Denton, Gravesend; and what expenditure was incurred in their treatment.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether aliens who have been treated for infectious disease at the Port Sanitary Hospital at Denton, Gravesend, are, when discharged or convalescent, examined by an immigration officer as alien steerage passengers coming within the scope of the Aliens Act, or are discharged from the hospital without such examination.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am informed by the town clerk of the City that the number of aliens suffering from infectious diseases who were treated at the Port Sanitary Hospital at Denton, near Gravesend, during the year 1905 was thirty six, and the proportion of expenditure incurred in the treatment and maintenance of such aliens was £485. This expenditure is borne entirely by the Corporation of London out of its corporate funds and not by the rates. No charge is made either to shipowners or patients. Any such alien who was liable on his arrival in this country to inspection under the Aliens Act has, by virtue of Rule 9 made there under, to be inspected before release from hospital.

  Alien Paupers—;Case of Annie Vischner.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to prevent the ratepayers of this country being continually burthened by the alien girl, who has not long been in this country, who is twelve years of age semi-blind, and of stunted growth, who has refused to remain with her aunt owing to ill-treatment by her aunt, and

  1475
  who, in accordance with a letter from the Local Government Board, is to be removed from the school to which she had been sent by the Bethnal Green Board of Guardians to another school, though the Bethnal Green Board of Guardians is, nevertheless, to continue to bear the cost.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Assuming that the Question relates to the case of a girl called Annie Vischner, who arrived in this country in March 1904, I have made inquiries but I have no powers to take any steps in the direction indicated. I may, however, say that the case has been under the consideration of the Jewish Association for the protection of girls and women, and it is at their instance that the removal of the girl from the workhouse schools is proposed. It is intended to send her to an industrial school for Jewish girls, the final arrangements for which, including the question of maintenance, have not yet been made.

  Prison Reports.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Report on Prisons (England and Wales) for the year ending March 31st, 1905, was circulated on October 20th, 1905; and whether he will take steps to ensure that in future the Report on Prisons (England and Wales) shall be circulated sooner than seven months after the period with which it deals.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Having regard to the great number of returns included in the Report, which cannot be made up till the conclusion of the year under report, and to the necessity for careful check and tabulation after receipt, and to subsequent delays which are incidental to the printing and reviewing, I am not able to give any pledge that presentation can take place at an earlier period, though every effort will be made by those concerned to expedite the publication.

  District Railway Company.
  MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can put a stop to the District Railway Company continually obtaining money by
  1476
  issuing tickets to the public when certain trains are not running, as it would appear that the company instructs the ticket office to go on issuing tickets until they are officially stopped, although they know certain trains are not running.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): If my hon. friend will furnish particulars of the practice of which he complains, I will consider whether the Board of Trade can usefully communicate with the railway company thereon. I may say, however, that as I am informed by the railway company, a passenger who purchases a ticket can always get his money back if there is no train to take him to his destination.

  Light Dues.
  MR. W. R. REA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is now able to say whether a Royal Commission will be appointed to inquire into the incidence and administration of the light dues.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did not gather from the tenor of the debate on Friday that there was any readiness on the part of the shipping community to accept the suggestion thrown out for an inquiry into the administration of the light dues. The Government never contemplated that any such inquiry should extend to the question of the incidence of the dues.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of Members voted against the Light Dues Bill the other day because they understood a Commission was to be appointed?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: And the Government are perfectly willing to have an inquiry into the administration if it is desired by the shipowners.
  MR. JOYCE: Other people besides shipowners are interested.
  MR. W. R. REA: May the House take it that the right hon. Gentleman will grant an inquiry?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly, if it is desired.

  Wireless Telegraphy
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the postmaster - General when the promised Return dealing with the working of the Wireless Telegraphy Act will be printed and available for the use of Members of this House.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I hope to present the Return shortly.

  Postal Servants' Grievances.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will move for a Select Committee to inquire into the conditions under which the thousands of persons, excluded from the purview of the Select Committee on Post Office Servants now sitting, and employed either directly or under contracts issued by the Department for which he is responsible, or otherwise employed in connection with the postal and telegraph services, carry out their duties, so that the grievances advanced by these wage earners may be considered by an independent body in the same manner as the alleged grievances of the principal classes of the postal service are now being examined, at his instance, by a Select Committee of this House.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not propose to act on the suggestion of the hon. Member. When the Committee on Postal Servants has reported, and a conclusion has been come to in reference to their recommendations, I shall be prepared to consider and deal with the claims of any of those classes of postal servants who may have been omitted from the inquiry. As regards those employed by contractors, I am glad to say that I have recently obtained the assent of the Treasury to the appointment of an additional deputy staff officer in the Stores Department, who will act as Inspector of Contracts. Thus, the Postmaster-General will in the future be able to exorcise supervision over the conditions of employment prevailing under Post Office contracts.

  Roman Catholic Disabilities.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  1478
  Education whether the provisions of the Catholic Emancipation Act (10 Geo. IV., c. 7., s. 16) which prohibit Catholics from holding any office or place whatever, by whatever name the same may be called in the universities or colleges of Eton, Westminster, or Winchester, or any college or school within this realm, are still in force; if not, why are these provisions printed as unrepealed in the last edition of the revised statutes; and if they have not been abrogated, will he take advantage of the present Education Bill to repeal same.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): As regards England and Wales, with which alone the Board of Education are concerned, I am not aware of any general repeal of the disability referred to. A foot-note to "the statutes revised" (to which the hon. Member refers) states (volume 4, page 879), "so much of the Act as relates to any of the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, or any college therein, is repealed." (34 and 35 Vic, cap. 26, sec. 8.) As regards "any college or school within this realm," the Answer raises very difficult legal questions, on which I have no authority to offer an opinion. I may add that an analogous disability as regards obtaining or holding the mastership of similar colleges and schools by Protestant Dissenters is to be found in the Nonconformist Relief Act, 1779, Section 3. As regards the second paragraph, I am not responsible for the issue of the statutes revised As regards the concluding paragraph, I may say that my attention has only now been drawn to the point, if it be one, in regard to those disabilities, and it shall have my careful consideration.

  Teachers' Compensation.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education how many cases of compensation to teachers have been dealt with under Schedule 2 of the Education Act of 1902; and why no similar provision for compensation on loss of office is made or continued in Clause 7 of the Bill before the House.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no information as to the number of claims by teachers for compensation that have been dealt

  1479
  with under the schedule in question. Such cases do not come before the Board of Education, but would be dealt with by local authorities under Section 120, Subsection (3), of the Local Government Act, 1888, subject to an appeal to the Treasury in cases of dispute. These latter have been very few, I believe about six. In regard to the second paragraph I may say that I am not aware that the new Bill can bring about any conditions of the same nature as those for which compensation was provided in the schedule referred to. But the mater shall have my careful consideration.

  Education Bill—;Financial Provisions
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the £1,000,000 per annum to be granted for the purposes of the Education Bill is to be allocated solely to the arrangements under Clause 2 and the schemes under Clause 8; and, if not, to what other purposes it will be applicable.
  MR. BIRRELL: AS I stated in Answer to a Question on April 26 † from the hon. Member for Blackpool, the new grant will be distributed to local authorities in aid of the local education rate in accordance with regulations which, I hope, will now be issued very shortly. The grant will thus go to reduce the charges in respect of any of their elementary education work which the local authority has to bear, and is not allocated to the points named in the Question nor to any others.

  Distress Committees in Scotland
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state at what towns in Scotland Distress Committees have been established under the Unemployed Workmen's Act of 1905, and what sums have been expended by such Committees for the purposes prescribed under Section 1, sub-Section (5) of the Act.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Distress Committees have been established in fourteen burghs, viz.:—;Aberdeen, Dumfries, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Go van, Inverness, Kilmarnock, Leith,
  † See Col. 28.
  1480
  Paisley, Partick, Dalbeattie. The information asked for in the second part of the Question will be shown in the accounts for the financial year closing on May 15th.

  Sanitary Condition of the Lews.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, in their Minute of March 19th last, propose to provide industrial training for boys and girls resident in the island of Lewis, as recommended in the Report presented to the Secretary for Scotland from the island of Lewis in 1903, will he state whether it is proposed to adopt the recommendations contained in that Report in regard to sites for new dwellings in the townships in the island, especially having regard to the opinion expressed by Dr. Dittmar in his Report on the sanitary condition of the Lews.
  MR. SINCLAIR: As the hon. Member is aware the difficulty is that there are no funds available at present for the improvement of the sanitary condition of the island; the Government is considering the matter; but I am not able now to make any statement in regard to it.

  Garrabost Crofters.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the crofters of Garrabost, Island of Lewis, to whom skinned lands, that is land from which the peats have been removed, were recently offered for the enlargement of the agricultural land of their crofts, are mainly widows and old men unable to undertake the arduous work of bringing the land into cultivation, will the land be offered to the cottars in the district who are chiefly young men well able and willing to cope with the labour involved.
  MR. SINCLAIR: It is not intended to offer the land in question to cottars seeing that it is already in the occupation of crofters for grazing purposes and therefore not at the disposal of the landlord.

  Portmahomack Salmon Fisheries.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware

  1481
  that, although in the case of Middleton v. Patterson the High Court of Justiciary decided, in January, 1904, that fishing tenants on the sea coast cannot compel their men to slap the nets on Sunday, the Conon Fishery Board, Ross-shire, have intimated to the Portmahomack salmon fishers that, notwithstanding the foregoing decision, the Board requires the nets to be slapped on Sunday, when through stress of weather this cannot be done on Saturday, and, seeing that the fishermen of Hilton and Balintore, who are employed by the salmon fishers, absolutely decline to give any form of Sunday labour, he will consider the expediency of communicating with the Conon Fishery Board on the subject, especially having regard to the fact that the fishermen in these villages are exposed to the risk of loss of their employment.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the case referred to by the hon. Member and my attention has also been drawn to the later case of Macrorie v. Forman. The matter is, however, one for legal interpretation and action, and the Secretary for Scotland has no powers which enable him to open communication with Conon Fishery Board with the purpose of controlling their action.

  House Titles in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that some of the landless cottars in the Island of Lewis who are living in insanitary and otherwise uninhabitable houses in some of the townships have recently built substantial stone houses at their own expense on the waste lands of the crofters' common grazing whereby the congestion of such insanitary townships is relieved, will he consider the expediency of urging the proprietor to grant titles at fair rents to such cottars, especially having regard to the fact that the construction of white stone houses materially relieves the local authorities of their duties in regard to the administration of the Public Health (Scotland) Acts, the provisions of which are at present ignored in every one of the townships in the island.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am not prepared at present to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member.

  Stirlingshire Roads.
  MR. SMEATON: I bog to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience and discomfort have been caused in certain parts of Stirlingshire, notably in and around Kippen, by the prolonged delay in confirming the orders of the county council closing some of the more dangerous roads to motor traffic and if he will now expedite confirmation of those orders.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The county council have no power to make orders in the matter. Their application requesting me to make special regulations closing numerous roads to motor car traffic and imposing a ton-mile limit in many others is under consideration. Objections have been received, and steps are being taken to expedite examination of the roads, with a view to an early decision.

  Continental Gipsies in Scotland.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a party of continental gipsies, numbering twelve, landed at Leith on Saturday from the ss. "Cumberland," and another of fourteen on Sunday from the ss. "Weimar"; that these twenty-six aliens had previously been refused admission at Hartlepool; that on arrival they at once joined another band, numbering twenty-two, and are proceeding through the country with them; and whether His Majesty's Government are yet prepared to announce what steps they intend to take to abate this nuisance.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I am aware of the further arrivals of foreign gipsies stated in the Question; and I think there is little doubt that they are the persons who, in a party of twenty-six, were recently prevented from landing at the non-immigration port of West Hartlepool. In view of the considerable number of these persons, prima facie undesirable, who have been brought by the ships belonging to James Currie & Co. of Leith, and in view of the fact that the traffic has been obviously organised so as to escape inspection, I have decided to provide for the inspection of alien passengers on board Messrs. Currie's ships. For this purpose, I am making an order

  1483
  under Section 8 (2) of the Act, fixing the I number 2 as that which will constitute those ships immigrant ships, and subject them to inspection.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will you also make two the number for the Port of London?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; but if I am told there is any necessity I will look into the question.

  Irish Agricultural Inspectors.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the names of the five agricultural inspectors under the Department in Ireland; whether their status is the same; if so, can he explain why one of these officers draws a salary of £955 per annum, in addition to a naval pension, whilst the others are paid at the rate of £300; and if the duties of these officers differ in any respect.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): There are six inspectors on the agricultural staff of the Department, viz., Mr. J. S. Gordon, chief agricultural inspector, and Messrs. E. Gallagher, J. H. Hinchcliff, T. S. Porter, A. R. Robertson, and J. Wood, agricultural inspectors. The five agricultural inspectors are all of the same status. The scale of salary of the chief agricultural inspector is £500, by increments of £20 to £700; and the scale of salary of the agricultural inspectors, except Mr. Porter, is £300, by increments of £15 to £400. The circumstances in which Mr. Porter draws a salary of £955 a year were very fully stated in my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for West Wicklow on 27th February last, † to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. Briefly, the fact is that Mr. Porter was transferred to the Department of Agriculture at his existing salary in pursuance of the Act establishing the Department. It may be noted that Mr. Porter's salary includes a subsistence allowance of £200 a year, whereas the subsistence allowances of the other inspectors are separately charged. There is no substantial difference between the duties of these officers.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: So that this gentleman is getting £955 for work for
  1484
  which the other inspectors only receive £300?
  MR. BRYCE: I fully explained the circumstances last February. † The matter is determined by statute, and the Agricultural Department have no power over it.

  Castlecomer Coalmines.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the year 1801 a grant of £40,000 was made by the Board of Inland Navigation for the purpose of constructing a canal to develop the coal mines of Castlecomer, and that none of that money was since received; and whether he would see his way to recommend a grant being now given to establish a railway connection with the mines, and thus support this industry.
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information to the effect mentioned in the first part of the Question; but I find that on August 1st, 1904, the right hon. Member for Dover, in reply to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Carlow, ‡ stated that the hon. Member had communicated to him a statement from which it appeared that the Directors of Inland Navigation proposed to make a Grant-in-Aid, amounting to £40,000, towards the cost of construction of a canal between Monasterevan and Castlecomer, the payment to be conditional upon the execution of the work; but the money was otherwise expended, and consequently was not available for the purpose referred to. In reply to the remaining part of the Question, I fear that I can add nothing to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's similar Question on March 29th,§ except that I am alive to the desirability of doing whatever can be done, having regard to the funds available, for the development of these mines by proper transit facilities.

  Irish Land Administration—;Wandesforde Evicted Tenants.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any representations
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 1014.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 263.
  § See (4) Debates, cliv., 1547.

  1485
  have been made to the Estates Commissioners on behalf of two tenants, Mrs. Meally and Edward Comerforde, for reinstatement to their holdings on the Wandesforde (Castlecomer) Estate; and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Commissioners.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received applications for reinstatement from both of the persons named. Mrs. Meally is stated to have been evicted from the estate of Mr. William Murphy, and Comerford from the estate of Mr. R. H. P. Wandesforde. The Commissioners will inquire into both cases as soon as possible.

  Sales to the Estates Commissioners—; Agents' Fees.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the agents for the vendors of estates sold direct to the Estates Commissioners are entitled to a scale fee or percentage, to be fixed by the Estates Commissioners, with the consent of the Treasury, under Section 23, Sub-section (11), of the Irish Land Act, 1903, he will state whether this scale fee or percentage has been fixed.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the estates sold direct to the Estates Commissioners consist mostly of untenanted land; and has he any official information showing that the non-fixing and non-paying of the scale fee or percentage accounts in a great measure for the small amount of untenanted land which has been bought by the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. BRYCE: The answer to these two Questions is contained in my reply to a Question put by the hon. and learned Member for North Westmeath on Tuesday last,† to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. The substance of it was that a scale of fees has not yet been fixed, because it is thought experience has not been sufficient, but that payments for the work done are being made, and that it is not believed that purchase has been retarded by the cause suggested.
  † See col. 1166–7.

  Cork County Court Judge and Land Cases
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the case of a tenant named James Hurley, near Enniskean, recently before the county court judge of the west riding of the County Cork, the court valuer who valued the farm was Mr. Richard Martin, J.P.; whether Mr. Martin is father-in-law of Mr. Levis, the agent, and also a near connection of Mrs. Gash, the landlord; and, if so, will stops will be taken in future to disqualify Mr. Martin from sitting in judgment and valuing farms in the county court in such cases as he may be a relative of either landlord or agent of the estate in question?
  MR. BRYCE: The county court judge informs me that he has no recollection of the case mentioned, but that he will give directions that neither of the valuers employed in his court shall inspect holdings in cases in which either the landlord or agent is related to him.

  Cahir Evicted Tenant—;John Horgan.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received particulars of his case, with a view to reinstatement, from an evicted tenant named John Horgan, Cahir, Ballineen; whether the estate of Mr. Richard T. Beamish, from which Horgan was evicted, is being sold to the tenants; and whether, seeing that a man named Timothy Crowley is in occupation of Horgan's farm, steps will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to refuse to sanction the sale of the estate unless the evicted tenant shall be included as purchaser in place of Crowley?
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an application for reinstatement has been lodged by John Horgan; and they have also received an application from Jeremiah Horgan for the same holding. In both applications the holding is stated to be in the occupation of Timothy Crowley. Proceedings for the sale of the estate referred to have not yet been instituted. The Commissioners intend to make inquiries into the cases of all evicted tenants who have applied for reinstatement, and they will consider the

  1487
  question of this particular holding as soon as the estate comes before them.

  Union Amalgamation—;Kilkenny County Council Resolution
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the county council of Kilkenny have on several occasions passed resolutions in favour of the amalgamation of some of the unions in the county; if so, what steps the Local Government Board for Ireland propose to take in the matter; and will ho state at what date the Report of the Viceregal Commission on Poor Law Reform may be published.
  MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are not aware that the county council of Kilkenny have passed resolutions to the effect stated. The question of the amalgamation of unions is one of the matters dealt with by the Viceregal Commission whose Report is, I understand, in the printers' hands and is daily expected. The Local Government Board do not propose to take any stops in the matter until that Report has been received and considered.

  Kilkenny Local Taxation Grants-in-Aid.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the amount of money contributed by the Government to the five unions in county Kilkenny in relief of local taxation respectively for the years ending 1897 and 1905; and also the amount of money raised in rates for the same periods.
  MR. BRYCE: The amount of the payments from the Local Taxation Account to the five unions of county Kilkenny was, in 1897, £5,483, and in 1905, £25,394; this latter including £19,565 paid from the agricultural grant. The Local Government Board are unable to state with accuracy the amount which was raised in these unions as county cess in 1897, but they estimate that the amount was about £28,500, which added to the poor rate raised, viz., £28,666, gives a total of £57,166. The amount raised as poor rate in 1905 was £38,114.

  Land Commissioners and Land Improvement.
  MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  1488
  of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Land Commissioners have power, under Section 12, Sub-section 1, of the Irish Land Act, 1903, to improve lands purchased by them will he state how much land has been improved, drained, or reclaimed, and to what extent they have otherwise exercised the powers conferred on them by Section 12, Subsection 2, of the Act of 1903, or have the Land Commissioners issued any Return showing the amount of small or congested holdings which have been enlarged or exchanged by them.
  MR. BRYCE: The information asked for cannot be conveniently given within the limits of an oral Answer, but, with the hon. Gentleman's permission, I will furnish a full reply with to-night's Votes.

  Temporary Assistant Land Commission.
  MR. LONSDALE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what are the names of all persons who have been appointed for the first time to the office of Temporary Assistant Commissioner (non-legal) in the Irish Land Commission under the Rules of March 13th 1899; the date on which each of them was appointed; whether he did or did not pass the examination for such appointments which was prescribed by the Civil Service Commissioners; and, if he did not pass it, by whom was he examined with the view of ascertaining that he possessed the qualifications required by the said Rules.
  MR. BRYCE: The information asked for cannot be conveniently given within the limits of an oral Answer, and, if the Hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will furnish a printed Answer with the Votes.

  Shannon Harbour Assault Case.
  MR. REDDY: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether Head Constable Baine, of Banagher, was assulted in Shannon Harbour by two boatmen a fortnight ago; if so, has this head constable reported the matter in the ordinary way and will he say what was the nature of the assault, and what steps the authorities are taking in this matter.
  MR. BRYCE: It would appear that the hon. Member has been misinformed

  1489
  The Inspector General has made enquiry from Head Constable Bane, who states that nothing in the nature of an assault upon him has taken place at Shannon Harbour or elsewhere.
  MR. REDDY: The right hon. Gentleman has himself been misinformed. Will he grant an inquiry into this matter?
  MR. BRYCE: I will if the hon. Member can show good cause for it.

  Royal Irish Constabulary in King's County.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of district inspectors of Royal Irish Constabulary and their recorded religious beliefs in King's County, also the number of sergeants in charge of Banagher district, King's County, distinguishing their religion.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary that there are five district inspectors in King's County, of whom four are recorded as Protestants and one as a Catholic. There are seven sergeants in Banagher district, of whom three are recorded as Protestants and four as Catholics.
  MR. REDDY: Why are nearly all the inspectors of one religion?
  MR. BRYCE: I really do not know.

  Instructions to King's County Police.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether Mr. Dobbyn, D.I., R.I.C., Banagher, has issued special instructions to the men under his charge in King's County on courtesy to the public, game preservation, and special exemptions to Head Constable Bane whilst on night duty; and, if so, will they be published.
  MR. BRYCE: District Inspector Dobbyn states that he has not issued any special instructions to his district force upon the subjects referred to, and that ho has granted no special exemption to Head Constable Bane in regard to night duty.
  MR. REDDY: I can prove otherwise Will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry into this?
  MR. BRYCE: I will if the hon. Member can show facts proving one necessary.
  MR. REDDY: I will give the right hon. Gentleman plenty.

  Montgomery versus Sloan.
  MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Moystown petty sessions, King's County, on April 25th last, in a case entitled Thomas Montgomery and the Property Defence Association versus James Sloan, Shannon-bridge, the defendant was charged with threatening to shoot the complainant; and that the magistrates found the case proved, and ordered the defendant to find bail to be of good behaviour within three days; did the defendant enter into bail within the time allotted; were his firearms confiscated; and will he say who signed the justices' book.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the Question, The magistrate ordered the defendant to give bail, and at first gave him three days in which to do so, but before the rising of the court this time was extended until to-day, May 10th. The defendant is licensed to carry arms under the Peace Preservation Act, but the question of revoking his licence is under consideration. I am informed that the justices' order book is signed by General L'Estrange, Mr. Burdett, and the hon. Member himself.
  MR. REDDY: The extension was made after I had signed the book.
  MR. BRYCE: Then I should say that was an irregular proceeding.

  Teaching in Irish.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give Irish Members an opportunity of seeing the scheme of the National Board for the teaching of Irish in national schools before it is finally sanctioned.
  MR. BEYCE: The course suggested would he unusual and not convenient, but I shall be happy to meet the hon. Member or any of his colleagues to discuss the subject.

  Irish Poor Law Reform Commission.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when he now expects to present the Report of the Commission on Irish Poor Law Reform.
  MR. BRYCE: I cannot name a date, but I am informed that the Report is in the hands of the printer, and may be expected without delay.

  Lisanover Ranch.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Bawnboy Rural District Council, dealing with the council's views as to the disposal of the Lisanover ranch, near Bawnboy, referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for West Cavan, on March 19th, 1905; will the views of the local council have due consideration; and have the Estates Commissioners yet made an offer to purchase.
  MR. BRYCE: I have received the resolution referred to and will forward it to the Estates Commissioners for their consideration. The Commissioners inform me that they have not yet made a formal offer for the purchase of the property in question, but they propose to do so as soon as they have decided upon a scheme for the division of the untenanted lands and have obtained the necessary undertakings for purchase by tenants.

  North Derry Election Disturbances.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been reported to the constabulary authorities that Mr. Robert Bailey, of Farney, county Derry, whose premises were maliciously burned down after the North Derry election, was violently assaulted on the 26th ultimo on his way home from the city of Derry by three young men; whether any arrests hare been made; and, if so, what steps do the Government intend to take for the protection of Mr. Bailey from injury and
  1492
  persecution, his only offence apparently being that he was chairman of the Liberal committee during the election.
  MR. BRYCE: The assault was reported to the police. No arrests have been made. The Government are advised that the prosecution of the offenders should be left to Mr. Bailey, the assault not having been witnessed by the police. All necessary protection will be afforded to Mr. Bailey by the police.

  Irish Board of Works.
  MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an organised system of espionage is at present in force against the staff, including professional men and heads of branches, of the Board of Works, Dublin; whether an ex-policeman is specially detailed to watch the movements of the officials and report thereon; if so, can he say by whose authority this is being done; whether any similar system is in force in any other public department in Ireland; and whether steps will be taken to put an end to it.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I have made inquiries and I can find no foundation for the statement that any system of espionage is in force either amongst the staff of the Board of Works or in any other public department in Ireland.

  Telephone Service in County Cork.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any inquiries have yet been made in the principal towns of South and West Cork with a view to ascertaining whether the necessary local support may be available for the purpose of extending the telephone service to those districts; whether the inquiries, if made, have been found satisfactory; and, if so, will steps be taken to include South and West Cork in the forthcoming scheme recently promised to Killarney and other southern centres.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): Instructions have been given for a canvass in the district referred to to ascertain how many persons are willing to subscribe to telephone exchanges. No time will be lost

  1493
  in coming to a decision on the results of the inquiry.

  Telephone Service between Belfast and Dromore
  MR. LIDDELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that inconvenience is being caused to the public and business men of Dromore, county Down, through the inefficiency of the telephone service between Belfast and Dromore; and that, although the Dromore Urban Council and merchants have made numerous representations to the National Telephone Company, no effort has been made to remedy the grievances complained of; and whether he will take steps to have the matters complained of remedied.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Telephonic communication between Dromore and Belfast takes place entirely by means of the National Telephone Company's exchange system in the Belfast area, and does not involve the use of any Post Office lines. I have received no complaints in regard to the rates. If, however, any representations are made to me on the subject, I will have inquiry made.

  The Stibbert Bequest.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can state the attitude of the Government in reference to the bequest to the British Nation of armour and works of art by the late Mr. Stibbert, of Florence.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I understand that the late Mr. Stibbert's intention to bequeath his collection to the British Nation was notified to the late Government, and gratefully accepted by them. Negotiations with his executors are now proceeding with a view to the fulfilment of his wishes.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: When will the result of the negotiations be made known?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot say.
  AN HON. MEMBER: Will the Government urge the trustees of this splendid bequest to the British nation
  1494
  that the curator shall be a British subject? This is a matter of much interest to the community of Florence.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I do not know that this Question arises out of the original Question, but I should be glad to give an Answer as far as I have the information at my disposal.
  MR. WEIR MR. WEIR inquired whether the Government would see to it that the curator was able to speak the Italian language fluently.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There are many British subjects who can speak the Italian language quite as fluently as their own.

  Private Property at Sea—;Immunity from Capture.
  MR. BRIGHT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the second Hague Conference, he is prepared to appoint inter-departmental Committees to consider the immunity of private property from capture at sea, and the feasibility of a reciprocal limitation of naval armaments; and whether it is practicable to approach Foreign Governments with specific proposals on either of these subjects.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir, an inter-departmental Committee will be appointed to consider the question of the immunity of private property from capture at sea. And with regard to the limitation of armaments I would refer my hon. friend to the statement made last night on behalf of the Government by my right hon. friend the Foreign Secretary.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the subject of dealing with the immunity of private property at sea was not one for the Defence Committee.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Entirely; but I understand that this is a preliminary inquiry among the Departments concerned, with a view to a decision by the Defence Committee.

  Chinese Crime in the Transvaal.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister

  1495
  whether his attention has been called to an official Return, sent by Lord Selborne to Lord Elgin, which shows that the monthly number of Chinese deserting from the Rand mines has risen from 245 in July to 780 in January, and that nearly 140 serious crimes, including several murders, have been perpetrated by the Chinese upon the inhabitants of the Transvaal during the last nine months; whether he is aware that numerous public meetings have been hold to entreat the protection of the Government, and that last week a deputation of Colonists waited upon the High Commissioner for the same purpose; whether he has been informed that Lord Selborne, in reply, admitted the danger to the lives of the wives and children of the Colonists from the Chinese marauders, and said that the Goverment would arm every man with guns or rifles against them within ten miles of the Rand; whether there is any precedent for the Imperial Government sanctioning such a policy in a British Colony; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to tolerate further this state of things.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The facts appear to be generally as stated in my hon. friend's Question, though I am informed that the Secretary of State has not, as yet, received an official account of the proceedings connected with the deputation to Lord Selborne. The question of the means to be taken for securing the more efficient control of the Chinese has formed the subject of local inquiry and discussion, as my hon. friend was informed on the 2nd instant,† and the Secretary of Suite is expecting to learn from Lord Selborne shortly the additional measures which may be decided upon, more particularly for the control of the Chinese in the mine premises. Pending the receipt of this report, the Secretary of State is not in a position to express any final opinion.
  MR. MACKARNESS: Is there any precedent for arming British colonists against the foreign employees of a particular industry?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I had omitted to notice that part of the Question. If the hon. Member will put it down again I will endeavour to answer it.
  † See Col. 551.

  Divisions
  MR. EVERETT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, with a view to the saving of the time of the House, the progress of public business, and the comfort of Members, it is possible to improve upon the present method of taking divisions; and whether he can see his way to invite the House to give authority to the Speaker, or other presiding Chairman, when Members are assembled for a division, and a Question is put from the Chair, to call for a show of hands upon it, as is done in all other assemblies, and if there is an unmistakable majority for or against, to accept that as the decision of the House, which would then only have actually to divide when no such majority had been given.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government are ready to consider any proposals designed to reduce the very grave inconvenience to which my hon. friend refers, with a view to submitting those which appear most practicable to the Committee on Procedure at a later stage. My right hon. friend the First Commissioner of Works is also considering the various structural problems involved in the changes suggested. We are very keenly alive to the importance of the Question.
  MR. DILLONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the great importance of allowing representatives to register their names and votes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should think that the power of enabling a Member to register his vote immediately would probably involve that each Member should have a seat allocated to him as is the case in most assemblies elsewhere. This would involve an entire change of the arrangements of the House, as well as of the manner of conducting our debates, and very nearly all the habits, whether good or bad, we have through many centuries acquired. I think that this fact must be borne in mind before we leap to the conclusion that such an arrangement is possible.
  MR. DILLON: I am content with the present system, but all I ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman will keep in

  1497
  mind the great importance of seeing that each representative gets into the public Press some statement of how he votes in each division.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I appreciate that view, and I hope we shall do nothing to invalidate in any respect the present system so far as it secures the publication of votes in the House.

  Sea Erosion.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether ho can now state when it is proposed to appoint the Royal Commission to inquire into the defence of the coast from sea erosion, and other kindred subjects.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the names of the Commissioners will shortly be submitted to His Majesty, and I quite hope that an announcement may be made in the course of a few days.

GOVERNMENT AND UNEMPLOYED.
Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Local Government beard whether he had received an application to meet, on Monday next, a deputation from London unemployed men and women with reference to promised Amendments in the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905; and whether he had replied to the request, and, if not, why not; whether a similar application had been made on behalf of a conference of London Distress Committees held two weeks ago at St. Pancras Town Hall.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The Prime Minister and myself have received a request from the conference of distress committees suggesting that a deputation should be allowed to wait on us. A similar request has reached us from the Right to Work Council. The Prime Minister has replied that no useful purpose will be served by receiving such deputations, as, with respect to London, the Government are waiting for the report of the London Central Unemployed Body, and, with respect to the whole country, the Question is under consideration.
Mr. O'GRADYasked whether the request did not come from unemployed workmen and women.
Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid he had received no application from unemployed men and women.
MB. O'GRADY: Was not the request signed by my hon. friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow and Mr. Frank Smith, on behalf of the unemployed men and women, and not on behalf of the Right to Work Society?
Mr. JOHN BURNS: These gentlemen signed the request on behalf of the Right to Work Council.
MR. KE1R HARDIE: What was the request made in the letter?
Mr. JOHN BURNS: The request was to receive a deputation from the Right to Work Council, to consider a number of proposals. I shall be glad to send the hon. Member a copy of the request.
Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will my right hon. friend receive a deputation from the unemployed men and women who are to meet on Monday to appoint a deputation?
Mr. JOHN BURNS: I can add nothing to my original Answer. The Prime Minister and myself replied promptly and courteously in answer to the requests from the two bedies.
MR. O'GRADYrose to put another Question, when Mr. Lonsdale, on a point of order, asked whether it was in accordance with the rules of the House that Questions of this sort should be asked after 3.45.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member submitted his Question to me, and I thought it was of an urgent character. But some of the Questions which have arisen out of it can hardly be called urgent.
Mr. O'GRADYsaid the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman was very unsatisfactory. When might the House expect the Government's proposals for the

1499
Amendment of the Unemployed Workmen Act?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a Question arising out of a notice that appears for the first time on the Paper to-day. It is a notice "to call attention to the case of Mrs. Eva D'Angely, to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police, and to the decision of the Court in connection therewith." That is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, what in the last Parliament was called "a blocking notice," and under that term came in for a great number of opprobrious epithets from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. I understand that the Home Secretary has deferred answering Questions on this subject, which excites a great deal of interest, and this notice will prevent the question from being discussed on a Motion for the adjournment of the House, should that course be thought desirable. In these circumstances I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be a convenient course to put down the Home Office Vote on Tuesday next for the purpose of discussing this single Question. That would be more satisfactory than a Motion for the adjournment; but if the Government refuse that better course, I hope they will see that the other course is not barred by the action of their friends.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not observe this notice of Motion, and I had no knowledge that it was on the Paper, or of the circumstances in which it was put down. As to the deferring of the Questions on the Paper until Monday, of that also I had no knowledge, except that the Home Secretary told me of it this morning and said that these who had put down the Questions had deferred them till Monday of their own accord. With regard to putting down the Home Office Vote on Monday, we had made other arrangements, and I do not know how far the negotiations have gone, or whether it is possible to make
1500
the alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. But, if it is possible, it shall be fully considered. As to business, perhaps I may say that we had proposed to take on Monday the Finance Bill, but circumstances have arisen to make it more convenient to take that Bill on Wednesday. On Monday we shall take the Second Beading of the Plural Voters Bill; on Tuesday, subject to the suggested arrangement, Class I. of the Civil Service Estimates (Public Works), and on Thursday Irish Supply.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has met me in a fair spirit; but I hope it is understood that the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour as far as ho can to allow the ordinary course with regard to the adjournment to take place on Monday, or will make the arrangement I have suggested for Tuesday. The House will feel that one of these courses should be adopted. As to the Finance Bill, I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman does not expect to take the Second Reading in half a day. I never heard of the Second Reading of such a Bill being got through in less than a whole day.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that ho himself and others proclaimed this to be an exceptionally humdrum and commonplace Budget, the common property of all parts of the House. I merely mention that as making a little distinction.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I repudiate any share in that.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman says with regard to the other matter that there are two courses—;either to put down the Home Office Vote on Tuesday, or that I should make arrangements for a Motion for the adjournment of the House on Monday. I never heard before of a Leader of the House and the head of the Government making arrangements for a Motion of adjournment directed against his own Government. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would not so far forestall the future as to declare that there is to be a Motion for the adjournment before ho knows what Answer is to be given by the Home Secretary to the Questions on the Paper.

