Sitting of 5 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the County of Armagh (North Armagh Division) in the room of Colonel the Right Hon. Edward James Saunderson, deceased.—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.)
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Clydebank and District Water and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Bill. Read a second time; to be considered upon Wednesday.
PETITION.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Clun, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  Copy presented, of Return of Advances made under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the period from 1st November, 1903, to 31st December, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS AND WATER ORDERS.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade of their Proceedings under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, during the session of 1906 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute," dated 31st October, 1906, declaring that Henry Ray, boy, Royal Laboratory, War Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act] to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented of Colonial Report No. 507 (Southern Nigeria (Lagos), Annual Report for 1905) [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
  COTTON GROWING
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 31st October; Mr. Rees]; to lie upon the Table.
  FRANCE (No. 1, 1906)
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and France confirming the Protocol signed at London on 27th February, 1906, respecting the New Hebrides [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3727 and 3728 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL (EXPORT DUTY).
  Return ordered, "showing (a) the total amount of coal exported from the United Kingdom from the date of the duty coming into force to its expiration; (b) the total amount of the coal exported liable to duty; (c) the total amount of the duty collected."— (Mr. Fell)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Naval Programme—Distribution of Ships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when a full statement will be made of the changes contemplated in the distribution of ships; whether he can now state the nature of the sliding scale which it is proposed to apply to the nucleus crews; and whether the minimum will in any case fall below the present two-fifths complement.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The changes in question are still in course of development, and in any case

  Number of accidents caused by

  Horse drawn Omnibuses

  Other horse drawn vehicles (excluding tramcars).

  Tramcars.

  Motor Cars (including Motor Cycles).

  Motor Omnibuses.

  Total number of Accidents.

  Remarks.

  Horse drawn

  Mechanically propelled

  254

  2,009

  84

  286

  539

  361

  3,533

  July, 1906

  221

  1,730

  60

  317

  328

  436

  3,092

  August, 1906

  † See (4) Debates, clxiii, 1093, 1094.

  relate to points of administration as to which the Board of Admiralty are not prepared to make a public statement at present.

  Accidents Caused by Motor Traffic
  MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the numbers of fatal and other accidents in the Metropolitan district caused by motor vehicles other than motor omnibuses and by motor omnibuses, respectively, in each month since he last gave similar figures to the House of Commons; whether the Metropolitan police inspectors entrusted with carrying out the regulations as to motor omnibuses record and report all instances of failure of the brakes or other parts of motor omnibuses causing stoppage and interference with the general traffic, failure of the steering machinery, skidding or loss of control, any other forms of failure of the machinery, and bad driving involving risk of accident and police interference; and whether he will state to the House the number of such instances of each kind reported during the same months.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following table gives complete information as to the accidents caused by vehicular traffic in the metropolis during the months of July and August last. The corresponding figures for the month of September were given in reply to a Question of my hon. friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty, on the 31st ultimo; † while those for the month of October are not yet ready.
  Return showing the number of accidents to persons or property known to police to have been caused in the streets, by the vehicles named, during the months of July and August, 1906.

  Number of accidents shown in preceding columns in which personal injury resulted, caused by

  Remarks

  Horse drawn Omnibuses

  Other horse drawn vehicles (excluding tramcars).

  Tramcars.

  Motor Cars (including Motor Cycles).

  Motor Omnibuses.

  Total.

  Horse drawn

  Mechanically propelled

  59

  640

  36

  105

  178

  74

  1,092

  July, 1906

  51

  550

  18

  121

  134

  75

  949

  August, 1906

  NOTE.—Any one accident can only he shown under the head of one of the classes of vehicles.
  The metropolitan police inspectors -entrusted with carrying out the regula-

  Month.

  Number reported for defective Brakes.

  Number reported for defective steering gear.

  Number reported for other failures of machinery.

  Number reported for Skidding.

  Number of proceedings against motor omnibus drivers for wanton, for wanton Furious, reckless, and dangerous driving.

  July

  110

  17

  86

  No record kept

  94

  August

  77

  22

  138

  No record kept

  43

  September

  47

  10

  117

  77

  30

  October

  53

  15

  125

  157

  58

  287

  64

  466

  234

  225

  tions as to motor omnibuses report all cases of defective vehicles coming to their notice, and a Return is appended giving the number of such cases during the past four months:—

  Status of Glasgow and Brighton Telephone Staff.
  MR. NUTTALL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether all grades of the staffs of the telephone systems recently acquired by the Government from the corporations of Glasgow and Brighton have been placed in the same grades as they occupied when they were in the employment of those corporations; whether their wages have been increased, decreased, or continued at the same rates; whether they have been placed on the established strength of the Department; and whether their services with the corporations as licensees of the Department will be reckoned as services with the Post Office for pension purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The corporation telephone staffs at Glasgow and Brighton are being taken over on the terms and conditions and at the rates of pay which they enjoyed in the service of the corporations. The regular increments of wages to which they were entitled have been allowed. The question of placing on the establishment those classes which are usually established in the service of the department and giving them a prospect of pension will be considered in due course, but I may say at once that the counting towards Civil Service pension of their service with the the corporation is not contemplated.

  Christmas Pressure at the Post Office-Remuneration for Extra Work.
  SIR CHARLES SCHWANX (Manchester, N.): To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will grant this year i for Christmas pressure £1 as a minimum payment to town sub-post offices, and £2 as a minimum to rural sub-offices, which deliver letters, in place of the present scale, which leaves great numbers of offices without any remuneration for this extra work.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question of the remuneration of sub-postmasters is to be considered by the Select Committee on Post Office servants. Pending their Report I do not think it would be advisable to make any alteration in the payments already authorised. I should, however, explain that in fixing the payments to sub-postmasters the
  88
  the extra pressure at Christmas is taken into account.

  Sedition in India.
  MR. REES:To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information which he can communicate to the House regarding the distribution of a circular, purporting to be issued by a society in Bengal styled the Golden Bough, in which circular the-recipients are asked to promise to break the nests of the Feringhi (European) birds,, tearing them in pieces, and throwing them into the Ganges, to beat the sahibs (Europeans) of the city, and to drive them away, that the Hindus may govern their own country, and in which the Mohammedans are informed that their Hindu brothers have great hope of them, and in. which the recipients are asked to bring anything they can get, lathis (clubs), spears, and guns; and, if so, whether any action will be taken against the printers, and publishers of such incitements to rebellion and treason.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The circular described in the Question, appeared, under the heading "Golden Bengal," some fifteen months ago. So far as my information goes, the police are j unable to fix definitely the responsibility for printing or publishing it.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a Bengali agitator addressing employés of the East Indian Railway at Asansol on 5th September last, in the presence of a magistrate and officer of police, informed his hearers that sugar was refined with pigs' and cows' blood, that Babu Bannerjee had been crowned King or Emperor of Hindustan, that the English had fattened on dogs' meat and grown bold, and that Japan had shown them what Asiatics could do; and whether the Government of India proposes to take any action in view to preventing the debauching of ignorant multitudes by such discourses.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I am not aware whether the Government of India propose to take any action; but no doubt they will give attention to the subject.

  Indian Army Redistribution Scheme.
  SIR H. COTTON (Nottingham, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether those portions of the redistribution scheme of the Commander-in-Chief which proposed to place a permanent cantonment at or near Torseppah, in the mountainous country occupied by the Mohmund tribes, and to establish an artillery and cavalry cantonment between Nowshera and Hoti Murdan have been definitely abandoned.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) Sanction has been given for the new cantonment between Nowshera and Hoti-Murdan. A proposal for placing a permanent cantonment at or near Torseppah has now, I believe, been abandoned.

  Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions in India.
  MR. HAET-DAVIES (Hackney, X.): To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial from the Fourteenth Madras Provincial Conference, held at Tinnevelly in June last, praying that steps might be taken with as little delay as possible to secure the separation of judicial from executive functions, and whether, seeing that in 1903 the then Viceroy intimated that the question would be dealt with shortly, he will take such measures as may be necessary to bring about this reform in Indian administration as speedily as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.)The memorial referred to has not boon received by me. I addressed the Government of India on the 22nd June last, asking them to let me have their conclusions on the subject as soon as possible.

  Reinstatement of Daniel O'Shea on Ken-mare Estate.
  MR. MURPHY (Kerry, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps the Estates Commissioners have taken to effect the reinstatement of Mr. Daniel O'Shea in his evicted form on the estate of the Earl of Kenmare, near Killarney; whether this evicted farm is in the landlord's own possession, and if there are any other difficulties in the way of reinstatement but those created by the landlord's agent, Mr. Maurice Leonard; and
  90
  whether the Commissioners can now state the exact position of affairs in connection with the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have; had the evicted farm in this case inspected, with a view to the reinstatement of the evicted tenant. The Commissioners understand that the farm is in the land-lord's occupation. The inspection was made with the consent of the agent, Mr. Leonard. The Commissioners have recently received their inspector's report and will deal with it as soon as possible.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the now system of teachers' salaries in Ireland operates to the disadvantage of teachers appointed since 1900, whether the initial salaries of such have been decreased, and that the effect of such decrease has been to lower the standard of ability among candidates for the teaching profession; and, if so, whether the system can be at once revised so as to check any deterioration that may have been disclosed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that since the new system of teachers' salaries was established in 1900, the average salary paid to newly appointed principal teachers has decreased, though there has been an increase in the average salary paid to newly appointed assistant teachers. Precise figures are given in House of Commons Return, No. 286, of 1905. Moreover, the Commissioners are aware that under the new system teachers on first appointment to largo and important schools do not receive incomes proportionate to the importance of the schools, as was the case under the former system. The entire question of revising the teachers' salaries has already engaged the attention of the Commissioners, and is at present under the consideration of the Commissioners and the Irish Government.

  School Accommodation in Kildare and Leighlin.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  91
  of Ireland whether there are schools in the diocese of Kildare and Leighlin in which the children are much overcrowded; and, if so, will steps be immediately taken to provide sufficient school accommodation in a locality where the attendance amounts to 85 per cent, of the children in the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that there are several national schools in the area mentioned at which the attendance is in excess of the space accommodation. In many cases the managers are anxious and willing to provide adequate accommodation, and have made applications for building grants; but the matter has been delayed pending the settlement of the general question of building grants. Upon this subject I beg to refer to my Answers to Questions on 31st October.‡ As I then stated, there is every reason to anticipate that a settlement of the question will shortly be effected.

  The British Flag at the Munster-Connaught Exhibition.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention having been drawn to the incident connected with the opening ceremony of the Munster-Connaught Exhibition by Lord Aberdeen, at which, by special Resolution, it had been decided that the British flag should be excluded from the decoration of the exhibition premises, he will take such steps as may be deemed necessary by the Cabinet to insure that Lord Aberdeen, as direct representative of the Sovereign, shall not in future take part in public functions when Resolutions against the use of the British flag have been passed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on Wednesday, 31st October.‡ As I then said, I do not know what occurred on the occasion referred to, but the hon. Member is not to assume that his statements are to be taken as accurate. The Cabinet and, I believe, the country also have perfect confidence in the high sense of duty, judgment, and tact of the Lord-
  † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1028, 1129,1130, 1131.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxiii, 1126, 1127.
  92
  Lieutenant, and I regret that any Member of this House should put such a Question.

  Middlemenland Irish Land Purchases.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY (Roscommon, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is in accordance with the Land Act of 1903 for the Estates Commissioners, when dealing with an estate for which an application for an advance has been made, to accept purchase agreements and collect interest in lieu of rent from middlemen; and, if so, under what section of the Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The provision, under which an agreement for purchase by a middleman is received and interest in lieu of rent collected from him pending inquiry by the Estates Commissioners is Section 35 of he Land Act of 1896, with. which the Act of 1903 is construed as one. The Estates Commissioners inform me that if the middleman is a person having power under the Land Purchase Acts to sell to tenants, and if the Commissioners should come to the conclusion that the sub-tenants are of such a character as that they should be deemed. tenants, then the middleman's application for an advance for he purchase of the entire holding would be refused. If the middleman has not power to sell interest is similarly collected pending inquiry; and after the estate is inspected the Commissioners may, if they think fit, declare the sub-tenant to be a tenant and his parcel to be a holding. Until they do so the subtenant remains, tenant to the middleman and liable for rent.
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that out of 172 purchase agreements lodged with the Estates Commissioners in re Mrs. Grace C. P. Mahon's estate, Strokestown, on the 25th April, 1906, upwards of eighty were from middlemen for holdings in the occupation of sub-tenants; that the Estates Commissioners have up to the present disregarded the subtenants and have collected interests from the middleman; whether the sub-tenants are entitled to any reduction from the middleman; and whether

  93
  the Government will remedy the grievance under which they are alleged to suffer.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that on the estate referred to there are eighty-three sub-tenancies, mostly town or village plots, of which thirty-four are stated to be held by yearly tenants and the remainder by weekly or monthly tenants. Until the estate has been inspected the Commissioners cannot decide whether all or any of these sub tenants will be declared to be tenants, or whether advances can or will be made to the middleman. Meanwhile the subtenants will not be prejudiced by the collection of interest in lieu of rent from the middleman.

  Extension of Arklow Pier.
  SIR THOMAS ESMOKDE (Wexford, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Department of Agriculture has advised the Government not to proceed with the work of extending Arklow pier.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) As I informed the hon. Baronet on 2Gth July last, † the Government have promised a free grant of £14,000 towards works at Arklow harbour, and £7,000 of this amount is provided in the Ireland Development Grant Estimate of the present year. My hon. friend is doubtless aware that by arrangement with the Arklow Harbour Commissioners the entrance to the harbour has, for a considerable time past, been dredged by the Department of Agriculture. The Department's engineer has recently furnished a report on the subject, which indicates that the dredging operations have so far been quite successful, with the result that the largest vessels frequenting Arklow now have free access to the harbour It is understood that the Harbour Commissioners and the traders of Arklow agree that such is the case. The result tends to show that dredging rather than an extension of the pier is mainly what was needed at Arklow, and as the question of the particular steps to be laken for improving the harbour is one which primarily concerns the Harbour Commissioners, the engineer's report has been sent to them
  † See (4) Debates,clxi., 1421.
  94
  for their consideration. I may mention that the engineer's report, besides dealing with the question of dredging, makes suggestions for improvements of the harbour other than pier-extension. The Government have also expressed their willingness to assist the Harbour Commissioners in their consideration of the matter by having a further inspection made by the Board of Works if the Commissioners should so desire. No reply has been yet received from the Commissioners.

  Civil Employment of Ex-Soldiers and Sailors.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH (Fermanagh, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any effective steps have been taken to carry out any, and, if so, which, of the recommendations on pages 29 and 30 of the Report of the Committee on Civil Employment of Ex-Soldiers and Sailors; have any county and borough councils been urged as-suggested in recommendation 16, and with what result; and has any Irish county or borough council given a favourable reply.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question of the provision of funds, for the establishment of the central association, recommended by the Departmental Committee on the Civil Employment of Ex-Soldiers and Sailors, is still under consideration. The Admiralty have not been able to see their way to co-operate in the creation of the proposed association. The Army Council, however, in view of the difficulties in regard to employment which at present handicap the ex-soldier, and from which, owing to the smaller number thrown on the labour market and the nature of their training, ex-sailors do not suffer to the same degree; are of opinion that the establishment of a central association is essential to the success of their endeavours to ameliorate-the prospects of ex-soldiers. Steps have-been taken by the Army Council in filling all appointments under their control to give preference to ex-soldiers of good character where they possess suitable qualifications. Pending the formation of the new association, no steps have been taken to establish the central office and he local committees, by moans of which, it was proposed to get into touch with

  95
  the various county and borough councils. The Army Council are in communication with general officers commanding-in-chief as to the best methods of imparting technical education as recommended by the Committee, and a standing advisory committee on technical education has teen established at the War Office with a view of assisting the local technical education committees which it is proposed to establish in the commands. With the exception of those measures which are dependent upon the establishment of a central organisation, progress is being made in carrying out the other recommendations of the Report. A committee is about to assemble to report upon the the payment of pensions and reserve pay at more frequent intervals.

  Increase of Piracy on the China Stations.
  MR. BELLATRS: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been received by the Foreign Office, or addressed by the Foreign Office to the Admiralty, concerning the increase of piracy on the China station; and whether the Chinese Government are actively co-operating with a view to the suppression of these lawless proceedings.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) Communications have passed between the Admiralty and Foreign Office on this subject. The commanding officers of His Majesty's ships on the West River are being called upon to report periodically on the state of security of traffic on the waterways in the neighbourhood of Canton, and from time to time to suggest such improvements as may appear to them desirable in the plans devised for keeping piracy in check. The question is now engaging the attention of the commander-in-chief. The Chinese Government have sent very stringent instructions to the Canton Viceroy as to the necessity of suppressing piracy.

  Motor Traffic- Speed Limits in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty): To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the counties and burghs in Scotland respectively where speed limits for motor traffic have been imposed.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The information desired by the hon. Member is as follows:—

  Counties.

  Burghs.

  Argyll (Island of Mull).

  Greenock.

  Ayr.

  Kingussie.

  Bute (Island of Arran).

  Newmilns and Greenholm.

  Forfar.

  Pollokshaws.

  Haddington.

  Stirling.

  Midlothian.

  Tobermory.

  Perth.

  Renfrew.

  Kinross.

  Perth Prison.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSOX (Lanarkshire, N.W.): To ask the Secretary for Scotland what is the total number of cells in Perth Prison available for male prisoners; and how many prisoners were in custody there on each day in the month of September, 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.)—
  Statement showing number of prisoners in custody in Perth Prison each day in September, 1906.

  Dates.

  Males.

  Females.

  1906: September

  1

  213

  40

  1906: September

  2

  213

  40

  1906: September

  3

  211

  43

  1906: September

  4

  234

  45

  1906: September

  5

  223

  47

  1906: September

  6

  217

  47

  1906: September

  7

  213

  48

  1906: September

  8

  206

  39

  1906: September

  9

  206

  39

  1906: September

  10

  222

  38

  Eligibility of Terence 'Daly, Postman, of Bundoran, for Pension.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a man named Terence Daly has for over twenty years discharged the duties of postman in the considerable town of Bundoran, county Donegal; whether Daly is entitled, by reason of long service, to any pension in case of retirement; if not, will he inquire into the case with the view to having Daly put on the establishment, so as to entitle him to pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Daly is an auxiliary postman not doing a whole-time duty, and not eligible for any award under the Superannuation Acts, or to be placed on the establishment. On his retirement, however, I will inquire whether his case is one for a grant from a compassionate fund placed at my disposal by Parliament.

  Postal Facilities at Ardmayle (County Tipperary).
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the morning collection of letters from the letter-box in Ardmayle, county Tipperary, a practice which has been in operation for over thirty years, has recently ceased; that the people of the district have suggested to the postal authorities a plan by which this privilege could be continued, and which would, in addition, allow of a midday delivery at the expense of only one additional mile to the existing journey of a postman; and will he say if this suggestion will be favourably considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and will send the hon. Member an Answer when it is received.

  British Delegates at the Berlin Conference on Wireless Telegraphy.
  MR. HENNIKEK HEATON (Canterbury): To ask the Postmaster-General whether the British delegates at the Berlin Conference on Wireless Telegraphy have been out-voted on the following points, namely, the compulsory intercommunication of all floating stations on ships on the high seas with no reservations; the adoption of certain regulations containing no satisfactory guarantees

  99
  against interference with naval messages; the granting to each State of the right to exempt certain wireless stations from compulsory intercommunication with all ships, however fitted; and the proposal that any shore station exchanging messages with a ship carrying apparatus of a system different from that used at the shore station in question should be entitled to receive a higher rate of payment than when exchanging messages with a ship using an apparatus similar to its own; whether the British delegates received instructions from His Majesty's Government to make a stipulation that secret details of working wireless messages shall be safeguarded, and that this proposal has been in the result neglected; whether the representation proposed by the British delegates for British Colonies on future International Commissions on Wireless Telegraphy was also vetoed; and whether the British delegates will be instructed not to sign or ratify the proposals carried by a majority at the Conference.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) If my hon. friend will wait until he has before him the text of the Convention, of the Regulations, and of the Protocol, which will shortly be made public, he will find that the statements which he has seen, and which he has embodied in his Question, are either the reverse of the truth or misleading in their implication. The British delegates were instructed to carry out that which was the policy of the late, as well as of the present, Government in regard to the matter. They were instructed not to agree to the principle of intercommunication, nor to sign the Convention, unless specific and adequate securities for British interests, naval and commercial, were obtained.

  Danger to Postman at Carstairs Junction.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at Carstairs Junction a postman has not only to cross the metals in the dark in order to place the mails in the guard's van, but frequently to crawl beneath trucks and waggons; whether he is aware that in response to his application for steps to be taken to minimise this risk, it was suggested to him that he should transfer to another place; and whether he has sanctioned this reply.
  100
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and I will communicate with the hon. Member after I have received it.

  Cost of Maintenance of Garden for Officer of Ordnance Surrey, Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state what the annual average cost has been to the public for the last ten years of maintaining the garden for the private use of the officer in charge of the Ordnance Survey, Dublin; whether the labourers of the Ordnance Survey perform this as well as the work of making hay; and whether he can give the names of the officers successively in charge of the Irish survey during the same period.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Ordnance Survey offices occupy a group of Government buildings in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, and an officer and a detachment of Royal Engineers are also quartered in these buildings. The garden and grounds adjoining, which comprise some five acres, are kept up by labourers of the Ordnance Survey, and the average annual cost of this work for the last ten years has been £231. The following officers have successively occupied this Government quarter during the last ten years:—Lieutenant-Colonel Hellard, August, 1896, to March, 1899. Lieutenant-Colonel Sim, April, 1899, to September, 1904. Lieutenant - Colonel Meres, October, 1904, to June, 1905. Major Buckland, June, 1905 to present date. The garden and grounds in question are in full view of the Phoenix Park, and they cannot be regarded as being maintained solely for the personal pleasure of the officer in charge of the Ordnance Survey, whose emoluments are quite inadequate to enable him to do so at his own expense.

  Irish Ordnance Survey—Bookbinding and Map Mounting Work.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether bookbinding and map mounting in connection with the Ordnance Survey work in Ireland is done in Southampton; and, if so, with a view to convenience and

  101
  economy whether he will arrange to have it done in Ireland.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Map mounting and book binding for Ireland is done at Southampton, but the amount of such work is small, and it could not be done with either convenience or economy by setting up a separate staff and machinery in Dublin.

  Appropriation of Part of Witley Common (Surrey).
  MR. COWAN: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether application has been made for the consent of the Board under The Law of Commons Amendment Act, 1893, to the appropriation of five acres of Witley Common, near Godalming, in the county of Surrey, for the purposes of a burial ground; and, if so, whether, having regard to the importance of preserving intact all common lands in the neighbourhood of London, and especially in growing residential districts like that in question, the consent of the Board will be withheld.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The parish council of Witley have applied to the Board for their consent, under Section 22 of the Commons Act, 1899, to the grant or inclosure, of three acres of common land forming part of Witley Common. The application is now under consideration of the Board, and inasmuch as certain objections have been received it is proposed to hold a local inquiry on the subject.

  Damage to English Fishing Gear by Foreign Trawlers.
  MR. MALLET:: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether in view of the numerous cases of damage caused off the South Coast of Devon and Cornwall to the fishing gear of English fishing vessels by foreign steam trawlers, he will impress upon the Government Departments concerned the necessity of taking more effective action to protect the fishermen against their repetition.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd George.) The Board of Trade and the Admiralty are
  102
  alive to the necessity of protecting British fishing interests in the Channel, and in this connection I would draw the attention of my hon. friend to the reply given on the 29th ultimo by the Secretary to the Admiralty to the hon. Member for the Totnes Division of Devonshire, showing that the Department concerned are now considering the question.† I may add, however, that in cases of damage done by French trawlers to the gear of British fishing boats in the Channel, representations will be made to the French Government whenever such action appears possible.

  Irish Ordnance Survey and the Department of Agriculture.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the advisability of having the control of the Irish Ordnance Survey put under the charge of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. No change is contemplated in the existing arrangements for the conduct of the Ordnance Survey. The divided control suggested would be attended with diminished efficiency and increased expense.

  Crown and Quit Beats in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sum of £32,470 was collected for the year 1905 in Ireland as Crown and quit rents; whether he can state the total amount collected from that source during the past ten years; whether he will state if it is retained as a separate fund, and what portion of it has been expended and for what purpose; and whether he will consider the advisability of applying this money to create and finance a forestry department for the purpose of re-afforesting Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The quit and other Crown rents collected in Ireland during the year ended 31st March last amounted to the sum mentioned by the hon. Member. As was stated in answer to a Question by the hon. Member
  † See (4) Debates, clxiii, 684.

  103
  for Kilkenny South, on 7th March last.† the average annual amount of quit rents collected during the ten years ended 31st March, 1905, is £35,516, and the money has been merged in the general income of the land revenues of the Crown, the surplus proceeds of which have been paid into the Exchequer each year, in accordance with the provisions of the Crown Land Acts. As I have previously informed the hon. Member the question of re-afforestation in Ireland is one which must be dealt with on its merits, apart from any question connected with quit rents.

  Bridge across the Suir at Waterford— Apportionment of Cost.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a Bridge Commission, upon which the counties of Waterford and Kilkenny were represented, under the provisions of I and 2 William iv, c. 33, 4 and 5 William iv., c. 61, 2 and 3 Vic. c. 50, and 30 and 31 Vic, c. 50, sat at Waterford in 1903 for the purpose of considering the desirability of erecting a new bridge accoss the River Suir at Waterford, and of determining, in the event of a new bridge being built, the proportions in which the various counties would benefit by its erection and of assessing the proportions in which the various interested counties should contribute to the expense of its erection, and that the Commission determined that it was desirable that a bridge should be built and that the proportion to be paid by the county Tipperary South Riding should be one fifth of the total cost; and seeing that it was recommended by the Commission that the county Tipperary South Riding should be so taxed without having any representation on the Commission, will he in the event of a new Commission being appointed, advise His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant to appoint a representative on the Commission from the county Tipperary South Riding.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The facts are as stated in the Question. The claim made on behalf of the County Tipperary South Riding for representation on the proposed further Commission will receive due consideration.
  † See (4) Debates, cliii, 461.

  Re-instatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of Garret Stynes.
  MR. KILBRIDE (Kildare, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners received an application last year from Garret Stynes for reinstatement in his holding situated at Plunketstown, Graney Electoral Division, Baltinglass Rural District, No. 3, county Kildare; if he is aware that the holder of this farm, Thomas Jawler, has instructed Mr. E. P. O'Kelly, auctioneer, Baltinglass, to sell the holding; and whether, with a view to the reinstatement of Garret Stynes, he will instruct the Estates Commissioners to enter into communication with Mr. O'Kelly or buy the farm at the auction.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the matter referred to in the Question is at present before them, and they are making inquiries in regard to it.