1501
Those Answers may be perfectly satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit that possibility, and I hope it will occur; but unless the notice on the Paper is withdrawn, however unsatisfactory the Answer of the right hon. Gentleman may be, it will not be possible for any gentleman interested to move the adjournment, and that contingency I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This incident of a Motion's being put down is a surprise to me; but I will look up the precedents. I am always anxious to follow the example of my predecessors as far as I can, and if I find such a course as the right hon. Gentleman suggests is justified by the action of my immediate predecessor I shall be glad to follow it.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is fully justified in what he has said, and I hope he will look up his own statements and appeals on similar occasions. I may say that never under any circumstances should I myself have refused to give an early date for the discussion of a subject in which I believed the House to be interested in connection with the action of a Minister of the Crown.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to repeat my statement that it all depends upon the Answers given, and if these Answers are entirely satisfactory, whore arises the necessity for our now taking the Home Office Vote?

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
Ordered, That leave be given to the Standing Committee on trade, etc., to sit during the Sitting of the House on Monday next for the consideration of the Land Tenure Bill.—;(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)

SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
Ordered, That the Lords' Amendments be considered.—;(Mr. Bryce.)
Lords' Amendments considered accordingly, and agreed to.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
Return ordered, "showing for London, for England and Wales, excluding London, and for the two together, the approximate number of the local authorities which had financial transactions during the year 1904–5, and the number of such authorities whose accounts are subject to audit by district auditors; also showing, in the case of the last-mentioned authorities, whether the accounts are audited yearly or half-yearly"—;(Mr. Claude Hay.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill—;Sir Edward Strachey; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Munro Ferguson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. STUART-WORTLEYreported from the Chairmen's Panel that they had appointed Mr. Laurence Hardy to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in the place of Sir Thomas Esmonde, at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Land Tenure Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.

  STREET BETTING BILL.
  "To provide for the suppression of Betting in Streets and other public places," presented by Mr. Yoxall; supported by Mr. Cave, Mr. Channing, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Corrie Grant, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Osmond Williams, and

  1503
  Mr. Wood; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 18th, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

  TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
  "To amend the Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1894, with respect to the construction and maintenance of telegraphic lines," presented by Mr. Sydney Buxton; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]
  MARRIAGE WITH FOREIGNERS BILL.
  "To enable the Law with respect to Marriages between British Subjects and Foreigners," presented by Mr. Herbert Samuel; supported by Secretary Sir Edward Grey; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 203.]
  STREET TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL.
  "To enable public authorities to prohibit one person from having charge of two horses and two vehicles," presented by Mr. Shackleton; supported by Mr. Crooks, Mr. Gill. Mr. Snowden, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. James Haslam, and Mr. Steadman; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Education (England and Wales) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—;(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL).
  Ordered, That the proceedings on the Second Heading of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)—;(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)

  SUNDAY TRADING (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Ordered, That Sir Henry Kimber be discharged from the Joint Committee on Sunday Trading.
  Ordered, That Sir George Doughty be added to the Committee.—;(Mr. Whiteley.)

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [7th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Which Amendment was—;
"To leave out the word "now," and at the end of die Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—;(Mr. Wyndham.)
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: As this House is already aware, my colleagues and I of the Irish Party intend, as this Bill now presents itself to us, to vote against the Second Heading, and I am anxious before we come to a decision to make some sort of answer to the very forcible and plausible appeal which has been made to us in part across the floor of this House and more fully in very many communications that I have received from admitted friends of Ireland in various parts of the country, who have asked me whether it is necessary that the Irish Party should take this action in view of the following facts—;firstly, that this Bill is promoted by a majority admittedly friendly to Ireland; secondly, that it is opposed by that Party in the House which is, I may say, the traditional enemy of Irish popular rights; thirdly, that our support of the Education Bill of 1902 alienated the friendship of many friends of Ireland and that, so far as the interests of the Catholic schools of England are concerned, that we did them no service, and that in point of fact the Act of 1902 made the presentation this year of a similar Bill inevitable; and, finally, we are asked whether we, claiming to be Home Rulers, and asking that we should have sole control of purely Irish affairs—;we are asked whether we, taking up that position, ought to interfere in a matter of this kind affecting England and Wales solely, and whether we ought not to abstain and leave English and Welsh Members to settle it for themselves. No doubt that is a very forcible and plausible appeal to make to us, and I admit to the full that there is a great deal of truth contained in it. But I respectfully submit to hon. Members in all

1505
parts of the House that if this Bill contravened, as we rightly or wrongly believe it does contravene, a fundamental principle to which Ireland is and always has been devoted, to sustain which our constituencies have elected us to Parliament, and a principle which has been supported by every Irish Party which has appeared upon the floor of this House—;if that be so, then I respectfully say that I am sure no man will be found in any part of the House to say to us that we should palter with a great principle to which we are devoted, that we should sacrifice a great principle to which we are devoted, because of the fear, or, if you like, of the certainty that by so doing we would alienate the sympathy of some friends, or even, to put an extreme case, that we would postpone the concession of justice to our country. We in the Irish Party have always hold the view that in the long run Ireland has nothing to lose, nothing to fear, by standing boldly and frankly by her principles, even though by so doing from time to time a temporary prejudice may be aroused against her cause. This Irish Party is not a Party of opportunism or of expediency. Had it been so, how different would have been our attitude on the Boer War. Remember what happened. Then we stood alone in this House. [Cries of "No."] I am not forgetting anything. I say we stood alone in this House in protesting against that war, with a few honourable exceptions, but so few that my statement is substantially accurate. We united against us both the great Parties in this House. [Cries of "No."] We had the courage of our convictions, and went into the Division Lobby—;and that is the test—;in opposition to the Vote of the money necessary for the carrying on of that war, though I admit there were Liberal Members who supported us. Still, I repeat the statement that, broadly speaking, we united both the Parties in this House against us, and some of the very best Home Rulers in Parliament, and some of the very best and most sincere friends of Ireland in this Parliament appealed to us again and again, and warned us that if we persisted in that course we would do irreparable injury to the chances of the concession of Irish rights. We stood firmly by our principles, and to-day I make bold to say that we are not weaker; I believe we
1506
are stronger because, in that trying time, we had the courage of our convictions, and proved our consistency. To-day, I do not really believe that Ireland will lose a single friend, though I admit there may be some irritation—;temporary irritation—;among some of our friends. I do not believe Ireland will lose a single friend by open and candid adherence to principle. On the contrary, knowing, as every man in every quarter of this House does know, what our principle upon this education question is, it does seem to me that we should receive, and we certainly should merit, the contempt of every honest man, if we sacrificed that principle because we thought that adherence to it would lead us into temporary conflict with these who we know are the best friends of Ireland upon the great question of self-government. This is not an occasion on which there can by any possibility be any evasion or deceit. We who represent Ireland are, and always have been, denominationalists in principle upon this elementary education question. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that religion is not only a necessary part, but the most necessary of the education of children. That with us is a fundamental principle; it is a fundamental principle of the religion which is the religion of the majority of our Members, though not of all. It is more than that. It is, I believe, the fundamental principle of the whole Irish people of all creeds and clauses in Ireland. When hon. Members talk about the importance from a practical point of view of settling the great education question on denominational lines, I point to the fact, as was done by the Member for Cambridge University, that in Ireland, whatever you may call it, in practice you have a great denominational system of elementary education. And I say that if this Bill were directed against that system in Ireland, if the attempt were made to uproot that system in Ireland, you would be confronted with a union of all creeds in Ireland to resist such proposals to the utmost. We have been told that a settlement on denominational lines is impossible. For myself I do not admit it and I do not believe it. We are old it is impracticable, but I notice that while great stress is laid upon the example of what are called the new democracies in the-Empire, and upon the example of

1507
America, nothing is said about the example of one of the greatest of the new democracies of the Empire, namely, Canada. What is the case to-day in Ontario and Quebec? There is in these great provinces to-day the denominational system in force. There are different sets of schools supported by the State; the ratepapers in these cases when they are paying their rates are obliged to fill in a form stating to what denomination they desire their money to go; then it is collected and given to that denomination, and if it is found at the end of the year that any particular denomination has not received sufficient for the needs of its school then the deficit has to be supplied by the denomination itself. That in Quebec and Ontario has proved a settlement. I do not know whether you will say it is an impracticable settlement here, even if you have no objection to the principle; but I do say that, so far as Catholics are concerned in this country, a system of that kind would meet their case. It is a very remarkable fact which I have gathered from statements made to me by persons high in authority and with good knowledge to enable them to give a correct statement—;it is a remarkable fact that I am told that the rates and taxes—;the educational rates and taxes—;paid by the Catholics of England, would, if pooled together, be sufficient to provide for the wants of every Catholic school in England. That is a statement worth testing, and I invite some examination of it. If the statement is true, then what becomes of the argument that you cannot give us what we want because the Protestants of various denominations will not agree to pay for the teaching of a religion they do not believe in? If my statement is true, no Protestant of any denomination is asked to pay one single sixpence for the teaching of the Catholic religion at these schools. And so strongly am I impressed with the accuracy of the statement I have made that I do not hesitate to say that the Catholics would take the risk, and that if you could tomorrow ear-mark all the educational rates and taxes paid by the Catholics in England, and devote them to the assistance of the Catholic schools, then if that were not enough, and there was a deficit, we would take the risk. We would bear it ourselves. It has been said repeatedly that because we on these benches are Home Rulers, therefore we ought to let
1508
England decide this question for herself Let mo say, we do not want to interfere in the slightest degree with any decision which the majority—;the Protestant majority—;of England may come to as to the control, management, and teaching of the schools. If the majority of the Protestants of England—;in which term I include the various denominations—;choose to set up in their schools a system of simple Bible teaching under what is called the Cowper-Temple clause, we do not object. So far as I can make out—;I say it with great diffidence, and I hope I will not give offence unwittingly to anybody representing any section—;as far as I can make out from what I have read and heard in this debate, there does not seem to be any real or vital or fundamental objection to this simple Bible teaching on the part of any Protestant—;Nonconformist or Churchman. I know that when the hon. Member for East Mayo made a similar statement yesterday it was pointed out that certain Churchmen only accepted this Bible teaching as a foundation, a something better than nothing. I beg, as I say with great diffidence and with not full knowledge, but from what I have heard, to say that, so far as this House is concerned, the great majority of the Protestant Members are satisfied to put this simple Bible teaching into the schools, that so far as the minority are concerned, they say, "We are not satisfied with that, though still admitting that this simple Bible teaching is better than nothing." That is not the position of Catholics on this matter. As the hon. Member for East Mayo said yesterday and I repeat his phrase, there is an impassable gulf between the Protestant Communions and the Catholics. With us, it is not at all a question of the sufficiency of this teaching; it is not at all a question of its adequacy; it is a difference—;a vital difference—;of principle. We regard this simple Bible teaching given under the Cowper-Temple Clause—;not as inadequate or insufficient; rightly or wrongly we regard it as bad, as hostile; we regard it as abhorrent to our religious convictions and in great part as hostile to our religion. Manifestly the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will think we are quite wrong and will entirely disagree with us. That is not the point. If we conscientiously believe that the teaching is not merely

1509
inadequate but bad and opposed to our religious convictions and to our religion, then I say most respectfully that to come to our children and to say to them, first of all, you must, under a compulsory system, go to school, and secondly, when you get to that school you must submit to this simple Bible teaching or go without religion altogether, is nothing short of religious tyranny. We, therefore, interfere in this matter not to prevent in the slightest degree the Protestant majority of England doing what it chooses in the schools, but to prevent a system being forced upon the Catholic minority which that minority declares violates its conscientious convictions.
The Act of 1902 imposed certain disabilities and grievances upon the Nonconformist body in all single school districts. The President of the Board of Trade handsomely admitted the other night that in endeavouring to ward off that mischief the only section from which the Nonconformists got any assistance was the Irish Members; and he paid a handsome compliment to the hon. Member for East Mayo who did make a proposal at that time which, at any rate, would have mitigated this grievance. There is not a man sitting on the Irish Benches who did not admit that grievance and regret it; and I need not say that any legislative proposal to lift that burden off the shoulders of the Nonconformists will have the unanimous support of the Irish Party. But we ask you as well, in removing this grievance, as you are entitled to do, that you should not impose a fresh grievance upon others.
We have another right to interfere. This Catholic minority in England of which I am speaking is an Irish minority. There are, of course, English Catholics; they are not very numerous; they are a small proportion of the Catholics of England; they are for the most part rich men, men high in station and in wealth. That is to say, they are not men who would, in their own persons and the persons of their children, suffer from this Bill, because they have ample means to provide religious education elsewhere than in these schools for their children. I say, speaking of the Catholics of England who will be personally hit by this Bill in the country—;whose children go to these schools, they are all Irish. They are
1510
people who have been driven from their own country to these shores by that very system of misgovernment which you today repudiate and condemn. Their presence in England seriously affects more than one English problem. Their presence in England affects your industrial policy; it affects the question of the unemployed; it affects to some extent this education question. I ask you not to forget that these men are here at all because they have been driven from their own land where they have been unable to earn a living—;that land whose industries over 200 years ago were deliberately suppressed by Act of the English Parliament. And do not forget, further, that these people out of their poverty—;and no one will deny they are the poorest of the poor—;have spent in the building and maintenance of the schools for their children between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. Do not forget the impassable gulf to which I have alluded between their religious convictions and yours, and then do not expect us, who feel we represent them in this House, to abstain from aiding them in their effort to maintain a system of religious training for their children. The plea is made that as Home Rulers we ought to abstain and let English Members settle the matter for themselves. This far I may certainly go. So far as I understand it, the Welsh clause moves in the direction of Home Rule for Wales in educational matters, and I think the President of the beard of Trade and the Welsh Members may take it from us that when that proposal comes up, if we understand it properly now, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman correctly interpreted it the other night in his speech, he will not find any objection from us to placing in the hands of the Welsh people the control of their education. But the proposal to ask us to abstain altogether from discussion and opposition will not hold water. Let hon. Members remember we are here against our will. Give us control of our own Irish affairs and we will be only too glad to give up all possible interference in the managing of purely English or Welsh or Scotch affairs. Remember it rests with you, but so long as you insist upon keeping us here as Members of this Imperial Parliament, and refuse to let us control our own affairs, do not complain if we interfere and act upon the merits of questions such as this when they come up.

1511
I was arguing the other day with a very powerful Noncomformist on the question of further University facilities for Ireland. He was a Home Ruler; he was a man who had been an enthusiastic supporter of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bills of 1886 and 1893, under which the Irish people would have had the power given them to settle this University question according to their own ideas. I asked my friend why it was that having voted in favour of those Bills he still refused persistently to consent to this University question being settled according to our ideas in the Imperial Parliament? And he replied by saying—;
"Oh, I was willing and am willing to give you Home Rule and to let you settle this question for yourselves, but so long as you remain Members of the Imperial Parliament I must judge this question on its merits, and I am against a new University for Ireland."
Now, I say, with the greatest respect, what right has a gentleman who takes up such a line of argument with reference to this question, to say to me that I am bound as a Home Ruler to abstain from interference in the settlement of an English question? I am a Home Ruler and the Irish Party are Home Rulers. We want to go back to the management of Irish affairs in Ireland, and to leave the settlement of these English affairs to English representatives, but you insist upon keeping us here, and you refuse to let us manage our own affairs. In the circumstances you cannot complain if, on occasions such as this, we exercise our rights in examining measures of this kind, even if they affect only one portion of the United Kingdom.
Now, Sir, what is our claim? That claim was put before the House yesterday by the hon. Member for East Mayo in very precise and accurate form. He felt it his duty to place this claim upon paper, and he read it out to the House. That was a claim put forward on behalf of the whole Irish Party in the House. Let me repeat it in more general terms and without any pretence to the precision used by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Let me say, first of all, what it is we do not ask, and then what it is we do ask. I have said that we do not ask to dictate to the majority or to any section of the Protestant people of England as to the teaching they should give to their children. If they desire to have the
1512
Cowper-Temple teaching in their schools, if it meets their wishes we will not attempt to prevent them from having it. Further, we do not object to local control of secular education. There is a great deal of talk about mandate. I will not be guilty of the hypocrisy to pretend that the Liberal majority did not receive a mandate from the country on the subject of local control of secular education. I admit that they did, and I admit further that they received a mandate to the effect that a man's creed should not be an absolute bar to his employment as a teacher. But I deny altogether that there was any mandate from the country that there should be local control of the religious teaching to be given to children, or that there was any mandate forcing the Government to the folly, the grotesque folly, of putting Protestant teachers into schools to teach Catholic doctrines, or putting Christian teachers into Jewish schools to teach Jewish doctrines. We do not, therefore, object to local control of secular teaching, we do not object to what you call the abolition of tests in the teaching profession so long as the provision of that is guided by reason and common sense, and so long as there are adequate safeguards to prevent the grotesque absurdity of sending into schools a Catholic teacher to teach Protestant doctrines or vice versa. Sir, we claim that that clause of the Bill should be made a reality. I do not know whether the Minister of Education has got so tired of hearing his own words to the Jews quoted that he will resent my quoting them again. My position is this, that if the right hon. Gentleman in that speech accurately represented and interpreted the intention of the Government, then all he has to do is to put that intention into the Bill and he will meet the really crucial points in this case. What did he say? He said—;
"Assuming the provisions of Clause 4 with reference to non-provided schools not to be illusory (and of course if they were illusory they would be a fraud), the Jewish body would benefit more largely than any other body. But it was pointed out that it was not a complete protection, because it was not obligatory on the local authority to pay attention to the deputation's demands. It was obligatory on the local authority to ascertain the facts, and if four-fifths of the parents of the children desired facilities it was an obligation upon the local authority. Of course, the local authority, if so minded, might disregard the fair intention of the statute and obstinately hold aloof from doing anything further. He would take

1513
care that their view that a statutory obligation should be imposed upon the local authority to do its duty was put before his colleagues."
On that part of Clause 4, the right hon. Gentleman clearly states what the intention of the Government is. He equally clearly stated that the intention may be thwarted under the Bill, and intimated that he would press upon his colleagues the necessity to make this statutory and obligatory so that the intention of Parliament might not be thwarted or trampled under foot where the local authority might be governed by cranks or bigots. Do not let any man who hears these words misunderstand them. I have confidence in the elected public bodies of this country. I do believe honestly that in the overwhelming majority of cases, guided by the advice from the Education Department, they would in all probability carry out the intentions of the Government, but I cite the Education Minister himself as my witness when I say that in all human probability there would be exceptions. What country in the world is there that is free from cranks and bigots? What country in the world is there where you will find no local authority temporarily giving way to the noise of cranks or bigots, and so long as that loop-hole remains in that portion of The clause I think we cannot be expected to accept it as satisfactory. Let me come now to the next portion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
"With regard to the Jewish teachers,"
he said—;
"the words in Clause4 might require strengthening."
Will the House pay attention to this—;
"But the intention was that the schools should be carried on just as they were now. He agreed that there was a loophole for any amount of pigheaded obstinacy, and denominational bigotry, and jealousy, and unfairness, but it was certainly the intention of the clause that the teachers should remain the same as they were, these who were alone qualified to give the particular religious instruction which hitherto had been given in the school."
Is that a test? [Cries of "Yes!"] Then that is the intention of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says that the intention of the Government is that this teaching shall be carried on by these alone qualified to give it, that is to say by the present teachers, and it must necessarily follow that where vacancies
1514
arise from death or illness these vacancies will be filled up by men equally qualified. These are the claims upon Clause 4. I repeat that if the right hon. Gentleman's speech really and accurately represents the intentions of the Government all ho has to do is to put it into the Bill and certainly upon the crucial points he will satisfy us.
But, Mr. Speaker, the trouble is, it is not in the Bill. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will make any statement to-night or not, but as the Bill stands, that avowed intention of the Government is not carried out, and so long as this is the case we are bound to go into the Division Lobby in opposition to the measure. I do not know, as I say, whether the right hon. Gentleman will speak, and if he does I do not know whether he will consider it wise to make any statement upon this question. But what I ask is, do his words as reported and quoted represent the real intention of the Government, and if so, is he prepared to maintain that that clause is to give effect to it? If this is made right, I have no hesitation in saying that I believe an accommodation can be arrived at with reference to the numerous other questions where we see great objection to the provisions of the Bill as it stands. I had intended to have spoken on some of these points, such as the question of the four-fifths, the question of the 5,000 limit, the question of the exclusion of rural areas, and also the vital question of the treatment of trusts, and above all of endowments. I do not, I confess, thoroughly understand how they are affected by the clauses in this Bill, but so far as I do understand the matter, and as far as I have been advised, the Bill stands at the present moment in a most unsatisfactory condition upon these points. I would have been glad if I had the opportunity of speaking for a few moments upon these matters, but I must bring my remarks to a close, because these matters, always of vital importance, I regard as subsidiary in this sense, that if we can be met in Clause 4 in the way indicated, I am convinced we shall have no difficulty in Committee in arriving at a fair settlement upon the other points.
Let me conclude by making a very brief appeal to the great Liberal Nonconformist majority in this House. I would say

1515
to them that their power is enormous. I heard the threat that was levelled against them yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, I heard the right hon. Gentleman threaten them with the House of Lords, I heard him threaten them with what the House of Lords would do, and I heard him prophesy that when the House of Lords drove them to the country upon this Bill their majority would be dispersed.
A UNIONIST MEMBER: So it would.
Mr. JOHN REDMOND: "So it would," says an hon. Member here. I take leave to say to the great Liberal Nonconformist majority that if they are only magnanimous and moderate in this matter, they can afford to despise the threats from West Birmingham. I believe they are strong enough to disregard these threats. I do most earnestly beg of them not to forget that the Catholic Irishmen of Great Britain at the last general election trusted them and contributed something, at any rate, to build up that great strength which is at their disposal to-day. You Liberal Nonconformists' have something more precious than great electoral and Parliamentary strength. You have a proud history associated with heroic struggle in defence of civil and religious liberty. You have a glorious tradition in brave endurance of persecution for conscience' sake. Again I beg of you not to forget that these men for whom we speak have similar traditions—;aye, traditions of even greater persecution for conscience' sake going on through centuries in the past. Do not forget—;may I beg hon. Members not to forget—;that religious intolerance is not characteristic of the Catholics of Ireland. Let me read for you a few words of the great Protestant historian, Mr. Lecky—;
"Among Irish Catholics, religious intolerance has never been a prevailing vice, and these who have studied closely the history and characteristics of the Irish people can hardly fail to be struck with the deep respect for sincere religion in every form which they have commonly evinced. Their original conversion to Christianity was accompanied by less blood-shod than that of any equally considerable nation in Europe, and in spite of the fearful calamities which followed the Reformation it is a memorable fact that not a single Protestant suffered for his religion
1516
in Ireland during all the period of the Marian persecution in England."
Sir, I appeal therefore on behalf of a people who have some claim for assistance and sympathy from the Ministerial side of the House. I appeal on behalf of a small and poor Irish minority in this land. I appeal on behalf of the children of men who were driven to your shores as I have already said by that very system of misgovernment which you acknowledge and which you repudiate and denounce. In exercising and putting in operation your enormous, your giant strength, I beseech of you by the very tenderness of the deepseated Religious convictions of these men—;these men, whose fathers sacrificed property and liberty and life in defence of their faith—;these men who themselves to-morrow, if the need arose, would be prepared to make equal sacrifices to maintain the religious training of their children.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I think the House may be congratulated on the moderate and reasonable tone which has been the general characteristic of this debate in all quarters, and which has never been more conspicuously illustrated than by the moving and powerful speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. We have had, I am glad to think, no echo, or only the faintest echo, within these walls, of the intemperate and violent language which reverberated through the country during the Easter recess. I am far, of course, from drawing the inference from the relatively low temperature which has happily distinguished our discussion that there is either any lack of sincerity or slackening of determination in the hostility which is felt in some quarters of the House to the Bill; and my object in intervening—;an intervention which I am glad to say will be of the briefest—;is to endeavour, if I can, even at this stage, to remove honest misconceptions that still prevail both as to the intentions and as to the effects of our proposals. I start with the admissions made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—;whom I am sorry not to see in his place—;in a most important and striking speech, a speech in which the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, said many hard things about this Bill, but

1517
which, at the same time, contained almost the strongest testimony that has been offered in the course of this debate—;all the more effective because it was only half-conscious—;both to the necessity and to the essential reasonableness of this legislation. What were the right hon. Gentleman's admissions? The first was that the Act of 1902 created and left behind it a grievance which it was the obvious duty of statesmanship to take the first opportunity to remove. Stated in a sentence, that grievance is this—;that as regards a large number, indeed the majority, of the elementary schools, which were henceforward to be maintained exclusively at the public cost, the public authority was to be represented only by a minority upon the management; that with respect to religious teaching there was to be no alternative between sectarian instruction on the one side and no instruction on the other and that, as regards the profession of teaching, to be remunerated henceforward entirely by the State, and by the State alone, the teacher was, or at any rate might be, debarred from employment and promotion by the application of denominational tests. And what is the remedy for this grievance? I will not attempt the task of disentangling the various composing strands of the mandate that was given to the majority at the last election. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that this country could give only one mandate for one purpose at one time. From that I entirely differ. I think this House of Commons came back from the country clothed with authority to accomplish a number of reforms. But as regards the education question, I venture to say there is no one that followed the course of the election who will dispute that the remedy for the grievance was to be found, in the opinion of the vast majority of the doctors, in the adoption of the two principles which are called popular control and the abolition of tests. The point I want to put to these who are opposing the Bill is this. Of course, if you will not accept popular control and the abolition of tests, this Bill cannot possibly approve itself to you; but if you will take for granted as the starting-point of the argument that these two principles have to receive legislative embodiment, then starting from that point of new
1518
departure, I want to say, not in reference to the details, which are no doubt capable of amendment and improvement, but if you look to the main lines, the essential features and the fundamental previsions of the Bill, there is no other practical way of attacking the problem.
Let me try to make that good. First of all, as to popular control. If there is to be popular control in any effective sense that clearly involves the transfer not, indeed, of the property, but of the management and direction of every elementary school which depends on the State for its support, from a private to a public authority. No one can dispute that. Well, that is done by the earlier provisions of this Bill. There is no interference with property at all. But provision is made that, on five days of the week, and during the school hours of each day, the school premises shall be at the disposal of the local authorities for the purposes of public elementary education, the trustees of the school retaining not only the property, but the complete, undivided, and exclusive user of it for every other purpose of their trust at all other times. That is what is contemplated in the normal case, when agreement is made after negotiation between the trustees on one side and the local authority on the other. And what is the consideration First, there is to be an adequate rent; next, there is to be a complete transfer from the trustees to the local authority of the whole burden of maintaining the fabric for all purposes; and, finally, it may be made a condition of the arrangement by the trustees, if they are so minded, that facilities should be provided for the instruction of the children, whose parents require it, in the special creed or formularies of the sect to which the school belongs. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham yesterday say that under this Bill, while the teaching of what is called Cowper-Temple religion is compulsory, the granting of facilities to denominations was permissive. Exactly the reverse is the case. There is no compulsion of any sort or kind to teach Cowper-Temple religion. The local authority need not provide facilities for it if they so please. The teacher is under no obligation to teach; the child is under no obligation to attend. But as regards

1519
the facilities to ho granted to denominational trustees, in respect of the use of their premises for educational purposes, these facilities may be made a compulsory part of the bargain as between the two parties.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not Section 4.
Mr. ASQUITH: I am speaking of Clause 3. I say the trustees can stipulate, if they please, as one of the conditions upon which the school is to be transferred to the local authority, that these facilities shall be granted, and if the local authority does not agree, then the trustees need not transfer the school.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, they can stipulate.
Mr. ASQUITH: I say the Bill contemplates that the normal case will be one in which an arrangement will be made on that footing between the trustees and the local authority. But suppose a case—;which I hope will not occur—;in which the trustees, however reasonable the terms offered, refuse to come into any bargain at all, and the local authority, therefore, would be faced with the alternative of having to provide, at the expense of the rates, another school for the parish, there is a school already there, which may have been built, to a considerable degree, by the aid of contributions from Government funds, which is held under an educational trust, and which has been maintained for the last four years exclusively out of the public rates and taxes. Would it be a reasonable thing to say that, in these circumstances, if the trustees choose to take up a non possumus attitude, the local authority is to go to the expense of providing an entirely new school? I do not think it would. Under the machinery of the Bill it will be open to the Commissioners, only provided they come to the conclusion that the educational trusts cannot be more adequately or so well performed in any other way than by transfer and user of the school for this purpose to the local authority, to make a scheme. I do not hesitate to say that no such scheme would be made by any reasonable body of men which did not provide proper and adequate terms
1520
both as regards rent and facilities for the denomination. How is that to be done? It is to be done by the Commission. We have heard a great deal of hard language about this Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover spoke with indignation of the three commissioners as a triumvirate. The right hon. Gentleman is steeped in classical lore, and he knows very well that the term triumvirate is associated in the minds of students of Roman history with a more or less unscrupulous partnership who carried on the work of spoliation and sometimes of sacrilege. That is what the term triumvirate is intended to suggest. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's clerical associates outside the House have gone one better, and have declared that this Commission will combine all the worst features of the Star Chamber and the Inquisition. Now, Sir, why do we suggest the appointment of this Commission? There is no sinister motive behind it. It is because we want to provide a tribunal which shall at the same time be cheap, prompt, accessible, and convenient for all parties concerned. And how is it to be constituted, and what are its powers and duties to be?
Mr. T. M. HEALY: Like the Parnell Commission.
Mr. ASQUITH: So far, I agree with the hon. and learned Member that its members will be named in the Act of Parliament, they will not be anonymous. Therefore their nomination will be subject to approval by both Houses of the Legislature. In the second place, they are required to give their decisions not according to some rule of thumb; they are required to give their decision in accordance with the rules of equity which prevail in the Court of Chancery in the administration of charitable trusts. And as the Chancellor of the Duchy has pointed out, from whom do the objections to this Commission come? They come from a party which only last year appointed in Scotland, in regard to an ecclesiastical matter which, I assure the House, stirred the conscience and feelings of the people of Scotland quite as much as this question can affect the people of England, a Commission to adjudicate upon a number of most delicate proprietary and other-questions as between the United Free Church and the Free

1521
Church. I believe that was a triumvirate. [An HON. MEMBER: Five.] Well, in all other respects, except that it consisted of five persons, that Commission had powers quite as large, a discretion quite as unlimited, and restraints less clearly expressed in the statute, than is the case with this Commission. If you accept the principle of public control as I have denned it, it would be impossible to show a more scrupulous regard for equity, the rights of property, and for continued user of the buildings for all the special purposes of the trust, than are shown in the provision of this Bill.
I have said that the second principle which, in obedience to the mandate of the country, we were bound to introduce was the abolition of tests. I am relieved from much argument on that by another and still more remarkable admission which was made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham last night. I think it would not be difficult to show that tests in any department of the public service are noxious and useless. In the case of honest men tests are unnecessary and by dishonest men they are evaded. I need not labour the point, because we beard last night the right hon. Gentleman say as to the principle that no religious test should be exacted from the teaching profession, "I think we all agree." The right hon. Gentleman used the first person plural more than once, and apparently not always in the same sense. At one moment "we" stood for the whole Unionist Party—;I do not think for much more than one moment; at another moment "we" represented the seven stalwarts who came from Birmingham; and at another moment "we" stood for that indefinite and immeasurable quantity, the number of persons who happen for the time being to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Let us who sit in these benches rejoice. This is almost a red-letter day in our history. For once we are embraced in that number. The Bill enacts that for the future no teacher shall be required to subscribe to any formulary, to attend the services of any particular religious communion, or even to give religious instruction if he is not minded so to do.
But now I approach the point where controversy becomes more acute. The teacher is not required to give any religious instruction, but he is empowered
1522
to give what has been called undenominational teaching—;teaching, that is to say, that is recognised in the sense of not being prohibited by the Cowper-Temple Clause of the Act of 1870. I shall be asked—;and I want to try and give a fair answer to the question—;what is the justification for allowing your teacher to give this so-called undenominational form of religious teaching? I will admit that even the simplest form of religious teaching cannot accurately be called undogmatic. In a sense that is true. Indeed I go further. I will not qualify my proposition. It is true that the most elementary propositions as to the relations of man to a Higher Power and to an unseen world involve a dogmatic element. As a mere matter of logic you may urge, I agree, without any extravagance of paradox, perhaps without paradox at all, that such propositions, for instance, as these which assume the fatherhood of God or the existence of a future state are as much dogmatic as the doctrine of the Eucharist or the Immaculate Conception. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham very properly pointed out yesterday, the Cowper-Temple Clause does not profess to proscribe or exclude from our elementary schools dogmatic teaching. There is no such provision in the Act of 1870, because the framers, who knew what these things meant, were, we may assume, perfectly aware that to exclude dogmatic teaching in the widest sense of the term would be to exclude religion altogether. What it does is something quite different; it pro-vents the rate-aided teaching of formularies and creeds which are distinctive of some particular religious denomination. The two things are absolutely different one from the other. You may say that is very illogical, and in a sense I agree that it is. I never professed, and I do not believe any of my right hon. or hon. friends have ever professed to reduce the Cowper-Temple Clause to terms of strict logic. But we are living and moving in this matter not in a world of abstractions, but in a world of human beings, and, in particular, in a world of Englishmen and Englishwomen, and, above all, of English children; and the. Cowper-Temple Clause, although-it is illogical, is a thoroughly characteristic specimen of a workable English compromise. And when I use the term

1523
"workable" I point to the experience of a generation. And what has that experience shown? Two very remarkable facts. In the first place, that the local authorities of this country, representative of and responsible to the ratepayers and the parents of the children, although under no obligation to prescribe the use of any form of religious teaching in their schools, have, with relatively few and insignificant exceptions, adopted this form of teaching. Another fact equally remarkable, and pointing exactly in the same direction, is that the parents of the children have not withdrawn their children to any sensible extent from this kind of instruction, not oven in places where there was an alternative school to which, if they pleased, they could send their children. These two facts are pretty good evidence in support of my proposition that the Cowper-Temple Clause has proved a very workable arrangement. What is the inference? My inference is this—;that this system of simple Bible teaching does not as a rule offend the conscience of the average Anglican parent. Further, it is well fitted to the intelligence of the smallest child; and lastly, and perhaps most important, considering the smoothness and ease with which the system has been worked, it is capable—;as every one, from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards, has admitted—;of being supplemented, and, if you please, enriched at home, in the Sunday School, and in the Church, by the addition of these more complex and more controverted matters which make up, if I may so describe it, the distinctive liveries of the various religious denominations.
If that is so, we come face to face with a new metaphysical figment—;namely, the supposed inalienable right of the English parent to have his child taught at the cost of the State the particular creed which ho himself professes. Whore does this right come from? It is a new addition to the family of supposed natural rights. What is its parentage, and, above all, what is the date of its birth? It was not known to the framers of the Act of 1870. Why? Because they provided that if you wanted this privilege of denominational teaching for your child you could not have it at the expense of the rates, but you must go to a school supported by the voluntary subscriptions of the denomination whose creed was
1524
there taught. So that the right was clearly unknown in 1870. But this inalienable right found no recognition from the framers of the Act of 1902. What about the 8,000 parishes in which the choice of the Nonconformist parent lay, and at this moment still lies, between the Anglican teaching and no religious instruction at all? Where is this inalienable right of the parent to have his child brought up in the creed that he himself holds? It is a pure fiction; it has no home and no pedigree, either in the book of nature or in the statute law of the realm.
What is the alternative? There is only one alternative to permitting the local authority to continue this undenominational teaching. I say it deliberately, although the right hon. Member for West Birmingham seemed to think that there were two alternatives. I say there is only one, because I brush aside absolutely as being unworthy of consideration the universal and unlimited right of entry by the sects into the schools. I venture to ask the House, to ask these who are most honestly keen for denominational teaching in our schools, what could be more fantastic in conception, what could be more unworkable in practice, and, I may add for myself, what could be more repugnant to the best interests of religion, than that in the public elementary schools you should erect a set of sectarian pens, and that you should take these poor children, and having first put them through the process of interrogation, brand each of them with a letter which indicates its father's denomination, and then herd them off—;["Oh, oh." and "No, no!"]—;each little group to its own separate compartment, to be taught—;what? Surely not to lie taught the Gospel lesson of one fold and one shepherd, but rather to encourage them from their earliest years to attach a supreme and capital importance, not to the things as to which all Christians are agreed and believe, but to ho things about which Christians are at war. There is one real alternative which the hon. Member for Leicester in his admirable speech mentioned—;namely, to confine the function of the State to secular teaching and to leave the provision of religious training for your children to be done outside the school. I am not sure that we have yet got to a clear definition of what secularism

1525
means. Take the position of the Bible. The Bible, I imagine, under a secular system might be still admitted to the school as a literary model, possibly—;although I am not sure as to this—;as an historical manual. But here the hon. Member is assigning a totally different place to the Bible from what it has held, and still holds, and what according to the wishes of the majority of the people it ought to continue to hold, in our schools. I will not argue the merits or demerits of the secularist solution. I say two things of it. It is not illogical, as I admitted a few moments ago, Cowper-Templeism may be said to be. I think, further, that it is not impracticable in the sense in which an unlimited universal right of entry would be. But it has one fatal drawback from the point of view of practical politics. The experience of a generation has shown that it is not suited to the genius and that it is contrary to the wishes and the predominant opinions of the vast majority of English parents.
I will add another word as to the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford about Clause 4. I admit that Clause 4 extending the facilities is an exception to the general scheme, grafted on the framework of this Bill. It leaves the matter to the discretion of the local authority. In other respects undoubtedly it constitutes an exception to the general scheme of the Bill. But to what case does it apply? It has two safeguards. In the first place, it can only be put into operation at the instance of an overwhelming majority of the parents in a particular school; and, in the next place, it can only be applied where there is an alternative school to which children whose parents do not desire to see them exposed to this ecclesiastical or sectarian atmosphere can be sent, instead of sending them to the sectarian school. It is said that this clause was put in with a special view to meet the case of the Roman Catholics. Who denies it? I do not hesitate for a moment to face the fact. But where similar conditions prevail with regard to any other religious denomination the same treatment will apply, and it gives the same advantage to them. I admit to the full what has been said about the peculiar position of Roman Catholics in this country with regard to education.
1526
I shall never be inclined to undervalue in any degree the enormous services which the clergy and the laity of the Church of England have rendered to education in days gone by, in the building of schools and in carrying on pioneer work in every direction. Yet no one will dispute the truth of what I say when I state that there is no denomination which, in proportion to its means and opportunities, has done so much for the education of its poor children as the Roman Catholic. And the condition of the Roman Catholic population is such that difficulties have arisen and will continue to arise in the country parishes of England, unless legislation of this kind is carried out. They have no existence in other communities, but in almost every case the thing must be worked out in detail, and we shall be glad to listen to the particular arguments used in reference to each case. But speaking broadly and generally of the Roman Catholic school in a district, there is an alternative school to which children may be sent. It is the same in the case of the Jew I defy any one to produce an Education Bill which will be a perfect specimen of logical symmetry, and I may add that if you produced it it would be totally unadapted to meet the real wants of English education. It is only by elasticity, by adaptation, by recognising the special exigencies of particular places and particular causes that you can bring your legislation into harmony with the real requirements of the people. I hold, therefore, that the insertion of Clause 4, if we are to do justice to the real necessities of the case, was absolutely forced upon us. My colleagues and I are perfectly ready in Committee in all matters of detail to listen to reasonable suggestions, and, I hope, to come to harmonious adjustments. But with regard to the main provisions and the fundamental principles which I have endeavoured to explain to the House, dictated, as we believe them to be, by justice, and approved as they were by the vast majority of the electorate, to these main provisions we shall resolutely adhere.
ME. T. M. HEALY: NO one who has listened to the speeches made to-day and on preceding days on this measure, so important for the future educational and spiritual life of this

1527
country, can question that the debate has been worthy of an illustrious and reverent assembly. On many occasions I have been reminded of the debates of twenty years ago on the Home Rule Bill of 1886, and I think no one in any quarter of the House, or any part of the country outside, can deny that from all sides the attention has been given to this matter which its importance deserves. At the same time it must be remembered that we are laymen, and that from this House are excluded every cleric, both of the Church of England and of the Catholic Church, and I believe all ministers in active communion with any sect. We must remember that we are dealing with the minds of children, plastic and receptive, who are to be the future fathers and mothers and directors of this great Empire, and when we, with our mundane views, our mundane prepossessions, and our temporal interests address ourselves to this matter, I venture to think we are not able to bring these considerations to all parts of the question which do go to the root of this great educational matter. At this stage I must heartily protest against the view that whether in this matter of education, or in any other concern with which we have to deal, clericalism is the enemy. I protest against it. I say it is not true. It was not true when it was first spoken, and it is certainly not true in this matter of education. I do not rise, however, for any purpose of wrangling or contention with Members on the Front Bench opposite. I rise rather for the purpose of saying that I have listened with some attention to the demand which has been made and the proposition put forward by responsible Gentlemen on the Irish and Catholic side of the question, and have failed to notice any response whatsoever thereto. I know very well that Parliamentary government cannot be carried on merely across the floor of the House of Commons. I know very well that there are Gentlemen upon this side of the House to whom Party is more than religion, and I know very well the reticence that is requisite and necessary in dealing with a great and complex question, but in the main I must say that my sympathies have been aroused by the speeches of the Tory Party in this matter,
1528
and I think it does them credit that they have not been ashamed to get up in this mundane and sometimes cynical assembly to protest with vehemence and passion in favour of principles similar to these which we as Catholics profess. I am old enough as a Parliamentarian to make allowance for this reserve upon the Government Benches, and also I know well the strong pressure which is put upon them from their own side of the House, largely from men of small acquaintance with Parliamentary traditions, some of them new to the House, some outside the House, who little know what goes to the making of a contentious British Act of Parliament. It is said that the late election gave birth to a mandate. From what the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests it gave birth to twins or triplets. I must admit at the outset that the Nonconformists of England have a distinct grievance. I believe that their spiritual concerns have been prejudicially affected, and their conscience far strained, if not outraged, by the existing state of affairs. But the question is this: Does this Bill merely remedy that, or does it take occasion to go far beyond the necessities of the case? We all know the consecrated phrase, "Go and teach all nations." I think the preamble of this Bill might be, as far as this doctrine is concerned, "Go and teach all nations, with the consent of the county council." Having given careful consideration to this Bill I can see no propriety in a large portion of its provisions. I can see no occasion for them, in so far as relief to the Nonconformist Party is concerned, and I should construe it as a new Act of Conformity. I never read the Act of Conformity passed in the time of Charles II. until this Bill was introduced. I was astonished to find, ignorant as I am, that the Book of Common Prayer was only the schedule of an Act of Parliament. I went into the House of Lords. I looked, so curious was I, at the original of the measure, and there I found actually interlineations and Amendments in the handwriting, I suppose, of the Clerk at the Table and the other persons who assisted at religion in the making. And when I saw that the Ordering of Deacons was prescribed by statute,

1529
together with such matters as the Communion and other sacred subjects of that kind, I understood the meaning of Nonconformity, and I realised how strong must be the feeling of these Gentlemen opposite, who starting with the proposition which the Church of England originally announced as against the Catholic, that the Bible was to be the sole book and ground of faith, rejected the proposition that religion might be taught or enforced by Act of Parliament. But what is this Bill? It is the new Act of Conformity. It is the Nonconformist Act of Conformity. Who was Cowper-Temple? One of the new British Apostles? I can well understand when we get into Committee on this Bill, if it retains its present form, Church of England gentlemen playing the same game as against the Nonconformists, through the medium of a schedule, as was played in the time of Charles against the Catholics. For instance, happy Hampshire has been referred to by the President of the beard of Trade, who announced that the Hampshire formula was one agreed to by the Catholics, Protestants, Nonconformists, and atheists of Hampshire. Supposing when we come to this question of special instruction the Conservative Party say, "Let us do what our forefathers did, and put into the schedule of this Bill this simple Bible teaching which Nonconformists are willing to accept, and not leave it to the tender mercy of, say, the Hampshire County Council. For even the most reverent minded or irreverent minded must desire that on this great matter of public instruction you should not have men able to say, 'I belong to the York-shirists,' or In religion I have Lancashire leanings.' All sects of Protestants accept the Bible, and as it is from this House that the Bible is authorised to be taught in Churches, we should put into this Bill the simple Bible teaching dear to the hearts of all of us." What would be your answer to that? Will you say, "Oh, let us leave it to the London County Council," so that the body which is elected to look after drainage will have in the future the right to deal with doxology. I do want, therefore, gentlemen of the Nonconformist faith who take so strong a view with regard to the Catholic position
1530
to understand the tremendous differences and difficulties which lie along the road in dealing with this great and important subject. The Irish Secretary said yesterday that once you have public control you must not have tests. I looked up what was the root of that proposition, and I find that it is absolutely incorrect, because in a number of cardinal matters where you have public control this House has insisted upon sectarian teaching. The Catholic convict, the Catholic pauper, the Catholic soldier, and even the Catholic corpse is looked after with extraordinary punctilio by the great Parliament of England. But before I come to that, I wish to disclaim from my heart the opinion that the English people, so far as I have met them in this House, are bigoted against my own religion. I wish to add this in addition. A story has gone with extraordinary effect throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. It was the case of a poor soldier wounded in the South African War and crying for a priest to hear his last confession and give him absolution. No priest was within 700 miles of him; but the authorities sent a special train 700 miles to bring a Catholic priest to hear his dying confession. How could we Catholics, knowing what is the modern feeling of Englishmen with regard to our creed, approach this question from any point of view of suggesting that you desire to deal unfairly with us? When you had these difficulties to deal with in former days how easily, specifically and circumstantially, you met us. Take the case of the Poor Law. You have full control over the Poor Law, yet Catholic children must be reared as Catholics. If they are brought into the workhouse, they must be put under a specific head of the denomination; they must be taught by a Catholic teacher; they must be taught the Catholic religion; they must go to Mass on Sunday; and the guardians, either inside or outside the workhouse, must see that these children receive Catholic instruction. Where is the difficulty there, and yet you have popular control. Now I come to the industrial schools under the control of local bodies. Where a child is committed by the magistrate to these schools, it is provided by law that the magistrate must send a Catholic child to

1531
a Catholic industrial school. If the father or mother are so ignorant or so criminal that their children are driven to the streets, the country takes them before a magistrate and commands that magistrate to send them to get a good Catholic education at the expense of the local authorities. So I must be either a pauper or a foundling in order that the rites of my religion may be conserved. Then how do you provide for the pauper carcass? One would think that when we die you would throw our bodies into a common fosse. That is how they deal with a dead Catholic in some places. But it is illegal under one of the provisions of the Public Health Act to bury a non-Catholic in a Catholic plot. One might say, "What harm would it do to bury John Jones and Paddy O'Rafferty side by side?" But such is the spirit of your legislation that without any practical demand from united Irish sentiment, and from mere equity, which is after all the one thing that this House most prides itself upon, you made that tender provision for these poor people to lie in the dust only with members of their own creed. It is said it would outrage Protestant sentiment to provide money for non-Protestant teaching. But you provide money for Mohammedan teaching in Khartoum; and you actually provide money for the Jesuits in Ireland, though perhaps you do not know it. It is illegal to have anybody but Catholic priests to officiate in Catholic plots; it is illegal for any but a Catholic burial service conducted by a Catholic to be carried on therein. Is not this question you have to deal with in connection with one small denomination a measurable and handable question? I know and intensely feel the meaning of this great conflict between the various Protestant communities. But, what have we done to deserve being drawn into the mill? There was an unfortunate battle between the Protestants and Catholics in the days of Henry VIII. We were beat, and for three centuries the Papists were like a toad under the harrow. They have gradually emerged, and, relying on the faith of British tradition and of British statutes, they have under the shadow of the Protestant church, Methodist chapel, or Quaker place of worship, erected their humble and sometimes their squalid
1532
churches and schools. Catholics never dreamt that they would be involved in the controversy between the Protestant sects. Up to 1870 Catholics never asked for a subsidy; they never dreamt of it. They erected their schools and kept them unaided and without troubling you in any way. But after the German War it was decided that there must be universal compulsory education, and it was at once found necessary to provide school rates. That was in the economic days of Mr. Gladstone, who believed in compelling people to pay rates to make this provision. At once the Catholics found themselves rated to provide education for Nonconformists, the Church of England being already sufficiently provided for. That is what has given rise to this entire controversy. Consequently in 8,000 parishes you want this inexorable Bill as a straight-jacket to torture us. Why; it is absurd. "Oh," it is said, "you must have logic." This phrase about logic is like a football. We are assured that the British constitution is not logical and that human life cannot be conducted on principles of logic. That is when it suits you to say so. When some proposition is put forward to mitigate a hardship you yourself suffer, you say, "Oh, we must be logical." This Bill, which deals with 20,000 schools, proposes to affect 1,000 Catholic schools in which not one Nonconformist or one Churchman takes the smallest interest whatever. The life of England would not be affected, so far as English national life is concerned, if these 1,000 Catholic schools had never been established, or if they were swept from the face of the earth. Why, then, interfere with them? The Spanish Armada is not on the Channel. There is an entente cordiale with the French. The Pope is in the Vaican; the Italian Government have him pretty well in safe custody. And, therefore, in this great conflict between Anglicans and Nonconformists, why, when you have made us pay for our own schools for three or four centuries, do you now propose a new Act to put a prescription upon these unhappy Catholic schools? It would be, of course, easy for us to speak in matters of this kind in language of emotion. I desire, if I can, to avoid anything of that kind, and, above all, I wish to avoid making

1533
protestation of religious opinion. But I will say this, I would rather have my children learn to say "Our Father" than to learn the use of the globes. I would rather they understood their religion in the provision for the eternity which is to come than that they should become rich and prosperous, and educated in the things of this world. I would give very little for your education. I cannot spell myself. I cannot parse tin English sentence. I cannot do the rule of three. I am supposed to know a little law, but I think that is a mistake. But if there is one thing which I and mine have got a grip of, it is the belief in the Infinite Christ to come; and the belief that our children, whatever be their distresses, whatever be their misfortunes, whatever be their poverty in this world, if they have listened to the teaching of the Church, will reap a rich reward in putting into practice the lessons of Christianity which they receive in the Catholic schools.
Mr. PAUL: I am too old and too hardened an Erastian to be too much shocked at the hon. Gentleman's description of the Parliamentary origin of the Church to which I belong. I know that the religion of Protestant is fair game for the racy humour of my hon. and learned friend and these who belong to the Church of which he is a member. I have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member and to these of the hon. Members for Waterford and the City of Cork, and I could not help thinking that while theoretically we were hopelessly asunder, practically the difference between us was very small indeed. There is no human method of bridging the gulf between one who, like myself, believes in the principle of private judgment in matters of faith, and these who believe, like hon. Members from Ireland, that it is a matter of authority. Which of us is on the right side of the abyss God only knows, but I cannot think that the question of how to adjust the conditions of these denominational schools can be beyond the capacity of this House. I rise in the first place to respond to a peculiar challenge which came yesterday from a very remarkable source. The right hon. Gentleman the
1534
Member for West Birmingham, speaking for the first, and I hope not for the last time, as the champion and spokesman of the Church of England, attacked me and some of my hon. friends here under the impression that we were triumphant Nonconformists, dancing upon the prostrate body of a communion to which we did not belong. I do not know how long the right hon. Gentleman has been a member of the Church of England, but I have been a member of it ever since I was born, or at all events since my baptism, which I cannot remember, and I take the liberty of denying that the Church of England is opposed to this Bill. I have no more right to speak for the Church of England than the right hon. Gentleman has to speak for the Unionist Party when he denounces tests, but I would remind him that the Church of England does not consist exclusively of venerable and vituperative ecclesiastics. The Church of England consists for the main part of laymen and nine-tenths, and I believe I may say nineteen-twentieths, of the members of the Church of England are entirely satisfied with the religious education given in the provided schools of the country. They do not regard it merely as the foundation upon which the superstructure may be built; they think it is sufficient and complete in itself. What is undenominationalism? I should answer that question in one word—;Christianity; and if I were asked to give a specimen of undenominational religion I would give with all reverence the Sermon on the Mount. There is no dogma there; there is no difficulty in understanding it; the difficulty is to live up to it. And where, I should like to know, do these dogmatic gentlemen send their own sons. The hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen, in the less gloomy of his vaticinations, predicted that one result of this Bill might be the substitution of private for public schools, but the fact is that gentlemen opposite send their sons to public schools. There is only one of these institutions that I know anything about, but I have no reason to suppose that in any respect it is not typical of others, and the only dogmatic teaching I ever learnt there was that the New Testament was written in very bad

1535
Greek. But I learned a great many much more valuable things, and I sent ray son there, because I thought he would be made a Christian and a scholar, and not a sacerdotalist or a theologian. I noticed the other night that when the names of Canon Henson and the Bishop of Hereford were mentioned in debate there were sounds of dissent. But are not they and many others who support this Bill to be reckoned as Churchmen? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to destroy the Church of England, which they cannot do, there is no better step they can take than to identify it with a political party. I do not think that the Liberal Party have any monopoly of, and perhaps they have not a majority in the Church of England. Certainly they have no monopoly in the Church, but neither have right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Church of England is a national institution, and all political opinions are quite well represented within its boundaries. I have been told in this House and out of it that this Bill has taken the country by surprise, but I think I could give very simply and shortly a conclusive piece of evidence to show that that is not the case. I have had occasion to present several petitions against this Bill from my constituency—;not many and not very numerously signed, hut they are all drawn in the same language. I do not quite know what it is called, but it is not the English of scholars; it is not the English of the working man; it is not the language of Christian, Pagan, or of man. It is a jargon only used by the ecclesiastical petition-monger. But the fact is that these petitions were drawn out before this Bill was introduced and the language is not altered by a sentence, or word, or even a comma, in the petitions which followed after its introduction, so that I do not think that the gentlemen who got up these petitions could be surprised at the nature of the Bill. No intelligent man or woman who took part in the last election or watched its progress could be at all astonished at the main features of this measure. I know that what I am now going to say is very unpopular, and equally unpopular on both sides of the House. I do not believe in the doctrine of the mandate. I regard it as
1536
part of the extreme Continental Jacobinism which cannot be fitted in any way into the British Constitution. If it were carried to its logical extreme we might as well shut up the House of Commons, and have a museum of automatic voting machines run by a company promoted, not on Party lines, by the hon. Member for South Hackney and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet. In this Protestant country nine-tenths of the people who have any religion at all believe in private judgment, in the open Bible, and in the principles of the Reformation. From whom does the opposition to this Bill come, and by whom is it promoted? The opposition comes from a small knot of High Church clergymen and ecclesiastical laymen who would, if they could, Romanise the Church of England and do all in their power to assimilate it to the great Church which despises them. No doubt there will be criticism on parts of the Bill, and no perfect Bill was ever introduced into this House, but there will be no general, certainly no fanatical, opposition to the main principles of the measure. I heard the other night my hon. friend the Member for Leicester plead very earnestly for the principles of secular education, but I believe that the exclusion of the religion of the Bible from the elementary schools of this country would be the most inexpressible calamity which could befall the nation. I support this Bill because I believe it does equal justice to all classes and creeds, because I believe it is founded on the principle of Erasmus that the sum of religion is peace and gives statutory authority to the principle that religion should have a vital and prominent place in the system of elementary education in this Christian country.
LORD R. CECIL: I rise, like the hon. Member who has just sat down, as a member of the Church of England, and after some of the language which he has used and which has been used by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House I feel that I ought to apologise for a member of the Church of England taking part in this debate. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth in the

1537
extremely interesting and brilliant speech which he recently addressed to the House referred to the great toleration which the Government of this country had extended to members of the Roman Catholic persuasion, and I was very glad to hear him refer to that, as it forms a matter which Englishmen contemplate with the greatest pride. But if that great and good tradition is infringed it will be the result of special privileges being accorded to the Roman Catholic religion which are not accorded to the Church of England. I do not desire to keep the attention of; the House any longer than I can help, and it therefore necessarily follows that I must omit a great number of criticisms upon this Bill which I should like to make. I do not propose to touch upon the question of public control or the question of tests to teachers to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred. Only one observation will I make upon that matter. I cannot help thinking that right hon. Gentlemen; opposite very gravely misunderstood the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman does not belong to the same Church as I do, and I freely admit that it was with some surprise and a great deal of pleasure that I found myself in almost entire agreement with all that fell from his lips, and particularly with regard to this matter of tests for teachers. The only provision in this Bill which touches on that is Clause 7, Sub-section 2, which provides that—;
"A teacher employed in an elementary school shall not be required as part of his duties as teacher to give any religious instruction."
That is not the question of test at all. That is something that happens to him after his appointment—;
"And shall not be required as a condition of his appointment"—;
and this is the test—;
"to subscribe to any religious creed or to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school or place of worship."
That may be a proper principle or not, I am not going to discuss it, but it has nothing to do with the contention put forward by members of the Church of England or of the Church of Rome that it is an outrage to permit
1538
a teacher, who does not believe in the religion he is appointed to teach, to teach that religion. If it were to be a test that he should attend certain services, then I think we should all of us be equally opposed to it. There is one aspect of this Bill to which I do think I ought to call attention, and that is what I may call the uncertainty of the policy which underlies it. Take the clause which the right hon. Gentleman referred to this afternoon, the clause which provides for ordinary facilities. One would think, looking at that casually, that there was some, security that ordinary facilities will be granted to the non provided schools which are transferred. There is no security whatever. It is quite true that if the trustees and the local authorities come to an agreement to that effect then such facilities will be given. But the local authority is not bound to come to such an agreement or to take the school over at all. And if no agreement is come to the local authority can go to the Commission who may or may not grant such facilities. That is characteristic of the whole Bill. There is a suggestion thrown out that the local authorities are going to be tolerant and grant the facilities which denominationalists demand, but when you come to examine the Bill closely you will find time after time that that promise is not carried out very fully.
I pass over a large number of instances which I could give the House and come to the main grievance which the members of the Church of England have against this Bill. Take the case of Bible teaching. Almost every Member of that side of the House has said, "We are going to give you Bible teaching in your schools, why are you not satisfied with that?"
Sir, there is not any security that there is to be any Bible teaching. We had a description of the Cowper-Temple clause from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He described it as a thoroughly English working compromise. But what the Cowper-Temple clause does is not to provide that any kind of religious teaching is to be given, but that one kind is to be given in the schools. Then we are told it may be one of the facilities, and that we must look at the history of the last

1539
thirty-five years. That is the favourite reply made. I have endeavoured since this debate began to look into the history of the last thirty-five years, and there is, so far as I can see at present, only one official document to assist us, and that is the Return given in 1895 of the religious instruction given in the board schools. I heard with great surprise from the Chancellor of the Duchy that in only seven boards religious instruction had not been given. I looked up that point. I know how difficult it is to be always accurate in giving these statistics. We heard a great deal about the want of accuracy in dealing with figures in the fiscal debate, but I do not think there was ever so great a want of accuracy as this. I found that instead of seven there were fifty-seven boards in Wales where no religious instruction was given, and that in no less than 316 boards the Bible was read without comment. Now to read the Bible without comment is practically equivalent to giving no religious instruction at all. In the overwhelming majority of cases no examination or test of the religious instruction given in these schools took place. It is not impossible to say that school board religion is a wonderful thing, and there are certain people whose word is entitled to respect who have said so. But so far as the Return and the statement are concerned there is no justification whatever for the statement. There is even a more serious thing than that to consider, and that is the nature of this Bible teaching; the nature of the fundamental Christianity of which we have heard so much. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is the only person, with the exception of the hon. Member for Northampton, who has ventured to give a definition of what he considers to be fundamental Christianity. In the course of the speech he made yesterday, he said—;
"The only form of Christian teaching that can properly be given to a child is in those few fundamental truths in regard to which Christians agree. These fundamental truths are the goodness and kindness of the Creator, the duty to love Him and keep His commandments and the sacred precepts of the New Testament, especially those precepts delivered by Christ Himself; precepts delivered in expressive language, so simple and beautiful, that it
1540
touches the imagination and emotion of a child, and goes home to his heart."
[Cheers.] I hear that cheer, and I would say nothing to show the slightest disrespect for that religion. The only thing I say about it is that the essential doctrine of Christianity is conspicuous by its absence. And it is the same in a manner with the definition of the hon. Member for Northampton. He says, "Teach the Sermon on the Mount." I have no objection at all. The Sermon on the Mount is part of Christianity, but it is not the whole of Christianity. The morality of the Sermon on the Mount would be, I believe, accepted by almost every person in this country as part of their religious belief, but it is grotesque to tell me it is fundamental Christianity. I say I regard such teaching as that as absolutely worthless from the point of view of Christianity. Let me be quite clearly understood. I speak now and I know that I speak with the full assent of a large proportion of the members of the Church of England. Be that as it may, I do not wish to be unduly dogmatic. But if we are to have Christianity at all we must have Christianity, and we cannot substitute for it the teaching of Christian morals and the historic teaching of the Bible. So much for the history of the last thirty-five years. Then we are told to look at the admirable syllabus constructed by the Hampshire County Council. I proposed to say something about that subject, but what I intended to say is quite unnecessary after what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. I would, however, like to say something with regard to what the President of the Board of Trade was so indignant about, namely, the statement that the teaching of the Hampshire syllabus was the teaching of Nonconformity. I venture to say it was the teaching of Nonconformity. After all, what is Nonconformity? I have had an opportunity of looking at a document which was treated with scant courtesy by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; a document that was agreed to by all the leading churches of Nonconformity. I can tell the House exactly what it is called, "A declaration of the United Churches' convictions,"

1541
and it is signed by the heads of all the Free Churches. Now what is that document? If I might venture to summarise it, I should describe it as a declaration of Church of England doctrine without the distinctive feature of Church of England doctrine. It is not so much that that document contains much that the Church of England actually disapproves of as that it omits much that the Church of England believes and insists on. What is the distinction between the Church of England Catechism and the Free Church Catechism, speaking generally? We have been told by the President of the Board of Trade that this Catechism is the very foundation of the undenominational teaching in the Liverpool board schools. Your Cowper-Temple clause says you are to have no formulary or creed distinctive of any particular denomination. Does this contain any formulary? [Cries of "No."] I agree. Therefore this can be taught in your provided schools, the Church of England Catechism cannot. I was charged by the President of the Board of Trade With some degree of annoyance because I ventured to suggest that substantially the leading sects of Nonconformists were agreed upon that head. I think I have satisfied the House that that was a perfectly just observation to make, and the fact remains that this Bill, which we are told is not to be in the interests of Nonconformity, which does not give any special privileges to Nonconformity, has been welcomed with effusive gratitude by every Nonconformist in the country. [Cries of "No."] I know they do not like Clause 4, but I am talking of those provisions which are not designed to assist other creeds than their own. Let me read what the hon. Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire said. He said—;
"In its essential feature it carries out the education scheme for which Wesleyan Methodists have been contending for fifteen years. The main provisions in the Bill may almost have been taken from the minutes of the Wesleyan Conference."
Does the right hon. Gentleman still assert that this Bill does not give privileges to Nonconformity? But as to their syllabuses, whether they are admirable or not, the essential fact remains that they are not part of this Bill. There
1542
is nothing to compel any local authority whatever to teach the doctrines contained in those syllabuses. May I ask why they are not put in the Bill? Why?—;because you know quite well you would not have a chance of passing the Bill if you put in any one of them, and for the reason hon. Members opposite would not have the hardihood to get up then and say that this is not a Bill in favour of one particular sect. You are not going to do it yourself, but you are going to say to every county council in the country, "You may do it if you like." That is really what this Bill is. I confess that the form of legislation which says that the House of Commons is not to be trusted to settle the Christian teaching that is to be given in the provided schools of the country, but says that the county councils are to be trusted with it, is one which I admit is of a very surprising character indeed. The real truth is—;it may seem a harsh saying—;the Members of the Government do not care one way or the other on this question. [Cries of, "Oh."] I assert it is so. The President of the Board of Education in introducing this Bill said it was not an Education Bill at all, but a Bill to settle that ill-omened subject the religious difficulty. It is not the most important aspect of education—;that was the attitude of his speech right through. The President of the Board of Trade denned the policy in the Bill—;a phrase I hope that will not be readily forgotten—;as being based on the principle that "clericalism is the enemy." In order that there might be no mistake as to what he meant he referred to the history of France, to show exactly the sense in which he was using the phrase. What has been the result in France? Is there simple Bible teaching in French schools? Everybody knows that in the State schools of France every vestige of religion has been excluded, even sacred images and pictures. ["Why?"] Because they say clericalism is the enemy. What about America? A book has recently been published by Mr. Shadwell on educational efficiency. He has examined this question there, and he says—;
"The religious difficulty has been disposed of, and that is true. There is no religious question in the public schools and no religion.