  Ballycastle Harbour Improvement.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 28th ultimo four fishermen when entering the boat harbour at Ballycastle had a narrow escape from drowning, due to a wall having been built there by a Mr. M'lldowney between high and low water mark; if he can state on whose authority this wall was built; and whether, seeing that it imperils the lives of fishermen using the harbour, he can say what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to have it removed.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) It is, I am informed, the fact that a boat containing four fishermen recently had a narrow escape from being swamped when entering the boat harbour at Ballycastle. The fishermen hold that the building of a wall by Mr. M'Ildowney has increased the danger of entering the harbour in rough weather, and some of them told me when I was at Ballycastle on 31st August that the wall prevented the Rathlin men who came into the little harbour from seeing when a heavy swell was coming. I understand that Mr. M'Ildowney, who is the owner of a private jetty near the harbour, has built the wall on ground of which he claims to be the lessee. He

  105
  does not admit that the wall has injured the harbour, but says it has rather tended to make it safer. The Department of Agriculture is at present negotiating with the county council with the view of seeing whether anything can be done to improve the harbour, and in that connection the subject of the wall referred to will doubtless receive consideration.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

  Chatham Dockyard.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a number of skilled labourers at Chatham Dockyard have been reduced to the rank of ordinary labourers, with a reduction in wages from 3s. to 4s. per week; and, seeing that he has accepted the principle of trade union conditions being made applicable to all royal dockyards, whether he will take immediate steps to raise the minimum wages to those current in private shipbuilding yards where similar work is being executed.
  THE SECRETAEY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): In accordance with the universal practice of the Royal Dockyards and in order to save the men from being discharged, some seventy skilled labourers at Chatham have been temporarily employed on ordinary labour, and have been paid as ordinary labourers. It is hoped that the reduction of pay will be of short duration. The men will be placed on their former rates of pay as soon as skilled work becomes available.
  MR. JENKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of the Question? Are we to understand that the Admiralty are going to recognise trades union rates in the dockyards according to the hon..Member's promise in March last?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must refer the hon. Member to the words of my promise, † and he will see that my Answer is not inconsistent.
  † See (4) Debates, cliii, 505, 509.
  MR. JENKINS: May I ask whether the minimum rates for labourers in the dockyards do not amount to 24s. a week?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I should like to have notice of that Question.
  MR. J. WARD: I should like to ask whether reduction in the position of a number of skilled labourers has necessitated a reduction in the number of ordinary labourers in the dockyard?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not so far as I know. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the Question.

  Naval Policy.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERI bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is considered by the Admiralty and the Committee of Defence that ships withdrawn from the Fleet in full commission and placed in the Reserve or Home Fleet, are immediately effective as a striking force in the emergency of war.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to Answer this Question. The Answer is—Yes. The Board of Admiralty consider that the redistribution of ships about to be made adds to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet. Questions of this nature are not referred to the Committee of Defence, but I thought I would give this reply in order to save time.

  Naval Gun Practice in Start Bay.
  MR. MILDMAY (Devonshire, Totnes): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, as a result of the inquiry recently held locally, any decision has been come to with regard to the use of the Start Bay, South Devon, as a range for big gun firing by His Majesty's ships.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It has been decided not to lay down permanent moorings for a fixed target range in Start Bay, and gun firing will be carried out there in future only between 1st November and 31st March, during

  107
  which period every precaution, consistent with service requirements, will be taken to avoid interference with fishery interests.

  Metropolitan Volunteers.
  SIR HOWAKD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has decided to extend the Volunteer Brigade organisation of the provinces to the force in the metropolis, with a view to preparing them for mobilisation under commanders acquainted, with the battalions according to the expressed wish of nearly all the commanding officers in London.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): It is not proposed at present to extend the Volunteer Brigade organisation to the Volunteers of the metropolis.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to take any steps at all in the matter?
  MR. HALDANE: I said it was not proposed to at present.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: When is it likely to be determined?
  MR. HALDANE: When a large question like this is under consideration nothing is more mischievous than the making of statements piecemeal.

  Paymaster's Department of the War Office.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the system of payment by results is that adopted in the Paymaster's Department of the War Office; and, if so, when was any change made; is it the practice to object to a claim which is smaller in amount than the scheduled charge; does the clerk or objector receive half of the original small claim on securing the acceptance of the larger though scheduled charge.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what amounts have been paid to officials in the Paymaster's Department of the War Office for detecting alleged errors in claims made against that Department for the
  108
  past ten years, will he further state how many claims does the amount represent.
  MR. HALDANE: The hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension as to the method of examining accounts in the War Department. The practice referred to does not obtain in the War Office.

  South African War Medals.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the conditions under which the King's medal for the South African campaign was granted have resulted in unequal treatment, so that men who served during the first and more arduous portion of the war received one medal, the Queen's—while men who served during the second and less arduous portion received two medals—Queen's and King's. Whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction caused, especially amongst the Natal Field Force and the Colonial forces, in consequence; and whether he will take steps to remedy the inequality.
  MR. HALDANE: The object of the King's medal was to give special recognition to the services rendered by the troops in the later phases of the campaign, and to reward those soldiers who. by their long service in the field, brought the war to a successful termination. This is clearly stated in the Army Order promulgating the grant of the medal. The Army Council are not aware of any sound grounds for re-opening the question of the conditions of the grant.

  Discharges from Netley Hospital
  LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether several patients have recently been discharged from Netley who have been there in some cases for many years; whether, seeing that the only legal refuge for patients so discharged is the workhouse of the place where he was born, he will say what was the final notice given to the patients of their impending discharge; and what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to alleviate the hardships of these men?
  MR. HALDANE: It was brought to the notice of the War Office last year

  109
  that there were several cases of men being retained in military hospitals after their discharge from the Army. Such retention not only caused a charge on Army Votes (of about £3,000 a year) in respect of men no longer in the Army, but also absorbed hospital accommodation required for other soldiers. After full consideration of the matter it was decided that such cases could not be retained indefinitely or from any charitable reason, but that they should be discharged from hospital as soon as they were fit to travel. These men, if they have no homes to go to, are sent to the guardians of their place of settlement. As regards notice to the patients, discretion as to length of notice is left to the principal medical officer of the hospital in question. How long was the notice which he gave in recent cases I cannot tell, but if the noble Lord desires it I will inquire. I am doing all in my power to find homes for these men.
  LORD E. CECIL: Are the soldiers described as pensioners not, in fact, suffering from disease? May I further ask is it not a part of the terms under which recruits are engaged that free medical treatment shall be given?
  MR. HALDANE: Free medical treatment was given. One man has been ten years an invalid. He has received medical treatment, and he would not have been kept in ordinary civil employment under these conditions.
  MR. CROOKS: As the right hon. Gentleman expects to save £3,000 a year on this arrangement, will he consider the advisability of sharing the money for the benefit of these men until they can find a permanent home?
  MR. HALDANE: If Parliament will give me authority in the matter I will see what can be done. It is going beyond the power of the medical organisation to keep the sick until they find a home. I will consider the question for putting money on the Estimates, but I cannot give any assurance.
  MR. CROOKS: Then these men will be branded as paupers?
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman put
  110
  down an extra sum in the Estimates to provide for these men?
  MR. HALDANE: I will consider that question, but can give no assurance at present.
  LORD R. CECIL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that these soldiers are still in a condition of grave sickness, and are they being sent out of the hospital to enter the workhouse?
  MR. HALDANE: They are not in a condition of grave sickness; they are only bed-ridden.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Have they not gone into the workhouse?
  MR. DELANY: Are not the Irish workhouses full of soldiers chargeable on the rates?
  MR. HALDANE: That may be; I cannot say.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.): Are they not suffering from very grave sickness when they are unable to work?
  MR. HALDANE: They are not able to work, and if Parliament chooses to say that the Army medical organisation is to insist upon providing medical treatment, then we will do what Parliament desires of us. But I may point out that some of these men have been ten years under hospital treatment.
  MR. MYERrose to put a further Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is becoming a debate.

  Agitation in Bengal.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information which he can communicate to the House regarding the distribution of a circular, purporting to be issued by a society in Bengal styled the Golden Bough, in which circular the recipients are asked to promise to break the nests of the Feringhi (European) birds, tearing them in pieces, and throwing them into the Ganges, to beat the sahibs (Europeans)

  111
  of the city, and to drive them away, that the Hindus may govern their own country, and in which the Mohammedans are informed that their Hindu brothers have great hope of them, and in which the recipients are asked to bring anything they can get, lathis (clubs), spears, and guns; and, if so, whether any action will be taken against the printers and publishers of such incitements to rebellion and treason.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Boroughs): The circular described in the Question appeared, under the heading "Golden Bengal," some fifteen months ago. So far as my information goes, the police are unable to fix definitely the responsibility for printing or publishing it.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a Bengali agitator addressing employees of the East Indian Railway at Asansol on 5th September last, in the presence of a magistrate and officer of police informed his hearers that sugar was refined with pig's and cow's blood, that Babu Bannerjee had been crowned King or Emperor of Hindustan, that the English had fattened on dog's meat and grown bold, and that Japan had shown them what Asiatics could do; and whether the Government of India proposes to take any action in view to preventing the debauching of ignorant multitudes by such discourses.
  MR. MORLEY: I am not aware whether the Government of India propose to take any action; but no doubt they will give attention to the subject.

  Madras Provincial Conference.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a memorial from the Fourteenth Madras Provincial Conference, held at Tinnevelly in June last, praying that steps might be taken with as little delay as possible to secure the separation of judicial from executive functions; and whether, seeing that in 1903 the then Viceroy intimated that the question would be dealt with shortly, he will take such measures as may be necessary to bring about this
  112
  reform in Indian administration as speedily as possible.
  MR. MORLEY: The memorial referred to has not been received by me. I addressed the Government of India on June 22nd last asking them to let me have their conclusions on the subject as soon as possible.

  New Indian Cantonment.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether those portions of the redistribution scheme of the Commander-in-Chief which proposed to place a permanent cantonment at or near Torseppah, in the mountainous country occupied by the Mohmund tribes, and to establish an artillery and cavalry cantonment between Nowshera and Hoti Murdan have been definitely abandoned.
  MR. MORLEY: Sanction has been given for the new cantonment between Nowshera and Hoti Murdan. A proposal for placing a permanent cantonment at or near Torseppah has now, I believe, been abandoned.

  Central Africa—Proposed Legislative Council.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any further progress has been made in regard to the proposed establishment of a legislative council for the British Central Africa Protectorate.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N. W.): Advantage was taken of the presence in this country of the Commissioner of British Central Africa to discuss this proposed change and the numerous arrangements in details which would require to be made, the consideration of which must occupy some time. The matter is, however, being kept steadily in view.
  MR. REES: Is my hon. friend aware that those interested are anxious to see this measure carried out as soon as possible?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, sir, and I am endeavouring to give every consideration to their wishes. But there are many large questions to be considered in connection with such a matter as this.

  British Guiana—Crown Agents' Monopolies.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an agitation going on in British Guiana against the monopoly of the Crown Agents to the Colonies; whether the Colony claims the right to make its own contracts in the open market as it possesses the independent control of its own finance; and whether he will supply any Papers dealing with the question.
  MR. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to certain paragraphs in the public press in which allusion is made to this subject, but I have received no official communication from the Government of British Guiana. The rule that requisitions, for public stores should be made through the Crown Agents for the Colonies and not through local firms represents the conclusions arrived at by successive Secretaries of State as to the method of obtaining public stores which is best calculated to promote economy. In answer to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the point is whether the Government of British Guiana, like the Governments of other colonies not possessing responsible government, should in accordance with the standing rule procure stores required from the United Kingdom through the agents of the colony in the United Kingdom, viz., the Crown Agents for the Colonies, or through local firms and their agents. How far the unofficial majority in the financial House wish to insist on the latter course I am not able to say, nor have I at present material for laying Papers on the subject before Parliament.

  Transvaal Mines—White and Coloured Labour.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Kaffirs were discharged from the mines of the Transvaal during the past six months; and also how many Chinamen have been employed as skilled workers during the same period.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I cannot state how many Kaffirs were discharged from the mines of the Transvaal during the period in question; but the number of
  114
  native labourers employed has remained practically unchanged, there having been 94,277 on 31st March, and 93,803 on 30th September, a reduction of only 474. Upon the question of how many Chinamen have been employed as skilled labourers, my hon. friend is no doubt, aware that such employment is prohibited under section 9 (a) of Ordinance No. 17 of 1904; and the information at my disposal does not enable me to say whether such regulation has been in any way infringed. But my hon. friend may perhaps be interested to observe that the ratio of white men to coloured of all races was in May, 1904, before the importation of Chinese began, as 10 to 59, whereas to-day it is as 10 to 84, and the number of white men employed per 100 stamps was 250, whereas to-day it is 210.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I think the hon. Gentleman—unintentionally no doubt—has reversed the figures concerning the natives? Did he not convey the idea recently that Chinamen were displacing white skilled labour?
  MR. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentleman asks me a Question regarding statistics, I do my very best to supply him with the Answer he wishes.

  Gaming Licences in the Malay States.
  MR. LAIDLAW (Renfrewshire, E.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received from His Majesty's High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States the Report asked for in August last regarding gaming licences; if so, can he now say what amount of annual revenue is derived from such licences; and if any steps are being taken to abolish licensed gambling in the Federated States.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The High Commissioners Report has now been received. It is not possible to state the exact amount of revenue derived from gaming licences, as the gambling farms have hitherto been leased in conjunction with other farms, but the average annual revenue from this source is estimated at about three million dollars. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the immediate abolition of licensed gambling is impracticable, but steps are being taken to restrict it as. far as possible, and to prepare the way for eventual abolition.

  Newfoundland.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the fact that the Order in Council carrying into effect the modus vivendi with France of 1890, respecting the Newfoundland lobster fishery, was not issued till the 23rd June, 1891, and contained a declaration that it was so promulgated under powers vested in Her Majesty by an Act passed by the Legislature of that Colony, he will explain why His Majesty's Government have not followed a similar course in the case of the modus vivendi with the United States Government respecting the Newfoundland fisheries.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member appears to assume that effect was not given to the modus vivendi concluded with France in 1890 until June, 1891. The modus vivendi was made only for the season of 1890 and expired at the end of that season. Her late Majesty was bound by it from the date of its conclusion and gave effect to it throughout the season of 1890. Lord Salisbury, however, renewed it for another year in March, 1891. The Colonial Act under which the Order in Council referred to was issued was not passed until it had been made clear to the Colony that in the absence of Colonial legislation an Imperial Act would be passed. Lord Salisbury's Government actually introduced a Bill into Parliament, and it was only withdrawn when the Colony undertook to legislate. The modus vivendi was renewed by Lord Salisbury before that undertaking was given. The modus vivendi which has been concluded with the United States Government applies only to the present winter herring fishery, which will end about Christmas; the Colonial Legislature will not meet again until after it is over. Without at this moment entering upon legal considerations I would point out that there would have been no object in concluding the modus vivendi at all if effect was not to be given to it until after the end of the fishery to which it was to apply.
  MR. ASHLEY: As a matter of fact did not the Colonial Government in the period of Lord Salisbury's Administration consent to the modus vivendi in view of the fact that Lord Knutsford on 13th February, 1890, said—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not now seeking information.
  MR. LYTTELTONasked when Papers would be laid.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: I am making inquiries at the Foreign Office, but I do not think Papers can be laid before the beginning, or perhaps the middle of next week.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERinquired whether the modus vivendi was to be submitted to the Colonial Legislature after the herring fishery season was over. Did it only apply to this season?
  *MR. CHURCHILLsaid that he could not undertake to answer Questions on this matter of great constitutional complexity without proper notice, which would enable him to consult the noble Lord the Secretary of State.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the arrangement with the United States would terminate at Christmas, and thus leave the Colony complete freedom of action.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: The arrangement is a provisional arrangement, which it was necessary to make because of the imminence of this year's fishery, and pending the general discussion of the question which is still proceeding. The arrangement terminates when the decision on the general discussion has been reached.

  Forced Labour in West Africa.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the fact that the imposition of forced labour (unpaid) is imposed upon the West Africans in lieu of the imposition of money rates, he will say on what grounds heavy taxation by way of customs is imposed on the same people. I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is in a position to state whether forced (unpaid) labour has ever been demanded, or, if demanded, the latest date of such demand in the Colonies of Gambia, Sierra Leone,

  117
  Gold Coast, or of Lagos, before the absorption of the last-mentioned Colony in South Nigeria.
  *MR. CHURCHILL: By universal and immemorial custom of the numerous tribes inhabiting the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria (and West Africa generally) the inhabitants of each town are responsible for the upkeep of the native paths running through their lands. In the large portion of Southern Nigeria where the House Rule Proclamation is in force, the natives all belong to some house, and in return for the protection they receive are liable under that law to work for their chiefs. In the interior where this proclamation is not in force all inhabitants are subject, probably to a greater extent, to the control of their chiefs. The town dwellers also, except whore British rule is established, build and maintain defensive walls and trenches —generally extending for many miles— round their towns as a protection against raids. Often several lines of walls and trenches exist. As we occupy territory all this ceases, and the Governor reports that the relief thus given must be tenfold the requirements of the Government for the construction and maintenance of better roads. After the establishment of British Government the inhabitants of all towns and villages in the territory under our control are required to construct necessary additions to and maintain the existing roads through their districts in good order. In the last two years the construction of roads of a much better class than those previously existing has been undertaken, and it has been recognised that the natives could not reasonably be called upon to construct such loads without assistance from the Government; although they themselves are, of course, the chief gainers by improved communications. In most places the benefits arising from new roads are fully understood by the chiefs, and they gladly assist in their construction. Where such improved roads have been constructed payment has always been made to the natives, but in cases where they have been called upon simply to clear a broader track through the country and to fell trees and uproot stumps, payments have been made to the chiefs. The rule is for the chiefs to supply food for the men sent by them to work. It has boon left to the discretion of the
  118
  Provincial, Divisional and District Commissioners to consider the amounts that should be paid from Government funds for road work done, and I believe, they have always shown full consideration to representations made by the chiefs or people that work on roads may be suspended or considerably reduced during the farming and palm oil seasons. In addition to this ordinary road-making and construction work, it has always been customary to fine towns and villages for risings against the Government, for murders, human sacrifices, slave-dealing, etc., and in lieu of the exaction of a fine in cattle, sheep or produce, chiefs have been required and certainly prefer to provide labour for road construction or for the clearing of sites and the erection of buildings for new stations. The people are invariably dealt with through their chiefs, and I need scarcely state that any abuse by Government officers of their delegated discretionary powers would entail the severest censure, if not the dismissal of the officer concerned. Subject to these exceptions the Secretary of State is not aware that forced unpaid labour has within any recent period been demanded in any of the colonies named or, so far as his present information goes, that it has been demanded in Southern Nigeria. The experience of the Road Construction Department, however, has been that unpaid labour is unsatisfactory, and even costly, for works of any magnitude on account of its fluctuations and inexperience. The question of the abolition of a deeply-rooted custom is too large and complex for any hasty or immediate decision, but the Secretary of State earnestly hopes that it may eventually follow into extinction other still more undesirable local institutions which have been already terminated by the extension of British authority.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Then in any case payment is made to the chiefs and poissbly by them indirectly to their men?
  *MR. CHURCHILL: Yes.

  Chinese Labourers in the Rand Mines.
  MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now official information to the effect that the Chinese labourers in the Rand mines

  119
  are required to make their complaints to the managers of the mines, instead of to the inspectors under the superintendent of foreign labour as heretofore; and, if he has not any information on the subject, will he be good enough to cause inquiry to be made.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am in communication with the Governor on the subject.

  Forced Unpaid Labour in West Africa.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies at whose discretion can forced unpaid labour be exacted from West Africans; and whether such discretion lies solely in the control of the Governor or if it can be exercised by any subordinate.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In West African Colonies and Protectorates in which there is legal power to demand labour on roads and waterways, the Governor or High Commissioner alone can make an order that such work shall be done.

  The Attack on Mr. Crewe Read.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the incident terminating in the death of Mr. Crewe Read was attributable to demands for forced labour, unpaid, being enforced.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State expects shortly to receive from the Governor of Southern Nigeria a further report for which he has called upon the causes of the attack on Mr. Crewe Read; and in the meantime I am not in a position conclusively to answer the hon. Member's Question.

  Congo State Administration.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state what effective measures have been taken to prevent a repetition of the outrages recently perpetrated in the Congo State.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Sir E. GREY): Some reforms have been announced since the
  120
  report of the Commission of Inquiry. They do not meet all the points to which that Commission drew attention, and there has not yet been time to receive reports upon the extent to which they have been put into force, or what the effect has been.

  Probate Administration in Scotland.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that there is no principal probate registry in Edinburgh for Scotland similar to the one in London for England; and if he will say how the Death Duties are dealt with there in the absence of such a registry; whether affidavits, or inventories as they are called in Scotland, are received at the Estate Duty Office direct and without passing through any probate registry; whether affidavits are received in Scotland by collectors of Inland Revenue direct and without the intervention of a district probate registry, duly accepted, and the document sent to the Comptroller, Estate Duty Office at Edinburgh, for stamping, and resort had to the Sheriff Clerk only after the fact for the grant of confirmation and making copies of the account and wills; whether this system is in use in Scotland; and, if so, will he consider whether it can be introduced into England; and, if not, what are the circumstances which render the system unsuitable in this country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): I find that in Scotland the duties of the Principal and District Probate Registrars are performed by the Commissary Clerk in Edinburgh and the Sheriff Clerks in the provinces. There exists, however, this distinction between the two countries, that, whereas in England the district registries are merely branches of the Central Registry, in Scotland the Commissary Clerk exercises no jurisdiction whatever over the Sheriff Clerks, although if an executor so desires he may have his case dealt with in Edinburgh instead of in the provinces. Direct receipt of inventories in Scotland by the Estate Duty Office occurs only in the case of mortgages. This is due to the fact that under Scottish law a mortgage is permitted to pass without a grant of probate, and there is therefore no necessity for any official intervention other than that of the Estate Duty Office. In all other cases

  121
  the duties of Inland Revenue officers in connection with the assessment and collection of Death Duties are the same in both Scotland and England.

  The Bank Rate.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that the recent rise in the Bank rate has been caused by no very excessive withdrawals of gold; and whether, to obviate the inconvenience to trade caused by a high Bank rate, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to establish a national reserve of gold.
  MR. ASQUITH: The question has for some time engaged, and is engaging, my attention. I am not at present prepared to make any definite statement on the subject, but I must not be taken to assent to the suggestion that the establishment and maintenance of an adequate gold reserve is the duty of the State and not that of the banking community.

  Imported Soap.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the projected amalgamation of English soap manufacturers, he will consider the advisability of removing the existing duty upon the importation of foreign soap.
  MR. ASQUITH: Soap as such is not chargeable with duty upon importation. But a duty of 3d. per 1b. is levied upon transparent soap in respect of the spirit which is used in its manufacture. I am considering how far this duty places transparent soap of foreign manufacture at a disadvantage compared with similar soap of home manufacture, in view of the concessions recently granted in respect of alcohol used for industrial purposes.

  Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the indignation that prevails throughout the country over the proposal to turn the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society into a limited company, and in consequence of the fact that this society has an enormous membership in the great
  122
  towns of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales who are unable, on the score of distance and expense, to attend any meeting of the society held in London, he will take steps, either by meetings of members in the respective towns, or by delegates selected by such meetings, or by ballot to satisfy himself that such a change is desired by the majority of the members of the society.
  The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the paper:—
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the differences that have arisen between the members of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society with regard to its conversion into a limited liability company, and if pending the settlement of the matter by the High Court of Justice, he will take care that no steps are taken by the Registry of Friendly Societies to prejudice either one side or the other.
  MR. SNOWDEN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered the petition lodged with the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies by members of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society, for an inquiry into the management of that society, also the petition lodged asking for a meeting to be held under the direction of the Chief Registrar, in place of the meeting held in Exeter Hall on September 19th last, to consider the question of the society being turned into a joint stock company; what decisions have been come to in regard to these petitions; and if he is in a position to give an assurance that the registry of the society will not be revoked until full inquiry has been made and until all the adult members have in some way had an opportunity of expressing their opinions on the matter.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): My attention has been frequently called to this matter, and very conflicting allegations on the subject have been made to me. The question is now the subject of litigation, and so long as it is sub judice no decision will be taken as to whether the registration of the society is to be cancelled.

  The Official Debates.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would favour some inquiry by competent persons into the method and scope of Hansard's Parliamentary Reports, with a view of ascertaining whether, without prejudice to the public interest, great curtailment and consequent economy are possible.
  MR. MCKENNA: The existing Hansard contract expires on the 31st December, 1907. I think it will be desirable to appoint a Select Committee in the course of next year to inquire into the subject in its double aspect of economy and efficient reporting.

  Clerks to Commissioners of Taxes.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the functions of clerks to Commissioners of Taxes, as defined by the several Tax Acts, have been largely transferred in practice to Surveyors of Taxes; and whether, seeing that the clerks to Commissioners still receive remuneration as if they did the original work, that those acting within the metropolitan area still receive remuneration based upon a poundage of income-tax on property the work of which valuation has been transferred to the various vestries (now corporations), and that the clerical work in England and Wales which clerks to Commissioners now perform is usually delegated to a clerk at low wages or is put out at piece work, the Government will appoint a Committee to inquire into the present working of the Income Tax Acts with a view to improving the machinery for assessment and collection of income-tax.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Board of Inland Revenue inform me that they know of no foundation for any one of the suggestions conveyed in the Question

  The German Gipsies.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return showing the expense to which the local authorities in Great Britain have been put by the wandering throughout Great Britain of a band of sixty or more German gipsies since the early part of this year; and whether he proposes to provide
  124
  funds from the Exchequer to recompense the local authorities for this expenditure, which they have unwillingly incurred in consequence of the hospitality of the nation having been extended to these alien immigrants.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): No good purpose would be served by such a Return even if it was possible to obtain the figures. I have no power to provide funds out of the Exchequer, nor do I think that there is any reason for doing so.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Why "no good purpose?"
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a band of these gipsies is still giving a great deal of trouble?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I am of course aware that there are gipsies about the country who are giving a great deal of trouble. Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest some method of remedying the grievance?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I will wait on the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce any legislation to cope with this evil?
  MR. LUPTON: Would not these gipsies give less trouble if let alone?
  [No answered was returned.]