1543
Dogmatic—;that is denominational teaching—;was given up to appease sectarian animosity, and Bible-reading substituted. That has been actually dropped by degrees, and the foundations of Western morality have, in effect, disappeared from the public schools. Part passu attendance at Sunday school has dropped off. It is easy to dispose of the religious difficulty by disposing of religion. In like manner, the educational difficulty has been disposed of in the Andaman Islands."
That is apparently the ideal of the President of the Board of Trade, when he sums up the policy of the Government as "clericalism is the enemy." I do not want to pose in any way, but I do say that Members of the Church of England do care exceedingly about this question. They regard religion, not as a valuable adjunct to education, but as the foundation on which all education must rest. They say that by the legislation of 1870 and the legislation that has followed, the State has taken over the education of the children. It has made it free, and it has made it compulsory. If it has taken over the education of the children, it must provide the religious education as the foundation on which the secular education must rest. That is what we mean by the inalienable right of parents. We do not suggest that if the State left the question of education alone, they would be bound to give religious education to the children. But if they take it over, and take the place of the parents, as they have in this matter, then they are bound to give religious instruction, and the only religious instruction they can fairly give is that which the parents desire. That is the position which the Church of England, in spite of the sneers of the President of the Board of Trade, honestly takes up. The right hon. Gentleman ventured to suggest that this right of the parents was merely trotted out as a kind of stalking horse, in order to secure some privilege for the Church. That is an observation which ought never to have been made. And may I say this to right lion, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have come back with enormous power, flushed with the victory of the polls? They think they are irresistible. Do not let them underestimate the forces against them on this question. The hon. Member for Northampton, with characteristic vigour of expression, suggested that the only
1544
people who were really against this Bill were the section of the Church of England which he described as of a romanising tendency. That is absolutely the reverse of the fact. I do not hold with that section myself. If I belong to any section it is that of the old High Church. Of that section I can say they are determined in their opposition to this Bill. I had an opportunity of attending a meeting of Evangelical clergy the other day, and to a man they were as vehement and as uncompromising in their attitude. The Ritualists, it is conceded, are opposed to the Bill. You have substantially the whole Church of England against you on this question. I do not mean to say you will not find Churchmen here and there who differ upon this matter, but, speaking as a practical politician, you have the whole of the Church of England against you, and let right hon. and hon. Gentlemen carefully consider the situation. The Church of England has not in this country had so much perhaps to put up with as the Church of Rome, but it too has suffered some amount of persecution. Wherever that persecution has been attempted it has tailed, and the Church which did not yield to the dragooning of Cromwell's soldiers will not yield to the departmental persecution and the tyranny of this Bill.
MR. WHITBREAD: I ask leave to take a very short part in this debate, not only as one who represents a constituency which for the first time for twenty years has returned to this House a Member to support a Liberal Government, but also as one who has for the past three years presided over a county Education Committee which has been loyally endeavouring to administer the Act of 1902 in the true interests of the children of that county. I say at once that although the Party to which I belong found in that Act many things to object to, yet the Act has proved itself during the past three years in many respects a great step in advance in the cause of education in our country districts. After the debate to which we have listened for the last few days, and in particular after the very remarkable speech delivered by the right hon.

1545
Member for West Birmingham, I do not think it is necessary to do more than mention three propositions which I look upon as practically admitted or, at all events, to which all effective opposition has gone by the board. Those propositions are, first, that the Act of 1902 left behind it a grievance which was widespread and well founded; and that there is only one way in which to remedy that grievance, namely, by giving force to the principles of the Bill now before the House, that where public money is taken for an object, public control must necessarily follow, and that all posts in the teaching profession should be open to every person who is qualified, regardless of the particular denomination to which he may belong. We are told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is an act of confiscation. They declare that they will not give up their schools, and I understand from what I have read that the managers of denominational schools throughout the country are prepared, like the clerical party in France, to oppose to the last the action of the executive Government when they attempt to carry out this Bill. I hear that they are saving up the chimney soot of the last spring cleaning with which to greet the officials who come to take possession of their school buildings. I think the position with regard to the alleged confiscation of voluntary schools would be made much clearer if we kept in sight one simple fact, that a school and a school building are two distinct and independent things. A school is an institution which has a continuous life, independent of whether or not it is housed in any particular building. This House would still be the House of Commons if these buildings were consumed by fire, and the public elementary school will continue to be a school whether it is allowed to carry on its work within the walls of any particular building or not. As far as schools are concerned, voluntary schools have been given up long ago. From the first days of building grants, fee grants, and aid grants, right up to the Act of 1902, the whole course has been to shift the burden of the maintenance of the voluntary schools on to the shoulders of the public, and to take the corresponding burdens off the shoulders of
1546
the denominations to which the schools belonged. With regard to the school buildings, no one contends that they are not private property, and no House of Commons would ever dream of taking them over without an adequate and proper consideration. The consideration in this case is, I believe, more than adequate, and I find confirmation of that statement in the fact that hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side have more than once accused the Government of erring on the side of extravagance. Therefore, it hardly lies in the mouth of objectors to this Bill to raise the double objection that this is an Act of confiscation, while at the same time they allege that the consideration that is offered for the use of the schools is an extravagant use of the taxpayers' money. It is all very well for them to say that they are the aggrieved parties, and have the right to the choice of the weapons, but that does not entitle them to use both weapons at the same time.
After the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, I desire to touch very briefly upon the question of religious teaching in the schools. I have been told that Cowper-Templeism, or the simple Bible teaching given in the schools, is a colourless religion. It has been called a new religion. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham upon a former occasion used that expression, but I gather that he has now withdrawn it. The right hon. Gentleman is not one who easily withdraws what he has said, and just in proportion as his withdrawals are unusual, so we are grateful. What is this new religion? One is almost tempted to wonder, if it were possible for the late Mr. Cowper-Temple to re-visit this House, what he would think of its being said that what he introduced was a new religion. Mr. Cowper-Temple was a stout Churchman, who passed many years of his life in this House, and afterwards went to another place. It might be said that he lived and died in orthodoxy. What is to-day the teaching that is derided as Cowper-Templeism, which itself was the result of a very small amendment, introduced at Mr. Cowper-Temple's instigation into the Act of 1870? I have here a copy of the instructions issued by the Education Committee, over which

1547
I have the pleasure of presiding, and I will venture very briefly to quote some of them to the House, because I think an ounce of fact is worth a ton of abuse. The first instruction runs—;
"The Bible shall be read, and there shall be given such explanation and such instruction there from in the principles of the Christian religion and morality, as are suited to the capacity of the children."
Provision is made for offering prayer find using hymns at the proper time, and for that purpose we have to provide a snail collection of hymns and prayers which I should have no hesitation in offering for the approval of any hon. Gentlemen opposite, so carefully have they been compiled. And then, in case we should be accused of being narrow or sectarian, we have enacted—;
"That any head teacher who wishes, instead of adopting our syllabus, may adopt the Scripture of the Oxford or Cambridge junior local examination syllabus, or that of the Ely Diocesan Council."
Hon. Members who have any acquaintance with the Ely Diocesan Council will be able to appreciate the length and breadth of that concession. For the infants and lower standards we have the Lord's Prayer, the 23rd Psalm, the Ten Commandments, the Gospel according to St. Mark, lessons from seven selected parables, the Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, the Acts of the Apostles, and so on. Is this a new religion? I would venture to make two statements with respect to it. First of all, this religious instruction, administered with ordinary average ability and loyalty by the teachers in our elementary schools, is in itself a sound and a good foundation for any doctrinal instruction that may follow. In the second place, it is in my humble opinion such religious instruction as you can profitably and conveniently instil into the minds of the average children between the ages of five and fourteen years. Whilst on the subject of the rights of parents, I will say that any parent who finds this syllabus insufficient, may be safely trusted to look after the further final religious instruction of his child. This simple Bible teaching has stood the test of a generation, and it has commended itself to persons high in authority in the Church of England, who in the early days viewed it with suspicion
1548
and dislike, but who have come now to speak of it with a warm tribute of praise. It is said that you have no guarantee what will be taught. What guarantee can you have as to how the education m our schools is administered, except our knowledge of the earnestness and loyalty of those who devote themselves to the profession of teaching in our schools? If it is a question of guarantee, what guarantee has the Church of England in regard to the teaching that goes on in her Sunday schools? How often has it been the experience of hon. Members that the teaching in the Church of England Sunday schools has been left as a kind of safety valve for the exuberant zeal of the younger members of the clergyman's family? I believe that the persons who enter the teaching profession and find a sphere of usefulness in our elementary schools are not Agnostics or indifferent to the value of Christian teaching. They are, I believe, if I may describe them by such a term, a very conventionally minded class of persons. Most of them are, as a matter of fact, members of the Church of England; all, or most of them, take up their profession from a real and earnest love of the children they have to teach. I believe that teaching such as I have ventured to indicate to the House may be left with great confidence to the teachers whom we find in the elementary schools. At any rate, what I believe to be most important in promoting Christian charity and harmony among the people in our agricultural districts and in towns is that we should have a system under which every little Anglican, every little Wesleyan, every little Evangelical, and every little Calvinist may sit on the same form and learn together their duty towards one another, and, as regards their higher duty, may learn something of the great lessons of order, reverence, and good conduct, which may be drawn from such teaching. I know that in a Bill containing forty clauses there must be room for amendment. I listened with great interest and instruction to the speech of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and I found myself practically in agreement with him as to the necessity of various Amendments in the Bill. If I might particularise for a moment I

1549
would turn to the clause which authorises the delegation of powers. "Devolution" is a word much in vogue at the present time. There appears to be an almost Mesopotamian blessedness in the word "devolution," except in one place which we must not mention, and that is Ireland. I look with some alarm and misgiving upon the proposal to delegate powers from the education committees as they are at present constituted, to smaller and perhaps less capable and less responsible local bodies, but that may be made the subject of an Amendment, and I know that this is not the stage for dwelling on defects of that character. I shall vote with confidence and absolute conviction in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, which I look upon as an earnest and genuine attempt, full of hope for the future, to improve the educational system of this country. I appeal to hon. Members opposite not to take up the uncompromising attitude of hostility to this Bill which is shown by some of their friends and supporters outside the House.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: The hon. Member for Northampton said in addressing the House that he had no right whatever to claim to speak for the Church of England, and almost in the same breath he proceeded to state what he asserted to be the views of nineteen-twentieths of the members of that Church. He stated that they were in favour of the principle of this Bill. He quoted in support of his contention a Churchman whom we all know to be opposed to us in politics—;the Bishop of Hereford. He quoted him as a supporter of the Bill. The Bishop of Hereford in a letter which appeared in The Times of Monday last indicated certain Amendments which he considered were necessary in order to make the Bill acceptable to him. If the Government are willing to accept these Amendments, all I can say is that they will go far to remove the objections of Churchmen, and of those on this side of the House. The Amendments would also incidentally destroy the whole basis of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade resented with much vehemence the imputation that the Bill is directed against the Church of England. But I would remind
1550
the right hon. Gentleman of what was said on August 30th last year by the Leader of the Welsh Party, of which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman is still a Member—;
"Wales possesses in this education fight the greatest opportunity she has ever hail or is ever likely to have for securing once for all full civil and religious liberty. It has placed disestablishment once more within the range of practical politics, and actually within our grasp …. It is not the Education Question per se which appeals to me so much as the fact that this fight must lead up to disestablishment."
In view of that utterance I think we are justified as Churchmen in feeling some apprehension as to the ultimate effect of this Bill. Churchmen, rightly or wrongly, regard this measure as a religious reprisals Bill. They believe its effect must be to alienate from the Church of England the support of its own rising generation, and thus to facilitate the grand assault that will ultimately be made upon the Establishment. The part of the Bill to which I most strongly object as it stands is Clause 4. I think it rightly gives offence because of its cynically partial character. It is an artful bid for the support of the two sects whose creeds are most antagonistic to the Free Churches—;the Roman Catholics and the Jews—;but who are so strong politically that they have to be placated. The true effect of this clause has been strikingly shown by the figures which have been supplied to us in answer to a Question which I put to the Minister for Education a few days ago. I do not want to impute motives, but there is a discrimination against the Church of England in this clause which rightly alarms every member of the Church. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool spoke of 250 schools being taken away from the Roman Catholic Church. But no less than 8,800 schools will be taken away from the control of the Church of England under this Bill. Could there possibly be a more complete exposure of the partiality, and the intentions of this clause? I think I may fairly say that that is the intention after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the clause was put in specially for the Roman Catholics and the Jews. He said that the clause had been forced upon the Government. Forced upon them by

1551
what? By political exigencies. [Cries of "No."] Well, I venture to contend that that is so. The President of the Board of Trade was not afraid to say the other day that all the Government asked for was "fair play and absolute equality in the eyes of the law for all well-behaved citizens. Their conception of absolute equality in the eyes of the law is shown by the figures in the Return supplied by the Minister of Education. But what did the right hon. Gentleman mean by "well-behaved citizens"? Are only the citizens who profess to belong to the Nonconformist churches well-behaved citizens? Are passive resisters well-behaved citizens? [Cries of "Yes."] These were the words used by the right hon. Gentleman. I come now to the language of the Minister for Education in reply to the Jewish deputation. When the deputation said to the right hon. Gentleman that they would still be at the mercy of the local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman said—;
"You must trust the local authorities. I believe the local authorities will do their duty under these proposals to the Roman Catholics and the Jews, and I trust also to the Church of England."
Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman was not sure in the case of the Church of England! That remark really revealed what is the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the protest of the Church of England. He makes no provision in his Bill for the improvement of education, or for its more economical administration. The right hon. Gentleman devotes forty clauses and two schedules to this special legislation for the benefit of two powerful sects, as was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he has done this in the hope of squaring their opposition. I do not know how far he has been successful in squaring that opposition, but I fancy it will prove as difficult as squaring the circle, and is likely to be attended with about the same success. This four-fifths clause, as it is called, is not a fair description of it, because that suggests that the Government is merely seeking to safeguard the rights of overwhelming majorities and is even offering them privileges which they do not enjoy already. It ought rather to
1552
be designated a one-fifth clause, because it is designed to enable an infinitesimal minority, which has no special claims, not only to force its views upon the vast majority, but to deprive that majority of privileges which it has earned by great personal sacrifices and which it has long enjoyed—;to deprive it, indeed, of control over property which had been erected and maintained for specific purposes and for the benefit of children of all denominations.
The only other point to which I wish to refer is with regard to the optional character of religious instruction whenever it is to be given. Mr. Gladstone said that in the case of religious education the desire for it was least where the need was greatest. I say that if religious instruction is to be absolutely optional, if there is to be no compulsion, that will be equivalent to making no provision for religious education at all. Whatever the result of the denominational fight may be, I hope the Minister for Education will see his way to remedy this serious defect, or if if the right hon. Gentleman favours secular education let him say so honestly, and leave the name of religion out of his Bill altogether. At present it is difficult to know what his attitude of mind is as to what the religious instruction should be. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be balancing between two opinions, and looking for a working compromise between religious and secular education. He must know that a religion cannot be re-hashed or created by legislative ingenuity. The Japanese tried it, and sent a Commission of theologians all over the world to investigate every religion, and to make up one bringing out the best points of each.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am content with the Christian religion.
MR. ARTHUR LEE: But the right hon. Gentleman cannot get all sects to agree as to what the Christian religion is. We all know that Mr. Gladstone described this kind of religion, which the right hon. Gentleman is favouring, as a "popular imposture." I almost tremble to think what language Mr. Gladstone would apply to this Bill. At any rate, whatever the Bill is, it is not "popular," it is

1553
an unpopular imposture; and I hope the good sense and honesty of the House will prevent its passing in anything like its present form.
MR. SNOWDEN: I cannot join in the hope expressed by the noble Lord, the Member for East Marylebone, that this measure when it passes into law will put an end to educational controversy. No one can have listened to this debate without feeling the hopelessness of the prospect of reconciling the conflicting interests in regard to education. And I do not hope therefore that anything I can say to-day is likely to bring nearer together these different views. However, I want to endeavour to place before the House the opinion of what I know is a very large section of the working classes of the community. During the last thirty-five years there has been a very great change in the opinion of the working classes in regard to education. To-day there is a far keener appreciation of the importance and necessity of education than existed thirty-five years ago. The return to this House of those with whom I am associated is one evidence of that change. There is no sentiment more heartily applauded at a public meeting of the working classes than a reference to the disinherited condition, from an educational point of view, of the working classes. That is a recognition of the fact that from an industrial and social point of view their minds tend in the direction of a better education. I want, therefore, to endeavour, as far as I may be able, to interpret to this House what I believe to be the overwhelming volume of opinion of the working classes on this education question. I take it that the intention of the present measure is to deal with the difficulties and shortcomings which have been manifested in the working of the existing Acts, and that any amending Education Bill introduced into this House should be based upon our experience of the operation of preceding Acts The noble Lord said that so far as he was aware there was only one Return published giving the result of the experience of the working of all the Education Acts since that of 1870. We have an unrecorded, but nevertheless large measure of experience of the
1554
working of these Acts. The Education Act of 1870 established two principles, which are not disputed by any section of opinion represented either in this House or outside it. The Act of 1870 was passed as a result of the conviction that the State must take its stand on the civic education of the children of the State. That Act laid it down as a principle that it is the duty and the interest of the State to see that all its future citizens are provided with at least a minimum of education to enable them when grown up to discharge their social and industrial duties. That is what we might call civic education. The other principle was that it is not the duty of the State to require compulsory religious instruction. Nevertheless, the Act of 1870 did provide opportunities for satisfying the desires of that part of the population who wished for religious education. We have had thirty-five years experience of that, and what is the result? I should be very sorry to say one word that would wound the feelings of any person who holds the opinion that religious instruction should be given in the public elementary schools; but it is our duty to have the courage to declare the facts, however unpalatable they may be. Surely if religious teaching has an effect upon moral character it will have an effect upon the conduct of the children who receive the instruction. What do we find? A Return was presented to this House only a few days ago giving the religious training and the religious faith of all the prisoners in His Majesty's prisons on a certain day two or three months back. From that we find that out of 21,000 prisoners in those prisons upon that particular day more than 20,000 had been trained in the religious atmosphere of the sectarian school. More than 16,000 declared themselves as associated with the Church of England, while only 1,100 declared themselves to be Nonconformists, or to profess no religion at all. I submit that that is exactly what one would expect as the result of teaching theology to children. The very last thing to be taught to children is theology. No child can understand it, and even grown up men cannot. We have something like 400 different sects of theologians in this

1555
country, and they all give a different interpretation of the same teaching. I submit that the last thing in the world we should resort to for the development of moral character is theological teaching. The teaching of creeds is founded largely, if not mainly, upon superstition, and the teaching of them does not tend to develop moral character. The teaching of these creeds gives the child no intelligence to deal with the problems of this age. What is morality? According to the syllabus of the London County Council schools the children are to go for their morality to the lives of Abraham and of the other patriarchs, and to the lives and ethical knowledge of a people emerging from barbarism. What is called religious teaching is, I submit to the House, not religious teaching at all, and there is no connection between the teaching of theology and the teaching of true religion. The noble Lord the Member for Marylebone refuses to accept the doctrine that true religion consists of helpfulness and unselfishness, and that charity and love are the foundations of Christian teaching. What is Christian teaching? Surely if there be an intelligible declaration of Christian teaching you will find it in the first declaration made by Christ himself, in which He said that He came to bring good news to the poor and liberty to the bruised. What is religion? The only religion you can teach the children is to be good, to be kind, to be pure, to be helpful, and there can be no higher religion than that. The teaching of theology has had a most serious effect upon the efficiency of the civic part of our educational institutions. I do not share the opinion expressed by more than one Member of this House that our thirty-five years experience of the school board system is that it has achieved satisfactory and substantial results. I can speak with a certain measure of authority in regard to this question. The only education I ever had was given in a board school; I served for some years as teacher in a board school; I have served for many as a member of a school board; I know the working of the schools, and I am prepared to state, as a general statement, that in spite of all the money which was spent on our elementary schools during the last thirty-five years,
1556
the mass of the people to-day are little, if any, better educated than they were forty years ago. It is quite true that there are a larger number of people who can read and write, but in the absence of the moral inclination of the teaching given their example has been mainly to prove the truth of Ruskin's declaration as to the results of the present system of education. The instruction now given is of such an insufficient character that, in the majority of cases, after the children have been away from school for six months they have practically forgotten everything that they had learned. What is the reason for that? I submit that the main reason for the inefficiency of the secular part of our education is to be found in its association with sectarianism. My experience of the school board system has been that elections are fought out, not as between educationalists and non-educationalists, but between sectarians of one form and sectarians of another form, who try to get control of the local administrative machinery, in order that they may have an opportunity of inoculating the children with their particular theological ideas. Under the old school board system men were elected who knew nothing about education but upon sectarian grounds, and I myself know of the case of a man who could neither read nor write, who was elected a member of a school board simply because he happened to be a very substantial supporter of the local church. The evil influence of a system like that is incalculable. When the administration of education is in the hands of the local authorities the municipal elections are mainly fought on the question of religious education, with the result that the thousand and one important matters of social life and higher education are subordinated to the candidate's opinion upon teaching the children the incomprehensibilities of the Athanasian Creed. This position is absolutely intolerable, and it is the duty of this House to devise some means which will relieve us of it, and once and for ever release secular education from association with anything of a denominational character. Can this be done? I venture to think it can. We are agreed that it is the duty of the State to provide civic education.

1557
but we are not agreed that it is the duty of the State to provide religious instruction. That is, in my judgment, an individual matter. I do not think that I need attempt to answer the clerics who say you cannot have any development of moral character unless you have the teaching of religion. They have a perfect right to hold that opinion, and I believe they are perfectly right to use every means at their own expense, and in their own spheres of influence, to propagate their opinions. But that is only the view held by sectarian people. It is not held by the majority of the people, and therefore a sect has no right whatever to impose its own opinions upon the majority. I think we shall all agree that it is the duty of the State to provide those things by State organisation and State expenditure upon which the majority of the people agree, or for which the voice of the people is unanimous in thinking that there is a public necessity. We do not agree that the teaching of theology or what in this controversy is called religion is a social necessity; therefore, instruction of this sort ought to be given by those who believe in it, though I think the State should permit every opportunity and give the fullest liberty to every sect to teach its own creed at its own expense and in its own time. It seems to me, therefore, that the solution of the question is quite plain. Let the State confine itself to teaching those things upon which we are all agreed, leaving to individuals or to associations of individuals the responsibility of teaching those things upon which we are not agreed. How far does the Bill before the House carry out this proposition, and how far does it redeem the election promises of the Party now in power? What was the election programme of the Liberal Party? I think no hon. Member associated with that Party in this House will dispute the fairness of what I am about to say. The Liberal education programme at the late election was public control of all schools, no sectarian tests, and no public money for the advantage of sectarian creeds. Those were the three points. How far does this Bill redeem those election pledges? Does it give us public control? What do we mean by public control? An hon. Member who addressed the
1558
House this evening expressed an opinion which he said he did not expect would meet with a large measure of approval in this House. He said he did not believe in the rule of the majority. I am a democrat, and I am unable to see any better way of ruling than by the majority. But there are certain things which I maintain a majority has no right to do. A majority has no right to interfere with individual action or individual opinion when that individual action or that individual opinion is not manifestly inimical to the welfare of society; therefore I think public control over education must be safeguarded by such provisions that even the rule of the majority shall not be permitted to violate individual right of liberty. What is going to happen if this Bill passes into law? The bitterness of the sectarian struggle for municipal votes is going to be increased a thousandfold. It is going to be the one thing upon which elections will be fought. What happened in the old school board elections? Different sects put forth their whole energy and strength to obtain votes, and they succeeded in getting sectarian teaching which did not represent the opinions of the majority. We shall have the same thing happening in the municipal elections. We shall have the control of the predominant sect to teach in the schools creeds which are not in harmony with the views of the people. It is declared that by the Cowper-Temple clause it is perfectly legal to teach a particular creed and we are going to have that. Then with regard to the sectarian tests. I know that half the differences of opinion in the world are due to the want of clear definitions. One hon. Member in a speech, which from the Christian spirit it displayed, must have touched the heart of every Member of this House, while admitting that inquiries should be made into the religious conviction of the applicant, denied that that was a religious test. What is the use of an inquiry unless it has a purpose? And what is the purpose of the inquiry? To ascertain the religion of the applicant, and unless the inquiry results in showing that the teacher belongs to the particular denomination, he stands no chance of getting the appointment. There are

1559
nearly 5,000 schools in the country that may come under the four-fifths clause. In those schools you will probably have not less than 25,000 teachers. Therefore, under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, you are going to have sectarian tests imposed on 25,000 civil servants. With regard to the third part of the Liberal programme that no money should be given for teaching in sectarian schools, does this Bill redeem that pledge? It does no such thing. We are told by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that it will cost £750,000 for the annual rent of the buildings of the voluntary schools and £750,000 for their maintenance, and therefore you are going to give £1,500,000 to the teaching of sectarian religion. The three cardinal points in the Liberal Programme are not redeemed by this Bill. I will not detain the House further upon that.
We have been told repeatedly by hon. Members that the secular solution is the logical solution of this question. I should not think of basing an appeal to my colleagues in this House for any proposal on the ground that it is logical, and I do not base my contention for secular teaching in the schools on that ground; I base it on the ground of common sense and practicability. The secular solution will not inflict any outrage on the conscience of any individual in the country. The secular system would only teach those things which the State has decided it is right to teach. We do not differ about teaching the children to read and write and the other subjects which are compulsory under the Education Code. There is nothing in the teaching of those things which is opposed to the honest convictions of a Catholic, an Anglican, or a Dissenter; all of them regard these things as necessary. It is quite true many of them regard something else as necessary, as a supplement to education. They can have perfect liberty to supplement it in their own way, with their own money. Hon. Members who have spoken have declined to support any immediate proposals for giving effect to the secular solution on the ground that, although it is the logical solution, there is no public opinion in favour of it. No public opinion in
1560
favour of a secular system of education! At the Trade Union Congress, representing two millions of the most intelligent of the thinking portion of the working-class population, they have over and over again unanimously expressed their demand for a secular solution of the education difficulty. The Labour Representative Conference only a few weeks ago gave a practically unanimous vote to the same effect. But the working-classes are not alone in making this demand. The President of the Board of Trade, while admitting that the secular solution was the logical solution, said it could not be carried out because there was no body of opinion in its favour. If the right hon. Gentleman were in his place I would direct his attention to a quarter with which he will agree. The Congregational Union of Wales met eighteen months ago; the executive had prepared a Resolution on the Education question, but an Amendment was moved in favour of the secular solution. And in this conference, where the religious feeling was very strong—;it was composed largely of ministers—;according to the newspaper reports the recommendation of the Executive Committee was rejected and the Amendment was carried by an almost unanimous vote amidst resounding cheers. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman was present at the gathering. May I quote here just a word of one of the most influential men in the free Churches to-day? A few months ago Dr. Horton said—;
"More and more it seems to me the whole difficulty lies in the State attempting to give religious instruction. If education is to be efficient it must go on its way unhampered by the religious question."
Another eminent Nonconformist divine expressed similar views recently in the Fortnightly Review. I know there is an enormous feeling among the lay and ministerial members of the Free Churches in this country in favour of secular education. One hon. Member who spoke pointed out that it was quite wrong to say that the Catholic section of the Church of England was in favour of this Bill. The ritualistic section are in favour of secular education, and often publicly express themselves upon it. If the only difficulty of Members opposite is the fear that there is no public opinion

1561
In favour of this secular solution, let them disabuse their minds of it. The working men of this country would welcome it. As to the statement of the hon. Member for North Camberwell, repeated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that if there was no religion taught in our schools what would become of the poor waifs, surely respect for the work of the Christian Church ought to have prevented such a statement as that. What are our thousands of churches and thousands of ministers doing? What are the tens of thousands of Sunday School teachers doing to-day, and why are millions being spent on spreading Christianity abroad, if in a land boasting of a Christian people there are thousands of children in our slums who do not hear a word of the gospels except in the secular schools? If the statements of the hon. Members are correct, keep your money at home and spend it in Christianising your own people. If religious education were excluded from our schools, there would be a revival of energy and zeal on the the part of the Christian Church. I submit that this solution is not only logical, but common sense; it is the only practical way to treat this question, and that treatment, I am sure, will be received with hearty approval and satisfaction by the working classes of the country. And, after all, this is their question. It is not the question of nineteen out of every twenty Members of this House. I was surprised to hear the objections from the other side when the hon. Member for East Mayo was speaking yesterday, and an hon. Member opposite gave the House the information that the President of the Board of Trade sent his children to the elementary school. If the right hon. Gentleman does that he is a unique example of the middle class democrat. There are not two Members out of fifty in this House who send their children to these schools. I was struck when in obtaining some information upon the administration of education I discovered that nine out of ten of those who had been elected to administer the board schools were not sending their children to them. This is a working man's question. Hitherto the working classes have been asleep in their ignorance; they are now awake, and are not
1562
content to leave the education question to be the sport and plaything of the parson and the priest. No settlement will ever be permanent which is not settled by the people themselves. We feel keenly upon the question. We want all this sectarian strife out of the way, so that education shall no longer divide men, but that men of all religious opinions may unite in providing for the coming generation the best education possible. Realising as I do the disadvantages suffered for the want of a better education, the claims of the children appeal to me with special force. They are so poor and so helpless, and their future will be what we give them the opportunity of making it, and if we only give them what in justice is theirs, then I am quite certain when they grow up to be men and women what we see through a glass darkly they will see with a clearer vision. I am sure that by their education they will lay the foundation of a great country, an Empire whose foundations shall not rest then upon the ruined lives of its little children, but a nation and an Empire whose foundation shall be upon the health and the happiness of its people; whose wealth shall be in that merchandise which is better than the merchandise of silver and of fine gold. We shall come to that time, and I believe it is not far distant, when, as the greatest seer of the nineteenth century saw with prophetic vision, England as a Christian mother shall at last attain to the dignity and grandeur of a heathen one and be able to lead forth her children saying "these are my jewels."
SIR CARNE RASCH: Will the House allow me to say half a dozen words from the point of view of an agricultural Member? I have very great diffidence in saying anything on this subject, because I know very well I am not an enthusiast, a crank, or a fanatic on the subject of education in the agricultural districts. To speak plainly, I detest it so far as I am concerned. I am here simply as an agricultural Member, principally to keep the rates down, and particularly the rates for education. I remember in this connection that when the right hon. Gentleman the

1563
President of the Board of Education was in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, when he sat on this side and we sat on the other, he told us that we were a lot of Tony Lumpkins speaking of what we did not understand, and that we would rather have the money that was spent on education spent on artificial manures. The President of the Board of Education was not very far wrong from our point of view. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that their Bill is going to bring the millennium, or a new heaven or a new earth, or anything of that kind, I should like to tell them they are very much mistaken. What we want is to have the enormous expense of education taken off the back of the land and the whole charge put upon the back of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Government would do that they would do a great act, because they would be able to get rid of these advisory committees dotted about all over the country, who seem to lead sleepless nights and laborious days seeking how they can put another penny on the rates, and manage the whole thing from an office in London. If the late Government had taken my advice and put the burden of the cost of education on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they would not have had any grumbling about religious or denominational education, because what people do not pay for they do not grumble at. There is another question to which I should like to allude, and that is the question of the pious founder. It seems to me he comes very badly out of this Bill. Another question to which I would call attention is one from a purely agricultural point of view. I never can understand why, with the galaxy of talent at the disposal of the Education Department, they cannot alter their syllabus or curriculum so that the children shall be taught that which will be of some little use to them in after life. Why cannot they be taught the difference between barley and oats, and a mangold wurzel and a turnip? Instead of that they teach them what Goldsmith, in his Vicar of Wakefield, calls Shakespeare and the musical glasses. An agricultural labourer's children, when they leave school, know little of the practical work of life. There is another matter. Would it not be possible if you modified
1564
the curriculum in the schools to allow the agricultural labourer's child to leave school a little earlier? An agricultural labourer is not a rich man, and an extra sixpence a week means a good deal to him, and there is no reason why he should not get it if the curriculum is modified and made to include useful work. We do not object to education. We can stand a certain amount of it, and we respect the prejudices of our well-meaning neighbours and friends, but we do not want to be ruined by it in the agricultural districts. We do not want to be butchered to make an educational holiday. As to the education part of the question, it seems to me rather odd that the Education Department cannot take a leaf out of the Army List, as it were. In the Army, at least in my time, the Roman Catholic came into the schools at one time, the Nonconformist at another, and the Church of England parson at another. We never had any dispute. I know the Government will not put the charge of education on the back of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as many of us think they should, but I do hope that some notice will be taken of my suggestions that the agricultural labourer's children should be allowed to get away a little sooner from school, and that they should be taught something that will be useful to them when they have left school.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, understanding Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [LORDS], (BY ORDER.)
Read a second time, and committed.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
Postponed proceeding on Amendment to Question [7th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time," resumed.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. MASSIE: I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone has left the House, as I am desirous of offering some answer to his remarks. I do not doubt that the noble Lord wished to be fair-minded; but I hope he will forgive me for saying that his training has not been conducive to that end. To have belonged from birth to a privileged Church makes it hard to be fair to what are deemed the inferior sects. Most of our Church of England friends wish, of course, to be just; but privilege is a bad training for understanding what justice and equality mean. The noble Lord was quite right in saying that the Bill is not primarily an Education Bill. But it is a preparation for education. Certain obstacles in the way have to be removed before education can go forward. The dual system and the religious difficulty are two of these obstacles; and a political reform has to be carried out before an educational one. We wish the sphere of education to be a field and no longer an arena. The noble Lord has cast reflections upon religion in the United States of America. I know something of the United States. Of course, there is no Established Church there, but I hardly suppose the noble Lord would argue that it is on that ground that there is less religion; if he did so, it must be due to Anglican self-complacency. I cannot as an Englishman claim for England this superiority. What right have we to boast that we as a nation are more religious than America or the Colonies? The noble Lord quoted the diminished number of scholars in American Sunday schools, but he gave us no statistics. Even if he did so, we should then have to ask what are the real causes of this decrease. It is not fair to conclude at once that it is due to secular education in the primary schools—;a secular education, let me add, that is supplemented, in most schools, by the reading of the Bible and prayer at the opening of the school. There is no comparison between the strength and organisation of the American Sunday schools and of Sunday schools in England. In America such schools are highly organised, are carefully superintended by the clergy and the denominations, and are attended by all classes, not merely
1566
by the children of the poor as in England. And I believe that, if Sunday schools in England were better organised, and if the churches, to use Milton's phrase, were to resume their "deputed duty," religion would be deeper and more enduring. The noble Lord has asserted that undenominational teaching is the teaching of Nonconformity. I remember that on a former occasion the noble Lord admitted that this undenominationalism is not professed by any church. How does he reconcile these two statements? But the very basis of Nonconformity is the objection to the connection of Church and State. That is taught in no syllabus in any school. One of the chief features in the Congregational system is the autonomy of each local church. That is taught in no syllabus in any school. The Baptists believe that the baptism of unintelligent infants is a ritualisic superstition, and that baptism is for adults when they made their personal confession of faith. That is taught in no syllabus in any school. These instances will suffice to show that undenominational teaching is not the teaching of Nonconformity. There is a certain unity, a unity of spirit, among various Nonconformist denominations, a unity exemplified in the Free Church Catechism in which the special differences are omitted. And I feel sure there is a similar unity of spirit among the various sections of the Anglican Church, in spite of the gulf that separates such men as Lord Halifax and Mr. Webb Peploe, and such organisations as the English Church Union and the Church Association, the Protestant Alliance, and the Society of the Holy Cross. But, looking at this gulf, we are entitled, when there is talk about definite Church teaching, to ask what this definite teaching is. There is another speech to which I wish to draw attention, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham yesterday. The course of this debate may well give colour to the view of those despairing people who believe there is no solution of the education difficulty, and who even think it would have been better for the State not to touch education at all. There has been the reappearance of the same old difficulties still unsolved. The same old