  Metropolitan Cab Fares
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is intended to adopt the recommendations in the Report of the Select Committee on Cabs and Omnibuses (Metropolis), and to introduce the tariff commencing with a sixpenny fare for a short distance, combined with the use of the taximeter working on the horo-kilométrique, or hour-mile system; and when the new regulations are to come into operation.
  MR. NORMAN (Wolverhampton, S.): At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what steps have been taken, or are proposed, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on Cabs and Omnibuses (Metropolis), especially with regard to the system of privileged cabs at railway stations.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The recommendations contained in the very useful Report of the Select Committee, of which my hon. friend was Chairman, are under the consideration of myself and the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. Some of those which are within the competence of the Commissioner have already been carried out, and an order and regulations dealing with a number of others are now in draft. I am not yet able to make any statement with regard to the proposed new tariff and the use of the taximeter. The privileged cab question is one of well-known difficulty, but I am of opinion that it must be dealt with.

  Children and Motor Traffic.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the report of a recent motor accident and the running over of a child of three years old, and to the remarks of the coroner that children should not be allowed to wander along highways at dangerous places, and that chauffeurs could not be expected to look after machines and children; and if he will take steps to remove the coroner from all city magisterial functions.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have no power to remove any coroner from office, but I am addressing an inquiry to the coroner in question on the subject of the remarks attributed to him in the newspaper extract to Which my hon. friend has called my attention.
  MR. CATHCAET WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the county council?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I must ascertain the facts first.

  Royal Commission on Vivisection.
  MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  126
  ment whether he is aware that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which consists of numerous affiliated societies throughout the United Kingdom, has refused to take part in the proceedings of the Royal Commission unless the constitution of that body is remedied, and a direct medical representative of the anti-vivisectionists is appointed; and what course he proposes to take.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. I regret the decision of the British Union and hope it will be reconsidered, but I have nothing to add to my previous answers on this subject, except to say that the Commission contains two medical men of distinction whoso names were suggested by anti-vivisection societies.

  Loughborough Brush Company and the Truck Act.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS (Wolverhampton, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Loughborough licensing justices have granted a licence to the Brush Company at Loughborough for the sale at their works of intoxicating liquors for the benefit of those workmen who are living on the premises during the present dispute; and whether, seeing that such permission makes such premises so licensed a public house, and in view of the provisions of the Truck Act, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, steps in the matter.
  * MR. GLADSTONE: I am making inquiries into this matter, which are not yet complete, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat his question in a few days time.

  Motor Speeds.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to a recent motor accident, when a car, alleged to be travelling at from forty to fifty miles an hour, skidded and killed two men; and if he proposes to take any steps to insist on the law being enforced and persons prevented from driving engines faster than express trains on the public roads.
  * MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I have seen the newspaper report of the inquest in this case. It was stated by one witness that the car was going between thirty and forty miles an hour, but the driver estimated the speed at eighteen miles an hour, and an expert witness gave evidence to the effect that the accident was caused by skidding and might have occurred at any rate of speed. The jury found that the occurrence was accidental, and that no blame attached to the driver. The enforcement of the law as to the speed limit is a matter for the local police authority.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.): Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that the hon. Member who put this Question has himself been fined for exceeding the speed limit?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Passive Resisters.
  MR. WHITEHEAD (Essex, S. E.): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of his decision to sanction the payments made by local authorities for religious instruction in non-provided schools pending the appeal in the West Riding case, steps can also be taken to secure equal consideration for passive resisters, who are entitled to the benefit of the decision in the Court of Appeal; and whether he can restrain local authorities during the same period from harshly enforcing against passive resisters the payment of rates for such religious instruction whether by distress or by applying for committal orders.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): The only jurisdiction I have in respect of religious instruction in non-provided schools is in connection with the audit of expenditure incurred in relation to it, and, as regards this part of the matter, I may refer to the reply I gave on Monday last to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. † I am not empowered to take
  † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 700.
  128
  any action of the kind referred to by my hon. friend.

  Standing Joint Committee.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to so amend The Local Government Act, 1888, as to place in the hands of the County Council the control of the expenditure now exclusively controlled by the Standing Joint Committee.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have lately received representations from one or two county councils on this subject, but am not in a position to promise legislation with regard to it at the present time

  Malton Paupers.
  MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the case of an able-bodied pauper, named Tasker, who, with his wife and throe children, is at present an inmate of the Malton workhouse; whether he is aware that, in the last twenty-five years, Tasker has been twelve times convicted of various offences; that he and his wife were, in 1903, sentenced to four months' imprisonment for cruelty to their children, and before that date they had drawn insurance money on the deaths of five of their children at the ages of fifteen months, twelve months, ten months, eleven months, and nine months respectively; that since September, 1905, Tasker and his family have been in the Malton workhouse for forty-three and a half weeks, and that when not in prison or in the workhouse Tasker and his wife wander about the country dragging their children with them; whether he is aware that the Malton guardians are anxious to prevent the children from growing up into pauper vagrants like their parents, but are afraid to adopt them, because, if they do so, Tasker and his wife will leave the workhouse relieved of all responsibilty for their maintenance; and whether, in view of this and similar cases he will introduce legislation to prevent parents from deriving profit from the death, through systematic neglect, of insured children, and also to confer upon boards of guardians greater powers of detaining and otherwise penalising parents who ill-treat and neglect their children.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The guardians of the Malton Union have written to me on this subject. They do not give all the particulars stated in the Question respecting Tasker and his wife, but I should gather that the case is one in which in the interest of the children it is desirable that their care and control should be taken over by the guardians. I may point out that where this course is adopted the parent is not thereby relieved from liability to contribute to the maintenance of the child. With regard to legislation, I believe that one of the questions before the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws is whether increased powers of detention should be given to boards of guardians, and I will bring this case under their notice. Whether any further restrictions should be imposed on the insurance of the lives of children would be a matter for my right hon. friend the Home Secretary.
  MR. LEIF JONES: Do I understand that the Malton Board, of which I am a member, have power to adopt these children?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Yes, I believe they have.

  Third Class Sleeping Cars on Railways.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he has yet arranged with the railway companies to provide third-class sleeping-carriages in trains where first-class sleeping-carriages are provided.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): In accordance with the undertaking of which I informed the House on June 25th last, † the general managers of the railway companies concerned have met and considered this question. The general managers now state that they are unanimously of opinion that if third-class sleeping-carriages were provided a very heavy pecuniary loss to shareholders would be incurred, and accordingly the companies concerned have come to the conclusion that such provision could not be justified.
  † See (4) Debates, clix., 739, 740.

  Life Insurance Funds.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the sums of money which have accrued to life insurance companies in consequence of the inability of many of the insured to keep up the payment of their premiums, whether he will promote legislation for the purpose of compelling life insurance corporations in the future to return on demand to the assured, or his legal representatives, at least 75 per cent. of the premiums already paid.
  MR. KEARLEY: The Board of Trade cannot undertake to promote legislation for the purpose specified by the hon. Member.

  Damage to Brixham Trawler by French Boats.
  MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT (Devonshire, Torquay): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Board has been drawn, by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or otherwise, to the treatment received by the Brixham trawling ketch "J. E. S. S." from, and to the damage caused to her fishing gear by, a French steam trawler on the night of 25th October; whether the Board will press on the departments concerned the necessity of more effective protection against the repetition of such action; and whether, in view of the number of such cases which have occurred, steps will be token to provide, as soon as practicable, effective means for obtaining compensation and satisfaction for such injuries.
  MR. KEARLEY: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the case of the Brixham trawler "J. E. S. S." The Board of Trade and the Admiralty realise the necessity of protecting British fishing interests in the Channel, and in this connection I would refer my hon. friend to the reply given on the 29th ultimo by the Secretary to the Admiralty to the hon. Member for the Totnes division of Devonshire ‡. The Board of Trade are now investigating the case, and will, if the facts are found to justify a representation to the French Government, suggest to the Foreign Office that such should be made.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxiii., 683, 684

  Penny Post between America and New Zealand.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether a penny post is about to be established between New Zealand and the United States of America; and, if so, whether the same arrangement could be made to include the United Kingdom.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I understand that the Government of the United States of America have agreed to deliver without any additional charge letters posted in New Zealand for the United States of America prepaid at the rate of 1d. per ½ ounce but that the rate for letters sent from the United States of America to New Zealand remains as heretofore, namely 5 cents, equivalent to 2½d., per ½ ounce. As announced not long ago to a deputation in which the hon. Member took part, I am not at present in a position to make any proposals to the United States Post Office for the establishment of penny postage.
  MR. MORTONasked whether the question was under consideration.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid only in the sense that the question was one which largely depended on how much money was applicable to the various postal reforms.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether, in view of the importance of wireless telegraphy in connection with the defences of Great Britain and the
  132
  Empire, and of the conclusion of the international arrangements at the Berlin Conference, His Majesty's Government will give the House an early opportunity of discussing their terms previous to ratification.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The full text of the Convention, with the Regulations and Protocol, has only just been received. It will be laid upon the Table, and before ratification, if the House desires, an opportunity of discussing the Convention will be afforded.
  MR. BALFOUR: Will the day for the discussion be in the course of the present session or next session?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We hope this session; certainly before ratification.

  Windlesham Motor Fatality.
  MR. MARNHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he has received from the police authorities of the county of Berks the depositions of the witnesses and the verdict of the jury given at an inquest held at Ascot on the 25th and 29th October, 1906, by the coroner of East Berks, upon the body of a cyclist, Osborne Paul Hart, who met his death by being knocked down by a motor-car on the main London Road at Windlesham, Surrey, on the 23rd October, 1906; and whether the Public Prosecutor proposes to bring the driver of the motor-car to trial.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): The chief constable has decided to take proceedings in this case against the driver of the car and summonses have been issued.

  The Long Vacation.
  MR. H. J. CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General what steps, if any, have been taken or are proposed to be taken to give effect to the generally expressed desire that the Long Vacation shall begin on 1st August in 1907 and thereafter.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: This question is still under consideration.

  Small Holdings in Scotland.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N. W.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will grant the Return† relating to the number, acreage, etc., of small holdings in Scotland.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): It is not possible to grant the Return as proposed by the hon. Member. Figures which will be published are being obtained which will include the information desired by him under heading (a) and the first part of heading (b), but without the supplementary information as to buildings, fences and drainage described in the latter clauses of (b).

  Aignish Crofter Houses, Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the houses erected by the Congested Districts Board, and forming the crofter settlement at Aignish, Island of Lewis, are not watertight; and, seeing that the crofters complain that the houses are otherwise unsatisfactory, and that no water supply is provided for the township, will steps be taken to have the defects remedied at an
  † Small Holdings (Scotland).—Return showing, by counties, the number and acreage in each year from 1891 of Small Holdings in Scotland, the annual rental of which is (a) below £30; and (b) between £30 and £50, and distinguishing cases in which buildings and fences have been erected and drainage done at the expense of (1) the landlord; (2) the tenant; and (3) at mutual expense of landlord and tenant.
  134
  early date. I beg further to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state who is responsible for the preparation of the plans and specifications of the Congested Districts Board crofter settlement at Aignish, Island of Lewis, who superintended the construction of the houses, and by whom was the work passed; and seeing that the houses are not watertight and are otherwise defective, will care be taken that the persons employed are not again entrusted with this class of work.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Congested Districts Board is responsible for the plans and specifications of the houses, and their construction was carried out under the superintendence of the Board's architect and engineer. The roofing material has been complained of and is receiving attention. Otherwise the houses are not defective. The "upkeep" period has not yet expired, and the houses have not yet been finally taken over from the contractor.
  MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing as to the water supply.
  MR. SINCLAIR: That question is under consideration.

  Battery Park, Stornoway.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that the fishermen's dwellings at Battery Park, Stornoway, are provided with conveniences and a water supply, will he state why the Congested District Board's crofter settlement at Aignish, Island of Lewis, is not provided with either a water supply or conveniences of any description.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The water supply is under consideration. The Stornoway District Committee was informed in April last that the provision or not of conveniences is for local arrangement with the proprietor and tenants of the houses.
  MR. WEIR: What about the conveniences?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have said that is a matter for local arrangement.
  MR. WEIR: Do they allow houses to be built without considering the question of a water supply or conveniences
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.
  MR. MORTON: What are these poor people to do for water while the right hon. Gentleman is considering the question of water supply?
  MR. SINCLAIR: My hon. friend knows there is no lack of water in the island.

  Deer Forests and Crofters' Crops.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that the crops of crofters are constantly ravaged by deer, will he state what steps he proposes to take to require landlords to fence in their deer forests in such a manner as to prevent the deer from having access to the adjoining lands.
  MR. SINCLAIR: This matter may, I hope, receive consideration when the ' Small Landholders Bill is in Committee.

  Scotch Local Government Board Inspectors.
  MR. WEIR: I bog to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will arrange in next year's Estimates, under Subhead B of the Local Government Board for Scotland Vote, for the subsistence allowances of the inspectors to be shown in detail as in the case of the Irish Vote.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I shall be glad to consider the suggestion.
  MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentle-man promised the same thing last June.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I will look into the matter.

  Scottish Agricultural Statistics.
  MR. A. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can state the total number of small holdings acquired in Scotland under the Small Agricultural Holdings
  136
  Act, 1892; the total number of allotments acquired under the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, and the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894; the total acreage held under these Acts, and the number of occupiers; and the average cost of land per acre acquired under these Acts.
  MR. SINCLAIR: According to the latest published Return (H.L. No. 192 of 1903) the total number of small holdings sold in Scotland under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, up to the 31st December, 1902, was twenty-five; the total acreage was eighty-three, and the average cost of purchase was £14 9s. per acre. On consulting the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries I find that no later information is available on the foregoing points. As regards the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892, the answer is as follows, the figures being derived from the Allotments Scotland Return, 1906 (No. 258). Total number of allotment holders at 15th May, 1906, 173; total acreage of Allotments at 15th May, 1906, 805; total annual rent payable to parish councils, £540; showing average per acre of 13s. 4d.

  Lewis and the Equivalent Grant.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that by a resolution of the Ross and Cromarty County Council, passed on the 19th October, 1905, the sum of £200 was retained from the Lewis district committees share of the equivalent grant for the year 1905, and carried to a suspense account, to be applied to the relief of the public health rate in that district when the public health committee of the county council approve of any scheme which the district committee might submit for the more energetic administration of the Public Health Acts in their district; and, seeing that the Lewis district committee have not yet submitted the required scheme to the county council, will he ascertain the cause of the delay, especially having regard to the insanitary condition of the townships in the Island of Lewis, as shown in Dr. Dittmar's Report.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The district committee does not consider it advisable to expend this money until they are able to consider the re-organisation of public health administration as a whole.

  Scottish Fishery Inspection.
  *MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state under what circumstances a Scottish Fishery Board cruiser was recently placed at the disposal of the Under-Secretary for Scotland for a cruise in the Western Highlands of Scotland in company with two ladies and three gentlemen.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Under-Secretary for Scotland undertook the cruise referred to in order to accompany a Member of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, and two officials of the Irish Department of Agriculture in a tour of inspection for official purposes of settlements created by the Congested Districts Board for Scotland in the Hebrides.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the party visited only one house in Stornoway?
  *MR. MORTON: Will the cruiser be placed at the disposal of Members of the House who may be interested in that part of the country?
  MR. SINCLAIR: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will kindly give notice of that.

  Underfed Children in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that an inspector from the Scottish National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, after a recent visit to townships in the Island of Lewis, described a large proportion of the children as underfed and ill-clad; and, in view of the recommendations contained in the Report on Physical Deterioration, and the alarming increase of phthisis in the insanitary houses of the Lews, will he consider the expediency of directing the Local Government Board's medical inspector to report on the physical condition of the children of the Lews.
  MR. SINCLAIR: My attention has been called to the report referred to. The feeding and clothing of some of the children, while not all that could be desired, are under the circumstances reasonably good. All possible steps through the schools and otherwise will be taken to raise the general standard of living.

  House Letting in Scotland.
  MR. CLELAND (Glasgow, Bridgeton): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has further considered his intention to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the missive system of house letting in Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Yes, Sir, I hope to publish the particulars in a few days.

  Scottish Grand Committee.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he expects to be able to set up a Scottish Grand Committee before the end of the present session.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: No, Sir, I do not think it is likely that we shall be able to set up a Scottish Grand Committee this session.

  Harris Tweed Combination.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a proposed combination of the Harris tweed merchants, with the object of raising the price of that material; and whether, if an increased retail price is obtained, it will be possible, by means of the Government contracts, to ensure that the poor weavers who make it may receive their due share of the increase.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No information has reached me as to this proposed combination.

  Newfoundland.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether this Government is aware of the feeling existing in the Government and among the people of Newfoundland due to the late agreement made with the United States in relation to the fisheries; and whether the correspondence between this Government and that of Newfoundland will be laid upon the Table at the earliest moment. May I ask a further question— of which I have given private notice— namely, whether this Government are aware that the Newfoundland Government has decided to test the validity of the modus vivendi, and enforce the Act which forbids the Newfoundlanders to fish on foreign vessels in colonial waters; and what action the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Governor of Newfoundland keeps His Majesty's Government fully informed as to the state of public opinion in the Colony on the fisheries question. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has already promised that the correspondence with the Colonial Government on the subject of the provisional agreement with the United States shall be laid upon the Table, and the preparation of the Papers is being pushed forward with all possible speed. His Majesty's Government are aware that the Newfoundland Government have decided to enforce the Bait Act. I must decline to say whether any or what action will be taken.

  Underfed School Children.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.): I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now promise facilities for the further consideration of the Education (Provision of Meals) Bill this session.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member will see that the Bill has been starred. That means it will be considered.

  Crimean War Fund.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that of the sum subscribed by the public after the Crimean war for the benefit of the widows, children, and dependent, relatives of officers and men, an unspent balance of about £85,000 remains; and, having regard to the advanced age of the surviving beneficiaries, whether the Government will take steps to accelerate the distribution of these moneys, for which the nation is trustee, among those persons to whom it would appear properly to belong.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that there is no such sum as £85,000 remaining as an unspent balance of the sum subscribed by the public after the Crimean War for the benefit of the widows and other dependents of officers and men connected with the War. I am, however, informed that under the provisions made by Parliament in the Patriotic Fund Act, 1881, surpluses of the Crimean War and other funds have been dealt with under powers conferred by that Act, and that of such surpluses there remained an unspent
  140
  balance on 31st December, 1905, of about £55,000. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation have been made trustees by Parliament under the Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903, for the proper administration of these and all other funds transferred to them under that Act. It is therefore for that body to settle its policy as to the unspent balance referred to, which they appear to have done, their policy being set forth in paragraph 14 of their Second Report to the King adopted at their Annual General Meeting, held in public on 24th May last, the Report being available to my hon. friend as a Parliamentary Paper.
  MR. BYLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the War Secretary informed me last week that there was an unspent balance of £85,000, and will he state whether the House has any control over the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should think on the face of it that the House has no such control, but I have not consulted the Act. The Patriotic Fund Reorganisation Act, 1903, appears to have handed this matter over to the reconstituted corporation.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESE: May I ask what business will be taken to-morrow?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that it had been the intention of the Government to proceed with the Plural Voting Bill to-morrow, but he was sorry to say that his right hon. friend who was in charge of the Bill, whether exhausted by his labours or not he could not say, was unwell and would not be able to be in the House. In the circumstances that Bill would have to be postponed, and the Land Tenure Bill would be proceeded with.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he regretted the cause of the alteration in the arrangements, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was giving precedence to a measure which was not a Government measure until a few days ago. The notice was inconveniently short, and the fact that his right hon.

  141
  friend the Member for South Dublin, who would naturally be in charge of the opposition to the Land Tenure Bill, was unhappily prevented through illness from being present greatly increased the general inconvenience which he feared would result from the Government proposal.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANexpressed his regret at the illness of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, but he thought the most convenient course would be that which he had stated.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, Wellington): Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me last Friday that the Merchant Shipping Bill would follow the Trade Disputes Bill?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That was providing the Trade Disputes Bill was finished on Friday.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman put down the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for to-night?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should not have put it down had we got through the Trade Disputes Bill on Friday, but we did not, and hence the necessity to take precautions so as to finish it to-night.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had promised three days to discuss subjects of great importance—a day for the Army, a day for the discussion of alterations in the House [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh"] —well, he would say an opportunity— and a third day for the discussion of the Convention which the Government had entered into with regard to wireless telegraphy. In addition the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his anxiety to proceed with the Merchant Shipping Bill. Here was material for at least a week's work. It would be for the convenience of the House that some other business should be taken before the Land Tenure Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether it was the intention of the right; hon. Gentleman to proceed with another very useful measure—the Public Trustee Bill?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he was as anxious as the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to proceed with the Bill he had mentioned. He did not think that the course he had suggested would cause any great inconvenience. The right hon. Gentleman opposite must allow the Government to have some voice in the arrangemement of business.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to take the Merchant Shipping Bill?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know when.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he is causing serious inconvenience to a large number of private Members by bringing on the Land Tenure Bill?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas understood to reply that private Members were in the House to look after business.

  PUBLIC HEATH ACTS (BUILDING BYLAWS) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 347.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, without Amendment.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TRADE DISPUTES BILL).
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the further consideration of the Trade Disputes Bill, as amended, if under consideration at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order

  143
  (Sittings of the House)."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 297; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 372.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Delany, William

  Jones, William(Camarvonshire

  Agnew, George William

  Dawar. Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Alden, Percy

  Dickson-Poynder. Sir John P.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kennedy. Vincent Paul

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  King Alfred John(Knutsford)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Duckworth, James

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lamb, Edmund G., (Leominster

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamont, Norman

  Barker, John

  Dunn-, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Langley, Batty

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington

  Barnard, E. B.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Beale, W. P.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Beaumont, Hn W.C.B (Hexham)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lough, Thomas

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lundon, W.

  Bell, Richard

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Fenwick. Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Bertram, Julius

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

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

  Bethell. J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Billson, Alfred

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Boland, John

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bottomley. Horatio

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Crae, George

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsay)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Glendinning. R. G.

  M'Killop, W.

  Brace, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gooch. George Peabody

  M'Micking. Major G.

  Branch, James

  Grant, Corrie

  Maddison, Frederick

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Marnham, F. J.

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J T (Cheshire)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Massie, J.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Hall, Frederick

  Masterman. C. F. G.

  Buchanan. Thomas Ryburn

  Hammond, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harvey. A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harwood, George

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Byles, William Pollard.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cameron, Robert

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morrell. Philip

  Chance, Frederick William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton. Alpheus Cleophas

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murphy, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobhouse. Charles E. H.

  Murray, James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hodge, John

  Myer, Horatio

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hogan, Michael

  Napier, T. B.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nicholls, George

  Clough, William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nicholson. Charles N. (Doncast'r

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Norman, Henry

  Cooper, G. J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Corbett, CH (Sussex. E. Grinst'd

  Hudson, Walter

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cornwall, Sir Edwid A.

  Hyde. Clarendon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.

  Cox, Harold

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Dowd, John

  Crombie, John William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Grady, J.

  Crooks, William

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  O'Malley, William

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Vivian, Henry

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Wadsworth. J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Sears, J. E.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Paul, Herbert

  Seely, Major J. B.

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

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Shackleton, David James

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wason, Eugene(Claekmannan)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Radford, G. H.

  Snowden, P.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rees, J. D.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williamson, A.

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

  Sullivan, Donal

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee )

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughtor.)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Young, Samuel

  Robinson, S.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thorne, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Toulmin, George

  Pease.