1567
clouds have flitted across the sky. The monotony has not been varied except by an occasional shooting star. Yesterday, however, we had a comet. Its appearance has been refreshing, even though its tail has been considerably curtailed. But it has been born out of due time. Its proper astronomical year should have been 1902. Why has it come so late? It was in 1902 that it ought to have portended secular education and the abolition of tests. However, better late than never; we have been glad to welcome the comet. Some of its features are, if I may coin a word, quite cometic. It has been instructive and suggestive to hear the right hon. Gentleman's apology for clericalism. He appears to defend it on the ground that it is not French, that is, not Catholic in a Catholic country. Now, when we attack clericalism, let it be understood we do not attack a Church. Clericalism is a spirit and, though differing in degree, it is always the same. It is not merely opposed to law, as the right hon. Gentleman has said it is in France; it is, as Gambetta has said, opposed to independence, to enlightenment, to stability; This spirit becomes incarnate in opportunity. In France it has tried to seize education. Its first step is opscurantism, its next, subjugation or persecution. We have bean rebuked for saying that clericalism in England seeks only public money. I am not satisfied to make that charge; it seeks power, superiority, the maintenance of its own prestige. The right hon. Gentleman's illustration of clericalism is the political dissenter. He is as well aware as I am that the Church of England is essentially political. It is a State Church and cannot help being political, and its political position is represented by the bishops in the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman has thanked God for the House of Lords. Surely that House is the last refuge of the destitute democrat. It must be a democrat's experience that, if the House of Lords rejects a measure, it is likely to be a good one. And the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that the Upper House would be opposed to his secular solution, being accustomed to stand up for the Established Church and to keep in their place the hostile sects, including that body to which I
1568
suppose the right hon. Gentleman still belongs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has maintained the right of the parent. Well, this is a free country, and every parent has a right to teach his child the religion he prefers, or to provide for such teaching, or to withdraw his child from any teaching he dislikes. But he has no right to coerce the State into arranging, providing, or paying for his particular religion. The parent is only a part of the State; he cannot make the State his slave; it is for the whole State to decide how far it can go to meet the parent, and what is in this respect best for the nation as a whole. Any class whispering the word conscience may, according to the new doctrine, impose itself upon the nation. Is there to be no judge of such claims on the part of conscience? Are they final, whether the conscience is enlightened or not? The right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister now goes the same length, perhaps further, in maintaining the right of the parent. But how much did he do for the parent in 1902 in the 8,000 districts in which only one school is available, and that usually an Anglican school, to which Nonconformist parents are under compulsion to send their children, who are there subject to Anglican teaching or condemned to no religious instruction at all? That he has not removed this grievance has been one of the late Prime Minister's omissions, omissions in spite of his docile majority in the House of Commons and his facile majority in the House of Lords. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham could be called a missionary, the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister, though he can lay no claim to Irish extraction, may be called "The O'Missionary." The right hon. Gentleman has found fault with the prohibition of teachers giving denominational instruction. This has been described by another hon. Member as "meanness." But at the meeting of the National Union of Teachers at Scarborough the executive brought before the general body a resolution to the effect that all denominational teaching should be given by other than the teaching staff. Teachers themselves, therefore, are in favour of this prohibition, this meanness. The reason

1569
is that they look below the surface and see the working of the opposite policy, how it practically reimposes tests, how it affects the teacher's independence, since pressure can be put upon him to undertake such teaching; and how it will affect his reputation for impartiality among parents of different religious views if he seems to take sides. It may not make much difference in towns, but in rural districts the danger is acute. For similar reasons of independence and impartiality the permanent staff in the various Government departments are not allowed to take sides in public political controversy. There is no suggestion that there is meanness in this. The right hon. Gentleman approves of the abolition of tests for teachers. But in his plan he is providing a reason for prying into the teacher's belief even at the time of his appointment. When the right hon. Gentleman expressed his approval of the abolition of tests, there was no cheer from the Party behind him. This silence suggested the query, "Who are the 'we'?" And even now the House is not sure whether the "we" is editorial or monarchical. Does the dual system obtain in the Unionist Party? Or is it a case of "I and my King"? But the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal is for the secular solution, the State keeping itself entirely outside the teaching of religion. This is logical enough, if the logic is not pushed to absurdity. The right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Bill is that it is illogical. So is his own proposal. He himself admits that there is a serious difficulty in its way: that it cannot be carried in the country, and that if the religious teaching is not compulsory it may be given to empty benches. So he proposes to get over the difficulties by compelling attendance, that is, by using the attendance officer as a recruiting sergeant; and also by bringing in the secular teachers as police to keep the children in order. But I would ask—;are the children to be brought before the magistrates if they neglect to attend the religious teaching? And what is to be done with the teachers if they also decline to be police? And if the children are not to be summoned, how long will the system last? This is, after all, using the State in connection with the religious teaching
1570
it is not therefore to the point to twit those of us who are Liberationists with the names of Dale and Richard. But it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the two main points of the Bill—;public control and the abolition of tests. The rest of the Bill is subsidiary to these. I can therefore claim that the right hon. Gentleman should vote for the Second Reading, and try to amend the Bill in Committee.
MR. BURDETT - COUTTS: I should like to send a ray of hope to one or more of the eighty-seven hon. Gentlemen who I understand are still anxious to address the House in this debate, by saying that I shall only stand for a very short time between them and their desire. That promise will only enable me to take one or two points in this great subject, which interests me, like many other hon. Members who have been directly and practically concerned with it for many years. I must repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton, which has already been rejected by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, that a member of the Church of England who opposes this Bill must necessarily be permeated with sacerdotal or clerical prejudice or with that kind of disloyalty to his own faith which is indicated by leanings towards Roman Catholicism. I have no such prejudice, still less any such leanings; yet I strongly oppose the Bill. I oppose it in the first place, because it does not effect its primary object, in support of which little has been said in the course of this debate, the settlement of the religious difficulty. The Bill is not an Education Bill, in the ordinary sense. It is a Bill to settle the religious difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education, in the most striking passage of his opening speech, in terms excluded, one by one, all those objects one would expect to find in an Elementary Education Bill, as making for the improvement of elementary education, and then described its real purpose. He was—;
"a reed shaken by the wind amongst the icy blasts of sectarian differences."
and
"Until we build and maintain a national shelter against these devastating blasts we shall make small progress and have no peace."

1571
That is fine language, instinct with the true literary spirit. But fine language and literary merit apart, where is the national shelter against the icy blasts of sectarian differences that is to he constructed out of this Bill? What is the use talking about keeping the icy blasts out, when within you make your whole system a hot-bed of sectarian differences? The Bill does that by setting up four different ways of treating the religious difficulty: No religion; syllabus religion; mixed syllabus and denominational religion; four-fifths schools with complete denominational religion—;at the will of the local authority. You reduce the schools throughout the country to a common level, and place them under the same set of authorities, abolishing the foundation managers, and thereby wiping out from 14,000 of them all the old traditions and influences and sincere and often tender attachments which gather round a familiar and trusted management, and which I believe—;and have known—;are an inspiration to childhood, and a pride in after life, replacing them by the dull monotonous, impersonal routine of county council or borough council managers. And in these schools thus levelled down you set up these four different methods of dealing with the religious difficulty, each one of which is bound to inflict injustice upon at least some of the children, or the parents of some of the children attending very school that come under it. And that is called settling the religious difficulty! Not one of these four different methods is the only just and adequate one; that, with no obligation to anyone to accept religious instruction at all, with full freedom of conscience and full power of withdrawal, parents should have the right to have their children instructed in the faith to which they belong. In spite of the derision of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to that right, we claim it because it is consistent with liberty, justice, equality, and freedom from strife both to the individual and to the State, because it is the only logical solution for a country in which denominational religious teaching has always formed a part of elementary education, and because it is the only barrier against
1572
the inevitable outcome of this Bill, which the Government dare not face—;purely secular education.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in speaking of the "right of entry," of which he drew an appalling picture, used some singular terms. He talked about "branding the children with the letter of their denomination" as if it were something to be ashamed of to belong to a denomination. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] Yes, the very word "brand" implies shame. I do not believe the denominations with which the right hon. Gentleman is politically connected regard their religions in that light. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about teaching children the difference between denominations instead of the points on which they agreed. But that is simply begging the question whether denominations are a good thing or not. There is no such question before us. Denominations do exist; and we have to deal with the facts of the case. Once we adopt the principle of right of entry, applied within reasonable and practicable limits, difficulties present themselves, but they are only mechanical and structural. An extra room or two added here and there, even an omnibus or two where necessary to convoy children—;as they do on the Continent—;to special denominational schools, is all that is wanted in most cases. As to the cost of the teacher of the religion, if he is not to be found in the school, there is hardly a place in the country where you could not find some earnest qualified denominationalist who, for a few pounds a year, would be glad to come in and give all the denominational teaching that is wanted. I believe the extra £1,000,000 a year now promised would cover the whole thing; but in any case the difficulties, such as they are, are not to be weighed for a moment in the balance with the great principles of the maintenance of religious education, equality of treatment to all denominations, and respect for the rights of conscience. The point, whether the cost should be borne by the State and the rates or by the denominations, is a matter to be decided by the light of two considerations. If borne by the State it would be a State recognition, stronger and more acceptable to many people than the establishment, of the value

1573
and power of religion—;not this or that religion but all real religions—;in the history, the life, and the destinies of the British Empire. But there is a second reason that appeals to me strongly. If cast on the denominations it would not matter to the Church of England; but it would matter to the poorer denominations, and it would not secure to all that real equality of treatment which I, for one, desire to see. The eloquent and pathetic history given by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, of the building of the Catholic schools in this country, still echoes in our ears, and I know it has its counterpart amongst hundreds of thousands of poor Dissenters who have made equal sacrifices for the preservation of their forms of faith, which are just as dear to them as in the case of the Catholics. As to teachers I subscribe to everything that was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham about the prohibition of teachers from teaching religion. It is not only illiberal and illogical, but I think it has not yet been pointed out in this debate that it is the strongest encouragement you could give to the clerical elements becoming predominant in our schools. I subscribe, too, to what the right hon. Gentleman said about "tests" on teachers joining the great public service of the teaching profession. But I think that in schools built by and mainly devoted to any particular denomination, their traditions, character, and purpose should not be violated by a head teacher of any other denomination being forced upon them.
With regard to syllabus teaching, an extraordinary attack has been made that because we desire to teach a faith that is founded on the Bible therefore we are opposed to Bible teaching. That is a monstrous suggestion. What is really the position of denominationalists in this matter? It is that Bible teaching is and always must be a matter of how the Bible is taught; and that we prefer the form of teaching, the lessons and doctrines drawn, which compose both the foundations and the superstructure of the religion to which we belong, to which our fathers and forefathers belonged, and in which we wish our children to be brought up. We believe, each of us, of whatever denomination we may be, that a greater authority belongs to this form
1574
of Bible teaching than to any that a county council—;even the county council of Hampshire—;can invent or sanction. But because we believe that, to say that we are opposed to Bible teaching, is surely the last resort of prejudice, or Party tactics. I must leave the question of education if I keep my promise. But not the Bill; for I want to say a word or two about two great and grave public evils, outside education, that are certain to flow from it. The confusion this Bill sets up in the matter of religious instruction carries the spirit of sectarian animosity beyond the sphere of education. It forces that spirit in its most poisonous form into every representative local authority in the country, and the "wrangling," the "insincere issues," the "miserable squabbles"—;to borrow from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India—;will be planted upon the borough councils for ever, and enter into every election to them. You will have men elected to those bodies, not because of their personal fitness to take part in local government; or their tried service in that sphere; or because they will raise the rates or lower them; or because they are for or against municipal enterprise; but simply because of their religious opinions. That will be the crucial test of every man's fitness for a position which ought to be concerned with purely civil functions. I venture to think that no measure could have been more ingeniously devised to deal a fatal blow to the real interests of local government in this country, or to impair and confuse the full and free expression of the representative principle on which it was based. That is Part I. of the Bill. I will point briefly to another grave injury connected with Part II. The Government's intentions with regard to endowments are shrouded in mystery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an attempt to explain, but he had in no way cleared up this question. The Bill gives the right to deal with endowments wantonly and violently. But all we know is that the Government is going to tamper with them; and that for this purpose they have set up a tribunal never known to English law and never dreamt of by justice-loving Englishmen, and one from which there is no appeal. What effect do you think this sort of legislation will have upon that great system of testamentary generosity to public objects,

1575
from which the less fortunate classes in this country have derived such incalculable relief and benefit? Do you think the system will be maintained? Do you think people will continue to leave their money to legitimate specific objects, for the public good, when they see that at any moment, at the fleeting fancy of a Party majority, the lawful conditions on which the money was left can be violated, and the bequest seized for some other object? A great change in testamentary benevolence is certain to date from the passing of this Bill.
MR. LLEWELLYN WILLIAMS: I have one qualification for intervening in this debate which fortunately has been denied to every other Member of this House, and that is that I have listened to every speech which has been delivered upon this Bill. I do not claim that as an exercise of exceptional virtue on my part or that it is due to an overmastering desire to hear the view of every hon. Member on this Bill, but hon. Members who desire to speak, Mr. Speaker, have to go through the gymnastic feat of trying to catch your eye. I think after that experience I am able to congratulate the Minister for Education and the Government upon the reception of their Bill, in this House and in all quarters, for what has struck me is the undercurrent of acceptance of the two main principles of the Bill which has run through every speech that has been made. The majority of the speakers both above and below the gangway on both sides of the House have accepted popular control and no religious tests. If I might be allowed to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government in this matter, I would ask that after the Second Heading has been carried, considerable liberty of action and of speech should be allowed to hon. Members on this side of the House, when we come to discuss the details of the measure in Committee. I venture to think that if the right hon. Gentleman and his Government will see their way to do that, they will not only add to the value of the debate but improve the chances of the Bill, and they will evolve a measure which will be a settlement of this question for many long years to come. I do not pretend for a moment that this is a Bill which in all its features is wholly satisfactory. It is
1576
a Bill prepared by a Government, composed of Anglican Roman Catholics, Scotch Presbyterians and English and Welsh Nonconfomists, and, as the Secretary of State for India said the other night, of more than one Agnostic. It is impossible to think that a Bill of that sort would receive the unmixed approval of every Member of the House, and I, as a secularist, do not view with unmixed approval all the provisions laid down in this Bill. As a public man, however, I have to look at the question not merely from the theoretical, but also from the practical standpoint of facts as they are to-day. What is it that has made this Bill necessary? In a word, it is the Act of 1902. That Act not only devastated the whole realm of education, but it impaired and hampered the whole work of local government in the country. It is not too much to say that in many large districts it has brought about almost a state of civil war. There are over 60,000 passive resistors, respectable citizens who allowed their goods to be distrained upon rather than pay rates under the Act of 1902. Moreover 600 law-abiding citizens preferred to go to prison rather than pay those rates, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover has reminded the House of what has happened in the county councils in Wales. There was such a feeling in Wales with regard to the 1902 Act that, but for the intervention of the President of the Board of Trade, Wales would have been practically in a state of civil war. I remember, and a good many other hon. Members remember, what happened in Wales during the Tithe War. That was confined to three or four counties, but in order to keep peace 600 police had to be brought down on one occasion and on another the military had to be called upon. Now if the President of the Board of Trade had not induced the Welsh County Councils to act as they did, what would have happened under the Education Act would have been that the police and the military would have been called in, and if that had happened the state of Wales would, as I have said, have resembled a state of civil war. That was the state of things which confronted the Government, and it was to remedy that state of things that this Bill was introduced. If we were

1577
dealing with this matter for the first time, I may say, that I should be entirely in favour of secular education. But we do not come to it fresh. We have to deal with an urgent situation. Public opinion in this country I believe has not advanced enough to enable us to deal with education on purely secular lines. But there is such an emergency now that we must have a Bill passed dealing with the situation, and in my opinion, at this juncture, this is the best possible Bill that can be brought forward. Not only that, I would welcome any Bill which might be introduced, even if it did not go to the full length of secularism, which contained proposals which did not make against secularism. From that point of view, I think this Bill does take a step in advance in the right direction when it provides that no teacher shall be forced to teach religion, and that simple Bible teaching shall be henceforth given out of school hours. I welcome this Bill from another point of view, and that is that for the first time it gives to Wales autonomy in regard to elementary education. We have had in Wales autonomy in regard to university and secondary education, and as my right hon. friend said on Tuesday, four-fifths of the children in the secondary schools are drafted from the elementary schools, and it is a matter of urgent necessity that the same body who have authority over secondary education should also have authority over elementary education. There can be no doubt and no controversy in this matter, because not only have throe out of the four Welsh Bishops and two Roman Catholic Bishops, as well as Nonconformists and members of the Welsh county councils met at Cardiff and passed a resolution in favour of this autonomy, but last year the late Government offered to Wales the same sort of council with much the same sort of powers which this Bill confers.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that what was really proposed was a joint committee of the Welsh local authorities under Section 17 of the Act of 1872. It was an absolutely different thing from the proposed council for which no one is going to be responsible to this House.
MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I cannot say who is going to be responsible to this House, but there must be some one.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Where do we so find it?
MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: You will see it when the Order in Council is made. It is not suggested that the whole constitution of the Council is provided for in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman trusted the Welsh County Councils and allowed them to enter into Committees and gave them powers.
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Powers to be conferred subject to the approval of the Board of Education.
MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: I do not wish to labour this point now; suffice it to say that it is a point to which we attach much importance. It is said that, this Bill provides for Nonconformist teaching in the schools. I repudiate that statement with all the strength and earnestness in my power. What the Bill does is to perpetuate the system of "Bible teaching" which was first established by the Cowper-Temple Clause. Who was Mr. Cowper-Temple? He was not a Nonconformist. He was a Churchman, and that clause was assailed by Edward Miall and Henry Richard, and outside this House by the greatest leader of political dissenters that this country has seen, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham told us yesterday that lie stands in exactly the same position upon this question as he stood thirty years ago when he entered this House. I am delighted to hear it. I have been out of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman for some years past. He has wandered very far from the views which won my boyish admiration in the early eighties. The defender of the surrender of Majuba has become its avenger. The protagonist of free trade has become its antagonist. But on questions of religious liberty he has kept his record clean. In 1895 he voted for the Second Reading of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. I suppose that we shall not find him to-night in the same

1579
lobby with us, but when we see him disappearing into the "No" lobby between the stalwart forms of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who, on a historic occasion, compressed into a single word his opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for East Mayo, who was once described by the right hon. Gentleman as a very good judge of traitors, we his old followers and admirers will have the proud satisfaction of knowing that though he is absent in the body he is with us in the spirit.
Now one word with regard to the religious test. That is a question with regard to which Nonconformists and Liberals can have no compromise with any section of the House. It is one of the main principles of this Bill. The record of the Nonconformists in this matter is very creditable. They not only fought against the disabilities to which they were subjected, but they also fought unremittingly for Catholic emancipation in this country. In spite of the fact that no section of this country was more averse to the doctrines of the Church of Rome than the Protestant Nonconformists of England and Wales, they never allowed any sectional animosity to interfere with their desire to do justice and right to their Catholic fellow-countrymen. And when any occasion has arisen in the country or in this House to remove disabilities—;to open the portals of this House to the Jew, the Catholic, or the Agnostic—;the Nonconformists of England and Wales have always been true to their principles that religious conviction should be no bar to citizenship. I listened with great pleasure but with some discouragement to the excellent speech delivered on this question some days ago by the hon. Member for the Salford Division, and I was startled at the way in which the position of the Catholics was put. He said they are a people apart, a peculiar people, they are like the Jews—;immune from obligations and entitled to privileges which other citizens cannot claim. He lumped all the Protestants of this country together. He saw no difference between the Welsh Nonconformists worshipping in a foreign tongue, and the Anglicans of England, but he did see a great difference between the high Anglican and the Roman Catholic. I
1580
repudiate that entirely. Any claim of that sort made on those lines is a claim which must end in peril to the State. I could put forward such claims for Welsh Nonconformity if I cared to do so. There are between 70,000 and 80,000 Welshmen living in London to-day, and it is computed that 50,000 of them are people who use Welsh as their familiar speech. What have they done in London in the last thirty years? I venture to say that to the Welshman his Nonconformist Church is as dear as is the Catholic Church to the Irishman, and the thing which is next dearest to his heart is the language—;the language of his home and of his worship, his differentia among the nations of the world. When he comes to London and other large towns to settle, he is as anxious as any that his children shall be brought up not only to worship in his own religion but to worship in his own tongue. But he does not come to this House and ask the State to regard him as being in a different position from others. In the last thirty years the Welshmen in London have erected twenty churches where their children are taught to worship not only in their own religion, but in their own tongue. I do not put forward any special claim for exceptional treatment on behalf of my co-religionists and compatriots. With regard to Clause 5 of this Bill it is a clause that has strained almost to breaking point the loyalty of a great many Members sitting on these benches. I am myself prepared, if that clause is accepted as a settlement of the claims put forward, to vote for it. But if that clause is to be extended so as to make mandatory what is now only permissive, it will get rid absolutely of one of the great principles of this Bill. I do not think hon. Members from Ireland would thank me for not dealing with this point frankly and candidly. If we are to arrive at anything like a solution, and a settlement for some years to come, of this educational question it is only by a frank interchange of opinions across the floor of this House that it will be done. With regard to the first part of Clause 4 which it has been suggested should be made mandatory, I admit that when once you extend the principle of facilities at all it will be difficult to insist on its permissive character. With regard to the other half of that clause where permission

1581
is given to teachers in the "extended facilities" schools to give definite religious instructions, I not only say that it ought not to be made mandatory but that it ought not to be permitted at all. When once you permit teachers in these "four-fifths" schools, as they are called, to impart definite religions instruction it will be impossible for you, and every Member from Ireland says so too, and the hon. Member for Salford said so once or twice in the course of his speech, to leave out of consideration the religious convictions of your teachers, and in that roundabout way you will be imposing these religious tests on thousands of civil servants. If that is to be done I should prefer it to be done frankly and openly and not in a roundabout way. If the first part of Clause 4 is made mandatory no teacher will be safeguarded in regard to what is one of the main principles of the Bill, namely, that there shall be no religious tests at all. Though I have spoken as a secularist, I am a secularist because I believe in religious education. Cromwell was once reproached for not employing gentlemen as officers in his army. He replied that he preferred russet-coated captains who knew what they fought for and loved what they knew, Religion can only be taught by those who know what they teach and love what they know. There are two ways of getting to know whether a man who teaches religion really believes in the religion he teaches. One way is to impose a test—;a very imperfect way, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this afternoon, for the honest man it is not wanted and the dishonest man will evade it; the only other way is to place religious teaching on a voluntary basis. The statement was made by the hon. Member for North Camberwell that if you withdraw religion from the schools there will be thousands of poor little children in this country who will grow up in an absolute ignorance of God. If that be true it is a terrible indictment of our boasted Christianity, but I do not believe it for a moment. A few months ago I had the privilege of attending some Welsh revival meetings, and what struck me most of all was the ease and range of the Biblical knowledge that was displayed by the working-men and working-women who took part in that revival. All the Biblical quotations were in Welsh, and I asked myself, how did
1582
lose men got their knowledge of the Bible? It was not in the day schools, for even if the Bible is taught in the day schools it is the English Bible. No, it was at their homes or Sunday schools that they learnt their Bible, and I venture to say that if the blighting hand of the State is taken away from religion, if Christian denominations and Christian men and women of this country are allowed to feel that they alone are responsible for religious teaching in this land, the cause of religion will not suffer, but religion will be strengthened and purified, the sectarian animosities will tend to become obliterated, and Christians will at last begin to remember that their Founder came to bring peace on earth and good will among men.
Mr. MIDDLEMOEE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech by affirming that this Bill had met with the unanimous assent of this House. Hardly wore those words out of his mouth when ho proceeded to appeal to the Minister for Education for much liberty of action in Committee, and he seemed to hint that he himself had some Amendment he wished to propose. I do not think the Bill has met with any general assent even on the Ministerial side of the House. The hon. Member for North Camberwell wished to amend it, the hon. Member who sat immediately in front of him and spoke for the Roman Catholics wished to amend it; the Irishmen wished to amend it; and certainly it has caused universal dissatisfaction on this side of the House. I do not believe it is accepted in the country. The Bill seems to be simply intolerable. It proposes to establish or to give a paramount position to what is called undenominationalism—;a religion of the local authority. It forces that religion on those who do not wish it. It denies freedom to worship God to the section of Christianity in England to which I belong. It denies this freedom in the very schools that we own, and it forces on those schools another form to which they are unaccustomed. It does not ask what the parent wants; it asks simply what the local authority wants. It does not even give the local authority freedom. It denies them the free use of creed or formulary. Most undoubtedly this Bill is specially-directed against the Church of England.

1583
Why does not the Government, with its enormous majority, disestablish the Church, and thus settle the education question, and leave the sacred things within the Establishment alone? Why does it strike at the Church rather than the Establishment? Why does it stab the body rather than the clothes? It seems to me that you who attack the Establishment are about to erect another Establishment. In one or two particulars this is most certainly a Dissenting form of Establishment. The Church of England can hardly teach without formularies; a Dissenter can hardly teach with them. And, again, it is certainly a form of teaching which most of us who belong to the Church of England repudiate, and which most of the Gentlemen opposite accept. It is a step towards secularism, which the country certainly does not want. If the children need not attend school for religious instruction you practically delegate the authority and the control to the boys and girls at school to settle. I remember somewhere that Plato says that if a philosopher and a confectioner were to enter a Grecian schoolroom, and were to appeal to the suffrages of the boys, the confectioner would most undoubtedly be selected. And if religious education or any form of instruction comes into competition with the playground you may be sure that it is the instruction, religious or otherwise, that will suffer. Children need not attend instruction, and to teachers who do not believe in that instruction you will entrust the future greatness of England. I can only say that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not teach their own children in that way. They send them to receive instruction from those who believe what they are teaching. With reference to tests, you may have a test which is unjust. If you said that no teacher should enter the teaching profession who did not belong to the Anglican form of religion it would be a gross injustice. But the teachers having once entered the profession, where is the injustice to assign those who believe in Anglicanism to Anglican schools, those who believe in Romanism to Roman Catholic schools, and so on? For myself, I venture again to assert that this question can only be settled by conferring the full rights of citizenship on every religious denomination. I would frankly surrender those schools in towns like East-
1584
bourne and elsewhere, when they are redundant; I would give the right of country in the country. The Minister for Education said that was frankly impossible, and the President of the Board of Trade also made a remark to that effect. Why is it frankly impossible? Take the speech of the President of the Board of Trade yesterday. It seems to me that the first part entirely eviscerated the last. He said, on the one hand, that you cannot lump Dissenting forms of Christianity. He said, on the other hand, that divisions are breaking down. You do not value religion like the old-fashioned Dissenters who suffered for it. Do you value religion for its own sake as your spiritual ancestors did? If not, can you value religious equality as they did? How did the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Education commend religion to us? He said he recommended it to us because it idealised life, and the hon. Member for North Camberwell recommended it because he said it added to the beauty of life. All I say is, Well done religion! if it idealises and beautifies life. But it will not beautify and idealise life unless you have it for its own sake, and believe it for its own sake. Unless it is believed in for its own sake it will be founded on insincerity and will degenerate into a puling sentimentality. See the abyss that separates the right hon. Gentleman from us. We know that in religion we are standing on the very rock of life, and that we are in direct and personal touch with its one overwhelming reality. No wonder then you are willing to confiscate our form of religion. If the promoters of the Bill regarded religion not as a mere alternative to art or beauty, but as the one absolute sacred thing of life, as a solitary relation between God and man, they would then treat every form of religion with reverence, and they would not lay their blighting hand on the Anglican form of religion, because the representatives of the Church once in their inequity laid their forbidding hands on Nonconformity.
MR. VILLIERS: I should naturally be diffident of entering into this debate, were it not that having had some experience of educational matters, and having myself been a manager of several schools in different parts of the country, I think I may claim to know

1585
something of the subject now before the House. The few criticisms of the Bill which I propose to make I make in no unfriendly spirit or in a spirit which fails to appreciate the difficulties which the framers have had to encounter. I believe it has been said that when Jove carved the Geniuses, he made critics of the shavings. And on this occasion I consider myself only as filling the humble role of a shaving. The Government has made an honest attempt to deal with a complicated problem, a problem easy to understand, but difficult to solve. They have inherited a Tory tangle so impossible to untie that many knots may have to be cut. I take it that this Bill establishes the fact that the State is the grandparent of all, and, having taken up that position, the State should most assuredly treat all its children fairly and without favour. [OPPOSITION cheers.] I am glad to hear those cheers, because before it can do this it must redress any injustices which it finds existing between them. The first clause of this Bill, which places all schools under popular control, does this most efficiently. No longer will one denomination be denied a fair share in the management of the schools to which it subscribes. And the Church must recognise this as the result of its own action. The Church gave up its independence when it accepted assistance; it lost its head when it asked for alms. And when it insisted on an unfair representation on the board of management it caused that popular outcry which has resulted in this Bill. I am not concerned at the heroics emanating from the prelates. Their cry seems to be more for the Church than for religion. One of them actually said that their Church schools were built to avoid simple Bible teaching. If simple Bible teaching is considered by him and others like him to be a kind of poison, why in the name of conscience have they not removed Church children from board school teaching, as they might have done under the Conscience Clause? I can understand the Ritualists, who are Romanists in almost everything but name, objecting to simple Bible teaching without the priestly interpretation of it, but I have never been able to understand why the Cowper-Temple instruction should not be acceptable to the Low Church party. I cannot help thinking that had the Royal Commission on the illegalities in the Church, which is now
1586
sitting, issued their Report, we should not have witnessed the Dean of Canterbury and Lord Halifax on the same platform in opposition to this Bill. That the Commission has not reported up till now, I may mention in passing, I consider nothing less than a scandal. Be that as it may it is only my opinion; I will return to the Bill. I am not concerned, in spite of the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Dover, at the outcry against desecration of ancient trusts—;an objection which reaches the high water mark of antiquated Toryism. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that his own leader not only committed but confessed to this crime in his Bill of 1902. In any case I hold that nations must alter their condition as they grow. The dead hand must give way to the living body. I would also point out to the right lion. Member for Dover the absurdity of championing at one and the same time the ancient unalterable power of the trust and the inalienable right of the parent. Did the trust over consider the parent? Certainly not. It never considered the parent at the time and it could not possibly do so in the future. The two principles are diametrically opposed and incompatible. The one is typically Tory and the other is distinctively democratic. This Bill very properly disregards the doctrine of the infallibility of the trust and it unifies education.
But when I come to the solution of the religious question, I do not consider that the Bill is quite so satisfactory. I rejoiced to hoar in the speech of the Minister, for Education when presenting the Bill that he had decided in favour of a religious and not a secular settlement. I am of opinion that education is no education that does not include religion. Secular education by itself is knowledge without principle. Of what use is it to inform the mind of a child if you do not form his character? You may get a statue without breath—;you may have a perfect penny-in-the-slot machine, but does that come up to a living salesman? You must have religion in the schools, and the teaching must be given in the school during school hours. "Leave the religious instruction to the parents," say the secularists, but that would be to remove thousands of children from any religious instruction whatever. How fan n woman who has

1587
to wash and cook, or who works in a factory, teach her child daily religion or ethics? The secular solution is what the Minister for Education wishes to avoid, but this Bill, in my opinion, will lead to that result while appearing to preserve the people from secularism it is really driving them into it. It allows the withdrawal of the child from the school while religious instruction is going on, and it enacts that no teacher in any elementary school shall be required to give religious instruction. With teachers who need not teach, and children who need not attend, what chances are there of much religious instruction being either given or received? Then, indeed, hushed will be the familiar hymn, and banished the opening prayer. Coals to the parents and sweets to the children, a small additional fee to the teacher to compensate for a longer lie in bed in the morning, would be but poor substitutes for compulsory attendance during the hour of religious instruction. They would hardly prevent the parent from working the child, or the child from preferring the playground. And as to the permission of entry before school hours granted to some denominations in Clause 4, without compulsory attendance, it is not worth the paper it is written on. They already have that right both before and after school by the terms of their lease, if they can only persuade the children. The facilities conceded by Clause 4 are also illusory in other ways. Firstly, they are negatived at the will or the whim of the local authorities; secondly, they are not allowed in the rural districts, no matter how strong the denomination may muster; and thirdly, they are not to apply if the numbers fall short, even by one, of the required four-fifths. All these things operate very harshly. I also object to hustling the poor one-fifth out of the school, either to walk half a mile further, or cross, perhaps, three more dangerous crossings with the alternative of being brought up either as little Anglicans or Roman Catholics.
So much for criticism. I have Bovrilised my remarks as far as possible so as not to take up the time of the House. Now for a few suggestions from one, who though prepared to vote for the Second Reading, is determined to press Amendments in Committee, No doubt State secular
1588
teaching, with right of entry to all denominations in school hours as put forward by the Member for West Birmingham, is in principle perhaps the most logical solution. But it is not a practical one. The Nonconformists could not supply the daily religious teaching, not possessing either the endowments of the Church or the sisterhoods of the Catholics. I see no better present arrangement therefore than for the State to supply Cowper-Temple teaching—;a teaching agreeable to the Noncomformists and not antagonistic to other Christian Creeds—;as supplementary to denominational teaching which may be given and paid for by religious bodies in school hours. Having established the principle of popular control in the management of the schools, I would consider the wishes of the parents in the religious instruction of the children. I would give the right of entry to denominations in every school in the country, rural and urban, provided and transferred. Cowper-Temple instruction being given also in every school would obviate the necessity of removing the minority where a minority existed, and a coercive denominational canvas would be avoided, as there would always be an alternative for the parents. Of course, where you have a school of five-fifths of one denomination, as there would be in many Jewish and Roman Catholic Schools, that denomination would teach its own creed five days a week, and there would be no necessity for Cowper-Temple instruction in that case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon brushed this idea of right of entry on one side, but he will have his separate pens on the two days a week, under the facilities contained in Clause 3, and I cannot help thinking that his difficulties to a general right will prove to be more in imagination than in fact. I do not claim for these suggestions that they are entirely logical, but Englishmen, it is said, love the Bible and hate logic. At this moment they are seriously concerned that each child shall be brought up with some knowledge of the relations of the creature to the Creator, and of time to eternity, with its consequent influence over conduct and character. They are also concerned that all sectarian, tests and unfair disabilities should be removed from public servants, when engaged by the local authority. And

1589
they are concerned that no avoidable hardship or injustice should be suffered by any individual or denomination in the State. Perfection is impossible. My suggestions are a compromise. But I sincerly hope that in Committee this Bill will be so amended, on these lines, that while it may not be a final settlement of the question it shall not be a "penal settlement" for anyone concerned.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member who has just sat down in the earlier part of his speech expressed profound surprise that the Low Church Party of the Church of England should oppose this Bill. He admits, I gather, as, indeed, any one acquainted with the facts cannot but admit, that the opposition to this Bill is as strong with the Low Church Party as with any other section of the English Church, and that no man has used more vigorous language about its demerits than the leader of the Low Church Party in England, the Bishop of Liverpool. But surely the latter part of the hon. Member's speech supplied the answer to the first part? If I understood his criticisms of the Bill correctly, there would not be one line of it left after his Amendments were carried out. There is not a single leading provision which he does not wish to see altered. He desires to see religious teaching made compulsory, that it should take place in school hours, and he took one after another of the clauses to show how little they came up to his idea of what religious education should be. I hope that will convince him that the Low Church Party, as well as other Parties, are not without justification when they see in this Bill a great threat, not merely to the Church to which they belong, but to the whole interests of religious education, from whatever point of view considered. Before I come to narrower criticisms of the Bill, it is only courteous that I should reply to two Gentlemen sitting on the front Opposition Bench—;I mean that I should reply to two Gentlemen hitting on the Government Benches who have made some utterances of mine outside the House the special subject of hostile criticism. I have been read a moral lecture by that fairest of all controversialists, the President of the Board of Trade, upon the misrepresentation which he alleges I have committed with regard to that clause in the Bill for which ho publicly claims paternity. I never heard
1590
before of one Member of a Government saying, "That is the clause for which I am responsible"; but the right hon. Gentleman has made that particular claim and has alleged that I have done injustice to the child of his affections. I said that that clause, so far as education is concerned, was Home Rule for Wales in educational matters, and no human being reading that clause without comment or assistance from extraneous utterances could attach to it any other interpretation whatever. For the clause, if it does anything, declares that while the administration of the education law in Ireland, England, and Scotland is committed to a department representing which there is a responsible Minister in this House—;[NATIONALIST cries of "No, not in Ireland."] I have had to answer in too many Irish education debates to accept that interruption; but, at any rate, even those hon. Gentlemen who criticise my statement as regards Ireland, will not deny that my statement is accurate in regard to Scotland and England. And this clause—;I forget its number, but, at any rate, it is the right hon. Gentleman's clause—;is one which does establish administrative autonomy for Wales while leaving every Welsh Member at liberty in this House to criticise the administration of education in England, Ireland, and Scotland. How the fleshless skeleton of the clause is to be clothed we cannot tell, but, as we find it, I stated its purport perfectly accurately, and I do not feel disposed to withdraw a single word that I said about it.
So much for the first of the moral lectures that I have received. The second was couched in impassioned tones by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was indignant that. I should have suggested that this Bill was directed against the Church of England. If it were worth while, I could quote utterances of Members of this House very much in that direction. But I do not wish to drag in independent Members of the House. I root my case upon the terms of the Bill itself. Of course I do not attend Cabinet Councils, and I do not know what fervent protests in favour of the Church of England were made by the right hon. Gentleman. I judge by the terms of the Bill, and can anyone, looking at them, doubt that the Church of England was intended to receive worse treatment than

1591
either the Jews or the Roman Catholics? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us this afternoon that the reason why there had been special arrangements made under Clause 4 was partly because the Government wished to give special privileges to the Roman Catholics and the Jews, and because having given them to those denominations it could not well withdraw them under the same conditions from the Church of England. That was in itself a suspicious admission. But he further told us that the justification for giving these special privileges under Clause 4 was that in towns of over 5,000 inhabitants there were alternative schools almost always to be found, and there were schools in which a very large proportion of the children belonged to one denomination. If the Bill had intended to be fair as between denomination and denomination, if the privileges given under Clause 4 were not given grudgingly to the Church of England, because they could not be refused, having been granted to the Jews and the Roman Catholics, why was this limitation of 5,000 inhabitants placed upon the measure? The two principles laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were that there should be an alternative school, and that a large proportion of the scholars should belong to one denomination. Are those attributes to be found in no schools outside the 5,000 limit? They are to be found in Church of England schools in large numbers, but not in Jewish or Roman Catholic schools. And had this Bill been really impartial between these branches of the great Christian Church, I cannot understand why Clause 4 should not have been framed openly so as to give the same privileges as you give in towns of over 5,000 inhabitants wherever the conditions exist which you thus specially favour. I do not attribute to the right hon. Gentleman motives which he has repudiated; but he will admit, after my statement of my reasons for making my assertion, that, not having access to his innermost soul, and not being the confidant of his affection for the Church of England, I was not unjustified in putting an interpretation on it which I am now ready to withdraw in his favour.
Now, Sir, the President of the Board of Trade, in a speech of eloquence and violence, made an elaborate attack upon the Act of 1902. I do not quarrel with his dealing', with the Act of 1902,
1592
because I believe this question can only be understood if it is dealt with historically. I do not agree with his criticism, as I shall show in a moment, but I think he was justified in dealing with that Act. But I suppose it was the force of long habit, the memory of innumerable speeches made in the same congenial field, which prevented him from going beyond the Bill of 1902 and coming to the Bill of 1906. Indeed, in all his eloquent oration, I was unable to discover a single attempted answer to the criticisms that we have passed upon the measure for one part of which he is in his individual capacity responsible, and for all the parts of which he has collective responsibility. I have said you ought to approach this question historically, and so you ought. The Member for the Louth Division of Lincolnshire, if he will forgive me for saying it, had the amazing courage to describe the Bill now before us as a moderate and reasonable measure very unlike the Bill of 1902. Well, Sir, let hon. Gentlemen reflect upon the position we were in in 1902. In 1902 the education system of this country was a by-word to every educationally advanced nation of the world. It was a matter of derisive laughter. ["Oh."] The hon. Member who interrupts me will be surprised to hear that I mean secular education. There is such a thing as secular education, and our system of secular education was a by-word amongst every advanced country in the world. It had to be dealt with in a broad and comprehensive spirit. Secular education was dealt with in a broad and comprehensive spirit, and on the foundation then laid you, the majority, are going to build up anything you can do, if you can do anything, to improve the existing educational system of the country. You have not attempted, you do not mean to attempt, to alter it; you are wise not to attempt to alter it. It remains the broad basis upon which secular education for our children and, I believe, for our grandchildren is going to be framed. Now, Sir, we could not deal with the great secular needs of this country without touching the question of the voluntary schools, which educated more than half the children of this country, and we could not touch the question of the voluntary schools without touching the question of religion. Are hon. Gentlemen

1593
so ignorant of what that Bill contained as really to suppose that we dealt with the problem which we could not put on one side in otherwise than a liberal spirit?
AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the country.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I ask the hon. Gentleman. We found an Act in operation dealing with the voluntary schools and the board schools, an Act proposed by a great Liberal Administration. It would have been folly to have attempted some great reform such as that adumbrated by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham yesterday. We could not possibly have dealt with the great problem of secular education which was before us, and at the same time abolish the Cowper-Temple clause and abolish the voluntary schools in their present shape. Both the Cowper-Temple clause and the voluntary schools had to be left. To abolish the voluntary schools and leave the Cowper-Temple clause would have been the grossest injustice to one great body of opinion in the State; to abolish the Cowper-Temple clause and leave the voluntary schools would have been an outrage on another great body of opinion in the State. Illogical though they are admitted to be, both had to be left. That being the case, could we have dealt with the question better than we did? We found under Mr. Gladstone's Act a system under which the pupil teachers in voluntary schools, unless they belonged to the Church of England, could do nothing; we cured that. Under Mr. Gladstone's Act we found innumerable cases in which schools were under the control of one clerical manager; we cured that. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] Until one equals six it cannot be denied. We substituted six managers for one manager. We found that, so far as local control was concerned, there was no representative element in the voluntary schools as regards secular education; we made the control of secular education complete from top to bottom in every school throughout the country. We found there was no machinery in existence for adequately training for the teaching profession men who did not belong to the Church of England; we provided machinery by which this teaching for men not belonging to the Church of England could be provided. We found
1594
a large number of parishes in whim might seem to the local authority that the education ought not to be left to the voluntary schools; we gave thorn power under certain, not harsh or stringent, limitations to build another school side by side. In every one of these great particulars—;not details, but vital elements of our education system—;we found a method established by a Liberal Government and we corrected it. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Can any of the numerous Gentlemen who are not averse from interrupting me, show in any particular how we made it worse for the Nonconformists? [MINISTERIAL cries of "The board schools," and "Putting Church schools on the rates."]
Now that is the system, with its admitted imperfections of the Cowper-Temple clause on the one side, and the single-school area on the other, with which you have got to deal. How have you set about it? I understand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other speakers that you have been driven to put before us this strange legislative effort by what you call "the mandate of the general election." It is not often that I have the fortune to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, but with one ob servation ho made this evening I do heartily agree. He said that this talk of mandates had now reached a point which was really unconstitutional. It would have made Edmund Burke turn in his grave. The logical argument of some of the utterances we have heard to-night on this subject is, as the hon. Member truly observed, that this House might resign its function of discussion altogether and the clerks at the Table would sit simply to record the mandates—;the various and numerous, in fact the almost innumerable mandates, by which we appear to be governed. But in this particular case I do not think we need trouble about the mandate, because it will be admitted that no mandate will be binding which those who give it do not themselves understand; and I have some reason for thinking that the Sovereign people do not understand these two particular mandates to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made reference, because I observe that their representatives do not understand them. Where the same so-called mandate is understood in quite different ways

1595
by different people sitting in different parts of the House, I think we may rest assured that there was some confusion in the original source from which these mandates are supposed to have derived their authority.
What are those two mandates? They are that you are to establish popular control, and to abolish tests for teachers. Is cither of these understood in the same sense, or in any sense, by the authority? Take popular control. There is popular control now, under the Act of 1902, so far as secular education is concerned. Therefore the mandate must have referred only to religious education. Does this Bill establish complete popular control as regards religious education? The Education Minister has told us that, in his opinion, it is an obligation—;a moral though not a statutory obligation—;upon the local authority to select for particular schools teachers of a particular creed. Does that mean there is complete local control over these schools in religious matters? I should have thought when you were giving mandatory instructions to the local authority that it was to select teachers of a particular religious complexion, you must abandon the claim that you have established complete popular control in religious matters, and if you have ever received the mandate you claim to have received, you stand convicted of disobeying it at this moment.
Then how about the tests for teachers? I think it has been pointed out before, and I think by my noble friend this afternoon, that the only clause dealing with tests for teachers is this—;
"A teacher employed in a public elementary school shall not be required as a condition of his appointment to subscribe to any religious creed.
Does anybody in the House quote an authentic case of any teacher, at any time, being required to subscribe to a religious creed? ["Oh, oh," and "Yes."] I do not at all deny that there may be such cases, and, if so, I do not in the least object to their being prohibited. I think it is a very foolish way of dealing with the situation. But if anybody pretends that it has been a practice of the Church of England or of the Wosleyans—;I am not sure about Roman Catholics; I have been able only to make inquires as to the Church of England—;if anybody supposes it is the practice in Church of England schools to ask a teacher
1596
to subscribe to a religious creed, he is profoundly mistaken. That is the only thing forbidden by the Bill; but perhaps hon. Gentlemen desire that the Bill may be altered, strengthened, and so modified as to include a case which ordinarily does happen, no doubt, in a denominational school—;namely, that the managers of the school, those responsible for the selection of the teacher, do ask if he is prepared to teach the religion of the denomination to which the school belongs, and whether he is fit to teach it.
AN HON. MEMBER: And believes in it.
Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That goes with the question of fitness; no doubt that is ordinary practice. And it is not forbidden in the Bill. Do you want it to be forbidden? Do you? ["Yes."] One Gentleman says "Yes." One faint, solitary voice comes from the whole of that great Party opposite. I abstain from commenting upon murmurs that come from hon. Members upon my observations, but may I not comment on the silence? I should like to know what the general opinion is as to what is admitted to be the ordinary procedure in the selection of a teacher. Whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, the Government, at all events, have made it perfectly clear that they think the habitual practice by which teachers are selected for voluntary schools is justifiable, is not an interference with the conscience of teachers, is not a test within the meaning of the mandate. Then how are we to understand this mandate? Was I not right in saying the House itself did not understand it? If the mandate merely was that the teacher was not to be allowed, in words of the Bill, to subscribe to a religious creed, I, for my part, should regard the clause as perfectly illusory, but perfectly inoffensive. I should approve of it. I cannot conceive why teachers should be obliged to subscribe to these formal creeds, and I do not believe it is practicable to ask them to do so. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"] There is one Gentleman who really knows more about it than I have an opportunity of knowing, the hon. Member for North Camberwell, and if he contradicts me and says it is habitual I should say this clause is necessary and desirable.
DR. MACNAMARA: As the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me, may I say it is quite a common practice in denominational schools for an advertisement to be issued that the teacher must be a member of the Church of England and very often that he must be a communicant?
Mr. A. J. BALFOUE: That is not provided for in the clause, and I do not believe the Government mean to provide for it. I think they are conscious of the extraordinary absurdity of getting teachers, whether to teach Roman Catholicism or Anglicanism or Wesleyanism in these schools under Clause 4, without making adequate inquiries as to whether they really heartily accept the teaching of the denomination whose children are to be committed to their charge. Then, am I not right in saying that these mandates on which you are bringing in this Bill are not understood oven by the House itself and form no adequate foundation for legislation like the present? I am told that we must not be too logical in these matters; and if that moans that it is very hard to frame a Bill dealing with the various passions, interests, and traditions of the sects of this country, which would be on a symmetrical plan, I agree. Unless we come to some such plan as that of my right hon. friend, logic is clearly impossible, but where we might have logic with advantage is in some of the speeches which are delivered on this question. For five years I have been denounced as a violator of the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty; I have been regarded as, I suppose, the slave of clericalism, the man ready to sacrifice everything for a particular denomination, and in making that sacrifice to violate immutable principles. I think, therefore, we may complain of the want of logic when we find that the very men who on every platform of the country have been hurling these denunciations at my head and at the heads of others who agree with me, are themselves guilty of the very crimes they attribute to me. They themselves are sanctioning what they have described as tests to teachers. They themselves are depriving the local authority of that absolute control over religious teaching which is the only control not given them in full measure by the Act of 1902. This Bill is to cost £1,000,000 a year at a
1598
time when, I understand, we are under the happy rule of a Government pledged to economy, and when we have a nightly Resolution half of which, at any rate, is in favour of economy, however much the other half may be in favour of additional taxation. What are you going to get for this £1,000,0001 We gave in the Act of 1902 more than £1,000,000—;I think it was £1,400,000 a year. That at all events went to education. It went either to lighten the burden or to improve the education of the children of the country. Your million—;what is that going to? ["To the Church."] It is not going to secular education, any way—;not one shilling of it. It is not going to help you to fulfil the mandate, because, as I have explained, you do not propose to fulfil the mandate as defined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others. Is it going to help the ratepayer? It is going to prevent the ratepayer from suffering as much as he other wise would by deliberately cutting himself off from the assistance of those ready to assist him; it is not going to make the burden of education, heavily as it presses on many districts of this country, one shilling the better. Is it going to help religious education? Will anybody pretend that after this Bill is passed there will be either in the provided schools or in the denominational schools under Clause 3, or the specially privileged schools under Clause 4, either better education, a better system of religious education, or the prospect of a better system of religious education? Is there any man who has the courage to get up and suggest that that will be the case? I see no respect in which this million of money is going to improve religious education; I see many respects in which it is going to impair it. It is going, for example, to take religion out of the compulsory school hours. Would you encourage arithmetic by taking it out of compulsory school hours? Or geography? Or any subject of secular learning? Do you think you are going to aid religious teaching, which the last speaker and most speakers on that side of the House have told us, in varying but harmonious terms, is the very foundation of religious education, by taking it out of the compulsory hours? No man has ventured to suggest that as a possibility. Do you think you are going to improve it by preventing the experienced teachers in voluntary schools, anxious and ready

1599
to take their place on the two days a week you are going to allow in voluntary schools, to teach the form of religion for which subscribers gave their money? Do you think you improve the teaching of religion by saying to teachers not willing to give it, to some outsider, "You shall give it"? The hon. Member for North Camberwell has only one answer to give to that, and that answer is in the, negative. And are you going to improve religious education by publicly advertising the fact that it is not the House of Commons, or Parliament, that it is not the religious bodies, that it is not the local bodies who are finally to determine whether religious education should be given at all, but the teacher? You have, by the provisions of this Bill, put it in the power of the teacher to teach when he wishes, but you have restricted the absolute power not to teach when he does not wish it. And in doing so you have practically handed over that religious teaching which you all agree should be the foundation of the training of our youth—;you have taken it out of the control of the authorities created by the Act of 1902 and you have given it to a body upon whom I do not wish to make any comment, but in whom, after all, it should not rest to determine whether any and what teaching should be given in the schools. There are gentlemen who tell us that by putting checks on denominational teaching they have greatly improved Bible teaching, as they call it, as a whole. Well, Bible teaching is a most ambiguous term, it may be nothing more than reading to young children extracts from the Bible, without explanation and without comment, treating the greatest and not the easiest book in the world as you would treat Milton or Shakespeare or any other author or body of authors. It may mean, on the other hand, that full dogmatic teaching on which all Nonconformists are agreed. [Cries of "No."] Well, this is out of the explanatory note to the Free Church Catechism—;
"It is the substantial agreement of the evangelical Free Churches in relation to the fundamental and essential truths of Christianity."
It may either be the Bible teaching I have just described or it may be the Hill dogmatic teaching which is allowed in our board schools, because many denominations agree to it,
1600
but which would not be allowed if this very collection of questions and answers had been compiled by the Wesleyans alone, or the Baptists alone, or the Congregationalists alone. They have agreed, and, therefore, under our strange procedure it ceases to be denominational, and it becomes fundamental to Christianity. At all events, it is a full body of dogmatic teaching, and the whole scale is open to provided schools whether they set up teaching which hardly amounts, under certain conditions, to the teaching of religion at all, or teaching with explanation, with comment, and with a view to the great truths which Christian societies have always extracted from the sacred book. Are you going to leave it entirely to the teacher to determine which of these teachings it shall be? You are, under this Bill, leaving it to him absolutely; he has only to say to the local authority, "I am ready to read the Scriptures without comment, but I am not able to give the catechism of the Free Churches," and the local authority has to give in. Is that an advantage for the teaching of religion? I assume, as surely I am justified in assuming, that for your million of money you are not going to get better religious teaching. There is only one thing you could get, and that is I religious peace. Are you going to buy religious peace with this million of money? Do you think you are setting the right way to work to deal with a problem the difficulties of which I am the last to undervalue, because I had to face them—;do you think you are setting the best way to work to complete the labours which the Parliament of 1902 attempted to deal with? I think it is folly. There are gentlemen who seem to think that, while the Jews have a case against school board teaching, while Roman Catholics have a case against it, the Church of England are to allow the Cowper-Temple clause to remain untouched in their schools, and to see with equanimity this diversion of the funds which they have given to the cause of religious as well as of secular education. Nothing astonished me more in the speeches, otherwise very different, of the Minister for Education and the President of the Board of Trade than that neither of those two eminent Gentlemen referred to the fact that the Church of England had spent millions in the cause of secular and of religious education. There were many

1601
compliments, deserved compliments, paid to Gentlemen below the gangway. Does the Church, which boasts the Member for Northampton as one of its members and many Gentlemen on this of the House, deserve no credit for all that it has done? I make an exception, by the way, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did full justice to the Church of England. But does that Church not deserve credit, and do you suppose that a Church that has amongst its members more than half the population ["No"] of this country is going to see placed upon it what is a manifest and obvious injustice? If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen came forward and said, "We allow the system is anomalous and difficult, we allow the Cowper-Temple clause on one side is indefensible, that the single-school areas may on the other side inflict injustice on the Nonconformists, we sweep both away," I should understand it; and if they superadded to that broad policy real compulsion for religious education in school hours by those teachers who had the confidence of the parents of the children, then they would come to the scheme of my right hon. friend. And I should say again that is right or wrong, possible or impossible, but at all events Doth a logical and a practical course. But what they are doing satisfies no requirements of the country, it carries out no policy which anybody desires, it does not help the ratepayer, does not help the educationist, does not help the man who desires this undenominational teaching, and it profoundly injures the man who desires denominational teaching. It leaves this question more insoluble, with a future before it even more obscure, more full of doubt and difficulty, than it was before the right hon. Gentleman took this great task in hand. The Government have promised us that they will have an open mind for Amendments; but as was sufficiently clear from the speech which immediately preceded my own, there are no Amendments which will meet the general views of the House which will not tear their Bill to tatters and leave not one fragment or wrack behind as expressing the collective views of a united Cabinet. I doubt whether it is worth while for the Government to go into Committee with the view of modifying their Bill to an extent which alone would make possible a satisfactory solution of this question. It would be a
1602
happier and wiser course if they were to withdraw it altogether and recast it, to adopt new principles. If they think that inconsistent either with sound policy or with their dignity, I can only say that, either in this House or in the country, they are predestined to find arrayed against them forces, both within their own ranks and outside their own ranks, which will compel them to make this measure dealing with religious education something distantly approaching an impartial settlement of the question.
MR. BIRRELL: Once more, Sir, at the request of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, I rise to attempt to do the impossible; for I think even the practised debaters whom I see in front of me will readily admit that to me, at all events, even to attempt to mete out what is called Parliamentary justice—;and at the best it is but a small modicum—;to all the arguments, aspirations, recantations, beliefs and unbeliefs, emotions and sentiments which have found adequate, and sometimes eloquent, expression in this long debate, would be a sheer impossibility without trespassing far longer than I intend to do upon the vast tracts of time which the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule has placed unreservedly at my I disposal. And let mo add that the difficulty of my task, which I cannot pretend not to feel, is all the greater in that I have to follow the late Prime Minister, who is not only, as all admit, a master of dialectics as practised in this House, handling with light grace a weapon which constant use for twenty years has kept bright and keen, but who is also, as all will admit, an expert in the gentle art of how to get an Education Bill through this House, whilst he is a living example of some of the ill-consequences that follow from an ill-considered measure. The right hon. Gentleman has learned in suffering what to-night he has taught, not indeed in song, but in impassioned prose; and I should, indeed, be a very headstrong, very obstinate, and very conceited man, if I did not take to heart some, at all events, of the things that ho has said. The Act of 1902 has cost the right hon. Gentleman and his Party dear. The spectacle to-night of the right hon. Gentleman stranded, as it were, upon one of the rocks on which he ran the ship aground, surrounded by a sturdy band of the survivors of the crew

1603
—;storm-tossed and weather-beaten mariners—;and taking as the text of his wide discourse the very cause of that disaster, may very well afford to all of us food for reflection and very grave deliberation. Even though we are possessed of a great majority, flushed with victory at the polls—;that, I believe, is the right expression—;I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am the last man in the world to need to be reminded of the vicissitudes of things, or the mutability of human fortunes. Parlimentary majorities come and go. They vanish like the morning vapour. They shrivel up and disappear like leaves before the wind. I know all that perfectly. But, believing as I do that the main and essential and dominant principles of this Bill—;and it is, after all, these, and these only, we ought to have been discussing during the last three days and a half—;believing that these principles line the path, the in evitable and predestined path, of our political progress in this country, I am well persuaded that this Bill—;faulty as it may be in detail, capable of amendment as no doubt it is—;will promote the cause of peace and education; and I say that because I believe it to be in full accord with the wishes of the nation. I must say that I hardly recognise the now familiar lineaments of this Bill in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. For myself, I hardly find it possible to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was really referring to it. He asked for a copy in the course of his speech. With some difficulty it was provided for him; but he paid to it but scant attention. I am afraid there is nothing unusual in Party politics with this way of dealing with our rival measures. I was reading only to-day a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman to his constitutents in Manchester in October, 1902, when his own Bill was in straits. Referring to his opponents, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was the Bill they objected to, or their own extraordinary travesty, parody, and caricature of the measure. That is the way of Party politicians when they deal with rival measures. I can only describe the right hon. Gentleman's version of this Bill in the right hon. Gentleman's own language as a travesty and caricature.
It has been well said by various speakers that Clause 1 of Part I. is in substance
1604
and effect the whole of that pan of the Bill. But I cannot agree with those who say there is nothing in the Bill except Part I., or that the Bill does not contain many educational provisions of great value and importance also, if our educational system is to advance along proper lines. But, nevertheless, Part I. is the portion which has received the almost exclusive attention of those who have taken part in this debate. Now, nobody denies that Clause 1 of Part I. does secure, will secure if passed into law, complete popular control over all the public elementary schools of the country. We all know perfectly well what it is our constituents sent us here expecting us to do. There never was such a terribly long general election as the one we have just gone through. Those of us who were not in the late Parliament wore before our constituents for something like two and even three years—;a purgatorial process, a tiresome, wearisome operation. All of us had an unusual number of occasions of meeting those who became our constituents in some cases, and discussing these matters with them; and I say unhesitatingly that this Clause 1 was the inevitable outcome of the result of that election.
Now, what follows from Clause 1? I quite know that in addressing the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister I am addressing a man who has pondered and thought over a very difficult problem, who has put forth more effort and devoted more time to it than probably anybody else in this House, namely, to give complete popular control over denominational schools without destroying their denominational character, and remodelling their trust deeds. I have had occasion, and it has been my duty during the last few months, to read the whole of the debates on the Bill of 1902. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London does not believe it. I can assure him that, with some few exceptions, this statement is practically true. I have lived his life over again during these weary months, and found myself thinking his thoughts. He found the task an impossible one. He did as much as he could. He put the voluntary schools on the rates. He gave secular control, but not including full control over the appointment of the teachers; and he gave the control of the

1605
religious instruction in those schools to a body of managers, of whom, as lie has reminded us, two were the representatives of outside authority. When he did this the right hon. Gentleman tore the trust deeds of the voluntary schools in two. This is the model trust deed.
[The right hon. Gentleman here read the model trust deed; and continued:]
When this question came before the Committee on November 27th, 1902, the aspect of the case did not escape the attention of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth and Lord Hugh Cecil. Lord Hugh Cecil at once pounced upon this strange, new doctrine of appointing a body of managers, some of whom were outsiders and intruders, giving to that body the control of the religious instruction in those schools contrary to the language of the trust. The noble Lord said that they were State schools for State purposes supported by the State—;
"But was it to lie understood that for the purposes of religious instruction these schools were to he regarded as State schools? … It seemed to him very strange that when they were professing to keep up Church schools they should violate the trust deeds at the tame time in one of the fundamental principles of the Church."
The best answer given to that by the late Prime Minister was that—;
"Trust deeds are things which the House ought to be reluctant to interfere with. But when we are remodelling the system of elementary education in the country I say such a process is absolutely impossible unless you remodel the trust deeds …. The only choice was to leave the voluntary schools outside your educational system, with the voluntary schools untouched, uncontaminated by any interference on the part of the House, and without any part in the education of the youth of the country."
We are to-day seeking to complete the happy work of the right hon. Gentleman. We are attempting to make the control complete by giving the appointment of the teacher to the local authority, but we do not destroy—;at least I hope that we do not destroy—;the denominational teaching in the transferred Church schools. We anticipate the continuation of that teaching on two days of the week. It may be asked—;Why two days? Because, after the most careful inquiry, we find that it is only on two days of the week it has been the custom or practice of the managers of those Church schools to give definite Church Catechism teaching. You cannot always be teaching
1606
the Church Catechism. The Prayer Book requires graver treatment and is a better manual even than the Catechism; but any one who has had any acquaintance with the practical details of education must recognise that it would be quite enough on two days of the week to give this definite dogmatic instruction. Clause 3, until it was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his lucid and admirable speech, seems not to have been understood by Gentlemen opposite. I think they must now, at all events, understand its meaning to be plain—;that if the trustees of any school make this particular stipulation, before transfer, that there should be these facilities given on two days of the week, the obligation to permit that teaching becomes statutory. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I think he will find it is true. Supposing we had stopped at Clause 1. What then would have been the position of the owners of these voluntary schools? They would have had either to transfer their schools, as they can do under Section 23 of the Act of 1870, or to remain outside the scheme of national education altogether. Provision is made in Section 23 of the Act of 1870 for arrangements being come to voluntarily, as in Clause 2 of this Bill, between the owners of the voluntary schools and the local authorities for the transfer of the schools to the local authorities for the purpose of carrying on the work of a public elementary school. It has always been assumed—;I do not know why—;that that bargain must be unaccompanied by any pecuniary consideration, and that the rent must be a peppercorn rent. Therefore, if our Bill had stopped at Clause 1, the owners would have had to transfer their schools for nothing to the local authority, or they would have been obliged to remain outside the scheme of national education altogether. What would have been said if this Bill had stopped at Clause 1? the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin made a speech in the country in which he said that the thing he hated most was the incredible meanness of offering a pecuniary consideration in order to tempt, as ho seemed to suppose, the owners of these schools to violate their trust and to part with their property. But we shall want to know during the course of these debates in Committee who is there competent to represent all these owners. There are

1607
no Members in this House who are able to represent or who say they are able to represent the Church of England; it is a pretty big thing to do. But here we have to deal with a large number of these owners, and we shall want to know their views upon this portion of the Bill, and whether they agree with the right hon. Gentleman whom I have quoted, in thinking that the extraordinarily full and ample provisions which were explained by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer deserve to be described as incredibly moan. The National Society, which is a kind of trade union for these schools, and represents their interests very ably and astutely, I think, have been accustomed far too long to flourish in the face of the nation somewhat dangerous arguments. I think they have relied a little too long upon the supposed cash value of their bricks and mortar. They have said—;"Here we are; no politician, no Chancellor of the Exchequer, no House of Commons will ever venture to interfere with us. You must not steal us, you cannot do without us, and you are too poor to replace us." I doubt the wisdom of employing arguments of that sort. The credit of this country is still sufficiently good to float a loan and to provide the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a Sinking Fund quite sufficient to enable the country, if it chooses, to acquire and to build buildings of the country's own, and to spend money on our own buildings, and not on other people's. Every parish would then be in possession of a building which would indeed be its own building, and could be put to every kind of important use and play a great part in our village life. I doubt the wisdom of heaping such scorn and ignominy upon Clauses 2 and 3. They were meant to mitigate a certain amount of harshness which I am afraid is inherent in Clause 1. But unless you are prepared to say that the bargain between the voluntary schools and the State made in 1870, upon terms which have been altogether departed from, was an eternal bargain and cannot be altered, that it rivets the existing system upon the State for ever whether it likes it or not—;unless you say that, you will be, I am afraid, obliged to put up with that measure of harshness which usually accompanies the dissolution or abandonment of something which has been allowed to go on for a long time. These
1608
clauses, I repeat, were honestly intended to mitigate that harshness.
Now, we have not heard very much in the course of this debate about Clause 1. It seems to mo that I many of you have allowed it almost to go by default. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, I think, was quite willing to treat it as a necessary and perhaps, after all, no such very bad clause. All the fury of the destructive criticism that has been levelled against this Bill has been levelled against clauses which, as I have already said too often, were intended to do good and not harm. I am glad that we may now consider the so-called "new religion" argument, with all its vulgar jokes, to be at an end. It could not stand against the admirable and convincing language of the present Archbishop of Canterbury. Nobody could get up before a Protestant audience with these syllabuses in his hand—;and I know scores of them every bit as good as the Hampshire syllabus—;and ask people to believe that the teaching therein sanctioned could possibly be described as a "new religion." Those syllabuses are instinct with the Christian religion. They are also, I admit, instinct with the spirit of Protestantism. In the opinion of most of us it would be quite impossible to approach a settlement—;even a partial or a temporary settlement—;of this question unless we recognised the fact that this country of ours is a great Protestant community, bent upon retaining in the education of our children the Bible as the basis of faith and conduct. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech seemed to think there is nothing in this Bill except Clause 4. The general rule of this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman will see when he comes to read it, proceeds upon quite different lines and does secure in a very real sense both popular control and the abolition of tests for teachers. We are always being told that there are other solutions of this question. For months past I have received twenty letters a day, all beginning by promising, if I will read to the end, I shall find a solution of this problem. Although I have been disappointed hundreds of times, so tempting are those opening words I honestly believe I have read every letter that began by holding out that alluring prospect. The right hon. Gentleman the