  Rowlands, J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Runciman, Walter

  Ure, Alexander

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Gordon, Sir W. Evans-(T'r Ham)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Haddock, George R.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff shire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hervey, F. W. F. ( Bury S. Edm'd)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone. E.)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Tumour, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham)

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir. C. E. Howard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Liddell, Henry

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Long Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

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

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Younger, (George)

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Fell, Arthur

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Question "That the words 'an act done' stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved to omit Clause
  146
  3, which provided that an act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade disputes should not be actionable as a tort on the ground only that it induced some other person

  147
  to break a contract of employment or that it was an interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he wills. Those last words were in direct contravention of the Prime Minister's own description of Liberal policy. The Prime Minister said that—
  "The Liberal policy meant freedom for each man to use the powers and facilities implanted in him."
  Now this clause was drawn to prevent each man using the powers and facilities implanted in him. In the Bills introduced by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and the hon. Member for one of the Divisions for Yorkshire, no clause of this description was inserted, although there was a somewhat similar clause inserted in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. This clause not only applied to trade unionists, but it included every other person under its provisions. A great deal had been said about the desire of the trade unions to do nothing that was not legal, but wrongful acts had been done in the past for which, on their recurrence, there would be no remedy under this Bill. If, under the old laws such acts occurred, what was likely to occur when this clause passed into law? He would like to call the attention of the House to what occurred on page 143 of the report of the evidence given before the Royal Commission. On that page there was published the following letter—
  "Dear Sir—I hope you will excuse me for troubling you, but I wish to put before you a few plain facts. When you had no work for me on the 30th March, I went to Messrs. Warings & Gillow's and got a job. I worked that week all right. On the Tuesday, the 7th April, Lowe, the painter's delegate, came on the job at Prestwich; he bullied me in front of the men I was working with, and said I would be fined £2 for working in your shop. He said the club intended to take all I earned in your shop, and all other men as well. The other men can do as they like, but I don't pay any tine for getting a living for myself, wife, and children. On Thursday, the 9th April, I was stopped at Warings. On Monday 29th April, I was going down Market Street; Lowe met me, he bullied me and we had a row; so I told him I would leave the town before I would pay the fine. He said he would follow me. Well, I think I would not go for him. I was born and bred in Manchester and served my time, and if I cannot get a living here for myself and family we will have to starve, I suppose, just
  148
  because I work for you to get a loaf of bread. Now, Mr. Carr, do you think this is right to be hunted like a convict from place to place? That is what Lowe will do."
  That was clear evidence that on certain occasions something of this sort went on, and unless the class of persons to whom he was referring were protected by law it would occur again. That man could not bring a civil action against the trade union for interfering with his rights to earn his living like an honest man. Here was another example which occurred in South Wales—
  "On Tuesday afternoon a non-union man was turned out of his lodgings and was followed by a good-humoured crowd as far as Ferndale. Unfortunately for the former he and the crowd arrived at Ferndale just in time to meet the men there going home from work, and upon the non-unionist being recognised the chase was taken up by the Ferndale men. The non-unionist made good his escape."
  Here was another example—
  "A massed meeting of the 2,000 men on strike at Aberamen in reference to about 50 non-unionists employed in the colliery was held last evening at the Plough pit, when the committee reported that as the result of persistent efforts on their part they had now brought the trouble to a satisfactory and amicable settlement. During the day they visited at their homes all who had not joined as well as all who were in arrears with their contributions, and as the result they had got every man 'up to the scratch,' every man a member of the deputation had been brought into line or had cleared out of the district."
  It was very evident that under the present law intimidation and the desire to prevent a man exercising his capabilities and his talents as he liked was very prevalent. In view of all this evidence before the Royal Commission, was it wise to extend still further these powers and enact that nothing should be
  "Actionable as a tort on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment, or that it is an interference with the trade, business or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or labour as he wills."
  He never expected that even this House of Commons would listen to such a clause as that. He trusted the Government would realise the serious position they were in under this Bill. He knew that the Government were obliged to do what they were told by hon. Members below the gangway. [An HON. MEM-BER: That is getting stale.] He hoped the Government would pause and

  149
  consider before they passed such legislation as this, for there was nothing like it in any other country, and it was absolutely impossible for employers and workmen to compete with foreign trade in this country if commerce was handicapped in this way. People would buy the cheapest article, and the result would be that they would not be able to carry on competition successfully. He still had hopes that the Attorney-General would listen to the voice of argument, and he begged to move.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 24, to leave out Clause 3." —(Sir Frederick Banburry)
  Question proposed, "That the words down to 'an act done' stand part of the Bill."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said the hon. Baronet had always been a strong opponent of this Bill and he was not surprised that he proposed to leave out this clause. The reasons he had given were reasons which had been given before, and he had already endeavoured to meet those arguments and justify the position which the Government had thought proper to take up. The whole of the second part of this clause was framed with a view to giving effect to the Report of the Royal Commission. The Government accepted the conclusion of the Royal Commission, and they had therefore provided that it should not be unlawful for one body of workmen to refuse to work with another body of workmen or even with a single workman for reasons which in their judgment were sufficient. It was clearly part of the law of the land that a body of workmen had a perfect right to refuse to work for any reason which they thought sufficient. It had been held that a man belonging to the Boiler Makers Union had a right to refuse to work with men belonging to the shipwrights, and the result was that the shipwrights on the vessel were immediately discharged. The House of Lords held that they were quite entitled to take that step, and that there had been no breach of the law. He would give another illustration showing that union men had a perfect right to refuse to work with men who were not
  150
  members of the trade union. It might be wise or unwise but it was the law, and it was because the law had been subjected to so much doubt that it was necessary that the matter should be made perfectly plain. The Government were supported in their recommendation by Lord Dunedin's Commission. The earlier part of this provision contained words which were proposed by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean when the Bill was going through Committee and the House adopted them. The hon. Member for Derby on a former occasion had given an illustration of going to South Wales to persuade a large number of men who had entered into contracts with the railway companies in the East End; he tried to persuade them from working under those agreements on the ground that it would be an unfair interference with the strike, but had no sooner opened his mouth than he found himself restrained by an injunction, on the ground that these men were already under contract and therefore he had no light either to approach or to address them. There was a similar case in which a number of Irish labourers were brought over to Whitehaven. and the trade union representative was restrained by an injunction in a similar manner, because the men imported were under contract. It seemed to him very unfair that an employer might recruit a large body of men from outside to take the place of strikers and conceal from them the circumstances of the strike and the issues involved in the quarrel, or the true relations between employers and workmen in that particular district. He was quite aware that there was a doctrine which rested upon two well-known decisions, the Mogul case and Bowen and Hall. Those cases established that if A induced B to break his contract with C he was liable to an action for damages. That proposition was still an essential part of the common law of the country. He knew it was repudiated when first framed by some of our most eminent Judges, and had only received the sanction of the highest tribunal within the last year or two, and this was due to some extent to the feeling excited by trade questions. That branch of the law would not be interfered with in so far as it might arise in relation to trade disputes. For reasons which he had

  151
  given, it seemed to him essential that this provision should be introduced. He might point out that an action in a Court of law was an action in which malice was the essential element, and it must be the intentional doing of a wrongful act with- out just cause or excuse.
  LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said that with a great deal that had fallen from the Attorney-General he did not find himself in disagreement. What he did feel was that if this clause was confined to the cases of men being brought in to take the place of others on strike, it would be quite unnecessary to resist the arguments of the Attorney-General. But the clause was drawn so badly that it would apply to a great many other cases to which no reason had yet been given for applying such stringent provisions. It would apply to all breaches of contract in consequence of a trade dispute. He could conceive that the results might be very serious in the case of those under contract to carry out something of a very essential character, perhaps involving the safety of those engaged in the trade. Such breaches might involve very serious consequences indeed, and there would be no remedy against the person who persuaded others to adopt the course of breaking their contracts. He desired to enter a protest against one observation which fell from the Attorney-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the doctrine laid down in the case of "Lumley v Gye" was not part of the common law. He ventured respectfully altogether to differ. It was always part of the common law. It was quite true that a case never arose until the case of "Lumley v. Gye," but surely it was an astounding doctrine to hear from a great legal luminary that the Judges then invented a doctrine which was not part of the common law and applied it to the case before them. The function of the Judges was to interpret the common law, and they did so in that case. He asked the House whether this proposal did not go a great deal beyond the necessities of the case, and whether, if they accepted it, they would not run the proverbial danger of enacting very bad Jaw.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid there was some little
  152
  misconception in the mind of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in regard to this clause. As he understood the provision it was that no one who induced another to commit a breach of contract ought to be liable to a third party for that breach of contract. The second point, he believed, which some of them wished to make was that trade unionists should stand in precisely the same relation to the law in this respect as other members of the community. He would endeavour to show how very wide of the mark in regard to the law at present the hon. Member had travelled. As an illustration he would take the case of a girl who was employed as a milliner or a dressmaker and was under contract for twelve months. She was wooed and won by a young man, and she consented to marry. They married at the end of three months. For the purpose of marrying she broke her contract with her employer. Did the hon. Baronet suggest that the bridegroom was to be liable in damages to the employer for having induced the bride to break her contract? He did not think the hon. Gentleman could possibly go so far. He would take another case. He believed that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Stock Exchange.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: May I point out that the girl would have just cause and excuse for breaking her contract.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he was quite certain that the hon. Baronet was under a misconception. There could be no just cause and excuse on the part of the person breaking a contract. The girl would still be liable in damages to the employer, but the question was whether there was just cause and excuse on the part of the bridegroom who was to marry the girl. When they got to the point that there should be no just cause and excuse in inducing a breach of contract, they opened the door to a whole series of cases, of which they said the particular case of the union official advising his members was one. The hon. Baronet was a member of the Stock Exchange, and it was incumbent upon him very frequently to advise clients to break contracts and cut their losses. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] There

  153
  might be an unfortunate underwriting contract entered into.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I wish to say that I have never advised anybody to break a contract.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that perhaps they were a little at cross purposes. The hon. Baronet was such a master of finesse that he would not say that he advised a breach of contract, but he was quite sure that, in common with other stock-brokers, when a client placed before him a statement of facts showing that he had entered into an unfortunate contract, he would use a series of arguments which operated on the uninformed mind of the client, and induced him to break his contract. No one had ever suggested that in such a case the hon. Baronet could be liable in damages to the third person with whom his client broke his contract.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Member is rather casting aspersions.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he was sorry that his words should be taken in that way. He knew that the kind of tiling he was describing constantly happened. In cases for breach of contract over share transactions the expert share broker came along and said that he pointed out certain things to the client which did lead to the breach of contract. He was speaking of things within his own know-ledge. He would give one or two further examples. It constantly happened that a client went to a solicitor and pointed out that he had entered into a contract which to the solicitor might appear to be rather an unconscionable one. In consequence of the advice of the solicitor the client broke the contract, and stood the racket for the breach, but no one had ever suggested that the solicitor was also liable for damages for inducing the breach. Or there was the case of a man who entered into a contract to go out to work for three or five years on the West Coast of Africa. His health broke down and he came home and consulted a doctor. The doctor advised him on the ground of health to sacrifice everything, and to throw up his employment in West Africa. There was a breach of contract
  154
  there for which the man was responsible, but no one had suggested that the doctor should also be liable in damages for the breach. And why? Because it was held in all these cases that there was just cause and excuse on the part of the person advising or inducing the breach. That was exactly the position which, it was understood, prevailed in regard to the trade union official, the expert adviser of the men. Because he was an export in the matter of industrial conditions and in the matter of economic relations the duty was placed upon him to advise. In giving that advice he should be as immune as any other export adviser. It was not a new principle they were laying down. They were asking that the principle should apply as to just cause and excuse for interference to the trade unionists on whom was placed the duty of advising, and that they should be placed in the category of those who could plead just cause and excuse. There was another misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Baronet. He seemed to be under the impression that an employer would have no remedy against an individual actually breaking his contract. That was not so. There was no suggestion that the actual breaker of the contract should be exempt from damages for the breach which he himself had committed. It was probably not present to the minds of hon. Members that in recent cases, or a number of them, the employers had first of all got their damages out of the individual workmen by fining them £5 or £6 each for breach of contract. Then they had come against the organisation, not for breach, but for inducing a breach of contract, and owing to a technical rule of law the unions had not been able to set up the defence that the case of the employers was satisfied by their having got damages out of the individual workmen. There was only one further point with which he wished to deal. The noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone had said that it would be possible for unions and workmen by means of the operation of this clause to escape from the law in cases where property or life was jeopardised. Probably the noble Lord had forgotten the clause in the Protection of Property Act of 1875, which expressly provided for the punishment of those who struck where the strike jeopardised life. This clause did not exempt men who

  155
  struck from the operation of that clause, but simply said that they should not be liable merely because they induced a breach of contract or merely because a breach interfered with an employer's business. Those were the only two grounds on which they were exempt. There were other courses known to the law by which men could be proceeded against in spite of the operation of this clause. There was no attempt here, as there had been no attempt in any other clause of the Bill, to confer a privilege on trade unions, but there was an attempt to bring trade unions back to the ordinary law, to remove them from an exceptional position and to bring them within the operation of the law which applied to every other section of the community.
  MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)said he had a good deal of sympathy with the clause as it stood, but he thought the speech of his noble friend demanded some reply from the Government. He for one wished workmen and trade unionists to have, as far as possible, absolutely fair play in a strike against employers. He thought if an employer had introduced under contract a large number of workmen to intervene in a trade dispute, it would not be in human nature that those conducting a strike should not greatly desire to address those men and say to them, "Now, here is a matter which is vital to us. The whole interest of our profession or industry is at stake. You are coming in in large numbers and intervening in this quarrel. Are you aware of the damage you must do by interfering?" It was only human nature that they should do that. He for one would be entirely in favour of its being pointed out to these men in clear language what they were doing and how adversely they were acting in their own interests in the struggle. But supposing a strike took place, the merits of which were in doubt, and where a vast quantity of property was at stake, as, for instance, in a coal mine where the cessation of pumping, even for forty-eight hours, might involve a loss of thousands or tens of thousands pounds a day. [AN HON. MEMBER: That case is provided for.] Admitting that that was so, there was conceivably
  156
  a case in which a large amount of property might be involved, and by which a great inconvenience might be caused to the public. A man might go and say, "I have satisfied myself that I shall be able to induce the men working in that mine to break their contract." Surely that was a case in which some remedy should be provided for.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid the speech of the learned Attorney-General was, in some measure, an answer to an Amendment which he had put down on the Paper to leave out the words "that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or." It would, perhaps, be remembered that these words were put in at the Committee stage on the Motion of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. They were not originally in the Bill introduced by the Attorney-General, and therefore, they should have a clear statement from him as to the reason why he accepted them, He did not agree with the principle of Clause 3, but he thought if these words were eliminated it might be made workable. If they were retained in the clause it was obvious that it would be possible for a trade union to instigate a strike. He knew it was not the desire of the trade union leaders, as a rule, to instigate strikes, but he thought that if these words were left out of the clause it might modify the pernicious consequences which might ensue from a strike. The words might have an effect the greatness and importance of which it would be hard to estimate. It would be possible for an agitator to incite workmen, not merely to break their contracts, but to throw down their tools, while he could look on and escape all the consequences which would follow. Would that be a satisfactory state of affairs? He thought that trade union leaders took an optimistic view of these matters, and that when these restrictions were removed their position would be very difficult. From the remarks which the Attorney-General made a few minutes ago the impression was conveyed that he was anxious to facilitate strikes. He thought it would be far better to put difficulties in the way of strikes, and that opinion was formed from his experience in the

  157
  north of England and his observation of the attitude of the Board of Arbitration.
  *Sir CHARLES DILKEsaid he only proposed to move formally to insert after "actionable," the words "whether or not malice be alleged," in order to ask his hon. and learned friend the Attorney - General if he still held the same view of the words "that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or," put in at the Committee stage on the motion of himself, and accepted by the Attorney-General, as he did when he spoke in Committee on August 3rd.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 25, after the word 'actionable' to insert the words 'whether or not malice be alleged.' "—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed "That those words he inserted in the Bill."
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was still entirely of the same opinion, and he did not think the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman were required. The clause, as it stood, was intended to prohibit a certain class of action, and it was the only class of action which could be preferred.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 25, to leave out words 'as a tort.' "—(The Attorney-General.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYmoved the omission of Clause 4, the object of which was to prohibit actions against trade unions for the recovery of damages for tortious acts except in certain circumstances. He believed that the other Trade Disputes Bills introduced originally did not go anything like the length of this clause. Those Bills provided that a trade union should not be liable for the proceedings of an agent unless it was proved that that agent was acting with the knowledge and consent of the unions. He thought
  158
  a good deal might be said for that view, but here there was a great disadvantage in discussing it because that was not the general aspect of the law. In many cases at present a man was liable for the actions of his agent although he did not authorise them or know of them. He believed that the Attorney-General had not only changed the clause from what it was when originally introduced, but that as the clause now stood an officer of a trade union who robbed the funds of the union could not be prosecuted. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, No."] He thought that that was so. However, the alterations in the existing law made by this clause were so great that it would be necessary to divide the House against it. He could not see any argument for setting up a privileged class. He believed that it was an error to suppose that before the Taff Vale decision trade unions were immune from the law, but supposing, for the sake of argument, that they were, he thought that that was a very wrong state of law, and that they ought to go back and bring the trade unions into the same position with regard to the law as other bodies. He could not understand why the Liberal Party should set up a particular and privileged class. For the last fifty years that Party had posed as the opponents of privilege and monopoly. They had been told from many platforms that privilege and monopoly were espoused by the Tories and that the Liberal Party wished to destroy them. Now. however, it was the Liberal Party who came forward and wished to establish them. They now proposed that a small proportion of the population should be immune from the law and be set above it. They might, it was suggested, do what they liked and use the enormous power entrusted to them to promote acts of violence and intimidation. This was a reactionary measure, which would, in his opinion, rebound and lead to discomfort on the part of hon. Members below the gangway. If hon. Members were going to use their power in this House to pass such measures they would have to face combinations of employers, and big organisations on both sides would face each other. Such a state of things would be inimical both to employers

  159
  and workmen. The interests of capital and labour were identical, and nothing should be done to promote disputes between them. Supposing these big organisations were formed on both sides, what would become of those who did not belong to either? They would be crushed between the two parties. The clause was one which seemed to him to go far beyond any reasonable demand on the part of trade unions. Trade unions were originally instituted for the purpose of providing sick pay and pensions for the workers, and it would have been perfectly possible for them to protect themselves under the Friendly Societies Act. They had not taken that course for the reason that, rightly or wrongly, they wished to use these funds for strikes or other purposes. No doubt they had a right to take that course provided they did not conduct their trade movements with violence or intimidation and did nothing in breach of the law; but if they did acts for which other persons would be liable to penalties, trade unionists should be liable to the law in the same manner as anybody else. He wished to point out to the House and the country that for the first time in the memory of man Parliament was creating a privileged class, and that was a very wrong thing, to do.
  *MR. STANLEY WILSONin seconding the Amendment thought the Government would very much wish to accept it and i so get rid of a clause which had proved a tremendous thorn in their side. He supposed there had never been such an ignominious surrender as that made by the present Government. They knew that they were not in a position to accept the Amendment, but on Thursday they had to listen to Ministers attempting explanations where explanations were absolutely impossible. He could not help thinking that the Attorney-General's cup of bitter- ness must have been filled to overflowing when he was compelled to put down new amendments to this clause, but at the dictation of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway he was going to be made to drain that cup to the last drop. His belief was that hon.
  160
  Gentlemen below the gangway were pressing the Government too far. He believed they were making them go much further than the working men and trade unionists of the country wished them to go. [LABOUR cries of "No, no."] Hon. Members said "No, no," but he might be allowed to give them an example. At the last election an hon. friend of his was asked by the trade unionists of his constituency whether he could give his support to a Trade Disputes Bill, and he said he could support a moderate measure. When asked what he considered a moderate measure he laid before them a copy of the Bill of last year as amended by the Unionists after the Labour Members had retired from the Committee room, and told them that he could support that measure. They looked through it carefully and said that if he were prepared to support it they were entirely agreeable. That, he thought, was sufficient to show that the Labour Members were pressing the Government too far.
  MR. JOHN WARD: Who was it and where was it?
  *MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid he had not his hon. friend's authority to give his name. He trusted the House would take his word. The story was told him first hand by his hon. friend. There was no wonder that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway were proud of the victory they had achieved. They were able to go back to their constituents and say— "We are the men who have coerced His Majesty's Government and have pulled the strings and made the puppets on the Ministerial Bench dance to the tune we called."
  He was one of those who pledged himself at the last election to support a moderate Trade Disputes Bill, and he should have made no objection to the measure as originally introduced. He was in favour of the principle of that Bill, but now it was absolutely impossible for him to give it his support. He knew there were many Ministerialists who agreed with the views of the Opposition with regard to this particular clause, and he thought it would be well if they showed a certain amount of courage and

  161
  supported the opinions they had openly expressed outside. He supposed, however, that at the crack of the Party whip they would be brought into line and be forced to vote in support of the clause.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Clause 4."—(Sir F. Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' An action against a trade union' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)said that it must be sorrowfully admitted that at this stage there did not appear much more to be said than had been said before on this clause. That was not because the arguments were not many and weighty as applied to the clause, still less was it because they had been adequately met or answered. Really the net amount of what they had to consider in the present debate was that extremely exiguous quantum of justification which had been offered them from the Government Bench since the surrender of which his hon. friends had spoken and since the speeches were made upon the alternative scheme by the Secretary of State for War and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Attorney-General had stood to his guns and made the best of a bad job, but what did the justification offered by various members of the Government amount to? Had any one advanced in favour of the privilege proposed to be created by this clause a single argument that would not apply to any other corporation? It was said that this was a case in which the law of agency operated harshly, because the members were widely scattered. But the shareholders of the London and North-Western Railway lived all over the world, and, after all, the members of a trade union had the same means as other bodies of withdrawing their confidence from their executive.
  AN HON. MEMBER remarked that trade unions did not trade for profit.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that was so, but where there was power there ought to be responsibility. Then it was said that the agents of a trade union who might behave in a negligent or tortious manner lived at a great distance from the
  162
  central executive, and, therefore, it was difficult to control them. But the London and North-Western Railway Company was made liable if one of its engine-drivers was guilty of negligence as far north as Carlisle. The argument applied in the case of every corporation or trading company, whether trading for profit or not. The legislature had given to the unions every attribute of a corporation without giving them the name, and the question was whether the equities and the moralities of the case did not demand that these bodies should not now try to have it both ways. Were they to be allowed to have all the advantages of incorporation, and to stand none of its liabilities. The mere fact that trade unions did not trade for profit, did not distinguish them from other corporations. The clause was objectionable, and ought to have been adhered to in the form in which it was originally proposed by the-Government.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not wish to traverse any ground over which this House had laboured already, but there was one observation he would like to make which if not made now would lose much of its importance. The hon. Baronet had over and over again said this Bill constituted a new departure in legislation. There had been both in the House and in the Press, repeated utterances denouncing the Bill as creating a new class privilege. He wished to explain to the House that that was a complete misconception of the legal position of the measure. Whatever he had said with regard to any new proposals had been said with regard to legislation in the future. So far as the past was concerned, everybody would admit that, historically, the precedent they had in the Acts of 1871 and 1875 would amply support this measure. He was quite aware that the law as created by those provisions must be finally and authoritatively construed by the House of Lords, but this House had had recent and bitter experience of the fact that Parliament might desire to create one thing, and that lawyers might decide that it meant quite another, and the experience which they had had with regard to the legislation of 1902 could historically be shown to be equally relevant to the legislation of 1871 and 1875. He said without fear of challenge from

  163
  either lawyer or constitutional historian that Parliament in 1871 and 1875 intended to create this immunity, and according to the general assent of politicians and lawyers of that date, and of a whole generation of their successors, down to the year 1901, this immunity had, in fact, existed, and had legislative authority. He was quite aware that to adduce evidence of this would involve quotations from speeches, from history, and from biographies. But it was perfectly obvious that the Liberal Government of 1871 intended to give this immunity, and that the Tory Party in the palmy days of 1875 adopted the charter of their predecessors. That it was not the intention of the Government to do more than perpetuate the historical traditions of the last thirty years in regard to the treatment of trade unions would be generally accepted by a great majority of the House. He would refer to a decision which was infinitely more authoritative than any words of his own— the decision of the Court of Appeal in the Taff Vale case. The decision of that tribunal was reversed by the House of Lords, and as a lawyer he accepted as the construction of the Act of Parliament the decision of the House of Lords; but as an historian and as a Member of that House desiring to get at the intention of the Legislature thirty years ago, he preferred the language of the Court of Appeal. That Court solemnly, unanimously, and clearly came to the conclusion that not only did Parliament intend to create this charter, but that the language of the statute was sufficient for the purpose. Was it not perfectly clear, therefore, that Parliament did wish to deal separately with trade unions in the past and give them the benefit of registration? They were not a legal entity, and not being a legal entity they could not be sued. Having created this state of things, Parliament went on to provide that in respect to a certain class of offences involving tort and breach of contract an action might be brought against the trustees of a trade union. While he did not shrink from defending the proposals now before the House, he wished to make it clear that on the ground on which they were defended by the great majority of the House they were amply warranted. That ground was not the opinion of Parliament to-day, but the opinion of Parliament and of
  164
  both parties in the State many years ago, confirmed by the continuous record of thirty years of our history. The lamentations in the Press over this proposal left out of sight the liabilities under which trade unions rested by reason of the legislation of 1871.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid, in reference to an observation of the Attorney-General as to the weight of legal opinion, there was certainly no one whose opinion on a matter of law they would listen to with greater respect than that of the Attorney-General, and he did not need to reinforce that opinion by the statement of any Judge. Of course it had always been received, and always would be received, with the profoundest respect. But a rather different class of case arose with reference to an observation made by the Attorney-General and another hon. Member on the Ministerial side on the subject of incorporation. It was very desirable, when they discussed the question of incorporation as a proposal to modify the legal position of trade unions, that they should be quite sure that they understood what trade unionists wanted, and, secondly, it was very desirable that trade unionists should make up their minds what they really did want. If, under no circumstances would they accept incorporation, it was perfectly futile for them to rise and say they ought to have special privileges because they were not incorporated, or to allow supporters to make appeals ad misencordiam on the special ground that they were not incorporated. He did not think there was a person familiar with the history of trade unions, or with legal questions affecting incorporation, who would not be prepared to grant incorporation to trade unions if they wanted it. Anybody who had studied the history of the question was well aware that trade unions would not accept it if it were offered them tomorrow. He asked them on the Second Reading if they would, and they frankly said they did not desire incorporation. Surely, therefore, the demand for special treatment on the ground that they were not incorporated might be dropped. They had been told by the Attorney-General that the immunity proposed to be conferred by this clause had been believed by all parties familiar with the question to have been possessed by trade unions ever since

  165
  the legislation of 1870. It was wearisome and no pleasure to them to meet what the Attorney-General said to-day with what he had said on a previous occasion, and he did not think there was any desire on the part of the Opposition to take further advantage of the modification of the position, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself dealt in a most worthy mariner with that point and had examined in detail the legal arguments with which he now entertained the House. He had said it might be a prescriptive right which trade unionists had enjoyed for over thirty years and which they ought to continue, but "historically there was no foundation for that argument."
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that he pointed out that they could not carry that prescriptive right further than 1892.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that he thought the Attorney-General would agree that in 1892 there were some lawyers who thought that an action could be brought against a trade union. Reference had been made to Professor Dicey's letters in the Press. He had pointed out that as the clause stood no action could be brought against the trustees of a trade union if they were to lend a motor-car to a Labour or trade unionist candidate, and if that vehicle were driven over a child. [An HON. MEMBER: "Non-sense."] He heard an hon. Member who was not a lawyer express disapproval in an unusual manner, but if the clause had not that effect he should be pleased to hear what the limiting words in the clause were.
  SIR JOHN WALTONobserved that action would probably lie under Section 9 of the Act of 1871.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsubmitted that without some Amendment no action could be brought against a trade union in the event of such an accident as he had indicated; if the Government contemplated that actions for tort of that kind could be brought against the trustees of trade unions, they had fallen short of granting that immunity to trade unionists which the hon. Gentleman below the gangway believed they had obtained. There was, at any rate, some ambiguity in Clause 4 as to whether in its present form an action of
  166
  that kind would lie. If it were in such a form as to prevent such an action being successfully brought, it would amount to a monstrous immunity.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid the Attorney-General had made a very interesting speech with regard to the historical aspect of this question. He was complimented a short time ago for his courage in this matter, and he certainly thought it was courageous to present the historical argument, having regard to his attitude a few day ago. It surely would be insulting to the Attorney-General and to the Secretary of State for War to assume that this clause as it now stood was merely introducing the policy of the Governments of 1871 and 1875. It had been said that the House was only going back to the pre-Taff Vale condition of things. That was not so. Before the Taff Vale decision there a general impression—it was certainly the view of the legal profession—that the funds of a trade union were immune. It would have been perfectly easy for the Government, if it had been their bona fide intention, to have re-created that state of things. They had not taken that course. Not merely was the immunity of trade union funds secured, but at the bidding of one of their supporters the Government had accepted the excision of the remedy by injunction against a trade union.
  SIR JOHN WALTON SIR JOHN WALTON, on a point of order, asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to discuss the clause on the assumption that certain Amendments, neither adopted by nor explained to the House, formed part of the clause as it now stood. The right hon. Gentleman was criticising alterations in the clause that had neither been moved nor explained.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid that he was answering the arguments of the Attorney-General's speech wherein he attempted to show that there had been no change of policy on the part of the Government.
  *MR. SPEAKEEsaid that if the discussion were not taken now it might lead to further discussion on the clause as amended. He thought that this would be very undesirable.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid the argument of the Government last week was that their position was justified by the fact that for thirty years a certain condition of things was believed to be the law, and that condition of things they were going to restore. But he wanted to show the House that the Government had gone far beyond this position. The Government had not only provided for the immunity of trade union funds, as existed before the Taff Vale decision, but they had introduced a new provision to the effect that there should not be an injunction against a trade union; that was to say, the funds were to be immune and the trade union was to be immune in respect of an action brought by any one to restrain them from perpetrating a wrong. That was a very serious alteration in the law, and it was not the condition of things that prevailed before the Taff Vale decision. It was not merely the immunity of trade unions again established, which many would be in favour of, but also the remedy by way of injunction against trade unions removed.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS (Glamorganshire, Mid.)said that the substance of the matter was surely whether or not trade unions funds should be immune, and if they were to be immune it did not very much matter by what machinery that immunity was created. The ante-Taff Vale position as it had been understood until two or three years ago. was much more nearly approached by the clause under discussion than by the clause formerly introduced. The ante-Taff Vale position was understood to be, first of all, that funds of trade unions were immune, and in the second place, that trade unions as such could not be sued, and to this day lawyers who had been discussing the matter had failed to find a word for the body which was called a trade union. It had been pointed out that it was not a corporation or a legal entity. The late Lord Chancellor, who was a very able Judge, besides being a man of imagination, could not call it by any other name than a "thing." That was the ante-Taff-Vale position— "a thing" which could not be sued. He was very glad that a decision had been arrived at by taking the collective opinion of those who were anxious to do the right thing, and undoubtedly that
  168
  opinion was that the best way was to go back to the ante-Taff Vale position, and not only safeguard the funds but also make it impossible for the union to be sued. With regard to action for injunction, that sort of action could create exactly the same kind of mischief against a trade union as an ordinary action, and would make a trade union open to what happened in the case of the Denaby Main Colliery Company. It would enable a master to buy over a member of a trade union, in order to bring an injunction, and put an end to the strike and defeat the weapon which the workmen had against the masters. He might mention the case of a man named Howlett, whose wages were about £1 a week. He was a member of a trade union in Yorkshire, and the employers said to him, "We will make it worth your while to come over to us; we will give you £4 a week to the time of this action, "and in that way the employers were able to use one of the union men who was willing to sell himself for purposes of an action such as the right hon. Gentleman wanted to perpetuate.
  MR. LYTTELTON: An action by injunction puts an end to the perpetration of wrong. An action against a trade union for damages causes an abstraction of innocent people's money from their pockets.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that such things as he had described had occurred and the men had been defeated, because there had been a technical breach of rule. Strikes ought to be conducted with fairness. If there was to be a battle the weapon must not be struck out of the hands of one of the parties, and left in the hands of the other. The bogey had been set up that the trustees of a trade union could not be held liable for damage done by the property of the union. In the case of damage done by a cart belonging to a union, or by the falling of a house, or by other property vested in a union, an action could be brought against the trustees in respect of damage. Whether the proviso were in or out, Clause 9 of the Act of 187l should not be repealed. The policy of the Government was properly carried out by the clause in the form in which it now stood.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was not quite sure that he apprehended the opinion expressed by the Speaker in regard to the question put by the Attorney-General. He wanted to know whether they would be at liberty, or whether it would be convenient, to discuss in detail and at length the clause as amended or the clause as it now appeared on the Paper.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is open for hon. Members to discuss the clause as it will be amended, because the Amendments which the Government have put down are likely to be carried, and with that probability it would be futile to discuss the clause on the assumption that none of the Amendments proposed by the Government are likely to be carried. Such a discussion as that would not be a real or genuine discussion, and therefore hon. Members are entitled to assume that the Government Amendments will be carried, and to discuss the clause in the form it will take supposing the Amendments to be carried.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the House will not be precluded from discussing the Amendments as they come up?
  *MR. SPEAKER: As each Amendment comes up it will be open to discussion and to a division upon it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the Government had had three policies in regard to this clause. Originally they did not propose to restore the ante-Taff-Vale position. At the end of the Committee stage that became their purpose. Now they proposed to extend the ante-Taff Vale position still further. Hon. Members below the gangway had said that they would be content with the provision that trade union funds should not be touched. But now trade union officials were to be permitted to do a wrong and to go on doing it, when it was admitted to be a wrong; and the Courts were to be compelled to sit by, silent and helpless.
  MR. SHACKLETON: That is not our demand.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he was glad that that intention was repudiated. But would the Government's proposals give effect to the repudiation? What did the Attorney-General mean by his eulogy of the policy of 1871 and 1875, and of "the palmy days of Toryism?" The hon. and learned Gentleman, by his own confession, was quite as great a traitor to the palmy days of Liberalism. He was one of the backsliders—a brand plucked only two or three weeks ago from the burning. He made no reproach to the hon. and learned Gentleman; but why did he of all people get up to lecture the Opposition? If the Opposition were to sit in sackcloth and ashes, let the Attorney-General join their company. If the on that side had to stand in a white sheet let the hon. and learned Gentleman borrow that garment. His reproaches were not very relevant to the issue before the House. He rather agreed with his learned friend that on the present occasion they needed not to spend time in reproaching the Government for their change of front. They had done it before, and they would probably do it again on the Third Reading. He knew that the Government wished that they could have found Members to approve of that change; he would have wished that all the members of the Government had spoken in favour of it. At all events, the Government had entirely altered their view and now admitted that the Bill as originally framed was wrong. Therefore, he left the personal question on one side. The really important question they had to discuss, besides the general immunity of the funds, was the one raised by his hon. and learned friend near him. He did not think after the interruption with which he had been received by the Government and their supporters that they were in agreement as to the actual effect of the words put down by the Government; and they could not discuss the effect of them until they were moved and explained by the Attorney-General.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had declared that the officials might go on doing wrong without any restraint; but the only question that arose was that the clause would not apply to the unions qua unions,

  171
  but to the officials. Again, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have thoroughly misconceived the position as affected by the Taff Vale decision. Previous to that decision they could not sue a trade union for damages or for an injunction, because it was neither a corporation nor a person. Therefore, what they wanted was to get back to the ante-Taff Vale position under which the union was not suable. It had been suggested by the right hon. Member for Sheffield that a trade union was a corporation like the London and North Western Railway. It was quite true that the practical effect of the Taff Vale decision was to saddle trade unions with the liabilities of corporate bodies; but be maintained that by the express enactment of Parliament in 1871, trade unions were shut out from corporate rates and powers.. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he supported a proposal to convert trade unions into corporate bodies with all the rights as
  well as the liabilities of corporate bodies, would he support a proposal to give the trade unions power to enforce rights inter se,the power to force upon unwilling members who might be discontented with the proposed strike the payment of contributions to their unions? If there was anything more than the antie-Taff Vale position to be secured by the Amendments he had moved, he would not support them. He asked hon. Members to point out a single case prior to the Taff Vale decision where a mere aggregate of persons was held liable for anything done by its members or agents. [Cries of "Divide."]
  Question put "That the words in an action against the trade unions," stand part of the clause.
  The House divided, Ayes, 342; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 373.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. )

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Branch, James

  Delany, William

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Agnew, George William

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Alden, Percy

  Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Duckworth, James

  Astbury, John Meir

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Barker, John

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cameron, Robert

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir. H.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Beale, W. P.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Beauchamp, E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Erskine, David C.

  Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastbourne)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Bell, Richard

  Cleland, J. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Benn, Sir. J. Williams (Devonp't)

  Clough, William

  Ferens, T. R.

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

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Freeman, Thomas, Freeman

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Cotton, Sir. H. J. S.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Billson, Alfred

  Cox, Harold

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Ginnell, L.

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Boland, John

  Crombie, John William

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Crooks, William

  Glover, Thomas

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cross, Alexander

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Brace, William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Gurdon, Sir. W. Brampton

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rowlands, J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Marnham, F. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Hammond, John

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Harwood, George

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, Sir. C. E. (Manchester)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sears, J. E.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mooney, J. J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hemmerde, Edward George.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murray, James

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Myer, Horatio

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Hodge, John

  Napier, T. B.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hogan, Michael

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nicholls, George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Hops, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Steadman, W. C.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Summerbell, T.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Grady, J.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Mara, James

  Tennant, Sir Edw. (Salisbury)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Jenkins, J.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Jones, Sir. D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Paul, Herbert

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thorne, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Torrance, Sir. A. M.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Kelley, George D.

  Perks, Robert William

  Verney, F. W.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walker, H. De. R. (Leicester)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Wallace, Robert

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

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

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

  Lambert, George

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lamont, Norman.

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Radford, G. H.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, John Catheart (Orkney)

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Whitbread, Howard

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Maclean, Donald

  Richardson, A.

  White, Luke (York, E. R. )

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. )

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Wiles, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson, Sir. G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  M'Killop, W.

  Robinson, S.

  Williamson, A.

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

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

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

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  174

  175

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Young, Samuel

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Pease.

  NOES.

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East;

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

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

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Haddock, George R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Valentia. Viscount

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Liddell, Henry

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingham

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Younger, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Nield, Herbert

  TELLERS TOR THE NOES—Six

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Frederick Banbury and Mr.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Rawlinson.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  SIR JOHN WALTONmoved to leave out "or any branch thereof." These words which had been introduced would somewhat interfere with the clearness of the clause, and therefore he moved their omission.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 4, to leave out the words, 'or any branch thereof.'"—(Sir John Walton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR JOHN WALTONnext moved to leave out the words "or officials." He said it was a purely drafting Amendment and would not have the smallest limiting effect upon the clause or upon the Bill. The House would observe that the clause was intended to refer to all actions against trade unions "as such." There were only two forms of action known to the law which had been or could be brought against trade unions. One was an action say against a dozen men who were members and the other was a representative action against a defendant who was sued on behalf of himself and the body. These
  176
  words "or officials" were not necessary because there might be an official who was not a member, He had consulted those who were more engaged in Chancery practice than he was, and he was assured that these words were not necessary, because no official could be sued unless he was a member. Therefore, in the interest of legal accuracy and of the English language it was necessary that the words should be omitted. It would be ridiculous to make officials who were not members liable, and for these reasons he asked the House to accept the Amendment which would not make one iota of difference in the clause.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, lines 5 and 16, to leave out the words, ' or officials.' "—(Sir John Walton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill"
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he very much regretted that in this matter he found himself compelled to oppose the hon. and learned Attorney-General. The omission of these words

  177
  "or officials" would in his judgment entirely re-impose the mischief which he had sought to get rid of by his Amendment striking out the proviso. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that in the ordinary way there were only two methods of procedure known to the law, one to sue the trade unions as a body and the other to sue a certain number of members on behalf of the other members. There was, however, a third method of procedure laid down in the Trade Union Act of 1871, which expressly provided in certain events that an action might be brought against an official or against a trustee, and it had laid down by Mr. Justice Mathew that there might be an action for tort against such officials. If these words were deleted, although a union could not be sued in its registered name, and its opponents could not, as was expressly decided by the Taff Vale decision, sue the members on behalf of others in a representative action, if they could take two or three officials and not make the action a representative one, they got over again the whole mischief against the union which it was the object of this clause to remove. There were three doors by which opponents could get into the trade union house; the front door under which the union was sued in its registered name; the side door in which a certain number of members were sued in a representative capacity; and the back door—which would be left open by the deletion of these words by suing the officials. He therefore begged the hon. and learned Member carefully to reconsider the position and not to consider this as a mere drafting Amendment. It might be that he should have one or two hon. and learned friends from the Chancery side getting up and saying "You cannot treat it as a representative action unless you have the officials." He quite agreed, but the machinery they were aiming at by the omission of these words was not the machinery of the old Chancery Act, but of the Act of 1871. He would remind the House that in the Taff Vale decision this very point was dealt with by Lord Justice Lindley, who in his judgment expressed himself as having no doubt whatever that if a trade union could not
  178
  be sued in its registered name, some of its members, namely its executive committee, could be sued on behalf of themselves and the other members of the society, and an injunction or damages obtained in 'Such a case. He further expressed his opinion equally plainly that if the trustees in whom the property of the society was vested were joined in the action an order might be made against them for the payment of all damages and costs. By taking out these words they were going to get at the trustees. His opinion was if these words were struck out, then for the purpose of securing safety and immunity to the trade unions Clause 4 was not worth the paper it was written on.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)said these words were inserted on his Motion. He moved the insertion of the words, and in doing so he was guided by advice as good, he believed, as could be given by anyone. But the words had become connected with the proviso, and the questions whether these words were kept in and whether, the proviso was kept in were inter-connected. His own impression as the matter now stood was that the words were on the whole desirable, and it was for that reason, for the reason of clearness, that he moved them. He had as yet altogether failed to hear any argument as to why it was necessary to strike them out. If a doubt existed in the minds of many lawyers on this side, and if the words did no harm, then he thought they might be retained. There was one argument, which he had heard privately, tending to show they might do harm, but unless that was known he did not see how the House could vote against the words with their eyes open.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not refer to the argument to which the right hon. Baronet referred, because it did not seem to him the true explanation and reason why these words should be omitted. When he moved to omit these words he did so merely to give legal accuracy to the language. It would be idle for an official who was a non-member of a

  179
  society to be made a party in any action. There were officials who were not members, and it was with a view of meeting that case that he left the words in. A representative action such as had been described was an action in which an official could not be sued. The right hon. Baronet said there had been arguments advanced to him in private; they had of course reached his (Sir John's) ears, and he admitted there was this danger. If these words were left in, the original proviso would have to be reconsidered. He agreed to omit the proviso because it was introduced in the clause as framed in Committee. In his opinion there was nothing in the clause which interfered with Section 9 of the Act of 1871, but he had read in the Press an elaborate and ingenious article, founded largely upon the marginal note for which he was not responsible and eked out by the word "proviso," which was intended to demonstrate that the object of the Government was to take away with one hand all that they had given with the other, and it was in order to destroy that fear and because he thought the proviso had become a source of danger, that he proposed to omit the words. He did not think it mattered very much. If it was thought that these words were required let them stand. But if they did that they must restore the proviso, because if the words stood it would be urged by some ingenious members of the legal profession that by these words "of officials" it was intended to prevent an action being brought against trustees of a trade union who were officials—that inasmuch as by the provisions of the Act of 1871 in a specified class of cases actions might be brought against officials, therefore Parliament meant to abolish Section 9 of that Act. It was in no way the intention of Parliament to do anything of the kind. They did not want to do it directly and they would be ashamed to do it indirectly and in a sinister manner. In his view it was a mischievous piece of drafting to leave these words in, because, if officials were members they could be described as members, and if they were not members they could not be made parties to an action. And it would be very objectionable if it could be made the foundation of the argument
  180
  that the Government intended to repeal Section 9 of the Act of 1871. He wanted to hear no better argument of the danger of leaving these words in. The only construction he could put on the speech of the hon. Member behind him was that the hon. Gentleman wished to abolish Section 9 of the Act of 1871. If that was not its meaning it could have none. Therefore, inasmuch as he was quite sure they were all at one in this matter, he thought no harm could attend the omission of these words. It was obvious they served no useful purpose and therefore they should be omitted.
  LORD R. CECILsaid his impression was, and he spoke with all deference, that the hon. and learned Attorney-General was right. But he thought they were entitled to a clear explanation in the matter. If they supported the Government in this was the Government going to recommit the Bill and were the Opposition to be thrown over for the Labour Party, because that had happened before? He did not agree with the hon. Member for Denbigh, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman wished to abolish Section 9 of the Act of 1871. What he understood him to say was that if it was wished to bring an action against an official the same action could be brought as was brought in the Taff Vale case. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the judgment of Lord Justice Lindley which seemed to have some bearing on the point. But he did not think the hon. Gentleman wished to abolish Section 9. He thought this was an important point in regard to the position of trade unions, and if the Government struck out a new line with the Labour Party on it he would support them.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he had listened closely to the hon. and learned Attorney-General who had very nearly converted him, but not quite. Be was quite sure that the aim they had in view was the same. If they left out the words "or officials" it might be argued that they must repeal Section 9 of the Act of 1871, but that was a small point. His hon. and learned friend's argument rested entirely on this, that they could not bring an action against an official of a society unless he was a member of that

  181
  society. All trade union rules were not known to the house, and it was quite possible that there might be officials who were not members of the trade union. He understood from hon. Members opposite that that was so. But he did not think it at all followed that the word "member" should include the word "official" any more than that the word "shall" should include the word "directly." Therefore, if it was made clear that Section 9, of the Act of 1871 which in respect to actions for tort did not clearly prohibit any claim on the assets of a society, was not repealed, he should be glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman would retain these words, because they wanted to shut the door altogether against societies being sued. If he were a Judge and the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to argue this before him he should not decide this in his favour. But there were Judges and Judges, and there might be Judges who would decide that they might sue a trade union through its officials because the word "official" did not occur in the Act of Parliament.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYasked the Attorney-General whether, in the case of the trustees being made members of a union, an action against them under Section it of the Act of 1871 would not be held to be an action brought against them on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union. In that ease an object which all would deprecate might be indirectly brought about.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that permanent members, such as the treasurer or the secretary, would be selected. As to the liability of the trustees, they were wore only sued when they were officers appointed by the society for the purpose of being sued in the special class of cases mentioned in the section.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid that in the main he agreed with the view which the Attorney-General took. He wished to point out, however, that they could not sue an official on behalf of himself and all other members. They could sue him as the representative agent of the society, but not in any other direction, and that was not what this section provided | against. The only difficulty he felt was
  182
  that under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 it was provided that an action might be brought against a trustee or an officer in respect of property belonging to the society. If he understood the Attorney-General rightly upon a former occasion he conceived that, under Section 9 of the Act of 1871, a man could be sued for actions of tort in relation to a trade dispute. He was under the impression that that section referred solely to actions for breach of contract. He thought it was rather a startling proposition to say that Section 9 of the Act of 1871 covered actions of tort. If that were so, let them suppose that an action was brought against an official and the word "official" was left out. It might be said that they could bring an action against an official, but Section 9 would stand, and it allowed actions of tort being brought against officials. If it only covered actions for contracts then the action fell to the ground. He thought, on the whole, it would be desirable to retain the word "official" if the proviso was retained, and it must be necessary to retain the proviso. He did not think any difficulty would arise if the word "official" were preserved.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid it appeared to him that this, question was not of such great importance as some hon. Members appeared to think. In his view it was only a question of drafting. The only difference between them was how they could best arrive at the words which would correctly interpret what was the intention of the majority of the House. He deprecated very strongly the views of lawyers being expressed on both sides of the House as to the construction to be placed upon these words when they were dealing with a scheme of legislation designed to avoid all further discussion as to what the law was to be in the future. The mere fact that there was some division of opinion amongst lawyers and some uneasiness aroused in the minds of hon. Members was a good reason for seeing if they could keep the words in, and carry out what was the intention of the Attorney-General. He would suggest that they should, first of all, see what was intended, and, when they had arrived at that, see whether it was not possible to use words which would satisfy both the Attorney - General and those

  183
  who were uneasy about the clause as at present proposed. As he understood the object, it was this. First and foremost no action Was to be brought against a trade union, and he thought that was clear. Then it was stated in the clause that no action was to be brought against members of a trade union or officials. | The difficulty introduced by the word "officials" was that if they kept the word in it must apply to trustees. It was impossible to say that the use of the word "officials" did not cover trustees. If it applied to trustees they must look to the next words "on behalf of themselves and other members." If they said that an action should not be brought against members of a trade union they were not covering the case of the officials. He agreed with what fell from the Attorney-General as to the construction which should be placed upon these words, and that they should not be construed as giving a right to bring an action against trustees on behalf of themselves and all other members. He had bad too much experience of the Courts of law not to know that what one thought was a clear construction of the statute might not be the view held by a Court, and, however they might express their views in this House as to the meaning of a clause, that was of no avail when it came before the Courts of law, which only dealt with the words of the Bill. Why were the words "or officials" desired to be left in? He understood it was for this reason. They wanted to prevent actions being brought against trustees or other officials who might not be members of the union. They wanted to make it quite clear that under no circumstances should the funds of the union be reached by an action against the trustees or officials who were not members of the union. The words ought not to be considered as enabling an action to be brought against them as representing the members of the union. He would j say keep the words in if the Attorney-General saw no objection, provided that they retained the proviso of the Act of 1871, with the addition of words to make the intention of the House absolutely clear. It was not intended that trade unions should be immune, or that trustees should not be sued, for example, for a libel published in a newspaper which was their property. Although his hon. and learned friend might be quite entitled to question
  184
  the decisions of the Courts and to think they were not the right view to take, nevertheless they were the law as laid down.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he did not suggest that it was not the right view of the law. He suggested that the action referred to did not decide the law against trade unions. It decided that certain funds which belonged to the trade union could be attached as the result of an action of tort brought against members of a trade union.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid that what the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated was a confirmation of the view which he had expressed. They might have an action brought not against a trade union, but against the trustees of the union for the purpose of attaching the funds of the union, and the trustee might be ordered to hand over the funds to the person making the complaint. He did not care what kind of action they called it, but what they did recognise was that somebody had brought an action for tort and had got payment out of trade union funds for it, and what he was discussing was how far they could prevent that and maintain at the same time the liability of trade unions to pay out of their own funds in respect of any action for tort or damage done arising out of or concerning the property which belonged to the trade union. When they were as far as that it did not seem to him that there was very much between them. They started by no action against trade unions, and it was intended that the trustees should be liable for torts directly concerning or attaching to property. They did not desire immunity from that, and they were ready to pay for any damage that they might cause which arose directly out of the use which they might make of their property. What trade unions wanted to be preserved against, and what this House intended to preserve them against, was the possibility of their funds being used to pay for a tortious act committed by them which did not arise in any way out of the use of their property, or for something which might arise in connection with a strike in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute. If words could be introduced, which he thought there would be no difficulty in devising, for the purpose,

  185
  first of all of keeping the words" or officials" and retaining the proviso he thought that would meet the case. They wanted to introduce words which would meet every point of objection which had been raised on both sides of the House. He thought the course he had suggested would reconcile the views of the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs with those other hon. Members, and would also carry out the expressed intention of this clause. What the House, after all, desired, and was determined to do, was, when it had the opportunity of dealing with this question as it now had, to take care that the question should not pass out of its hands without the position being made so clear that there could be no possibility of misconception hereafter as to what Parliament intended. If, therefore, they could by some such expedient as he had suggested satisfy hon. Members who objected to the deletion of these words, then it merely became a question of drafting, and they would be really doing what the vast majority of the House intended should be done. He suggested that words should be added at the end of the proviso in Clause 4 which would keep in Section 9 of the Act of 1871. If they left in the words "or officials" they might cause some uneasiness which he thought was unnecessary, and it might be thought that an action could be brought against the trustees of a union for a tortious act which had been committed by someone who was not a trustee of a union. It might be said that during a strike one of the officials, not a trustee, had committed a tortious act. They could not sue the trade union, they could sue the officials, but there was a proviso that the liability under Clause 9 of the Act of 1871 should not be affected in any way by the preceding words of Clause 4. If that was the case then this argument would be of use, and although he disagreed entirely with it, he did not think they ought to disregard it. Observations have boon made in the cases referred to which might be construed as indicating that an action might be brought indirectly in that way, so as to get, at the funds of the union, by suing the trustees. When they had sued the trustees the next step was that they got indemnity from the trustees out of the funds of the union. If they had no words as he bad suggested at the end of the proviso in Clause 4 this
  186
  difficulty would not be met. He thought when they had agreed what words could be added at the end of the proviso in. Clause 4 there was no difference between them.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he ventured to intervene in this legal discussion in order to make a practical suggestion. It was clear from the arguments submitted to the House that there were two points raised—one a technical point, and the other a point of substance. The technical point was a point of drafting. Recalling to mind his dim recollection of practice in the Courts of Law he should say that the words "or officials "were quite unnecessary in this part of the clause, and that the Attorney-General was absolutely correct in saying that as a matter of drafting they were superfluous. If the House kept the words "or officials" in they must keep the proviso or something substantially equivalent; either both should go or both should remain. He meant that section 9 of the Act of 1871 should remain in force. In order to save time, therefore, and to arrive at a result with the almost unanimous concurrence of the House, they might agree that the words "or officials "should remain, but that at the end there should be something added. He suggested that the words "provided that" should be omitted, but at the end the section should be made declaratory of the law by stating that "nothing in this section shall affect the liability of the trustees of such unions to be sued in the events provided for by the Trade Union Act, 1871, Section 9." Then they might add the words suggested by the hon. Member for Reading, "except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of a trade union in furtherance of a trade dispute. This alteration would practically carry out the views of all sections of the House.
  SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that but for the last few words of the right hon. Gentleman he would have found himself in exact agreement with all he said. It was now suggested that they should add to the portion of the section which contained Section 9 of the Act of 1871 something which he really did not understand. The question raised by the hon. and learned Member for Reading dealt with

  187
  an entirely new point. He was under the impression that the whole object of this Bill was to put back trade unions to the position they were in, or supposed they were in, before the Taff Vale decision. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer now wanted to give them something more. [Cries of 'No."] Then why were they quarrelling with the 9th section? The section had existed from 1871 down to the present time, and had never been quarrelled with. Now the Government wanted not only to give the immunity which trade unions were supposed to have had before the Taff Vale decision, but to limit the liability imposed upon them by Section 9 of the Act of 1871. That was almost a revolution in the Bill, because that was the clause defining their liability in relation to their property which Parliament granted when setting up the other advantages, or disadvantages as the case might be, of the Act of 1871. The matter was really pertinent here. The hon. Member for Reading, as he understood his argument, stated that he desired especially to guard against such cases as that to which he referred.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACS: What I was anxious to guard against was the dicta of the learned Judge who decided that case.
  SIR E. CARSONthought the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with him that these were observations made with reference to the ninth section. If so the Government wanted to do something to get rid of those observations, otherwise why did they touch the ninth section at all? If they wanted to leave the liability under the ninth section as before the passing of this Act they had no right to put in qualifying words with regard to it, and he thought they might say that the only object of putting in those qualifying words was to get rid of something which they were afraid might arise, and which had been in existence since 1871. Before they determined this question of officials they ought to have it perfectly clear whether the ninth section was going to be left exactly as it was before this Bill was introduced. He agreed with the hon. and
  188
  learned Member for Reading that they ought to be perfectly clear and distinct on this point. If it was going to be left, what was the necessity for putting in any qualifying words? and if they were going to put in qualifying words it must be because they were afraid of something in the ninth section. Surely all this meant that in addition to trade unions being put into the position they were in before the Taff Vale decision they wished to put them in a better position under the ninth section than before. There could be no other object. What were the exact words which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to add at the end of the section he did not know. He had read out words which did not seem to him entirely satisfactory, and it occurred to him from the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that he desired to prevent a certain construction of the ninth section. It might be right or it might be wrong; if it was wrong it could be set right in the Courts, and if it was right they should put in words to limit the ninth section. By so doing they would have enlarged the immunity supposed to exist before the Taff Vale decision, and they would be limiting the liability created by the ninth section of the Act of 1871. For his part he quite agreed that no action could be maintained against officials as representing and acting on behalf of trade unions. He did not know under what possible provision that could be so. If officials were members they must be sued as members. On the other hand, it was perfectly clear that under Section 9 trade unions had power by their rules to appoint persons to be sued, and it might be construed that a member was an official under that section. They might take away the advantages of Section 9, and, therefore, so far as he was concerned, he was quite prepared to accept either of two alternatives, namely, to accept the striking out of "officials" and the proviso or to leave in officials and the proviso, but he objected to the third alternative to put in a modified proviso which would in any way affect Section 9 of the Act of 1871.
  *ME. ASTBURYsaid the right hon. and learned