1609
Member for West Birmingham intervened in this debate and held out the promise that he knew a method which was likely to produce peace. I listened with all my ears. He shadowed out two proposals. One he did not pursue. It was what is somewhat pedantically called, though not by him, the pan-denominational. There is a sort of notion that it is possible to provide denominational teaching out of the rates for all different sects, and it has been conveniently imagined that were some such proposal the law of the land a great number of sects would retain their total indifference to an atmosphere of a school of their own. I do not think that would be the case. I think that many dissenting bodies, if they thought there was a chance of having their children taught religion at the expense of the rates in buildings erected by the rates, and a teacher of their own paid for out of the rates, who would be a kind of church officer to them in the management of their denominational interest, I am afraid they would prick up their ears and think they were just as much entitled to an atmosphere and a teaching of their own as anybody else. If a Roman Catholic child is not to be offended by hearing an English Sovereign described by a somewhat coarse name, I do not know why a Puritan child should be exposed to the danger of hearing Charles I. referred to as the blessed martyr. There fore I repeat the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, and so powerfully reinforced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the pan denominational system in this country is utterly impossible; the people do not really want it, they would not pay for it, and great evil would result from it if it were possible; therefore I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not press it upon the attention of the House. His other proposal was a tempting one; it was that the State should boldly say, "We will have no concern with religion;" that they should maintain a position of supreme impartiality, making no distinction between the Gospel of St. John and the gospel of Joe Smith, but that they should keep the pit for all comers. Is that not so? That the State should take a position of complete impartiality and have no concern with religion in any shape or form or way, confining itself to secular teaching, keeping open the school for school purposes, but allowing
1610
the creeds of all sects, all denominations, religious or irreligious, whether they commended themselves to the mind of hon. Gentlemen opposite or not, if parents wished for it, to be taught on the school premises out of school hours. ["No,"] In school hours, if you like; but surely the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to compel a Baptist father to send his Baptist child to school not to receive secular instruction, but to be instructed in Baptist doctrine. Therefore it could not be described as compulsory in school hours.
Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot go at length into it, but what I said was that, in my opinion, religious instruction should be given in compulsory hours, but that it should be open to parents who did not desire that their children should have religious instruction to ask to have secular instruction given to their children during that time.
Mr. BIRRELL: From a selfish point of view, as Minister of Education, I want to know how that would lighten my task. Would Roman Catholics lie content to send their children to what would to all intents and purposes be a Protestant school with Protestant teachers to receive secular instruction from the beginning to the end of their school days, subject only to this, that a priest of their religion might come into that public building for half an hour or three-quarters of an hour—;between nine o'clock and a quarter to ten—;to impart to these children the Roman Catholic religion? They would have nothing to do with it. Their demand, right or wrong, is perfectly plain and intelligible. They require that they should be permitted to have their own Catholic schools for their children, with Catholic teachers, and they probably rely much on the general effect of being taught even secular subjects by a Catholic teacher and being associated with children brought up on the same lines, venerating and respecting the same things. Therefore, so far as they are concerned, they would not acquiesce in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman.
I do not know what authority the right hon. Gentleman may now have in Church circles. I quite ague that Church-people have made great sacrifices for these voluntary schools, and

1611
I am very sorry—;it shows how second thoughts are sometimes the worst—;I have laid myself open to the charge that I never recognised the great sacrifices they have made or what the country owes to the exertions of the clergy of the Church of England in this matter of education. I thought of doing so, and then I confess the idea occurred to me that I should be accused of using fine language when I was introducing a measure which Church-people would not receive with any very great favour. It was purely from a feeling of that kind that I abstained from paying that tribute. After all, there is something to my mind offensive in a Minister of the Crown paying a tribute to a great Church like the Church of England. I do not suppose any words of mine could by any possibility really affect the question. At the same time I can honestly say that I recognise to the full, knowing of my own knowledge how devoted many clergymen have been, the sacrifice they have made for the maintenance of their schools. I want to know, Would these clergymen, would the owners of these schools, be satisfied to allow a Unitarian to come to teach his particular doctrine in their schools; would they wish to see it done; would they like to see a Baptist come in and teach that infant baptism is almost idolatrous? What sort of reception should I have mot with from them if I had put forward that proposal? Look at the proposal of this Bill compared with that. Look at Clauses 2 and 3. Apart from the question of the employment of the teacher, which I admit is a very serious matter, under Clause 3 a great many of these schools will go on just as they have gone on before. People talk as if the Church of England had no hold in this country, no power; as if it had not got great control, as if the teachers were not by a largo majority members of the Church of England, and as if the local authorities were all bands of Nonconformists, and the county council thought of nothing but how to benefit Little Bethel and Ebenezer. That is not my experience of county councils at all. They are apt to be conservative bodies. They are, at all events, divided in political opinion the county councils I know certainly are of a very conservative character. But, however that may be, I am perfectly satisfied of this, that there is no more peace in the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman than I was able to discover
1612
in the thousand and one suggestions made to me in this matter.
I have no desire to argue this question about the inalienable right of the parent. I was, I admit, covered with humiliation and shame when my right hon. friend the Member for Dover, whose acquaintance with the bypaths of literature oven in its humblest manifestations is so extensive, read out to the House a note of mine, which I was foolish enough to inscribe on a page of Boswell. He read it out to the joy and triumph of my opponents and the mute confusion of my friends. But mo it covered with shame, for that note was meant to be a piece of withering sarcasm, I fear at the expense of the prelates of the Church of Rome and the Church of England. I thought when I composed it that I had really done rather well, until it was my fate to hear it read out solemnly to the House of Commons with all the magnificent elocution of the right hon. Gentleman as being the sober, solemn expression of my own deliberate opinion. Henceforth I must leave irony to Dean Swift. From all the deputations and petitions I have received the conclusion was forced upon mo that the Protestant parents of this country desire their children to receive a Protestant education based on the Bible, and that those Protestants—;and there are countless thousands of them - who are deeply attached to the Church of England desire their children to be taught the Catechism and the Prayer-book, and the Roman Catholics and Jews desire their children to be taught, as far as possible, when circumstances allow, in their own schools by their own teachers. In this Bill we have done our best to meet the desires of all those classes; and I believe when the proposals of the Bill come to be considered it will be found that we have gone a, long way towards doing it.
With regard to Clause 4, many remarks have been made upon the observations I addressed to a deputation from the Jews. I did not know reporters were present. Sometimes at these deputations they are present, sometimes not. I do not see them. They are concealed about the premises. Had I seen them very likely my language, although in substance and effect it would have been the same,

1613
might have been pared of some of the expressions used and which the hon. Member for Cork, who is a great judge of language, described as picturesque However that may be, I said what I meant and I meant what I said to that deputation. The Government intended, when they caused that clause to be drafted, that it should be a real, and in no sense an illusory, clause. If the clause assumes the shape it does, it is because we believed that on the whole it was more likely to be effective in the form in which we drafted it than if we had, as has been suggested, made it mandatory. All I can say is that the intention was that in these four-fifths schools, after their character has been determined and ascertained in a public inquiry, which is compulsory, although the machinery may come out different from that which it now is—;the result is intended to be the same with regard to the religious teaching which goes on and the teachers who give it. With regard to the figure of 5,000 there is no magic in figures, but there is a very great difference, as all Nonconformists know well, between the atmosphere of a town or a populous district and the atmosphere of a village. The clause is intended to be a charter of educational freedom to the villages. I entirely agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham when ho said how idle it is for people who feel a grievance to try to explain it to a person who has never felt it; and perhaps there is not much use in doing so. It is idle to deny that in villages Nonconformists have for many a long year had a very hard struggle for their existence. The ivy-mantled tower of the church, the pleasant rectory, and the eaves and gables of the schoolhouse, instead of being to the Nonconformists symbols of a common Christianity, have been symbols of strife and contention. It may sometimes be that strife and contention is not a suitable atmosphere for the production of all the Christian virtues. I am not going to say that Nonconformists may not have erred at times and been bitter in spirit. Those who know the circumstances of their lives and the hard struggles they have had for the maintenance of their Nonconformity cannot wonder that they rejoice at the opportunity now being offered to them
1614
to acquire in their village life freedom in the educational system and at the joy and pride they feel in the sense that it may be their own.
Now, Sir, I have spoken longer than I had any right to, and I hope I may be permitted before I sit down to make one appeal to this House in my character as Minister for Education. The one great thing we have acquired during the last six-and-thirty years of our educational system—;the asset of the greatest value of all is the undoubted fact that we have at last established within the minds of the children of the parents of this country the habit of school going. It is an awfully difficult thing to intro-duce a new habit into the lives of our stubborn race, and it has taken years and years to do it, but we have done it at last. The records of average attendance have steadily improved year by year. Even in London, where there are all sorts of temptations to keep children away from school and to employ them in profitable jobs, the average attendance is 88 per cent., and in some parts of the country it is over 90 per cent. I do think we are able to say that, at last, we have introduced into this country what will prove to be a great boon and an enormous benefit to future generations—;the habit of school going. I do not believe it is compulsion, I do not believe it is compulsory hours, I believe it is because the children have grown to be fond of going to school, grown to be fond of their teachers, and they go willingly. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen are sceptical, they believe that these figures at which I rejoice are all the result of police, and that if the children were left alone, and the parents, none of them would go at all because they are indifferent to education. I repudiate it. It is entirely false. We heard from a Labour Member this afternoon, the Member for Blackburn, the statement that he rejoiced to notice that the working-classes of this country were more and more conscious of the enormous benefit of education, more and more determined that their children should have it. That is the cause of this enormous increase, this steady, constant increase in the average attendance in our State-aided schools. What I want to point out is that it would be a terrible disaster were there to be any gap in that system, even

1615
for the shortest time—;were any alterations made in our system which made it difficult for any portion of the community, I care not who or what it is, to continue to send their children to school. As the Minister for Education, I cannot honestly or conscientiously make myself responsible for any such hideous gap, because I should feel that the habit once broken would probably be with great difficulty restored, and all the good we have been doing during the last thirty years might be hastily and unnecessarily undone. I therefore do hope that this Bill, when it comes to be discussed, will be discussed in a spirit of peace, and with the fixed and determined desire that so far as possible all the children in the country should still continue to enjoy the blessings of education. Knowledge and learning nobody need be afraid of. After all, all creeds, all Churches, all claims to authority which Churches possess, must ultimately be tried by the test of reason. A man does not submit to the Roman Catholic Church by the abrogation of his reason; ho practices his reason on the question, and his reception into the Church and his acknowledgment of the authority of
the Church flows from and is the natural consequence of an act of reason which he has asserted. Knowledge and learning nobody need be ashamed of. The wisest man that ever sat in this House, I think I am right in saying, certainly the wisest man who ever sat in this House as Member for Liverpool—;I mean Francis Bacon—;employed words with which I will conclude—;
"There is no power on earth that setteth up a throne in the spirits and souls of men, and then in their cogitation, imagination, opinions, and beliefs, but knowledge and learning."
Let us then adhere to schools, and to our school system, and in all our legislation, in all our quarrels and wrangles, and all our disputes and differences, keep this point steadily in view of the children of this country, who still continue, as I believe the great majority do now, to go to school joyfully, eagerly, willingly, and profitably.
Question put.
The House divided:—;Ayes, 410; Noes, 204. (Division List No. 71.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bennett, E. N.

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Adkins, W. Ryland

Berridge, T. H. D.

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

Bertram, Julius

Cawley, Frederick

Agnew, George William

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Chance, Frederick William

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)

Channing, Francis Allston

Alden, Percy

Billson, Alfred

Cheetham, John Frederick

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Armitage, R.

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

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

Bottomley, Horatio

Cleland, J. W.

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Clough, W.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.

Brace, William

Clynes, J. R.

Astbury, John Meir

Bramsdon, T. A.

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

Atherley-Jones, L.

Branch, James

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brigg, John

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Bright, J. A.

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Cooper, G. J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brodie, H. C.

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

Barker, John

Brooke, Stopford

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Barlow, John Emmott (Somerst

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

Cory, Clifford John

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)

Cotton, Sir H. S. J.

Barnard, E. B.

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Cowan, W. H.

Barnes, G. N.

Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

Cox, Harold

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Beale, W. P.

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Cremer, William Randal

Beauchamp, E.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crombie, John William

Beaumont Hubert (Eastbourne

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Crooks, William

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Crosfield, A. H.

Beck, A. Cecil

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Cross, Alexander

Bell, Richard

Byles, William Pollard

Crossley, William J.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cairns, Thomas

Dalmeny, Lord

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Caldwell, James

Dalziel, James Henry

Benn, John Williams (Devonp't

Cameron, Robert

Davies, David (Montgomery Co

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

Hodge, John

Montgomery, H. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Hooper, A. G.

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

Morrell, Philip

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

Horniman, Emslie John

Morse, L. L.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hudson, Walter

Moss, Samuel

Dobson, Thomas W.

Hutton, Alfred Eddison

Murray, James

Dodd, W. H.

Hyde, Clarendon

Myer, Horatio

Duckworth, James

Ilingworth, Percy H.

Napier, T. B.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Jackson, R. S.

Nicholls, George

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Jardine, Sir J.

Norman, Henry

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Jenkins, J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nussel Thomas Willans

Elibank, Master of

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Nuttall, Harry

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Erskine, David C.

Jones, Lief (Appleby)

Parker, James (Halifax)

Essex, R. W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Paul, Herbert

Evans, Samuel T.

Jowett, F. W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Kearley, Hudson. E.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Everett, R. Lacey

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

Fenwick, Charles

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

Ferens, T. R.

Kitson, Sir James

Perks, Robert William

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Laidlaw, Robert

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Phillipps, J. Wynford, Pembroke

Findlay, Alexander

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lambert, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lamont, Norman

Pirie, Duncan V.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Pollard, Dr.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Gill, A. H.

Lehmann, R. C.

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Radford, G. H.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Rainy, A. Rolland

Gooch, George Peabody

Levy, Maurice

Raphael, Herbert H.

Grant, Corrie

Lewis, John Herbert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lough, Thomas

Rees, J. D.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Lupton, Arnold

Rendall, Athelstan

Griffith, Ellis, J.

Lutterell, Hugh Fownes

Renton, Major Leslie

Grove, Archibald

Lyell, Charles Henry

Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lynch, H. B.

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

Gulland, John W.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Richardson, A.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Rickett, J. Compton

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Hall, Frederick

Maclean, Donald

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

M'Callum, John M.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

M'Crae, George

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

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

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Hart-Davis, T.

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

Robinson, S.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochale)

M'Micking, Major G.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Harwood, George

Maddison, Frederick

Roe, Sir Thomas

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Mallett, Charles E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Rose, Charles Day

Haworth, Arthur, A.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

Rowlands, J.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Runciman, Walter

Hedges, A. Paget

Marnham, F. J.

Russell, T. W.

Helme, Norval Watson

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Massie, J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Henry, Charles S.

Menzies, Walter

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Herbert, Colonel Ivor M (on., S.)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Molteno, Percy Alfred

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Higham, John Sharp

Mond, A.

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Scott, A.H. (Ashton under Lyne

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Montagu, E. S.

1618

1619

Sears, J. E.

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Whitbread, Howard

Seaverns, J. H.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Shackleton, David James

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Thomasson, Franklin

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

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

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Thorne, William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Tillett, Louis John

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Simon, John Allsebrook

Tomkinson, James

Wiles, Thomas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Torrance, A. M.

Wilkie, Alexander

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Toulmin, George

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Snowden, P.

Ure, Alexander

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Verney, F. W.

Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

Soares, Ernest J.

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

Wills, Arthur Walters

Spicer, Albert

Vivian, Henry

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

Stanger, H. Y.

Wadsworth, J.

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Steadman, W. C.

Wallace, Robert

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Walsh, Stephen

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

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Walters, John Tudor

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Walton, Joseph (Barusley)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Winfrey, R.

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southamp'n

Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wardle, George' J.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Summerbell, T.

Thomas Warner, Courtenay T.

Woohouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

Sutherland, J. E.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Yoxall, James Henry

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Watt, H. Anderson

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Weir, James Galloway

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Halpin, J.

Ambrose, Robert

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

Hambro, Charles Eric

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cogan, Denis J.

Hammond, John

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Courthope, G. Loyd

Harrington, Timothy

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Craik, Sir Henry

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Ashley, W. W.

Crean, Eugene

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Cullinan, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Balcarres, Lord

Dairymple, Viscount

Hazleton, Richard

Baldwin, Alfred

Delany, William

Healy, Timothy Michael

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

Devlin Charles Ramsay (Galway

Heaton, John Henniker

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dillon, John

Helmsley, Viscount

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Doughty, Sir George

Hills, J. W.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hogan, Michael

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Du Cros, Harvey

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Blake, Edward

Duffy, William J.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Boland, John

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Hunt, Rowland

Bowles, G. Stewart

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Jordan, Jeremiah

Boyle, Sir Edward

Faber, George Denison (York

Joyce, Michael

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Bull, Sir William James

Farrell, James Patrick

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Fell, Arthur

Keswick, William

Burke, E. Haviland-

Field, William

Kilbride, Denis

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fletcher, J. S.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Flynn, James Christopher

Law, Hugh Alexander

Cave, George

Forster, Henry William

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Gilhooly, James

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Cecil, Lord R. (Marlyebone, E.

Ginnell, L.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Glover, Thomas

Lundon, W.

Clancy, John Joseph

Haddock, George R.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

1620

1621

Macpherson, J. T.

O'Dowd, John

Sheehy, David

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

O'Grady, J.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

O'Hare, Patrick

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

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

M'Ivor, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormsk'rk

M'Kean, John

O'Malley, William

Starkey, John R.

M'Killop, W.

O'Mara, James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Magnus, Sir Philip

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Sullivan, Donal

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

O'Shee, James John

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Mason, James P. (Windsor)

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ

Meagher, Michael

Parkes, Ebenezer

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Meehan, Patrick A.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Thornton, Percy M.

Meysey-Thomson, E. C.

Percy, Earl

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Mooney, J. J.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

Morpeth, Viscount

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

Murnaghan, George

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

White, Patrick (Moath, North)

Murphy, John

Reddy, M.

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

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Redmond, John K. (Waterford)

Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Nield, Herbert

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Nolan, Joseph

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wyudham, Rt. Hon. George

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Young, Samuel

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Younger, George

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

O'Doherty, Philip

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Seddon, J.

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

EDUCATION OF DEFECTIVE CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read a third time upon Monday next.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL.
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to lie read the third time to-morrow.
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales singly took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Macclesfield and District Tramways Bill; Midland Railway Bill. Read 2a and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Bury Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Bethnal Green Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  FEE FOND OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid on the Table the Annual Account of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords.
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table, and to be referred to the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices.

  NAVY (NEW SCHEME OF TRAINING).
  Reports of Departmental Committees appointed to consider certain questions concerning the extension of the new scheme of training for officers of the Navy, etc.
  ARMY.
  Interim Report of Anti-typhoid Inoculation Committee.
  TRADE REPORT (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3582. Turkey (Aleppo).

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of evictions in Ireland, for the quarter ended March 31st, 1906.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INDIA.
  (Home Accounts)—;Home accounts of the Government of India. (Finance and Revenue Accounts)—;Finance and revenue accounts of the Government of India for the year 1904–1905. (Estimate)—;Estimate of revenue and expenditure of the Government of India for the year 1905–1906, compared with the results of 1904–1905.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Rule amending the time table of examinations for the year 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION.
  Petition in favour of denominational religious teaching in schools; of teachers in schools in Burnley; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEW BILL.
  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the suppression of betting in streets and other public places was presented by the Lord Davey; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 79.)

POLICE (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
[SECOND READING].
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is a small Departmental Bill, the larger part of which has been inherited by His Majesty's Government from their predecessors. It is, therefore, largely uncontroversial, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading without difficulty. The main object of the Bill is clearly stated in the first clause. It is to give pensions to constables who continue to serve after they have qualified for a pension. The idea is that the various local authorities should be able to retain in their service experienced men who are still fit to do the work, and that their pensions should not be made subject to

1419
forfeiture if during the time they serve afterwards they make some slip which might render it necessary otherwise for them to forego their pension. It is hoped by the Home Office that one result of this Bill will be to reduce the heavy burden which at present rests on the ratepayers for police pensions. To give an instance, I may state that the deficiency on the Metropolitan Police Pensions Fund which is not met by deductions from the pay was in 1894 not more than £39,000, while last year it amounted to £177,959. It is hoped that by giving a small gratuity to these policemen they will continue to serve, and that therefore the whole of the pension will not fall on the rates. The second clause makes it clear that if a constable rejoins the force after having left owing to illness or some other cause, his early service shall rank for pension. Clause 3 deals with approved service in case of Naval and Army Reservists. The other clauses are quite simple, with the exception of Clause 7 (reckoning of approved service in different forces), on which I understand it is not unlikely that one noble Lord will desire to move an Amendment in Committee. In the circumstances I think it better to defer what I have to say on that clause until we reach the Committee stage. It is hoped that the Bill will prove a considerable boon to a very deserving class of public servants, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—;(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (BUILDING BYE-LAWS) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—;(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I have to move a few Amendments. They have been prepared by the Local Government Board, and I understand that the noble
1420
EARL the President of the Board of Agriculture has expressed his assent to their being inserted in the Bill. They have been designed with the view of making, the Bill more workable.
Amendment moved—;
"In Clause 2, page 1, line 24, after the word 'building' to insert the words 'or any part thereof.'"—;(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—;
"In Clause 2, page 2, line 7, to leave out 'Sub-section (3).'"—;(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—;
"In Clause 2, page 2, line 13, after the word 'building,' to insert the words 'and the curtilage of the building shall be deemed to be the space formed by the curtilages of the two dwelling-houses,' and to insert as a new sub-section' Where any stables, offices, or other outbuildings are appurtenant to, or used or intended to be used in connection with, any building or any part thereof, and are within the same curtilage as that building, that building shall not be excluded from the exemption under this section by reason of being within thirty feet of any of those outbuildings, nor shall any of those outbuildings be excluded from that exemption by reason of being within thirty feet of that building or of any of the other outbuildings.'"—;(Lord Hylton.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—;
"In Clause 3, page 2, line 41, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'or with another dwelling-house separated therefrom as mentioned in Sub-section 4 of this section; nor shall any such detached building as is lastly herein mentioned, be excluded from this exemption by reason only of its being within thirty feet of the dwelling-house in connection with which it is constructed to be-used, or of another dwelling-house separated therefrom as aforesaid.'"—;(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have prepared a new sub-section to Clause 4 in compliance with my promise

1421
to Lord Faber. The new sub-section differs only in a slight degree from the Amendment that ho himself moved, and I hope he is satisfied with it.
Amendment moved—;
"In Clause 4, page 5, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert the following new sub-section: '(3) Any banking or insurance company or other body corporate may, by order of the Court, made on the application of any person on whose application a new trustee may be appointed, or by or under the instrument creating the trust, be appointed to be custodian trustee of any trust, with power, if the Court so order or the instrument so direct, to charge and retain or pay out of the trust property the same fees as are chargeable by the public trustee as custodian trustee, or such smaller fees as the Court or instrument may direct; and where any such appointment is made, the provisions of this section shall, subject to any directions contained in the order or instrument, apply as they apply in the case where the public trustee is appointed to be custodian trustee, except that if the court or instrument so direct, the trust property and the right to transfer or call for a transfer of shares, stock, and securities shall vest in the custodian trustee jointly with the managing trustees.'"—;(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD FABER: I am quite satisfied with the Amendment, and am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for bringing it forward. It meets the object I had in view in my Amendment which I withdrew on the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of the next Amendment is to make perfectly clear the intention of the original clause.
Amendment moved—;
"To leave out Clause 12 and to insert the following new clause: 'The provisions of this Act with respect to the High Court shall, in their application to cases within the jurisdiction of a palatine court, include that court, and the public trustee shall provide an address within the county palatine where service upon him of any proceedings under this Act in such palatine court may be effected; the rules of court relating to the exercise of the jurisdiction of a palatine court under this Act shall be made by the authority having power to make general rules and orders of that court.'"—;(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is intended to meet the suggestion made in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne. By this Amendment it will be for the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to provide for the establishment and regulation of any branch office where he thinks it necessary. It was not intended that this power should rest with the public trustee.
Amendment moved—;
"In Clause 15, page 12, line 13, to leave out the words 'by the public trustee.'"—;(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of my last Amendment is to make it clear that rules may be made for excluding any particular kind of trust from the operation of the Act.
Amendment moved—;
"In Clause 15, page 12, line 14, after the word 'office' to insert the following new paragraph: '(e) Excluding any trusts from the operation of this Act or any part thereof.'"—;(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 81.)

ALIENS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 80.)
POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COTTON CULTIVATION.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHrose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government had given the British Cotton-Growing Association

1423
any facilities for the development of the growth of cotton in the British Empire, and to move for Papers. The noble Duke said: My Lords, I am afraid it is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the administration of Colonial matters, but I rather hope that on the present occasion in regard to the matter which I venture to bring before the notice of your Lordships, although I do not expect to be in entire agreement with the noble Earl, I may receive from him some attention to the views which I shall express and also some consideration in the reply which he will give me. I am anxious to ask the noble Earl whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to support and to give their sympathetic consideration to the aims of the British Cotton-Growing As sociation. Furthermore, I wish to ask the noble Earl whether His Majesty's Government intend to follow the policy of their predecessors and do all in their power to develop cotton-growing in the West Indies, and in West Africa, and whether they will consider seriously the possibility of the development of railway construction in Northern Nigeria.
But before I venture to put these Questions to the noble Earl I should like to remind your Lordships of the causes which led to the creation of the British Cotton-Growing Association. As your Lordships are aware, the great industry in Lancashire is nearly entirely dependent for the supply of the raw material of cotton on the United States of America. It is difficult to ascertain the exact amount of cotton produced and consumed throughout the world in any one year; but this I can say, without fear of contradiction, that although the amount of cotton produced in America is larger every year, the tendency is for the ratio between consumption and production to be greater in the case of consumption. Moreover, when we bear in mind that the population of the United States is largely increasing, that they are employing more cotton every year themselves, it is evident that the amount of cotton available for the Lancashire market is becoming less and less every year. The consequence is that the price has a tendency to rise. The noble Earl is well aware that the
1424
greatest amount of our cotton trade is conducted in the East, and he must in those years in which he administered the Indian Empire have seen that the natives in India could only afford to buy our cotton goods when they were at the cheapest price possible. It is perfectly clear that a rise in the price of cotton would increase the cost of articles, and the tendency would be for our Eastern trade to diminish.
There is a further danger. A reduction in the supply of the raw material of cotton would be serious, but together with a bad harvest in America the result would be positively dangerous to Lancashire. When there is a bad harvest the supply is curtailed, and consequently gambling is promoted and speculation in the cotton crop takes place. The speculation has this effect, that the price of cotton in a very few years varies between 20 and 70 per cent. The result is that would-be purchasers do not dare to buy. The manufacturer consequently has to employ the stock which he possesses, to work either short time, or shut down his mill altogether. I daresay there are some noble Lords in this House who remember well the evil effect upon the population of Lancashire during the time of the cotton famine. I do not think I need dwell upon the terrible suffering which took place at that time, but the effect upon the population of Lancashire of having to work short time is similar to the grave effects which were associated with the cotton famine. Working short time in Lancashire is a sort of echo of those gloomy and terrible days. The loss to the wage-earning class is something like £300,000 a week, or a total of about £15,000,000 a year.
Your Lordships are aware that the cotton industry, after agriculture, is the biggest industry in this country. It employs some 3,000,000 operatives directly, and 10,000,000 of our population are indirectly associated with the cotton industry. The total value of the exports of cotton amount to between £80,000,000 and £90,000,000 a year. Yet this great industry, this industry which is so indissolubly connected with the prosperity of Great Britain, depends entirely for its future upon the goodwill and consideration of a foreign though friendly Power.

1425
There is only one remedy that we know of for getting rid of this fear as to the shortage of raw material in the future, and that is to multiply the sources of supply throughout the world, so that it will be impossible in the future for any combination of gamblers to corner the cotton crop and make the prices so fluctuate that the industry in Lancashire is jeopardised or brought to the verge of ruin. So far, I think, I shall be in agreement with the views of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but I should like to go one step further, and say that, since we are all agreed that the sources of supply should be multiplied, I for my part would sooner see those supplies produced within the confines of the British Empire than in any other part of the world.
The British Cotton Growing Association was formed for this very purpose. The late Government gave it support and sympathetic help. We did so from a Colonial Office point of view because, in the first place, we recognised that we had many tracts of territory in our Colonies and protectorates which were undeveloped and required to be developed. We knew that the production of cotton would be a source of benefit to the natives; it would give them healthy as well as remunerative employment. We furthermore believed that we should give a sympathetic support to those who represented a great staple industry, so that it could not be claimed that lack of interest on our part had been prejudicial to the industry, and that it had suffered from lack of foresight or care on the part of His Majesty's advisers.
I am not at all certain that the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong hold similar views with regard to our great staple industries. I know that on many occasions they have expressed views on this particular matter which do not in the least coincide with the views of the Unionist Party. Frequently it has been stated on platforms that if one industry failed the members of it might perfectly well turn their attention to some other industry. If one industry, through either economic or industrial
1426
causes, failed, what did it matter? Those employed in it could perfectly well turn their attention to some other industry which would be of more value. As an example of what I am saying I cannot do better than quote the words which the present President of the Board of Trade made use of one or two years ago. Talking about the industries of this country, he said—;
"For one trade they lost they simply substituted another and a better one. They might have lost the puddlers, but it meant they were giving employment to engineers and those who obtained better wages. They simply substituted a higher-class trade that paid better. They had lost sugar refining, which did not require much skill."
Speeches similar in strain to that have been frequently delivered by members of the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong. What I want to know from the noble Earl is whether he will, in approaching this question of supporting, safeguarding, and protecting the future welfare and prosperity of the great cotton trade, ignore and place on one side the extreme economic views which I know his party hold, and which, if driven to their logical conclusion, would mean that the Government could not show any sympathetic regard or consideration for possible damage or injury which might affect the cotton trade in the future, but that if the people in the cotton trade could no longer get their raw material they must turn their attention to some other industry which would be more profitable to them and to the world at large.
I submit to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the production of cotton for England is a national matter. It is associated with the second greatest staple industry in this country, and consequently the Government of the day are bound to give it their sympathetic support and consideration, and cannot afford to ignore how indissolubly it is connected, with those other subsidiary industries which depend so largely on its prosperity and success. Therefore, I am anxious to hear from the noble Earl whether, in approaching this question of safeguarding the interests of Lancashire in the future, he will do so in the spirit of recognising the importance of a staple industry in this country.