  189
  Gentleman had asked why, if they desired to leave Section 9 of the Act of 1871 intact, they wanted to put in qualifying words. The words which he understood his hon. and learned friend the Member for Reading proposed to add at the end of the proviso were "except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of the union in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that if they did not intend to interfere with Section 9 it was not necessary to qualify it, and he asked why qualifying words should be put in. The answer was perfectly obvious. They intended to put in these words if they could in order that no Court should hereafter say that the words of the ninth section qualified this section in regard to a tortious Act of the nature contemplated. What the House was going to enact was that no action should be brought against any trade union at law or in equity against its members, and to thus place the trade union funds in the position in which they were considered to be prior to the Taff Vale decision, namely, that they could not be so attached. That was the clear and definite intention of Section 4 in the Bill now before the House; the House was now asked to leave in the word "officials" in the earlier put of the clause and it was quite possible that some Court might hold that by putting in the word "official" such an official or a trustee might be sued for damages under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 in connection with a trade dispute. Let him say first of all that they could not sue an official under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 except in connection with the property of a trade union. There were however people in this House and outside who thought that that could be done by reason of the dicta of the learned Judge in the case which had been referred to— dicta which he did not believe were intended at all in the sense suggested. If it was not made perfectly clear that that kind of action would not lie under Section 9, then a trade union might be put to all the expense of litigation in the matter, and perhaps of having to go to the House of Lords before getting a final decision. The only reason why they desired on this side of the House to make it clear that
  190
  Section 9 should not apply to something which, in their view, it was never intended to apply to, was that they desired to prevent any possibility of its having the effect of destroying Section 4 of this Bill.
  *ME. CLAVELL SALTERsaid they were disussing whether two words were or were not to be omitted. It had been suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those words should remain on account of the fear entertained by hon. Members below the gangway. So far as he was concerned he should have no objection to the retention of the word "officials" provided that the proviso at the end of Clause 4 remained, and he should have no objection to strike out, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to do, the two words "provided that." But he must confess, as he understood the matter, that he should have the gravest objection to agree to any settlement or compromise whatever which involved adding to the proviso the words which his hon. and learned friend the Member for Reading proposed to add. He understood they would have this effect. As the proviso stood and as Section 9 of the Act of 1871 stood, if a trade union, being possessed of certain premises, raised these premises so as wrongfully to obstruct ancient lights or the means of access to somebody's premises it would be liable to be sued. [A LABOUR MEMBER: We do not desire to get away from that.] He understood that that was so. If he understood the words proposed to be added by the hon. Member for Reading one result would be that, supposing the premises of an employer on whom it was desired to exert pressure were next door to the premises of a trade union, and it in order to bring pressure on him the trade union proposely and wrongfully obstructed his ancient lights or means of access, no action could be brought because of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member. It would be a wrongful act committed by the union "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute." He ventured very strongly to doubt whether hon. Members below the gangway would desire immunity from such an act as that. These words if added would give immunity for such an act. It was because these words would give immunity to trade unions

  191
  never before enjoyed that he would be no party to a compromise.
  *MR. SHACKLETONsaid they on that side of the House had been very much concerned in regard to the words of this clause, which were, perhaps, the most important of the whole Bill. By this clause the Government desired to put trade unions back to their old position, and now they had a solution which would be acceptable to themselves as well as to those who formerly differed from them, he was certain that the clause did not give them more than they had before. So far as trade unionists were concerned they had no two opinions on that point, and the only difference which had arisen was in regard to the wording of the clause. All that they asked was that the clause should be clear and intelligable, and that there should be no mistake about it. It was absurd to suggest that trade unions wanted to run away from their responsibilities in connection with their property. They had never made such a claim. What they asked and what they thought they were getting was freedom from those vexatious and one-sided laws with which they had had to contend during the past five or six years. What was claimed by some hon. Gentleman to be equitable law had been proved not to be so. He had shown more than once that acts which the employers had done were strictly illegal, but the trade unions could not prove damages against them. They were now in the position that the employers were level with the unions, and that they should be able to carry on their struggles without the possibility of their funds being got at in a way which was never intended.
  MR. R. DUNCANsaid he did not think that the difficulties and dangers referred to by their learned friends amounted to much. He believed that if this Bill was worked in the spirit indicated by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, no difficulty or danger would arise.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR JOHN WALTONmoved to leave out; the words "for the recovery of damages." The effect of the clause would then be to prohibit any Court entertaining
  192
  not merely actions for injunctions to restrain the trade unions from committing any tortious act, but actions for damages. He did not think that logically they could discriminate between actions for damages and actions for injunction against a trade union; and therefore as the action for an injunction against the trade union had gone, the action for damages must also go. No doubt in practice there was considerable distinction between an action which sought damages against an individual and against a trade union, because the remedy sought against an individual was often against a man of straw. But an action for injunction against an individual was not ineffectual to check torts which might be menace, whether that individual were an official of a trade union or a private person, because if the tort were committed there were all the penalties applicable for contempt of Court. On that account the case for immunity from an action for injunction against a trade union was much stronger than immunity for actions for damages. Let him give a case. It was said that Members of a trade union might threaten to break down fences surrounding land, or pull down buildings. Assuming that such acts were contemplated, what was the remedy? There was an action against the leading officials of the trade union, or against the secretary, or against the trustees, or against the leading members of the committee. If evidence was given to she that they were contemplating such an act, the Court would give an order restraining them from committing the act, and if that was not obeyed the criminal law already provided a very drastic remedy which could be sharply and promptly applied to them individually. That remedy remained, notwithstanding the terms of the Amendment, and it could under the law be sharply and properly applied to members of trade unions. It was a remedy against the body which described itself as a trade union. It was said that they might have a successful evasion of an order of a Court. Supposing they restrained the officials of a union from carrying on certain tortious proceedings, it was said that the union having been restrained would elect other leaders to take the places of those who had been proceeded against. That sort of evasion would be impossible, and there would not be the smallest difficulty in the case, because it

  193
  would be obvious that the resignation of the officials was not bona fide, and that, it was a step taken to evade the order of the Court. The order of the Court therefore would not be evaded by an act of that kind, and it would substitute in the order the new officials for the old officials who had retired. If that view was right what possible objection could there be to the Amendment? Why should they preserve the artificial distinction between actions for damages and other actions? Why should they not have a final settlement of this question, so that it might not be said after this Bill had been passed there still remained the question of injunction to be settled? He did not wish to refer to the facts at any length again, but he would point out that the Taff Vale decision applied not only to an injunction but to damages. He trusted that they were to have a permanent settlement of this question, and that they should without any very nice distinctions restore the ante-Taff Vale state of things. He submitted that when private property was menaced the law would remain just as effective against the individual and against the body as it was now.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words 'for the recovery of damages.'"—(Sir John Walton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he intervened with great diffidence in this discussion, which had a very legal aspect. The hon. and learned Gentleman rested the change in the Bill which he now proposed to make upon the ground of logic. He said, "If you are going to relieve them of one kind of liability, you must relieve them of all liabilities." It was not very logical to make this exception in the case of trade unions only as against every other class in the United Kingdom. Why was it that so many hon. Gentlemen in that House were quite ready to commit this breach of general logic? It was because they felt it to be unjust that funds contributed for purposes quite alien to these trade disputes should be endangered by
  194
  decisions of the Courts of law. It was because they all felt that it was contrary to natural equity that funds contributed for widows, sick pay, and the support of people out of employment should be seized for totally different purposes. It was for that reason that persons inside and outside the House did not wish to see such proceedings carried into effect; but the hon. and learned Attorney-General had gone far beyond the question of funds for sick pay, or the benefit of widows or people out of employment, because in the case of actions for injunctions there was no question of preserving funds raised for these purposes. The hon. and learned Member had said that the law as laid down by the House of Lords would not prevent the Courts from stopping a tortious act on the part of trade unions, because the power of the Courts was as effective in cases where the tortious acts were committed against individuals as it was if they were committed against a corporation. But was that the fact? The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that if it was the wish of a trade union to exercise some tortious policy, and an injunction was obtained against the treasurer and all the other officials of the union, they were by that means restrained by the powerful arm of the law from exercising their tortious policy. But it was suggested that new officials might then be appointed and that a new Judge would have to be appealed to and that the proceedings might go on in a new form. The hon. And: learned Member said, "Oh, that is impossible, because the Courts have ample power to prevent an evasion of their orders." Thus according to the hon. And learned Gentleman when they had an injunction against the officials of the union, that in effect was an injunction against every individual member of that union carrying out any tortious policy. If that was so, what did the Government gain by the Amendment? Why did they not at once admit that the injunction was against a trade union in its corporate capacity? It appeared to him that the logic to which the Attorney-General appealed broke down. The question at issue was simply whether a wrong prepetrated by a trade union should be allowed to continue or not, and if the Attorney-General's Amendment was accepted he left the public no remedy against tortious acts by a trade union.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)did not think that the Leader of the Opposition appreciated the second point which his hon. and learned friend attempted to deal with. If they were to give trade unions the Status which they possessed before the Taff Vale decision, the best plan was to give them that status not only with respect to actions for damages, but with respect to injunctions. The Bill as it originally stood prevented actions for injunction, but his hon. and learned friend said that he thought the better way of bringing about a settlement of the whole question was to treat both classes of action as being identical. Then he proceeded to deal with the question of an injunction as against individual members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Attorney-General was dealing with the change in the Bill, but the objection taken was that there was no use in getting any injunction against individual members of trade unions because they might change their officers. In reply the hon. and learned Gentleman said that if an injunction had been obtained against the secretary, say Mr. A. B., if he were removed from office and another member took his place they would not have to apply for a fresh injunction, as the Courts would recognise that it was an attempt to evade their authority, and they would use their powers against Mr. A. B. If that was so, there was no difference between taking that course of action and bringing an action against the whole of the body in its corporate capacity.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid there was an immense difference between taking an injunction against a number of individuals and obtaining an injunction against a corporate body. The old evils were not in any measure introduced when an injunction was obtained against a series of individuals, as they were when an injunction was obtained against a central official which operated personally against that official. His own opinion was that if proceedings were taken against a single individual injunctions would have to be obtained against successive individuals. There was no proceeding in law so rapid as that of obtaining an injunction. The most rapid proceeding was the issue of a writ, but an injunction was
  196
  almost as rapid. A man go at once to a Judge in chambers and could set out the facts in an affidavit, and in twenty-four hours get his injunction against the offending individual. The injunction would at once proceed, and as often as the person was changed the Court could pursue with an injunction. But still that would be a long way short of proceeding against a trade union as if it were a corporate body. The right hon. Gentleman had just said it would be the natural consequence of a rapid series of injunctions. Nothing of the kind. They were still along way short of anything in the shape of an attack in which a corporate body had to be made a defendant in an action. An injunction could not be enforced by imprisonment, nor could damages be obtained from a corporate body. Therefore, if trade unions were to be proceeded against at all, an action for an injunction against the individual members would be found to be a very effective remedy indeed. It was the most effective remedy that was known to the law, and it would be applied to those officials of the trade unions who could be shown to have deliberately broken the law.
  *MR. STEWART SMITHsaid it was difficult to understand when the House had arrived at the decision that trades unions should not be sued for damages that the remedy by injunction should be allowed to remain against the trade union, and that its funds should be liable in execution to aid the operation of this injunction. The equitable remedy of injunction was only in relief of the common law remedy of damages and ancillary to it, and it was difficult to understand why, when they had dismissed the mistress, they should retain the handmaiden. If the position before 1901 was to be restored, it should be restored wholly and not in part. Let the House suppose the case of an action for an injunction against a trade union. It could be brought in one of three ways. It could be brought for an injunction against the trade union, against the chief officials of the trade union, or against both. The two remedies for a breach of injunction were committal and sequestration. If the trade union alone was the defendant, the remedy by committal was not operative. A trade union could not be committed. If the officials of the trade union alone were

  197
  defendants, not only could they be committed for broach of the injunction, but anyone who acted in breach of the injunction with knowledge of it could be committed, not because he was a defendant who had been joined in the action, but because he had boon guilty of contempt of Court by aiding and abetting the broach of the injunction. The notice of the injunction and the breach of it were the only two things to be established against any person to ensure the remedy of committal. It was perfectly immaterial whether the action was brought against a trade union alone or against the principal officers of it. And if that were so, there could be no advantage to anyone in merely retaining the trade union as a nominal defendant. The procedure against the effects of a trade union was well known and commonly exercised. With all respect to the hon. and learned Attorney - General it was not necessary when one set of officers had been put in the place of another to amend the writ. It was sufficient to bring to their notice the fact that the injunction had been granted, to bring proof of the notice, and the remedy would follow. In a recent case before one of the Chancery Courts the law and practice was stated in this manner. "Anyone who assists another in breach of injunction can be punished for contempt of Court for so doing, equally with the person concerned." So it was only necessary to show knowledge of the injunction, and the remedy for its breach followed. It was said that this could be evaded by calling on the trade union officers to resign and filling their places with now men. Those who made this suggestion credited the trade union officials, if they pursued that course, with a simplicity of character they did not deserve. The trade union officials knew all there was to be known about strikes, and they had learnt the lesson, which they would never forget, that if a strike did not immediately collapse it was because there was strong public sympathy behind it. There was nothing so likely to alienate public sympathy in a law-abiding population such as ours as a contemptuous disregard of the judgment of a Court of Equity. There was another remedy for an injunction, that was the remedy of sequestration. It was difficult to see, if the House established the principle that trade union funds were not to
  198
  be liable for damage, how this remedy could be supported. If a writ of sequestration be issued, and its property passed into the hands of a sequestrator, the result would be to paralyse the whole administration of the union as a friendly society. Strike pay and sick pay would be stopped, and the union would be in a far worse position than if damages were recovered against it. Payment of damages would leave the balance of the funds free, but a writ of sequestration would at once paralyse the administration of the whole fund. So that if they were to affirm, and they had affirmed, the principle that trade union funds were not to be mulcted in damages, they ought to affirm the principle that they should not be indirectly attacked by sequestration. It was said that the opposition to this Amendment and to this Bill came from employers. He did not believe it. Employers were quite willing to have the same immunity as the trade unions in respect to in- junctions; and if there was a fight it would be fought on level ground and neither party would have any advantage from its new position. But would there be a fight when each party came to understand the strength of the other? He did not think so. Negotiations would be found to pay better, even though lawyers had to be introduced to aid the disputants. The opposition to this Amendment and to this Bill came and would come from that little knot of his professional brethren on the Opposition Benches. They said the effect of this Bill was to violate the symmetry of the law in one special particular. He agreed that that was so, but if the result was to remove an admittedly great and crying hardship, then the Bill would justify itself notwithstanding that the perfect symmetry of the law might be thereby affected. He was certain that the Bill would cause no real hardship, and it was in that belief that he proposed to vote for the Amendment.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERsaid he had listened to the speech of the Attorney-General and to other speeches to see if he could find anything in support of this Amendment or any principle on which it could be contended that it was right and politic to place trade unions above the ordinary civil law. He listened,

  199
  without agreement, but with great sympathy, when it was urged that it was impolitic and hard to lay upon funds subscribed in large measure for other and better purposes the possibility of being taken in execution for the wrong-doing of trade unions. This Amendment was not based upon that principle; it could not be based upon it, because in order to protect trade union funds they did not need to protect them from the operation of the clause by way of injunction. The Attorney-General said, "Our desire is to restore the ante-Taff Vale position, and we desire to restore it completely." The speech of the Attorney-General on this Amendment had been the last and logical step in the extraordinary series of surrenders which had marked his path upon this matter since the day when he implored the House not to create a privileged class. He now urged them not merely to set trade unions above the law, but to be sure that it was done in a most thorough and effectual manner; he said that if they no longer left trade unions open to action for damages, but left them open to an action for an injunction they were taking away the less effective and leaving the more effective remedy. Was this plea for the ante-Taff Vale condition of things a principle on which the Government was prepared to act in regard to other matters? The principle was that where the law was supposed to be in a particular condition and the House of Lords decided that the supposition was erroneous, then the law should be changed. The House of Lords had a way from time to time, and so had other High Courts of law, of showing that common notions of the law as widely held had been erroneous. How long was it since they were told in the Court of Appeal that the ideas they all entertained with regard to the Education Act of 1902 were widely erroneous? Was the Government prepared to initiate legislation to enact the law as it was erroneously supposed to have been in that respect? Then, again, was the Government prepared to bring in legislation so that the law in regard to licenses should be what it was erroneously supposed to have been before "Sharpe v. Wakefield?" Why should this principle apply in one case and not in another? The Attorney-General had told them there would be some redress by taking proceedings
  200
  against individuals. He denied that. A man whose premises were being invaded by large numbers of people day by day was not likely to bring an action against individuals. Whom was he to sue, and how was he to enforce his rights? It was obvious that a man's only real remedy by way of injunction was to go to the body which instructed these men, and to ask that the funds which enabled them to do-wrong should be made liable. How was it an argument for putting trade unions outside the law to say that there was an alternative right against individuals? The hon. and learned Member who spoke last said this Bill as proposed to be amended would remove a hardship. He could understand that being said when it was a question of exempting trade union funds, but how could it be reasonably claimed that they were removing a hardship when they provided that a man who was suffering from an admitted wrong was to have the Court closed against him in any action he might wish to take against the body that had injured him? Was it to be seriously contended that it was a hardship that a trade union was to be ordered by the Court to cease wronging any man? His hon. and learned friend who spoke last had said that the objections to this Bill would come from a small knot of his professional brethren. He thought he would find that objections to this part of the Bill, which sought to place trade unions outside and above the law and on a precise equality in that respect with the Crown, would meet with wider disapproval than his hon. and learned friend supposed. He-would ask that if there were any principle, policy, justice or expediency on which it could be proposed to create a privileged class of this kind someone would tell them what it was. To his mind there was one ground, and one ground only, for this Bill, and that was that organised labour, being politically strong, was following the course which other strong classes had followed in the past. It was seeking special privileges and benefits for itself, regardless of the other classes of the community. The reason, and the only reason, for this shameless proposal to close the Courts against the man who had been injured by a trade union was that it was demanded by a powerful party, and that ill consequences would follow to the Government if they refused it.
  *MR. MICKLEMwished to point out that although he was in favour of the Amendment because he believed it meant that not only would an action for damages not be brought, but also an application for injunction prevented, yet he very much doubted whether the Amendment went far enough. The Act provided that an action against a union for recovering damages in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed should not be sustained by the Court. He did not know what the practice might be on the common law side of the Courts, but on the equity side, if an injunction wore applied for in respect of an act which had already been committed, it would not be obtained; and he observed that the clause, as drawn, dealt with an act which had been committed, but not with an act threatened to be committed; and he thought the proper Amendment would go a little further than this, and omit the words, "for the recovery of damages, in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union." They could only get an injunction for an act which was threatened, and therefore the mere omission of the words, "for the recovery of damages," would still leave it open to the individual to bring an action against a trade union, not as provided here for a tortious act alleged to have been committed, but for a tortious act which was to be committed in the future; and he submitted that the true Amendment to carry out the intention of the Government, and certainly what he understood was the intention of most of the members of the Liberal Party, and all members of the Labour Party, would be to omit the further words, and say that an action should not be brought against a trade union. Unless the Amendment was accepted in that way it would be open for an employer or anybody else to bring an action to restrain by injunction an act which was threatened in the future. With regard to the general question raised during the discussion, he would say that he did not in the least understand the argument that this Bill placed a trade union above the law, and put it on an equality with the Crown; nor did he see anything in the contention that the principle here adopted was that if the House of Lords came to a decision which they did not like,
  202
  then they were to go back upon the legislation which had been decided contrary to the view. What they here wanted to go back to in one sense was the ante-Taff Vale state of things—in other words, they wanted to have the law made what it was intended to be in 1875. When they talked of putting trade unions above the law, what did it mean? A trade union was different in its composition and entity from anything else. His hon. and learned friend did not say that a golf club was above the law because when some members of the club committed a tortious act the club could not be sued. These trade unions were quasi-corporations which stood alone. They had not the rights of corporations and could not sue their members. They were a particular form of body introduced with a special object, and it was absurd to say they were above the law. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said it was shameless that a man should suffer a tortious act without having a remedy, he would submit with great deference that he was talking nonsense. He did not wish to use a rude expression, but what he wished to imply was that no one ever suffered a wrong from a union, he might have suffered a wrong from individual members of a union, and whenever that was the case he had the same remedy against them as against anyone else. The objects of a trade union were distinct from those of any other body. There was no other body in any sense like them except clubs. They desired to leave the trade unions in that position, and they ought not, by a side wind, toilet the Courts come to decisions different from the intention of the Act. Let it be made perfectly clear not only that there should be no action for damages, but also for an injunction.
  *MR. PIKE PEASEthought it was to the advantage of everyone that some action should be able to be taken against the individual. In the case of a trade dispute, if the representative of a trade union was the cause of very much damage it certainly was an advantage to the community if action could be taken against him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had recently said that there was a great deal of insincere nonsense talked in regard to this Bill, and he dared say a considerable number of hon. Members would agree with that; but

  203
  he thought those who had listened during the last seven or eight years to debates in this House would remember that the right hon. Gentleman himself had taken the same line of action as he took in regard to this Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had been one of the strongest advocates of the position the Opposition now took. In a speech on May 8th, 1903, he said that he did not think it would be expedient from the point of view of combinations either of employers or of workmen that Parliament should be asked to lay down that large trade organisations should not be responsible for the unlawful acts, if they were unlawful acts, shown to be committed by their agents, if they really were their agents, within the scope of their authority. That was exactly the line which the Opposition took at the present time, and it was absurd to say that the differences between the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were purely technical. He would like to ask the Solicitor-General a question in reference to damages. Supposing a trade union had an office in a certain part of a certain town, and they built up a wall between themselves and the neighbouring house, doing damage to the latter property. Would there be any chance of suing the trade union for damages under such circumstances? He would also like to refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid Durham. He himself was connected with the county of Durham, and he might say that there was no one more highly respected in that county, both by employers and employed, than the hon. Member for Mid Durham. In a speech which the hon. Member made recently, he showed clearly that his intention was that trade unions should not be granted absolute immunity from the law of conspiracy. With regard to a question raised by an hon. Member as to the attitude of employers, he would like to say that those who were Members of this House would be just as anxious from a political point of view to vote for a Trade Disputes Bill. Everyone who represented an industrial centre knew that in taking action against a Bill of this kind they ran the risk of losing their seats, and it was only naturally to be supposed that if they ran that risk they would like to diminish it as much as
  204
  possible. But looking at it from the point of view of justice it was not unreasonable for them to believe that the Royal Commission on Trade Disputes, endeavoured to find a fair verdict with regard to this question, and that their verdict was a right one.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the case which the hon. Gentleman had put of a trade union official building up a wall against the premises of a neighbour would not be a trade dispute; and, in any event, there would be undoubtedly in such a case an action against the trustees, or the guardians of the trade union under Section 9 of the principal Act. Not only would there be an action, but there would also be an injunction against them.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was not going to say one word about the general policy as to whether or not it was advisable to carry this Amendment, but what he wanted the House to understand clearly was that if this Amendment were carried they were making a very great concession to the Labour Members; they insisted on this Amendment through) the Committee Stage of the Bill, and they were insisting on it now. They insisted on it in Committee because they said it was an important Amendment. As a lawyer, he agreed it was a most important Amendment from their point of view. In the Committee Stage the Attorney-General himself said—
  "With regard to injunction the object of the clause was to safeguard the funds of a union, and in an action for injunction there was no attempt to claim damages from the funds of a union."
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent then pointed out that, having regard to the admission of the Attorney-General, the words "for the recovery of damages" seemed to be dangerous and sinister, and he pressed the Government to omit such words. After that the hon. and learned Member for Reading made a very strong speech in support of the Government's position in refusing to strike out these words. He urged most strongly that this was a very important Amendment, and he hoped if they voted in favour of it they would realise that they were certainly altering the Bill very materially.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 45; Noes, 312. (Division List No. 374.)

  AYES

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fell, Arthur

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bertram, Julius

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks., East)

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Haddock, George R.

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Younger, George

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lambton. Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rawlinson and Sir Frederick

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dalwich)

  Banbury.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Nield, Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Ginnell, L.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cairns, Thomas

  Glover, Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Agnew, George William

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, Hamar(York)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Hall, Frederick

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

  Hammond, John

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r).

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Cox, Harold

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Baring Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harwood, George

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rs't)

  Crooks, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Barnard, K. B.

  Crossley, William J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Beale, W. P.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Beauchamp, E.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B(Hexh'm)

  Delany, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

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

  Bell, Richard

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)

  Duckworth, James

  Hodge, John

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hogan, Michael

  Billson. Alfred

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Black Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Bowerman, C. W

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Brace, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Erskine, David C.

  Hudson, Walter

  Branch, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jackson, R. S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Brooke, Stopford

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jardine, Sir J.

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jenkins, J.

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J T(Cheshire)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Burke. E. Haviland-

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Jones, Sir D.(Brynmor Swansea)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gill, A. H.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Counor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Dowd, John

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  O'Grady, J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lambert, George

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Paul, Herbert

  Summerbell, T.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Levy, Maurice

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lundon, W.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pollard, Dr.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lynch, H. B.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

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

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

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

  Thorne, William

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Tomkinson, James

  Maclean, Donald

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Toulmin, George

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ure, Alexander

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Vivian, Henry

  M'Crae, George

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Wadsworth, J.

  M'Kean, John

  Richards, T. F (Wolverh'mpton)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Richardson, A.

  Wallace, Robert

  M'Killop, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Weir, James Galloway

  Massie, J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robinson, S.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Menzies, Walter

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Runciman, Walter

  Williamson, A.

  Mond, A.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Winfrey, R.

  Morrell, Philip

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Young, Samuel

  Murphy, John

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

  Murray, James

  Sears, J. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Myer, Horatio

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A

  Napier, T. B.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Pease.

  Nicholls, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)

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

  MR. MICKLEMmoved to insert after the word "committed" the words "or threatened." He said that an injunction did not lie for an act that had been committed, but it lay for an act that was threatened, and therefore to make the clause perfectly clear he thought the House would do well to add the words "or threatened."
  *MR. HEEBERTseconded the Amendment, He thought in order to make the clause clear it was necessary to insert these words. It might be held that when an injunction was applied for in a case where a wrougful act had been committed and it was desired to restrain its continuance or repitition that such an

  209
  application would be held to be an action in respect of a tortious act alleged to have been committed; but the words would not cover the case of an act that was only threatened, and where no wrongful act had been committed at all.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 8, after the word 'committed' to insert the words 'or threatened.'" —(Mr. Micklem.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he did not think the words were required.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that this was a kind of legislation which would lead to trouble in the future. The present was the last occasion on which the House would have to consider the words of the Bill, and if there was any necessity for introducing the words in the Amendment the House ought to have had an opportunity of seeing them in the Bill, or at any rate they ought to have been put down on the Notice Paper. It was impossible for the House to form any judgment on the effect of an Amendment such as this at a moment's notice. If the Amendment was necessary the Bill could be re-committed, and then they would know where they stood. He hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed now.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that they had been told very clearly that the proposed words were not necessary. It had been said over and over again in the Courts and elsewhere, that the most fruitful source of confusion in the interpretation of Acts of Parliament was the insertion of words which were unnecessary From a very cursory inspection of the words he was disposed to agree with the hon. and 1earned Attorney-General that they were unnecessary, but they might have something in them. It was however a disastrous principle to adopt words on a casual suggestion which could be construed in one way or another, and so make the House of Commons a laughing stock.
  *MR. HORRIDGE (Manchester, E.)said he was glad that the hon. Member had brought forward this Amendment, because everybody would then know
  210
  what the Act meant. Without it, if the fear that the Act did not apply to threats turned out to be well founded, a tremendous instrument of oppression would be put into the hands of the masters.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYentered his protest against these words being inserted. There seemed to be a great difference of opinion as to what they meant. He understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that these words meant that if a trade union did any act a Court of law could not prevent the union doing it. Was that the ease? The hon. Gentleman did not deny it; therefore, as a layman, he understood that the effect of the inclusion of these words was that a trade union might do anything it pleased, and that a Court of law had no power over it. Was that right? He must divide against the Amendment.
  MR. MICKLEMsaid that, as he understood the Attorney-General had ruled that these words were unnecessary, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESmoved to leave out the words "or on behalf of," and explained that he proposed to add by a later Amendment, after "union" the words "or by any person or persons acting, or purporting to act on behalf of the trade union." The object of his Amendment was to make the clause carry out what the Government professed, and what the hon. Members opposite had in view. He did not in any way recede from the position he had taken up from the first, that alike in the interests of trade unions and the public the large immunity claimed by this Bill was undesirable. Further than that, if this Bill remained in the form in which it now stood it was mere waste paper. [LABOUR cries of "Order, order."] He was persuaded that the Bill in the form in which it was drawn would not be accepted by the House of Lords. [Renewed cries of "Order, order."] The result would be that legislation which was urgently needed would be defeated by errors of drafting. That, however, was beside the immediate question of the Amendment.

  211
  The object of the Amendment, he repeated, was to secure that the immunity sought for by the trade unions should not be defeated by errors in drafting. He was conscious that his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General would, perhaps say that the attitude he took in regard to drafting was not right, and that Judges of common sense would put the construction he desired on the words in the clause. The standard of common sense which obtained amongst lawyers was different from the standard of common sense which obtained amongst the Judges. They had had numerous instances, where the obvious intention of Parliament had been defeated by a too narrow and too literal construction of Acts of Parliament by the Judges, and it was this very narrow and literal construction which he feared. There was a conflict of authority amongst lawyers as to the construction of this clause, which provided that no action should be successful in respect of "any tortious act alleged to have been committed by, or on behalf of, the trade union." He appealed to the Attorney-General whether these words stopping at "trade union" did not specifically and adequately cover any ease of action of a trade unionist, whether committed by the express authority of the trade union or without it. His contention was that the words "or on behalf of" were either surplusage or mischievous. He wished to put to the Attorney-General a possible construction of the clause if these words "on behalf of" were left in. The hon. and learned Gentleman might say that the construction was a far-fetched one, but he contended that it was quite possible for the Courts to hold that the words would not only cover acts committed under the express authority of the union, but acts committed by an agent under implied authority. He was not in this matter relying upon his own judgment, as he had consulted many legal friends of higher authority than himself on the subject. It seemed to him and those he had consulted that it would be perfectly competent to the Courts under this section to hold that where a tortious Act was committed by an agent without express authority, but with the implied authority he enjoyed as an agent, that act would bind the society. He knew that the Attorney-General would get up and say that the case he was
  212
  putting was far-fetched and hypothetical. Without wishing to say anything about our tribunals, the members of which, he knew, wished to discharge their duties with impartiality, he could not help-thinking that when they were changing the law so fundamentally as it was being changed by this Bill the Courts might apply the strictest construction to the language used in the Statute. He did not know a single case, and he spoke from a pretty large experience, where the trade union had expressly authorised the committal of a wrong, and all the trade union cases had arisen through an agent violating his trust, or exceeding his authority. That was a mischief which they ought to guard against by this Bill, and the Bill as it was drawn now opened up a very real danger because a Judge-might hold that as the Legislature had drawn a distinction between the act of an agent and the act of a principal, this clause did not protect the union against torts committed by the agent under-implied authority. He knew that this matter was highly artificial and technical, and one which ought to be settled by the draftsman and by the Attorney-General. He would suggest that the clause should read "in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been committed by the union or by any person or persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the union." He was desirous that the Bill should not be defeated by a side wind, and that the object which hon. Members conscientiously had in view should be carried into effect. That was the reason why he had moved his Amendment, but if the Attorney-General took up the position that the section was drawn properly he should not press his Amendment, but leave the responsibility with his hon. and learned friend.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURasked as a point of order whether they were to discuss both the Amendments of the hon. Member or only the first one.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERsaid he would first ascertain if the first Amendment was seconded. Did any hon. Member desire to second it?
  No hon. Member rose to second, and. the Amendment dropped.
  MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)moved after "trade union" to insert "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute" He said that he had always understood that the object of the Bill was to regulate trade disputes, but in the clause before them there was no mention of trade disputes. In every other clause the words "in furtherance of a trade dispute" were to be found, but in this clause alone those words were missing. He was not in favour of the Bill. He thought it was badly drawn and he objected to giving this unlimited power to trade unions as against the general public.
  MR. F. E. SMITHseconded the Amendment, which he thought was a very necessary one, as the public were entitled to a reasonable degree of protection when they were not parties to the quarrel. He repeated the question he had asked earlier in the evening as to the possibility of making trade union funds liable in case of injury to a child from a motor-car lent by a trade union during an election. He disputed the view of the Attorney-General that an action would now lie against the trustees under the Act of 1871. He understood that hon. and learned Gentlemen on that side of the House found in the words of Mr. Justice Mathew a suggestion that in an, action brought against a trade union the property of the trade union, though collaterally involved, was liable, although such an action was an action for tort. That seemed directly in the teeth of Clause 4. He remembered when this point was raised in Committee the hon. and learned Attorney-General said the decision of the Court in the case referred to was after all a decision of a Court of First Instance, by that seeming to imply that there was a Court of Appeal. He submitted that what Mr. Justice Mathew said was to be accepted as law, but he did not gather that the hon. and learned Member for Reading accepted for himself the direction of Mr. Justice Mathew in that case. The importance of this was that the one observation of the learned Judge in that most admirable judgment, the one most disputable thing in the whole of that judgment, was the one and only observation on which the Attorney-General could found his answer that the liability for negligence in the
  214
  motor car case was one that could be paid out of the trade union funds. There was, and he spoke with great confidence, nothing in the words of Section 9 of the Act of 1871, which any Court of law would admit as sanctioning such a thing. In regard to the judgment of Mr. Justice Mathew in the case of Linacre, there was nothing in the words of the learned Judge to justify the suggestions made. The words of the ruling Act were explicit and clear, and there was nothing in them which would sanction any action for tort. The decision in the case of Linacre was a surprise to the legal profession. There was nothing in it from first to last which in any way excluded the liabilities of trustees beyond the Act of 1871, although there were dicta in that decision, and the decision itself did suggest that it might be extended. He was glad to hear an hon. Member below the gangway say that this particular immunity which they were arguing to-day was not wanted. Supposing this clause had been passed into law and an action had been brought like that of the case of. Linacre; an action formulated to recover damages for tort. The direct answer to such an action would be that the Act of Parliament had said that an action could not be against a trade union to recover damages for a tortious act. And there was nothing to support such an action in the judgment of Mr. Justice Mathew except that which the hon. and learned Member for Reading said he dissented from, and in respect to which the Attorney-General said that after all there was a Court of Appeal. He was inclined to discount, much as he admired the gifts and eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Reading, what that gentleman had said.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that the action under Section 9 of the Act of 1871 was not against the union at all. It was an action against the trustees of the union, because it was the intention of Parliament in 1871 to make a union non-suable. The Government were keeping alive an action not against the union, but against the trustees—an action not with regard to torts generally, but a certain special class of wrong indicated in the section.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the words of Clause 4 so far as they were material were these—
  "An action against a trade union or any branch thereof, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union for the recovery of damages in respect to any tortious act alleged to be committed by or on behalf of the trade union shall not be entertained by any court."
  That in the clearest possible way said an action for tort should not be brought against a trade union. The Attorney-General had taken away the action of tort against trustees in the earlier part of the section, and preserved it in the proviso. The real truth was that the Attorney-General when he drafted this clause took the same view of Section 9 of the Act of 1871 that anyone would take. Section 8 vested the property in a trustee, and Section 9 said that if the property were attacked then the trustees were to be entitled to defend the property. Then the Attorney-General had told them that that conferred on a third party the right to bring an action for negligence in such a case as that described in respect of an injury from a motor car.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: It has been decided.
  LORD K. CECILsaid he did not care what had been decided. He was talking
  to the House of Commons at this moment, and therefore he wished to talk common-sense, and to ask the House to form an independent judgment of what was the obvious meaning of this section. It was clearly to give a right to the trustees of trade unions to defend their property, and certainly it did not mean to give the right to a third party to bring an action of tort against them. If this clause were confined to trade disputes he did not care what became of the suggested proviso. He did not believe that Section 9 of the Act of 1870 was in any way affected by this Bill, whether the proviso was there or not; but if they did not insert these words they did not confer adequate and proper protection on third parties.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that having regard to the fact that the Bill dealt with trade disputes, it seemed to him that the Government should have no objection to accepting the Amendment, and certainly no valid objection had been put forward by any Member of the Government.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 69; Noes, 344. (Division List No. 375.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Roberts. S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bartram, Julius

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Haddock, George R.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Keswick, William

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Younger, George

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—.Mr.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Lambton and Viscount

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Turnour.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Cross, Alexander

  Nield, Herbert

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N-

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Agnew, George William

  Delany, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Allen, A. Acland(Christchurch)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Idris, T. W.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jackson, R. S.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Atherley-Jones. L.

  Duckworth, James

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Jenkins, J.

  Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Barlow, J. Emmott (Somerset)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dunne, Maj. E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Beaumont, Hn. H.(Eastbourne)

  Erskine, David C.

  Kelley, George D.

  Beaumont, Hn W. C. B.(Hexham

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Evans, Samuel T.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bell, Richard

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Bethell, J.H.(Essex, Romford)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lambert, George

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lamont, Norman

  Billson, Alfred

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Boland, John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Gill, A. H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ginnell, L.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brace, William

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lough, Thomas

  Branch, James

  Glover, Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Brigg, John

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Bright, J. A.

  Grant, Corrie

  Lynch, H. B.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

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

  Brodie, H. C.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brunner, Rt Hn. Sir J T.(Cheshire)

  Hall, Frederick

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bryce, Rt Hn James(Aberdeen)

  Hammond, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Crae, George

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Kean, John

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Harwood, George

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Byles, William Pollard

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Killop, W.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Clough, William

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

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Cobbold, Telix Thornley

  Henry, Charles S.

  Massie, J.

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

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Meagher, Michael

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Menzies, Walter

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hodge, John

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hogan, Michael

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cox, Harold

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Mond, A.

  Cremen, William Randal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Montagu, E. S.

  Crooks, William

  Hooper, A. G.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Mooney, J. J.

  218

  219

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Richardson, A.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Murphy, John

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Murray, James

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Myer, Horatio

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'rd

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

  Nicholls, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Thorne, William

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)

  Robinson, S.

  Tomkinson, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Verney, F. W.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Runciman, Walter

  Vivian, Henry

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Dowd, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  O'Grady, J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester)

  Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

  O'Malley, William

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Partington, Oswald

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Paul, Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Whitbread, Howard

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, J.D.(Dumbartonshire)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pembroke

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Williamson, A.

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

  Steadman, W. C.

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenoek)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Winfrey, R.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Young, Samuel

  Rees, J. D.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Sullivan, Donal

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Summerbell, T.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

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

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Pease.

  MR. LAMBTONmoved to insert after the word "court" the words, "if such action be brought by or on behalf of any workman or master engaged in the dispute." As the House did not accept the last Amendment it was absolutely necessary to have something in the clause to limit the action of trade unions when the Bill was passed into law. When the Attorney-General brought in the Bill in March last, there was nothing whatever in it about certain matters now included, and he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why this great change had been made. He thought it was due to the action of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. They all knew that the Government in the hands of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was as clay in the hands of the potter, and
  220
  although the Attorney - General was a subordinate vessel in this Government, the potter appeared to have been able to mould him according to his will. He felt great sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his unfortunate position. While he listened to the speeches of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of these debates he could not help thinking of the lines of Omar Khayyam—
  "I remember as I passed one day
  Watching a potter thumping his wet clay,
  And with its all obliterated tongue
  It murmured, 'Gently, brother, gently, pray.'"
  He must say that he regretted to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman's tongue had been obliterated—that tongue which was so wise, and just, and states-

  221
  manlike, on the earlier stages of the Bill. Since then, on the hon. and learned Gentleman's own confession, he had not carried out the intention of the Government which was expressed when the measure was first introduced. He would give another quotation. He believed the House liked quotations. He would suggest as a motto for the Attorney-General Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor. That had often been quoted in this House, but he ventured to think that it had never been quoted more appropriately than on this occasion. And to what was due this change of front on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman who represented the law of this country? Those who went to the Attorney-General for advice in future would say "Oh, yes, I know the right course, but I intend to follow the wrong one." He wondered that the trade unionists were so shortsighted as to refuse to accept his previous Amendment, and he presumed that they would oppose the present Amendment. What was this demand that was made? It was a demand by the Socialists; but what an extraordinary demand it was for them to make. It was a demand for the protection of capital and nothing else—the capital of the trade unions and the capital of the unions of the masters. They all know how the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil and his friends regarded private capital, but their opinion in regard to their own capital was very different. Every protection would be removed from property in that respect. Private property was to have no rights, and when they came to collective capital it was to be put above the law. He could not see how the Government could say that this was a just Bill or that it would even carry out their own object. Everybody must acknowledge, that trade unions must have funds, else they could not conduct their strikes. They also agreed that they should be placed on an equality with masters in trade disputes. He did not wish to see their funds interfered with when they were used in a proper way. What he objected to was unlimited power being given to combinations of workmen to do all degrees and sorts of things. The Bill was not limited to disputes between masters and men. It had to do with trade unions as defined "by the Acts of 1871 and 1876. The immunity given was carried far beyond
  222
  trade disputes. It gave immunity to immense collections of capital, such, for instance, as the soap trust and other combinations formed in this country. They were giving under this Bill extraordinary power to collective capital. It was one of the most extraordinary Socialistic measures brought in by any Government in recent times.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to his Amendment.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid the object of his Amendment was to protect ordinary civil persons in this country who were not parties to a trade dispute, so that they would be able to bring an action against a trade union. He begged to move.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 9, after the word 'court' to insert the words 'if such action be brought by or on behalf of any workman or toaster engaged in the dispute.'"—[Mr. Lambton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not accept this Amendment. It altogether narrowed the Bill and obstructed the whole object of the clause.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had hoped that they would have something more in the nature of an argumentative speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said that it narrowed the Bill. Of course it narrowed the Bill, otherwise his hon. friend would not have moved it. The real point was that they were admittedly giving masters and men great privileges in respect of their organisations. It was to make it possible to say that trade disputes should be fought out with the gloves off, and that none of the limitations which were placed on the action of ordinary societies should be placed upon them. They ought to discuss this Amendment. So far as he knew not a single representative of the employers on the

  223
  other side of the House had said a single word on the Bill. It might be the case that they liked it, or it might be for some other reason which he did not know. They were concerned in this House, not merely with disputes between masters and men, but with the public generally; and when they were arming either the workmen or masters with powers, not against each other, but against a third party, the public, was it not time to consider whether the power given either to the men's union or to the master's union was not too great? Were they seriously to be told that a great combination in a struggle with their workmen was to be empowed to inflict injuries on the public without any remedy which the public had against other associations? If the London and North Western Railway Company had a great controversy with their men, and it might be right so far as the men were concerned, or so far as the London and North Western Railway Company were concerned, to do away with the limitations in regard to the action of corporate bodies; but was the London and North Western Railway Company, for instance, or any great railway combination, to be allowed to do anything they pleased to the injury of the public in course of a dispute with workmen without any power on the part of the public to interfere at all? Everybody knew, and nobody better than hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, that in other countries, if not in this country, there was a steadily increasing organisation of large masses of capital under relatively small control. Were they going to allow combinations of that sort, without remedy to the public, to do whatever they liked to the public without any power of redress?
  MR. CROOKS: Take them over.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there might be a difference between the collectivist idea of hon. Gentlemen opposite and that of the hon. Member. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had any idea of the collectivist theory
  224
  being the rule in this country. He had no such hope or fear that it would be in his time or that of the hon. Gentleman. But in the meantime they were not legislating for a collectivist society, but for a society which, in spite of the Labour Party, was still individualistic and the real question was whether they were going to give to the great corporations, whether of workmen or of masters, these enormous powers, not merely against each other to fight their battle out without fear or favour, but against the public which would be perfectly helpless if this Bill was passed in its present shape. That was the question before the House; and the brief and weary interjection of the Attorney-General could not, even by his warmest apologist, be said to afford anything in the nature of a reply to the-Amendment.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that, if the right hon. Gentleman would allow him to say so, he had put the case extremely fairly. The only point to which he took objection was his allusion; to the London and North Western Railway. It was quite true that if this clause was put into their hands it would not be abused, any more than by the leaders of the trade unions. But that was no reason why such power should be given to them. Was there not something, he wondered, behind this Bill? Was there not, perhaps, some intention of putting into the hands of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil some power with the view of making his class the governing class of the country, as he had said on Sunday last? He would say to the Attorney-General that before giving; that power by this Bill he should pause.
  *SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that as no answers had been given by the Government to the questions raised upon the Amendments he begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERrefused to accept the Motion made by the hon. Member for

  225
  Edgbaston, and put the Question, "That thosu words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 67; Noes. 354. (Division List No. 376.)

  AYES.

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

  Cross, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dixon, Sir Daniel

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Forster, Henry William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Gibbs, C. A. (Bristol, West)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East.

  Bertram, Julius

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Bowles, G. Stewart.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill. Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Butcher. Samuel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thornton, Percy.M.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Keswick, William

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

  Cave, George,

  Kimber, Sir Henry

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

  Ceil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Ceil, Lord" John P. Joicey-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Younger, George

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Courthope, G, Loyd

  Nicholson, Win. G. (Petersfield)

  Lambton and Lord Robert

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brace, William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Cox, Harold

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Branch, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  Agnew, George William

  Brigg. John

  Crooks, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bright, J. A.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Allen. A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Brouklehurst, W. B.

  Crossley, William J.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S )

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J T(Cheshire)

  Delany, William

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bryce, Rt. Hn James (Aberdeen J)

  Dewar. Arthur (Edinburgh, S

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

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

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, K.)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Barlow, John Emmott (Som'rs't

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Barnard. E. B.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn.Sydney Charles

  Duckworth, James

  Barnes, G. N.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Dunean, G. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Beale, W. P.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne

  Beaumont, Hn. H.(Eastbourne)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knigh

  Dunne,,Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Beaumont, Hn. W.C B(Hexham)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Edwards, Clement ( Denbigh)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Chance, Frederick William

  Edwards Enoch (Hanley)

  Boll, Richard

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Elibank, Master of

  Bonn, W.(T'w'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Erskine, David C.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)

  Clough, William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Billson, Alfred

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Black, Arthur W (Bedfordshire)

  Coopor, G. J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Boland, John

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

  Ferens, T. It.

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

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman.

  Leese, Sir, Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lehman, R. C.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Gladstone Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Glover, Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lynch, H. B.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Rees, J. D.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Maclean, Donald

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, T. K. (Wolverh'mpton)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richardson. A.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down. S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Hall, Frederick

  Mac Veigh. Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Hammond, John

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Kcan, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robertson. Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  M'Killop, W.

  Robertson. J. M. (Tyneside)

  Harwood, George

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

  Robinson, S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Maddison. Frederick

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Runciman. Walter

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Massie, J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann. C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Higham. John Sharp

  Mond, A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Montagu, E. S.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Montgomery. H. G.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Hodge, John

  Mooney, J. J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Hogan, Michael

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Morrell. Philip

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Silcock, Thomas Hall

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murphy, John

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Murray, James

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset. N)

  Myer, Horatio

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Napier, T. B.

  Smeaton. Donald Mackenzie

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nicholls, George

  Smyth. Thomas F. (Leitrim. S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hudson, Walter

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanley. Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Illingworth. Percy H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Isaacs. Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Stewart-Smith. D. (Kendal)

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Strauss. E. A. (Abingdon)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Stuart. James (Sunderland)

  Johnson. W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jones Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor. Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Kearley. Hudson E.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Kelley. George D.

  Paul, Herbert

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)

  Kennedy, Vincent. Paul

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearee, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearson. Sir W.D. (Colchester)

  Thorne, William

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Lamb. Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Torrance. Sir A. M.

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke

  Toulmin, George

  228

  229

  Ure, Alexander

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Verney. F. W.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Vivian, Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Winfrey, R.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersfd)

  Wallace, Robert

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Young, Samuel

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pease.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Williamson, A.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. EUFUS ISAACSsaid the Amendments he had to propose had already boon discussed at some length by the House and therefore he need only formally move them. He proposed to amend the clause by leaving out the words "provided that." That did not affect the clause in any way, and thon they started again from the words, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the liability," and continued to the end of the section, but he proposed instead of the words "such unions" to insert "trade unions"; that made the clause read better. These were drafting Amendments.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESEseconded.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 2, lines 9 and 10, to leave out the words 'provided that.'"
  "In page 2, line 11, to leave out the words 'such unions.'"
  "In page 2, line 11, to insert the words 'trade unions.'"—(Mr. Rufus Isaacs.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. EUFUS ISAACSsaid he proposed to add at the oriel of the clause the words of Section 9 of the Act of 1871, namely—
  "Except in respect of any tortious act committed by or on behalf of a trade union in contemplation or in furtherance of any trade dispute."
  In doing so he took the opportunity to explain that he did not dissent from the words of Mr. Justice Mathew or challenge his judgment. He had only dissented from the interpretation which ' some persons had said could be placed upon these dicta. He begged to move.
  MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)formally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In Clause 4, at end, to add the words, 'Except in respect to any tortious act committed by or on behalf of a trades union in contemplation or in furtherance of any trade dispute.'"—(Mr. Rufus Isaacs.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there were two points which required some explanation. One was in regard to the words "trade dispute." Why had the Government refused to admit words in the earlier part of the clause restricting this to a "trade dispute" when they thought these words so necessary now? Why the Government should a few minutes ago have refused to limit this question to a trade dispute and should have done so now passed his comprehension. If he rightly understood him, the hon. and learned Member for Reading thought Mr. Justice Mathew was right in his judgment, and that the effect of this Amendment was to save the trade unions.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid the judgment of Mr. Justice Mathew was a judgment in respect of a tort committed for which the trustees of trade unions were sued arising out of a matter which was not a trade dispute. The effect of these words was to prevent a person getting at the funds of a trade union in an action for damages for a tortious act committed during or in pursuance of a trade dispute. They were not to limit the operation of Section 9 of the Act of 1871.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the hon. and learned Member would enlighten the House by saying why these words were required unless it was necessary to limit the scope of Section 9 as interpreted by Mr. Justice Mathew. Why introduce these words, and why, if it was intended to limit the scope of Section 9, was it said there was no intention to modify that section?
  MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid the operation of this Amendment would not affect the decision of all torts not concerned with trade disputes, but there were certain observations by Mr. Justice Mathew which had been interpreted wrongly by certain persons, and the introduction of these words would be to make it quite plain that those words did not apply to torts not having reference to trade disputes. It was solely for the purpose of preventing any possibility of any doubt as to the judgment of Mr. Justice Mathew being confined to that which he had decided that he moved his Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman was of opinion that Mr. Justice Mathew had boon grossly misrepresented.
  MR. RUFUS ISAACS: Not grossly misrepresented but misunderstood.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman also thought that no reasonable person reading that judgment would fall into the error from which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to save them; but he rightly thought that no hypothesis was too extravagant when they were dealing with the opinion of lawyers, and, in that case, even against the lawyers they had better protect themselves. It was a matter on which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke with absolute authority, and as he had no opinion at all on the
  232
  matter, he must leave it to be thought out by lawyers in the House.
  SIR JOHN WALTONmovedadditional words providing that the expression "trade union" should include any combination as defined in the Acts of 1871 and 1876, notwithstanding that such combination might be the branch of a trade union.
  Amendment proposed —
  "In page 2, line 17, at end, to add the words 'and shall include any combination as therein defined notwithstanding that such combination may be the branch of a trade union.'"—(Sir John, Walton.)
  SIR JOHN WALTONmoved to insert the following definition:—"In this Act and in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the expression 'trade dispute' means any dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any person, and in Section 3 of the last-mentioned Act the words 'between employers and workmen' shall be repealed." He said it had over and over again been observed that the Bill as it stood would enormously increase the range of trade disputes and might even include disputes between traders. They were all agreed that trade disputes should be limited to those concerned with questions of employment and conditions of employment. He used the word "person" in the definition, as was suggested by an Amendment of his learned friend the Member for Reading, as there were some persons by whom unions were formed who might not come within the term "workman." The word should be wide enough to cover every person employed in any trade, business, or industry.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 17, at end, to add the words 'In this Act and in The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the expression 'trade dispute' means any dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of labour, of any workman, and in Section 3 of the last mentioned Act the words 'between employers and workmen' shall be repealed.'"—(Sir John Walton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  LORD R. CECILproposed to add to the Attorney-General's proposed Amendment the following proviso:—"Provided always that the expression shall not include any agrarian dispute or dispute of a political character."
  MR. SHACKLETONasked whether the Amendment was in order. The kind of dispute contemplated by the noble Lord must be one between landlord and tenant and not between employer and workman.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid it would be better to dispose of the Attorney-General's Amendment first and consider the addition to the Amendment afterwards.
  LORD R. CECILmoved an Amendment providing that the expression should not include any agrarian dispute or dispute of a political character. He thought it was quite plain that this clause legalised picketing subject to the definition of a trade dispute. Boycotting consisted of doing acts which in themselves, apart from agreement and conspiracy, were not actionable, and only became actionable because of the added importance caused by the combined action of a large number of people. This was allowed as long as it was done in contemplation or further-
  234
  ance of a trade dispute, and what did that mean? He submitted that, judged by the Attorney-General's definition, it was quite clear that many of the best known acts of boycotting in Ireland would have been legalised by this Bill. For instance, a combination to dismiss work- men because of the votes they had given would be a trade dispute, and a combination to carry out that dispute would not be actionable under the first clause of this Bill. He did not believe the stories one sometimes saw in Liberal Papers that there had been any conceited attempt to influence votes by action of that kind. But no one could doubt that many of the disputes that had occurred in Ireland would have come within the terms of this definition.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid they had had, at various stages of this Bill, references to boycotting in Ireland. He thought they had already expressed the opinion that that subject was foreign to the scope of this Bill, because those disputes were confined to disputes in reference to the tenure of property. Inasmuch as this Bill was confined to disputes as to the terms of employment of portions employed in some industry, trade or manufacture, he submitted that it could not refer to the terms on which a tenant hold his land.
  LORD R. CECILsaid he understood the ruling was that it would be made quite clear that this definition did not relate to such matters as arose in Ireland and therefore it would be better not to discuss it.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the last Amendment had not altered the whole scope of the Bill?
  *MR. SPEAKER: From the first I have taken the view that it would be stretching language too far to include agrarian disputes in the words "trade