1427
It is perfectly true that the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies has said in the last few weeks that the British Cotton Growing Association has his sympathy, and incidentally he alluded to the fact that the noble Earl's views were in accordance with his own. I was very pleased to read that statement, but I confess I should have more confidence if we could get a definite expression of opinion from the Secretary of State himself, for, after all, he is supreme. His views are represented in the Cabinet, and I should have a feeling of greater confidence if I could hear from his own lips his ideas upon this very important matter. He has, if I may venture to say so, in this particular matter somewhat delegated his authority to his very distinguished subordinate. I more readily recognise the ability of his official subordinate than that it is his duty continually, both in the House of Commons and in the country, to convey to the public the colonial policy of His Majesty's Government.
The Under-Secretary for the Colonies has told us what the British Cotton Growing Association has done in the last three years. He has told us that in 1903 the value of cotton grown by them amounted to only £29,000, but that for this year the estimated crop amounts to no less a figure than £330,000. I cannot help feeling that those who are interested in the industrial development of this country, and, in particular, in the maintenance of the cotton industry of Lancashire, are indebted to the master spinners and operatives for their courage, their foresight, and their patriotic endeavour to establish cotton growing within the confines of the British Empire. Further, I think that the great efforts which they have made—;efforts of self-denial in a way, because they are doing this, not for themselves, but for their children who come after them—;deserve the sympathetic consideration and support of His Majesty's Government, and I shall be very glad to know whether or not I am right in assuming that they will receive it.
I want also to ask the noble Earl whether he intends to give every assistance to the development of cotton growing in the West Indies. I know that when it was a question of supporting and maintaining the sugar industry there,
1428
members of his Party displayed very little concern and very little interest. Indeed, we were frequently reminded that we were merely bolstering up an industry of the West Indies at the expense of those who lived in this country. I do not expect noble Lords opposite to show any great interest in the sugar industry of the West Indies, although I might incidentally observe that, as a result of the policy of the late Government, the sugar industry there is now in a flourishing condition. Are you going to pursue a policy of consideration towards those who are developing the cotton industry in the West Indies, or are you going to regard it in the same light as the sugar industry?
I turn now to West Africa. I desire to ask the noble Earl whether the grants which, on the advice of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Protectorates in West Africa made to the British Cotton Growing Association are to be continued in the future or not. There was a grant from Sierra Leone of £1,500 a year towards the Association, Lagos gave them £2,000, and Southern Nigeria £3,000 a year. Will they be continued? Does the noble Earl think these grants, which were given on the advice of the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, reasonable or proper ones, and is he prepared to recommend that they should be continued? Again, what has been done with regard to reducing the cost of transit on the railways in West Africa? Has anything at all been decided with regard to the rate of freight on the ships which bring the goods from West Africa to the port of Liverpool?
In alluding to the question of transport and the facilities both with regard to railways and shipping, I am irresistibly drawn to the consideration of a few points brought out very strongly in a Parliamentary Paper entitled "Correspondence relating to Railway Construction in Nigeria" (Cd. 2787). I have no hesitation in referring to this Blue-book, because I informed the noble Earl the other day that in the course of my remarks I should feel it my duty to do so. Every one who is qualified to judge claims that in Northern Nigeria, which is a territory as big as France and Italy put together, it is possible to grow an ample

1429
supply of cotton, a supply so large that it would adequately supplement the shortage which we anticipate in the crop in the future from America. The natives of Nigeria are accustomed to growing cotton, the master spinners of Lancashire are prepared to sink large sums of money in that territory for cotton growing; but there is one thing lacking, namely, proper transit. Railway construction is in its infancy, and until something is done in this direction the possibilities of growing cotton in this region are speculative and cannot be realised for an in defined period.
With regard to railway construction in Nigeria, there was, as I have said, a Blue-book published on this very important matter; and without desiring to take up too much of your time I should like briefly to refer to two schemes suggested. One scheme is that the heavy, broad-gauge railway, costing £7,000 a mile, should be extended. That would be a very expensive railway, costing several millions to construct, and those who have expressed opinions regarding it say that there is no possibility of its being carried into effect until the Imperial Government have a sum of £10,000,000 or £15,000,000 at their disposal. Therefore, I think we may put the possibility of constructing that railway on one side. But there is an alternative scheme, the one recommended by the present Governor of Nigeria, Sir Frederick Lugard. The scheme involves an outlay of £1,500 a mile, and the total cost of the railway would be about £600,000. This railway would connect up towns like Zaria, Kano, Zungeru, and Lokoja, and the advantages of this scheme would be that you would not be competing against the transport facilities on the Niger, but would be supplementing and accelerating them. Sir Frederick Lugard says—;
"The French are pushing forward their line from Dahomey to Saye with great rapidity, with the avowed intention of capturing the trade of the Haussa States … The necessity for a means of transport for the supply of garrisons and administrative staff at once cheaper and more certain than existing methods, is very urgent."
I now come to a passage in the Report of Sir Frederick Lugard to which I attach very great importance. Sir Frederick says—;
"The Government of Northern Nigeria will have already spent enormous sums in archaic
1430
methods of transport, and should a difficulty with France overtake us in the interval we should certainly he unable to maintain our position in the northern states. I have naturally a keen desire to see this country self-supporting, to decrease the huge transport bill, and to increase the revenue-producing exports, r am convinced that the only method of doing this is by I he rapid construction of a light surface line on a two-foot six-inch gauge, connecting the Lower Niger with Kano, or at least with Zaria, which is the central point from which the lines both of commerce and administration diverge."
SIR Frederick further says—;
"There are no serious obstacles by the route selected, and though no precise estimate or cost can be made until after the location survey is complete, it may with tolerable safety be said that it will not exceed £1,570 per mile, or a total of £410,000."
I need not dwell on the great qualities of Sir Frederick Lugard. They are well known to every noble Lord in this House. When I was Under-Secretary at the Colonial Office he enjoyed our complete confidence. We recognised in him not only a great soldier but a great statesman in dealing with natives, and also a great administrator. I am assured that he holds precisely similar views to-day to those expressed in the extract which I have read. He does not take back one single word from the opinion he expressed to Mr. Chamberlain three years ago. What I am anxious to ascertain from the noble Earl the Secretary of State is whether he has had sufficient time to go into this problem of the development of railways in Nigeria.
The noble Earl the other night, at some political banquet which he attended, dwelt eloquently upon the importance of trusting the man on the spot. What I desire to impress upon the noble Earl is that Sir Frederick Lugard might be trusted on this particular occasion. There is no just reason for supposing that the views he has expressed, and which he has had the opportunity of revising after several years, are unsound and, therefore, that they do not deserve every consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government. I suppose the noble Earl will remind me that this scheme of railway development will cost money, and that the Imperial Government as it is grants £300,000 a year to Nigeria for the administration of that territory, and he will consequently say

1431
that it is very difficult to increase that grant. I myself dislike calling upon the tax-payer for any fresh sums of money, and I certainly dislike advising or counselling it when the Party in power is the one to which noble Lords opposite belong, because we know, if there is any deficiency in the Imperial Budget, on which portion of his Majesty's population the making good of that deficiency will fall. At the same time I wish to impress on the noble Earl that we are now spending £300,000 a year as an Imperial grant on Nigeria, and that the money which the taxpayers now give for the administration of that country is totally unproductive. There is not the slightest possibility or chance that this money can ever be in any way productive; it is a dead loss. What I desire to urge is that instead of spending £300,000 a year with no chance of ever getting any return, it would be more economical, both from an Imperial and also from a local point of view, that the grant should be increased to, say, £425,000 a year, adding to the grant already given the £125,000 a year which Sir Frederick Lugard requires for the construction of his railway for a period of four years. You could either make your grant in that manner, or it would be possible to raise the full amount and charge the interest thereof to the Imperial grant which is given every year. That is a matter, however, on which I do not desire to express an opinion, as it is one for financial experts; but the important point is that it would be cheaper in the long run to add to the present grant and construct the railways. You would then know that in the course of a few years there would be some return for the expenditure you had been called upon to make.
If you construct the railway which Sir Frederick Lugard suggests, you in the first place open up the country. Its' taxable resources will multiply, and consequently your revenue will increase. You will also reduce the cost of sending provisions to outlying military posts. These provisions have now to be carried on the heads of natives over thousands of miles. The cost of that will be reduced, according to Sir Frederick Lugard, by £30,000, and you will call into being the great cotton fields which undoubtedly
1432
exist there, in which Lancashire is willing to invest large sums of money, and the produce of which will help to remunerate the native and make his position more comfortable and his lot more contented. You will also be enabled to bring the raw material into the Liverpool market at a price less than the average price of cotton for the last ten years.
I hope the noble Earl will see fit to give-me an answer on the points which I have ventured to bring to his notice. I do not mean a cursory and official answer, but one based upon a careful study of this question. If he will do that I can assure him that it will not only give considerable pleasure to many noble Lords in this House, but that everyone in Lancashire who is deeply concerned in the production of the raw material of cotton will be greatly relieved to see that the noble Earl has given his careful attention to this very important matter. I hope he does not think that I have brought forward this subject out of a feeling of idle curiosity or senseless inquisitiveness. I have done it because I know, from considerable experience among operatives and those connected with the cotton trade in Lancashire, that they are vitally interested in the future welfare of their industry, and that they do look to His Majesty's present advisers to give them support and consideration in the work they are now carrying out. When the noble Earl reflects how indissolubly this industry is connected with many similar industries in this country, I think he will realise that it is of the greatest importance that the Government should give every consideration and support to-the efforts which are now being made to place it for all time on a permanent basis.
THE EARL or SCARBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to the questions which have been put to him by my noble friend, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on the subject of the development of railways in Northern Nigeria, to which my noble friend directed the latter part of his remarks. For a number of years prior to 1900, when that country was taken over by the Crown, I was associated with Nigeria from an administrative point of view, and I have been associated with it also from the point of view of its

1433
commercial development; and, although I agree that it may be a wise policy for the Imperial Government to spend money in building railways in that country in order to hasten development for the sake of posterity, in my humble opinion I do not think there is any justification for it at present from the trade point of view, even if it were possible for the Protectorate to be called upon to pay any of the cost either of construction or maintenance.
If there was a sudden discovery of valuable minerals on a large scale that would, of course, alter the complexion of affairs a great deal, but the condition of Northern Nigeria to-day is such that I can only describe it as poverty stricken and to a large extent depopulated. Years of slave raiding have devastated and practically laid waste the country, and, moreover, it suffers periodically from famine, no doubt partly due to the perpetual state of unrest in which the people exist. Nevertheless, I am fully convinced that the country has great future possibilities, but it is necessary for the population to double or treble itself before its resources can be properly developed. Your Lordships will remember that this country has been effectively occupied for barely five years. It needs rest and time, and, if I may venture to say so, a little less feverish haste in regard to the pursuit of revenue and very delicate handling as regards internal taxation.
The noble Duke referred to the subject of cotton growing in Northern Nigeria. It is a subject in which he takes a deep interest, and I think that sooner or later Lancashire will be very grateful to him for it. But before thinking about spending money on heavy railways for bringing down cotton from the interior of the country, which for years to come may not grow cheaply enough to pay the cost of carriage, we should see what could be done with the thousands of acres of suitable land bordering on the River Niger, both in Northern and Southern Nigeria, which could be developed for the purpose of cotton growing. The British Cotton Growing Association have made an excellent start in this direction. The natives have been encouraged in every way possible to grow cotton
1434
beyond their own requirements in order to export home, so that, although I do not altogether agree with my noble friend as regards railway development from the point of view of trade being urgent at the present time, I do thoroughly agree with him on other grounds.
I am convinced that a rapidly-constructed light railway is urgently required in Northern Nigeria for strategical purposes; that is to say, for internal defence, for movement of troops, and for economy of administration. I think myself that such construction would be a very wise insurance from the point of view of the British taxpayer. The position of Northern Nigeria to-day is not unlike the position of the equatorial provinces of Egypt at the time of the Mahdi. We have residents with small garrisons scattered all over the country, a country, as the noble Duke said, as large as France and Italy put together, in the midst of a fanatical population and with absolutely no means of communication. I know of only one road in the whole of Northern Nigeria on which wheel transport can be used, and that only in the dry season. I happened to be in that country during the recent rising. Fortunately it was only local, but it afforded an instance of what may happen on a larger scale any day. The nearest reinforcements had to walk over 300 miles to reach the scene of the rising and the bulk of the troops at Sir Frederick Lugard's command were over 600 miles distant. These distances were covered in remarkably short time, but I think your Lordships will appreciate the dangers of such delay in emergencies of this kind.
I assume that His Majesty's Government must be alive to the position of affairs which I have attempted to describe. I am confident that Sir Frederick Lugard—;and by the way, His Majesty's Government have no more able and experienced administrator in their service—;must have pointed out clearly the situation. I do venture to urge on the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies the great risk this country is running in that corner of the Empire until rapid means of communication are established such as a system of light

1435
railways would supply, and I sincerely hope that this urgent need of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria will receive their urgent consideration.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ELGIN): My Lords, I did not expect any apology from the noble Duke for bringing this matter before the House, and my only regret is that he thought it necessary in his opening remarks to introduce what I cannot help thinking was rather an unnecessarily discordant note in his reference to what he characterised as "extreme economic views" in the Party to which I have the honour to belong. We are dealing to-day with a specific question in regard to the work of the British Cotton Growing Association. I have before me the first annual report of that association, and I find from it that they express their obligation to the noble Duke for the great assistance which he, on behalf of the Colonial Office, gave to the work of the Association when he was Under-Secretary. I venture to think that it is highly probable that in the next report the Association will be able to pay a similar compliment to the noble Duke's relative who has succeeded him in the office he then held.
So far as the work of this association is concerned, I cannot help thinking that there is no possible reason for difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. We admit quite as fully as noble Lords opposite the necessity of providing larger supplies for our great cotton industry, and I sec no reason whatever why we on this side of the House should not also as cordially as noble Lords opposite desire to find those supplies within the British Empire. These are the objects which the British Cotton Growing Association, as I understand, were formed to promote, and which the noble Duke, while he was at the Colonial Office, helped them in promoting; and so far as I am concerned, understood in that way, I am quite prepared to adopt the policy of my predecessors and assist the British Cotton Growing Association in the same way and to the same extent, and do more, if possible, than they did.
1436
At home, under the noble Duke's auspices, conferences were held monthly at the Colonial Office. Those conferences are being continued with Mr. Churchill's assistance. In the Colonies they did all they could, I have no doubt, to encourage the Colonial Government to assist in the same work, and those methods we also are pursuing. I have had the opportunity of meeting lately several Governors who have returned from the Colonies, and one of the first questions I put to them was as to how the work in the direction of promoting the growing of cotton was progressing in any case in which that question would apply. There are many parts of the British Empire in which there are tracts suitable for the growth of cotton. The noble Duke referred especially to two, the West Indies and West Africa, which have, no doubt, attracted most attention.
In regard to the West Indies, the noble Duke knows very well what the Colonial Office have done and are still doing. They have a Department of Agriculture in the West Indies under Sir D. Morris, who has done everything in his power to induce the planters to take up the growing of cotton, to bring in seed from the United States, and to attend to the proper cultivation of the crops, and the results have been satisfactory. I ought not to omit to mention, because I wish to do full justice to the association, that they co-operated by making arrangements for the provision of machinery, and thereby rendered it easy for those in the Colonies to take up the industry. The result in the West Indies has been satisfactory. I do not think the noble Duke quoted the figures, but the number of bales in 1902 was 680, and in 1905 the number was 5,000, and their value £150,000. Besides that, the quality was excellent, and I find that the West Indian cotton sold at from 2d. to yd. above the best American cotton. Therefore I think the Colonial Office have done everything possible to help forward the growth of cotton in the West Indies.
Then I come to West Africa. The noble Duke asked me whether we were going to continue the grants. We have no intention whatever of throwing any

1437
obstacles in the way. The grants depend to some extent on the action of the local governments, but I have no reason to suppose they wish to withdraw them, and we shall certainly do everything we can to support their continuance. I do not think we can at present say with any exactitude what the results are in that part of the world. They are a good deal in the future; but I will quote one figure to show a progress very similar to that of the West Indies. I find that in Lagos the increase in the number of bales since 1902 has been from 250 bales to 5,000 bales.
I should like to remind the noble Duke of another sphere in which we have not been inactive, and which I do not think he referred to. I do not know if many of your Lordships have made acquaintance with the Scientific Department of the Imperial Institute, but I can say that if anyone would pay even a hurried visit to that institution he would find that investigations are going on there into many subjects which bear upon the commercial future of the Colonies, investigations into minerals and other products, and more especially, under the direction, I think, of the Government to which the noble Duke belonged, into the question of cotton growing. The work of the Scientific Department certainly confirms the view of the value of West Africa, and perhaps I should say especially of Northern Nigeria, in this matter. I find in the Report of the British Cotton Growing Association that it is said that their representatives give the most enthusiastic reports about the capabilities of the country, and one gentleman stated that some of the districts had the best cotton growing land he had ever seen.
I also read in the report that Northern Nigeria has a population of over 10,000,000 and an area of 323,000 square miles, which is equal to one-half of the cotton-producing States of North America. I think the experts in the Scientific Department entirely agree in their estimate of the great future, with regard to cotton cultivation, that is before Northern Nigeria. They think that the climate there is exceedingly suitable, and it is to be remembered that the cultivation of
1438
cotton is no new thing, but has been carried on there for generations. The sample at present, I understand, is not of the highest, but it is believed that, by careful cultivation, this may be easily remedied. I hope I have said enough to show the noble Duke that I am not unsympathetic with regard to the work of the Cotton Growing Association.
I pass now to the question of communications in West Africa, I am not prepared to deal with rates of railways or freights of ships. There was nothing in the noble Duke's question which gave me any idea that information on that matter would be asked, and I would prefer to treat it as a separate matter. With regard to railways, however, there is just one reservation which I think I ought to make, and it is that I cannot accept any responsibility in the meantime as to the way in which any proposals ought to be dealt with from the point of view of finance. They have not reached a shape yet in which they could be put before the Department of the Government which is responsible in these matters, and it would not be proper for me to enter into a discussion until my colleagues who are responsible in that respect have had the proposals before them and given their opinion. But I do not quite agree with the noble Duke that nothing has been done since 1903.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The noble Earl must have misunderstood me. I did not say that nothing had been done since 1903. I stated that the quotation which I read from the despatch of Sir Frederick Lugard was dated 1903.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: Since 1903 there has been a survey, which was gone into at great length under experienced engineers. I will refer to that later. I cannot, as I say, pledge myself to a specific plan or enter into the question of finance, but I do not see why I should be debarred from giving my opinion frankly on the Papers before me. In dealing with railways, as the noble Marquess opposite will remember from his Indian experience, as I do from mine, we always at once come into conflict between

1439
State construction and construction by private enterprise. Indian experience has gone in both directions, but I think the accepted view there now is—;at least it v, as when I came away—;that on the whole the best thing for the country is that the ownership of the lines should be in the hands of the Government, but the working of them in the hands of companies. It is sometimes difficult to bring that about, but if we look to private enterprise in a matter of this kind we have, of course, either to support it by some form of guarantee, of which we have had grievous experience, or we must support it, as has been done pretty frequently in other parts of Africa lately, by land grants, to which also there are considerable objections.
In dealing with railway communication in this part of West Africa I think it is generally agreed that eventually there will have to be two main lines, one in the eastern part of the territory and one in the western. We need not discuss the one in the eastern part at present, as the country is not ready for it, but I may mention that it would have one great advantage—;namely, that it would lead down to one of the best possible harbours at Old Calabar. With regard to the western system there is not quite the same advantage. The natural port for a main line opening out the country from the coast to the west would be Lagos, but there is this difficulty with regard to the port of Lagos, that it has a bar which necessitates transhipment of goods. Steamers cannot go within it. Works to get over the difficulty in the ordinary way by running out moles would cost a very large sum of money and would take much time. But it has been suggested, and we are on the point, I hope, of agreeing to the project, that we should try the effect of what is called sand pump suction dredging, and it is hoped by that means the bar may be removed at very much less cost and in much less time.
An alternative is to carry the line to a point lower down in Southern Nigeria at Warri or Sapele, but the difficulty there is that there is no large town as at Lagos, and there is considerable doubt as to the healthiness of the situation. The arguments against
1440
making a new port at Warri or Sapele were well summed up by Sir Frederick Lugard in the following passage—;
"Were the construction of the railway from the coast under discussion ab initio, there would, doubtless, be strong arguments for the selection of a port on which little expenditure would be needed, such as Warri or Sapele, where there is no bar, and ocean-going vessels can find sufficient water at ail times. But even in that case it would have to be-considered whether these ports were sufficiently healthy, whether they afforded sufficient room for the expansion of a large township, and it would have to be noted that the railway would not run through a country so densely populated, or through so industrious a population as in the Lagos Protectorate, and that, instead of starting from a great trade centre like Lagos, everything would have to be created de novo at its sea port."
In that view I humbly concur. Granted that Lagos is to be the port, subject to certain details, there is not much difference ence of opinion as to the general route which would be followed up to the Niger and across the Niger to Zaria and Kano.
I come then to the proposal specifically referred to by the noble Duke which was made by Sir Frederick Lugard in 1903, and I am sure that noble Lords will believe, from the reference to that distinguished officer which I made, that I have the greatest respect for his opinion as the man on the spot. In this connection I should like to be allowed to refer in one word to a report-which I understand has been current that Sir Frederick Lugard had been recalled. I think that is an extraordinary idea to have got abroad. As a matter of fact, it is entirely and absolutely without foundation. I may tell your Lordships exactly what has happened. I ascertained that for certain reasons Sir Frederick Lugard would like to come home. I was very anxious to see him in order to have an opportunity of considering with him the problems of this region, and, after all, it is a very good thing to have a personal acquaintance with the man on the spot. I therefore suggested to Sir Frederick Lugard that he should have special leave of three months during this summer in order to enable him to come home.
I wish to treat this proposal of Sir Frederick Lugard with all possible respect, but I would ask noble Lords to consider what is meant by laying down light

1441
railways and laying them down rapidly. I can understand light railways of the kind suggested being exceedingly useful in dealing with prairie country or a veldt, where you can lay the sleepers and the rails practically on the ground. I can understand a light railway also being essential when you have to deal with very mountainous country, and I realise that a light railway would be advisable where one had to look, forward to small traffic. But a light railway is not the most expedient or the most economical mode of construction where there are considerable works required; and in this case, since Sir Frederick Lugard's proposal was made, we have had a survey, to which the distinguished name of Sir Benjamin Baker is attached, and we find that he estimates that a 2 feet 6 inch temporary railway would cost £1,700,000, and not £562,000 as was estimated.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: What page in the Blue-book are you quoting from?
THE EARL OF ELGIN: Page 135. A 3 feet inch standard gauge railway would, it is estimated, cost £2,300,000, a difference of £600,000, which, though considerable, is not excessive. I would like to point out, in passing, that the noble Duke spoke of the Lagos railway as a heavy railway. The Lagos railway is a 3 feet 6 inch railway, but it is not of a heavy type. I do not suppose that Sir Frederick Lugard has had any special training in railway surveying, and so, with all respect to him, I think I am justified in preferring the estimate put before us by the regular consulting engineers, and in thinking that it might not be an economic process to lay down a temporary 2 feet 6 inch line in place of carrying on the 3 feet 6 inch gauge, if that is at all possible.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: SIR Frederick Lugard was supported in his views by Mr. Eaglesome, a very distinguished engineer, who, although he cannot, of course, be compared with Sir Benjamin Baker, is undoubtedly an expert and a gentleman in whose opinion we can place some confidence.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I do not wish to say anything about Mr. Eaglesome, of whom I have no personal knowledge, but it is stated in the Papers that he had had some experience in India in a somewhat subordinate capacity. There is one other matter with regard to this temporary 2 feet 6 inch line to which I would like to call attention. It is that by constructing it we should establish or at any rate, run the risk of, another difficulty. The noble Marquess will remember the battle of the gauges. If there is any thing more undesirable than another in the development of a country I am convinced that it is to introduce, if you can possibly avoid it, two systems of gauge.
No doubt, from the point of view of rapidity of construction, Sir Frederick Lugard's proposal has advantages, but his proposal deals only with a line from the upper bank of the Niger to Kano. What would that mean as regards the development of the cotton industry? It would mean that everything would be brought down to the Niger and then be conveyed by the river. If the river were the same at all times of the year that might be a very excellent mode of transit, and I often think that in these days of railways sufficient attention is not paid to the use we might make of rivers. But in this particular instance I think it would be rather a dangerous experiment. The depth of the Niger varies very much, and though for two months in the years ships drawing ten or twelve feet of water could get up to the point at which Sir Frederick Lugard's line would reach the river, for eight months there is a maximum depth of three and a half feet, and for two months it falls to much less. So that unless the cotton trade were very carefully manœuvred to come within two months there would be something like an impasse.
As I have said, I am not speaking of any plan officially adopted. I only wish to respond to the noble Duke by giving him frankly and freely the view I have formed after very carefully reading the Papers. I confess that, from my reading of them, I think the best development of this kind, particularly with a view of reaching the cotton - growing fields of Nigeria—;if we have any faith in the belief that these fields will result in very

1443
large trade—;would be to push on as rapidly as possible from the base the system of railway already begun. There is, as I have said, no real difference of opinion as to the route, and the line might gradually be pushed on from the point it has reached now to the Niger, crossing the ever, not necessarily in the first place by an expensive bridge, possibly by a steam ferry, and continuing along the route Sir Frederick Lugard has advocated.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOEOUGH: How many years does the noble Earl estimate that would take?
THE EARL OF ELGIN: That is asking me to go into an engineering detail, which I am not able to do. It depends on how much money is provided.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: It has been stated that it will take fifteen years, or more.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: If the noble Duke will further study the Papers he will find that a seven years scheme is drawn out. There is no reason why the thing should not be pushed forward if the money were available and there was real reason for pushing it on at greater speed. No doubt the most economical way would be to push it on in sections from the base. It is true, as has been said in regard to the financial position, that Northern Nigeria has to come to the British Treasury for a large portion of the expenses of the administration of the Protectorate, and for my part I do not hesitate to say that, if this industry has really the possibilities which I for one think it has, a very good argument to put before the Government is that the best way of making this Protectorate self-supporting would be to assist it in obtaining the railway connection without which the large trade we may hope to look forward to cannot be realised.

AUSTRALIAN NAVIGATION COMMISSION.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHrose to ask His Majesty's Government if their atten-
1444
tion had been called to the "Report of the Federal Commission on the Navigation Bill," a summary of which appeared in The Times of the 26th April, and if they would cause the whole of that Report to be printed, and issued as a Parliamentary Paper; and also to inquire of them if they were in possession of the evidence upon which that Report was based; and, if not, whether they would cable to Australia for a copy of that evidence, so that if thought desirable they could reprint and distribute as a Parliamentary Paper such portions of it as were of general and not merely of local interest. The noble Lord said: My Lords, In the summary of the Report as it appeared in The Times of the 26th of April, there are forty-five findings or recommendations, I intend to refer to only the first seven of these, and mean to do so as briefly as possible. I shall, however, take the opportunity of remarking that the Report appears to me to concern the Board of Trade more nearly than the Colonial Office. The first of these findings says that the number of British seamen employed on British ships is declining, and that this is chiefly due to their unfavourable surroundings. Your Lordships will recollect that a great deal of evidence to this effect was lately given before a Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade, which reported in 1903.
The first recommendation of this Commission refers to the housing of the seamen, and recommends that they should be entitled to 120 cubic feet of air space per man. According to Section 210 of Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, 72 cubic feet is the minimum of space for the seaman, and in this confined space he has to keep all his personal property. But according to paragraph 107 of the Regulations for the Army Medical Services a soldier is entitled to 600 cubic feet when in barracks, 500 cubic feet when in huts, and to a great deal more when in hospital. Will your Lordships consider for a moment what 72 cubic feet of space actually means? It is 2 feet broad, 6 feet long, and 6 feet high. This is the seaman's or the fireman's bedroom, dining room, dressing room, his sole living room, and in it he has to keep all his belongings. Surely 120 cubic feet is not too much for these purposes.

1445
The next recommendation is that this small space should be properly ventilated—;a very humble request. The third suggestion is that bath-rooms supplied with hot water should be available on steamships for engineers, firemen and others, when coming off duty. This may sound luxurious, but it is a necessity of health that men on leaving stoke-hole work should be able to cleanse themselves properly. Goal dust, when mixed with perspiration, grease and oil, cannot be got rid of without hot water. Men should not have to go to the small sleeping places I have referred to while still smothered in dirt. Who wants a chimney sweep coming off work in the dress of his calling as a fellow-passenger in a sleeping-car? Yet the sweep is by far the cleaner of the two, as he is merely a carboniferous creature and has nothing to do with oleaginous matters. A horse coming in from hunting is always given a good rub down, and a stoker is quite as much in need of similar treatment. All the bettor class of steamers have bath rooms already.
The next sections say that the men's quarters should be adequately lighted, that cooks should be certificated, that an improved scale of provisioning should be adopted, and that ships' victualling bills should be liable to examination. The Report also states that—;
"To obtain good work it has always been found profitable by shrewd employers to supply good food to their employees."
An owner gets back the value of his money if he gives plenty of oats to his hard-worked horses. Most shipowners undoubtedly act with justice towards their men, but those who think that a new Merchant Shipping Act is unnecessary should read some of the evidence given in the Bankruptcy Courts as to the manner in which both officers and men are occasionally treated by shipowners.
The last suggestion to which I shall call attention is that men should be entitled to two-thirds of their wages on touching at any port. I have been informed that quite recently seamen belonging to thirteen of our principal ports have petitioned the Board of Trade to the effect that one-half of their wages may be made payable monthly as contemplated by Parliament in 1880, and in
1446
Section 141 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. I should like to see the substance of all these recommendations accepted by the Board of Trade and by Parliament as regards our own merchant shipping.
With reference to the rest of the Report, some of it concerns only Australia. It contains also several suggestions which, if acted upon, would, I think, put unnecessary burdens on shipowners and tend to throw our ships and men out of employment. But I consider that I have now said enough to show that this Report is worth obtaining and reprinting. With reference to the evidence upon which it is based, as I have not yet seen it I do not know how bulky it may be, but from the conclusions of the Commission I think it certain that some portions of it must be of interest to those concerned with the shipping of this country, and that it is desirable that some of it should be reprinted for their use and for the information of Members of both Houses. If neither the Colonial Office nor the Board of Trade are yet in possession' of copies of this Report and evidence, I hope that the Government will cable for them, so that they may arrive in time to be read by Members of both Houses who take an interest in the Merchant Shipping Bill which is now being discussed in another place.
The EARL of ELGIN: My Lords, I have received the report of the Commission appointed by the Grovernor-General of Australia to examine into and report upon the Navigation Bill, but I have not yet received the appendices or the evidence. I will telegraph for copies of these documents, and I propose when the Papers are completed to place a copy of them in the library of the House. I cannot say at present whether it will be necessary to reprint the whole of them as a Parliamentary Paper, but I will give consideration to that matter when the Papers reach me. With regard to the observations which the noble Lord has made I am not quite sure, as they to a large extent deal with matters that are contained in a Bill now before the other House, that they were strictly in order. But I would like to point out that in the first paragraph of the

1447
Report it is stated that in view of the suggestion of the Imperial Government that delegates from Australia and New Zealand should attend a conference to be held in London at which the whole question of navigation as it affects the Empire might be discussed, its revision has been postponed for the present; and I am informed that in principle the Board of Trade is in substantial agreement with most of the recommendations and findings of the Commission, and that some of them merely supplement proposals for legislation now before the Imperial Parliament. Should the Australian Government agree to the conference proposed by the Imperial Government, the Board of Trade will have an opportunity of considering further what result legislation on the lines of the recommendations of the Commission would have on the shipping and commerce of this country.

St. HELENA GARRISON.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government are aware of the great loss that will be entailed on the islanders of St. Helena through the withdrawal of the garrison from that place, and whether they propose to pay any compensation or assist the inhabitants in any other way.
As your Lordships know, it has been decided by the Army Council that the garrison shall be withdrawn from St. Helena. Last year the infantry were recalled from the island, and we learnt from a reply to a question in the House of Commons last week that the artillery and engineers are to be withdrawn next October. I was for nearly fifteen months stationed at St. Helena with my battalion during the Boer War, and I had good opportunities of seeing the conditions under which these people live. Your Lordships know the peculiar position of St. Helena and its isolated situation. You have heard of its inhospitable rocks and bare coast, but there are fertile valleys in the island where it is possible to grow vegetables and fruit, and also stretches of rough grass land where a certain number of cattle can be reared. In the old days, when this island was in the possession of
1448
the East India Company—;in the days o slavery and Chinese labour—;it was very prosperous, and the Governor was in receipt of a very large sum of money. It was also an important port of call for ships on their way to India and to South Africa. A large amount of fruit and vegetables were grown there as well as coffee of rich quality.
Now, my Lords, this has all changed. The market for this produce has gone, and the troops quartered on the island constitute the only market remaining. There are practically no exports at all, and when the troops are withdrawn from the island the market will have gone and desolation will be the result. I think the state of that island may then be very well described, as another place has so aptly been, as an island where the inhabitants earn a precarious living by taking in each other's washing. In support of my remarks I should like to read a letter I received not very long ago from one of the colonists on the Island. He writes—;
"What news we have is only by cable, and the whole of the inhabitants are in sad distress. The infantry were withdrawn a year ago, and that was a sad blow to the place. If the artillery are also to go it simply means ruin to the whole community. One is afraid to think what will happen. The labourers will starve, as those who employ labour now will not be in a position to do this if this scheme is carried out, as the employers will scarcely be able to exist themselves. The only island industry is raising stock and agricultural produce for the troops, the occasional vessel of war and sailing ship calling for supplies being things of the past. The town has lately been thoroughly drained by the Colonial Government, but the householders have to refund the money, the loan being spread over a number of years. Many people will consequently lose their property, this being the penalty of non-payment. If St. Helena is of value in time of war the Imperial Government should help us in time of peace in the peculiar circumstances in which we are situated."
I think this letter may well be described as a voice from St. Helena. It is the cry of people in distress, and on those grounds I have ventured to bring this question to your Lordships' notice. The debt referred to was incurred through troops and prisoners of war being quartered on the island. It was found that the drainage of the town was in such an unsatisfactory state that a large sum of money had to be spent, and I think this was done largely by the order of

1449
the Colonial Government. Churches and schools will also become vacant and useless. There is a Bishop of St. Helena and also a cathedral, besides two other churches. There is a Roman Catholic priest and a chapel. This priest is Consul for several foreign nations, as he is the only one who understands these various languages. He will have to leave the island, as there are only one or two inhabitants who are Roman Catholics. The reason for his being there was purely to meet the requirements of the Roman Catholics among the garrison.
I hope the noble Earl will be able to inform the House in what way and to what extent he is able to help this Colony. I bring this question forward rather as a request for charity from the Government, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell your Lordships that His Majesty's Government are prepared to render some assistance, otherwise these poor people, with ruin staring them in the face, will sink in misery and distress.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: My Lords, I confess that I have some sympathy with St. Helena. The garrison of St. Helena has an historical interest for us all, and I regret that the necessities of the British Empire have compelled its withdrawal at this moment. But, after all, the House must remember that it is only 100 men who are withdrawn, and I find it a little difficult to believe that ruin and destruction should seize upon the whole island in consequence of that withdrawal. The Government have given some practical evidence of their compassion, for if the decision of the Army Council had been rigorously carried out the garrison would have left already, but we thought that that would be dealing rather hardly with the islanders, and that they ought to have six months to make arrangements. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that we shall be able to find money to compensate the islanders. I am told that there is no precedent for paying compensation to individuals in a case of this kind. In regard to the island itself, of course it will be in the ordinary position of any Crown Colony. At present it has a surplus on its revenue—;a sign of some prosperity, I hope—;but
1450
if the revenue did not prove to be sufficient, I suppose the island would come upon the Imperial Government, like other Crown Colonies, for a grant in aid. If that happens, the British Treasury, which profits by the withdrawal of the garrison, will have to pay something by way of a grant in aid to the island. But that, of course, is a matter of public administration. So far as the inhabitants are concerned, though I am in sympathy with them, I am afraid I can hold out no hopes of compensation being found for them.

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE CONGO STATE.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I wish to ask the noble Lord who represents the Foreign Office a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is stated in the newspapers to-day, apparently with authority, that a very important arrangement has been concluded between the Congo State and His Majesty's Government. We should be glad, I think, if the noble Lord could tell us whether that statement is correct and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to lay any Papers on the Table with regard to it.
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, it is the case that yesterday a treaty was signed on behalf of this country by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and on behalf of the Congo State by Baron van Eetvelde, who had come over here for the purpose. The statement which has appeared in regard to it is substantially correct. As, however, the matters referred to involve a great amount of complicated geographical detail, I am sure the noble Marquess will agree with me that it would not be desirable that I should attempt to make any statement with regard to the contents of the treaty at this moment. The House will all the more readily accept that from me when I announce that I shall lay Papers almost immediately—;certainly not later than Monday next.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.