  235
  dispute." Clearly disputes of a political character cannot be included in that term. It seems unnecessary to specify a number of disputes, literary disputes, journalistic disputes, and so on. The series may be very long. I cannot help thinking that this Amendment is unnecessary, and if it is superfluous then it is irregular and out of order.
  LORD R. CECILsaid a dispute might occur in Ireland of this character. There might be the question of the employment of some particular men on a particular farm. A dispute might arise in precisely the same kind of way as in regard to the employment of a blackleg in a trade dispute. It would be a dispute connected with "the employment of any person" and it would come within the precise meaning of the Attorney-General's clause, and unless some such words were put in, there would be a very large number of disputes in Ireland which would be brought within the terms of this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the words "trade dispute" would entirely exclude everything in the nature of an agrarian dispute or a dispute of a political character. The Attorney -General had now defined trade dispute as something which took it out of what was technically meant by a trade dispute and had put it into a position which would never be described as a trade dispute, and it really brought it into the class of case which his noble friend had in view in moving this Amendment.
  *MR. SPEAKER: If I were the Judge in this case and had to decide it I have no doubt about it personally, but I feel inclined to rule now that this Amendment is not in order on the ground that disputes of an agrarian and political character cannot be trade disputes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the difficulty arose from the definition of
  236
  "trade dispute" which had just been introduced by the Government.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)pointed out the class of case which Members from Ireland had in their mind's eye when they asked the House to consider this Amendment. In a town, for instance, a bootmaker might through a difference with the local branch of the United Irish League be in their black books; he might be employing a certain man, and the United Irish League might order that man to leave his employment. That seemed to him to come under the definition of a "trade dispute;" that was to say, it was a dispute connected with the employment or non-employment of a person. The reason that they objected to the employment of that man might or might not have some reference to an agrarian dispute. The man might have made himself obnoxious to the United Irish League in a variety of ways, and therefore he said that the Amendment which the noble Lord had put down met the case. It was right that in Ireland they should guard against what might happen under this Act which was never intended to apply to such cases.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that any Judge in interpreting this Act would ever so divorce the ordinary meaning of "trade dispute" from the meaning as defined by the Act. I do not think it ever could cover an agrarian dispute, and therefore I think that the Amendment is superfluous.
  Bill to be road the third time Tomorrow.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes after Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
The Earl of ONSLOW sat Speaker
Several Lords took the Oath.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against—of inhabitants of the towns or parishes of Brandesburton; Frogmore (St. Albans); Hempton; St. Michaels-on-Wyre; Little Rissington; Aldborough; Wyfordley; Oldham; Ardwick, near Manchester (St. Thomas); Martin-cum-Gregory; Appleton; Timsbury; Perranzabuloe; Sturry; Thurgarton; Hoveringham; Newton Heath, Manchester (All Saints); Fulham (All Saints); Deptford (St. Paul); Bolton (St. John's); Aberford; Littlebourne, near Dover;
  2
  Babbacombe; Letterston; Sherborne; Llanvaches; Llandegley; Whilton; Luddenden; Llanichangel; Thornby; Seaton Gorton; Loughton; Manchester; Egginton; Gray's Inn Road (St. Jude's); Crumdale; Monkwearmouth (Venerable Bede); Belton; Barrow-on-Soar; St. Mark's (Leicester); St. Saviour's (Leicester); Newfoundport (St. Augustine's); Netherbroughton; Barkstone and Plun-gar; Evington; Lockington and Hem-mington, Sunderland (St. John's), Osmotherley (2); Tixover; Turnditch; Farthingstone; Turley; Loxbeare; Cerney; Foston; Rushden; Mears-Ashby; Markfield; Frisley-on-the-Wreak; Swith-land; Kirby-Muxloe; Glenfield; Countesthorpe; Blaby; Market Harborough; Great Bowden; Milton; Foxton; Stoncon Wyville; Weldon; Floore; Weston-by-Welland; Welham; Sutton Bassett Shepshed; and Worfield. Of teachers in schools in the deaneries of Guthlaxton (2); Flamland I.; Framland II.; and South Akeley (Peterborough). Of parents or guardians of children attending schools at Lutterworth; Thrussington;

  3
  Cranse; Bottesford; Awre; Lowesby; Twycross; Orton-on-Hill; Weston-by-Welland; Aldwincle; Floore; Weldon; and Market Harborough. Of trustees of Church, of England schools in the dioceses of Peterborough (3); and Salisbury. Of the National Protestant League, Hyde Branch (Chester); and of Church workers in the county of Leicester.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  COUNTY COUNCILS
  Petition in favour of legislation to enable women to serve on county councils; of the London County Council; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    COLONIES (COLONIAL IMPORT DUTIES, 1906).
    Return relating to the rates of import duties levied upon the principal and other articles imported into the British Colonies, Possessions, and Protectorates.
    GAS AND WATER ORDERS
    Report by the Board of Trade of their proceedings under the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, during the session of 1906.
    IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
    Return of advances under the Irish Land Act, 1903, during the period from 1st November, 1903 to 1st December, 1905. Vol. I., Part IV.
    TRADE REPORTS, ANNUAL SERIES.
    No. 3727. France (Trade of St. Pierre and Miquelon for 1905). No. 3728. Persia (Trade of the provinces of Sistan and Kain for the year ended 20th February, 1906).

    FRANCE, NO. 1. (1906).
    Convention between the United Kingdom and France, confirming the Protocol signed at London on 27th February, 1906, respecting the New Hebrides.
    Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

    SUPERANNUATION.
    Treasury minute, dated 31st October, 1906, declaring that Henry Ray, boy, Royal Laboratory, War Department, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

    A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
    THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, in rising to move the Motion of which I have given notice—namely—
    "That notice having been taken that the following Lords, viz., the Lord Manners, the Lord Clements (E. Leitrim), the Lord Grimthorpe, and the Lord Armstrong, voted in certain divisions during the present session without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the lists of divisions in which they voted before taking the Oath,"
    I desire to say, with respect to something which fell from the noble and learned Earl opposite on Thursday night, † that I requested the Clerks at the Table to make a further and more complete examination of the Journals and other sources of information, and that I find there is no case of a Bill of Indemnity having been passed or proposed in this House since the decision in the Brad-laugh case. That. I think, we may take as clear. At the same time I say frankly to your Lordships that I do not know that there is any case of a Peer having sat without taking the Oath during that period; so that all that is established is that there has been no instance of a Bill of Indemnity. There was a case two years ago which had some bearing on this one, and which the noble and learned Earl knows very well—the case of Lord Henniker; but that case was not exactly on all fours with this one and consequently I do not know whether at this moment it is necessary that I should refer to it in detail. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved, "That notice having been taken that the following Lords, viz., the Lord Manners, the Lord Clements (E. Leitrim),
    †See (4) debates clxiii., 1293.

    5
    the Lord Grimthorpe, and the Lord Armstrong voted in certain divisions during the present session without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the lists of divisions in which they voted before taking the Oath."—(The Marquess of Ripon.)
    THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I confess I am a little embarrassed by the situation at which we have arrived. It is quite possible that what the noble Marquess says is true, that no Bill of Indemnity has been actually passed, but that such Bills have been proposed there is no doubt whatever, as I myself brought them in. I daresay the Clerk, in looking into the matter, has only looked at those Bills which were passed into Acts, and I think he is very likely right. It is possible that in the discussions which arose upon them it was pointed out that the Attorney-General was the only person who could prosecute, and therefore the Bills were laid aside and no action taken.
    I regret to have to say that I do not think the course proposed by the noble Marquess is altogether satisfactory. Everybody would, I think, agree that a careless or inadvertent act should not be visited by a penalty of £500. But in this case it appears to me to be a more serious matter, as I am informed that one of the noble Lords in question was warned that he had not taken the Oath, and, in spite of that warning, voted. Furthermore, I cannot help thinking that it is a somewhat strong thing to avail one's self of the right of the Attorney-General only to prosecute, and not to enforce the law. It becomes rather a serious thing if, although Members of the House of Lords, and of the House of Commons, too, for that matter, are under an obligation to take the Oath, it should be taken as a matter of course that if they do not do so the Attorney-General will not be allowed to prosecute. My own impression upon that matter is that the Attorney-General is entirely independent of the Government, and that if he thought fit to prosecute he could do so in the exercise of his judicial
    6
    office; and as he is exercising a judicial office I think he would require to be satisfied that the act was done inadvertently.
    I observe that the Motion of the noble Marquess is that notice having been taken that these noble Lords voted without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the division lists, I do not know what authority there is for striking out the names of the noble Lords. The votes have been recorded, and, whatever may be the consequences, you cannot strike them out. If proceedings were taken for recovery of the penalty it would be said that as the votes were struck out no harm had been done. I think it would be a serious matter if such a precedent were set by the passing of the Motion now before the House.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the terms of this Resolution and to its effect. The noble Marquess moves that, notice having been taken that several Lords voted in certain divisions during the present session without having previously taken the Oath, the entries in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the lists of divisions in which they voted before taking the Oath. I should like to ask what authority there is for such a proceeding. The Act says nothing about striking out a vote; the Act does not even say that a peer is not to vote. When a peer has once taken his seat and proved his right to sit, he is summoned at the beginning of every Parliament, and the statute provides that he is to take the Oath, and if he sits or votes without having taken the Oath in the manner prescribed by the Standing Orders of the House, he is then made liable to a penalty of £500. The statute does not say he is not to vote, but that if he does vote, it will be, or may be, an expensive proceeding to him. In my opinion, therefore, there is no authority for the proposal to strike out the votes.
    I do not know what is the object of this Motion. If it is merely for the

    7
    sake of the Journals of the House, then I say that, so far as I can see, we should be making the Journals not correct, because these noble Lords did vote, and the fact that you strike out their votes does not do away with the fact that they did vote. Moreover, let me point out what might be the effect of a procedure of this kind. Suppose, for instance, there had been a tie, the division ending with votes equal, or supposing it had ended with a majority of one either way, the result of expunging votes in such a case might be to alter the decision of your Lordships' House. I should like to know whether there is any precedent for this House taking upon itself such a course. Possibly the House if it chooses to take a supreme view of its own rights, has the power to strike out from its journals votes given in this way; but do not let it be supposed that if your Lordships do take that course you are thereby purging the offence which these noble Lords have committed. The offence was against the statute, and no Resolution of your Lordships' House is of any avail against a statute.
    This Resolution, so far as I can judge, is a sort of indefinite whitewashing of the offence. The inference one would naturally draw would be that this is a small offence to which no attention need be paid. I think that in a matter of this importance it is very undesirable that your Lordships should adopt indefinite Motions of this kind, and I must say that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House is, in my opinion, making a sort of indirect invitation to noble Lords not to trouble about taking the Oath. For he says, "It is a matter of small importance. If you vote we will expunge your votes from the Journals; and as to the £500 you need not be afraid; no Attorney-General is going to prosecute." I do not know about the present Attorney General. I have known him change his mind about things; but, even supposing he does not change his mind in this matter, what guarantee is there that the next Attorney-General will not proceed to prosecute? Lord Grimthorpe and the other noble Lords have committed this sin, and they will remain liable for the penalty for the rest of their natural lives. Suppose that under the next Government
    8
    some other Peer votes without having previously taken the Oath and the Attorney-General proceeds to prosecute him He will naturally say, "This is very unfair. Four other noble Lords did the same thing, but the Attorney-General of that day paid no attention to the matter. Why should you be so ill-natured as to prosecute me?" The Attorney-General might then retort that he would not only prosecute that noble Lord, but the other four besides.
    Speaking more seriously of the matter. I submit to the House that it is very undesirable to overlook breaches of order of this kind. Of course, none of us want to inflict this penalty of £500; but I do not think we ought to imagine for one moment that by simply adopting a Resolution of this sort—and I question whether it is altogether in our power; it may be, but it is very unusual and I believe quite unprecedented—we are in any way purging the offence which these noble Lords have committed. My noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury has stated that one of the noble Lords was warned that he was acting illegally. If that is so, it makes the offence more serious. At any rate, I hope your Lordships will not pass this Resolution and adopt a course for which we have not yet heard any precedent. The natural course is to pass an Act of Indemnity. Such a Bill would pass through this House without trouble, and there would be no difficulty in securing its passage through the other House, as the chief offender sits on the Ministerial benches. But, in any case, I submit to your Lordships that the right course is not to pass this Resolution. The Government should bring in a Bill of Indemnity.
    LORD CLIFFORD or CHUDLEIGH: I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether there is any precedent for striking out names in the way proposed. The Act of Parliament makes a distinction between Members of the two Houses, and in the Lower House a Member vacates his seat if he votes without taking the Oath. Unless I am informed to the contrary, I submit that the vote having been given was legally given, and ought to stand upon the records of the House.
    LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, I am reluctant to intrude myself again upon the House, but, in view of remarks that have been somewhat pointedly aimed at me, I think your Lordships are entitled to demand some explanation. I can only repeat what I said when the matter was first raised on Thursday, that when I voted I voted in ignorance. I refuse to modify or withdraw any part of that statement, and am prepared to sign any declaration that is put before me to that effect.
    What occurred, my Lords, was this After the House adjourned, and before we went to dinner, I was washing my hands, when someone came up to me and said, "Have you taken the Oath?" I replied ''Of course, I took the Oath when I took my seat. "Somebody else said, "I told you so," and then there was a certain amount of desultory and rapid conversation, which only left the impression on my mind that somebody was trying to amuse himself at my expense. In the light of subsequent events I see plainly enough that what was said to me was intended as a friendly warning, but I took it at the time as a joke. In vulgar parlance, I believed that some noble Lord was "pulling my leg." Five minutes afterwards I met the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal, and had I thought there was anything in what I had heard I should, of course, have told him what had happened and asked my noble Leader what I ought to do. But information conveyed at such a time, in such a place, and in such a way was not calculated to leave a very deep impression on my mind; as a matter of fact, it left no impression at all.
    I thought no more about it until I was handing up an Amendment to the Clerk at the Table, who called my attention to the fact that I had violated the rules. I knew, at all events, that the Clerk was not joking. I could not leave the House at once, because the doors were locked, but immediately after the Division I withdrew my Amendment from the Paper and left the House. Nothing could have been more simple and easy than to have taken the Oath when I came down to the House, and there could have been no conceivable motive
    10
    for my refraining from doing so had considered it obligatory upon me. Therefore I can only again assure your Lordships that what I did was done in ignorance. I have already apologised for having inadvertently committed this breach of the rules, and I can only apologise again.
    LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am sure no one desires any noble Lord who acted carelessly or incautiously to sustain any pecuniary loss in consequence, but there must be a strong desire also that we should not ourselves proceed carelessly and incautiously in passing a Resolution of this kind. I at first thought, when I saw the proposal of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House on the Paper, that his Motion would be a convenient way in which to mark our disapproval of what had been done, but I now feel that the matter requires more consideration.
    Let us suppose that the matter had not been discovered for some time and that a Bill had become an Act of Parliament by means of votes given without legal warrant. Surely it would then be too late to move that the votes should be expunged. That would show that votes once given, although they might expose those who had acted ignorantly to pecuniary penalties, are there, and I think it would be the wisest course to defer this Motion until the matter has been further considered. The proposal of the noble Marquess does not absolve the Attorney-General from giving the matter judicial consideration. I am not for a moment suggesting that he should take any steps against the noble Lords in question, but I would point out that there is nothing in the passing of this Resolution which would in the slightest degree stop the Attorney-General, if the matter were brought to his notice, from considering it and exercising a judgment upon it. This is an age of Committees, and while I do not suggest that there should be a Committee appointed to consider this matter, I am not at all sure that the wisest course would not be to defer the Motion until the matter has been further discussed.
    LORD BRAYE: My Lords, I should like to mention that I can remember

    11
    a similar discussion arising in your Lordships' House twenty years ago. Lord Plunkett and Lord Byron had voted under similar circumstances, and a Bill of Indemnity was passed through both Houses of Parliament. I think that fact must have escaped the attention of the noble Marquess.
    THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: It is quite evident that the question is one that has attracted a great deal of attention among Members of your Lordships' House, and that very weighty opinions have been expressed differing to a certain extent from those which I have been led to form. In these circumstances I think it very proper that the subject should be further considered. I confess I should have suggested the appointment of a small Committee to consider it. My noble and learned friend opposite says there are plenty of Committees, but still this is a matter of great importance, and I should have thought that those who have most authority in this House on questions of this kind might with advantage consider it carefully and report to the House the view which they take on the subject. I am quite prepared to postpone or withdraw the Motion for the present, but I think the subject ought to be further considered, and considered, as I have suggested, by a small Committee.
    I do not wish to detain your Lordships, but I desire, if you will allow me, to make some allusion to the case of Lord Henniker. That case was a very curious one. The noble Lord took the Oath upon a writ issued to his father and not to him. What was the course taken? The noble and learned Earl opposite, Lord Halsbury, took the matter up and proposed certain Resolutions to the House. I do not understand that Lord Henniker voted, but among the Resolutions which the noble and learned Earl moved on that occasion was this one—
    "That the entry of the name of Lord Hartismere (the name by which Lord Henniker sits in this House) among the Lords present on Thursday last be vacated."
    That is the same as part of my Resolution. The only difference is that this Resolution deals with votes, but it also deals with entries in the Journals of the House. I have a copy of the Journals
    12
    of the House in my hand, and Lord Hartismere's name is there struck out as having been present. I do not say that this is a complete precedent for the course I am proposing, but it is a precedent. It is not worth while, however, discussing the matter further. I submit to your Lordships that it is better to have the thing considered by a Select Committee. I am prepared to withdraw my Motion now, but, as at present advised, I will move at a later date that the matter be considered by a Committee of your Lordships' House.
    THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I only want to put the noble Marquess right on one matter. The noble Lord to whom he referred not only took his seat but took the Oath. There was no infraction of the law at all. The difficulty was this, that he took his seat in pursuance to a writ of summons which had not been issued to him. He therefore took his seat as any stranger might have taken his seat, and in these circumstances it was right that his name should be erased. No writ from the Crown had ever been issued to him. He believed he was entitled to vote under his father's writ of summons. He was not, and therefore the erasure of his name was perfectly right, because he had not sat in the House in the technical sense.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I only rise to say that we are quite ready to accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess opposite. It is quite clear that the arguments which have been put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury and by Lord Camperdown are entitled to further examination, and the appointment of a small Committee such as that suggested by the noble Marquess is a very appropriate way of dealing with the point.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
    House again in Committee (according to Order).
    [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
    Clause 3:—
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEEScalled upon Lord Heneage, who had an Amendment down to Clause 3, to add at the end of the first sub-section the following proviso—
    "And such special teaching may be given by the teachers employed in the school during the ordinary school hours."
    *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, before the noble Lord rises I should like to inform the House that I have been in communication with the noble Lord and also with the most rev. Primate and Lord Jersey, who have similar Amendments on the Paper. It seemed to me that it would be altogether more convenient if these questions whether the special teaching should be given by the teachers employed in the school were postponed until we come to Clause 8, which deals with all the duties and privileges of teachers. I understand that noble Lords are willing that this course should be pursued, and that Lord Heneage does not propose to move his Amendment.
    LORD HENEAGE: I quite agree with the course suggested by the noble Earl, and am ready to withdraw my Amendment.
    *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNmoved the insertion of words providing that where an existing voluntary school had not been continued on account of its not being required for the purpose of providing sufficient public school accommodation, the local education authority should be bound, on the requisition of the owners of the school house, to afford facilities for the special religious instruction hitherto given in that school in some other school accessable to children resident in the same area as those who had attended the school which was not continued. He said that since he placed the Amendment on the Paper the clause had been modified by two Amendments. The first of those Amendments was proposed by the Bishop of Hereford, who had secured the insertion in the clause of the words—
    "If in any parish in a rural area there is only one public elementary school provided for the children of the parish, and the parents of a reasonable number of children attending the school have required such facilities, the local
    14
    education authority shall.….afford those facilities."
    Therefore, so far as rural areas were concerned his (the noble Viscount's) Amendment was quite unnecessary. The Bishop of Hereford's Amendment, however, did not meet the point of schools in urban areas. The position of those schools had been to some extent safeguarded in this matter by the words inserted in Clause 2, on the Motion of the Bishop of London, that the Board of Education in the case of an appeal to them against a decision of the local education authority not to continue a voluntary school, should have regard to the circumstances of the case—
    "Including the interest of secular instruction, the wishes of the parents as to the education (including the religious education) of their children, and the economy of the rates."
    The words "including the religious education" did bear very much on the point of his Amendment. There still remained, however, the case of a voluntary school in an urban area which was not continued, on the ground of its not being required for the purpose of providing school accommodation. It was difficult to define what the area should be, and he was not quite content with his own definition. He did not desire to press the Amendment now, but he was anxious to obtain, if he could, some expression of opinion from His Majesty's Government on the matter.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 17, after the word 'it' to insert the words 'where an existing voluntary school is not continued on account of its not being required for the purpose of providing sufficient public school accommodation, the local education authority shall be bound, on the requisition of the owners of the school house to afford facilities for the special religious instruction hitherto given in that school in some other school accessible to children resident in the same area as those who have attended the school which is not continued.'"— Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has said, it is perfectly, true that a considerable part of what he intended to do in putting forward this Amendment has already been done by the two Amendments inserted on the Motions of the right rev. Prelates the Bishop of Hereford and the Bishop of London. But it is also true, as the noble

    15
    Viscount stated, that there are certain cases of discontinued schools which will not be covered by either of those Amendments. This Amendment is one which, as I have said before, deserves careful consideration, because it is undoubtedly-desirable that, in any transition such as that which is proposed under the Bill, the transition should be as little abrupt as possible and inflict as little hardship as possible on individuals.
    That, of course, applies to children now attending the schools. But the noble Viscount told me the other day that he by no means intended to confine the privileges of facilities to them, but that it should in some manner descend to future generations of Church children in the neighbourhood. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is a very difficult thing to do, and I very much doubt whether the words which he has placed on the Paper, I do not say carry out his view, but whether they might under some circumstances not do a very great deal more. Let me suggest an actual case to your Lordships, that of a small discontinued Church school containing, say, one hundred places. I say one hundred places, not one hundred children in average attendance. Your Lordships will realise the difference. In fact, there is nothing, I think, which comes more home to us on most occasions, though not during these debates, than the difference as applied to this House, between the available accommodation and the average attendance. I take on this occasion the number of school places available. These one hundred places have somehow to be distributed among other schools, very possibly council schools. The facilities, as I understand, are to be confined to these particular children and to other children who may be spoken of as their heirs and assigns. The result will be that in these schools you will find a certain number of Church children receiving these particular facilities, whereas there may be other Church children in the school who would attend it in the ordinary way as a council school who would not receive these facilities. Would not that be a very difficult and a very anomalous position? I should certainly have supposed that the other Church children in the school who, for purely residential
    16
    reasons, did not receive the facilities, would consider that they were undergoing considerable hardship.
    Then as regards area. How are you going to estimate the area to which this privilege is to apply? It some -times happens that for one reason or another one or two children go a very considerable distance to a particular school because they like the teaching there or for some reason which affects the parents. Is that child who goes perhaps a mile and a half through the streets to entitle the whole of the residential area in which he lives to a future enjoyment of these religious facilities? And if not, how are you going to draw the line? You will have, apparently, in the first place, to make a list of all the children, a sort of map with the residence of each child, and you will then have to draw a line round these various points, including them all; and that would be the arbitrary area to which these facilities would in future apply.
    I confess, my Lords, that the prospect of arriving at a satisfactory concluson on these lines seems to me extremely remote. I entirely recognise the spirit in which the noble Viscount has made the recommendation, and any proposal of his, I need not say, is one which we should carefully examine, simply because it comes from him; but I confess it does not seem to me that this is a very feasible suggestion, and therefore I am afraid His Majesty's Government cannot give their support to it. At the same time I think it is perhaps only right that I should warn the noble Viscount of this fact, that, as regards the two proposals upon which he relies as carrying out part of his intention, he must remember that those two proposals were not accepted by His Majesty's Government.
    *THE MARQUESS or LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend behind me does not desire to press his Amendment upon the House. I think he will probably be content with having obtained from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council a very frank admission that there are certain cases of discontinued schools which are not sufficiently covered by the Bill as

    17
    it now stands. We most of us admit with the noble Lord the great difficulty of dealing with the particular class of case at which my noble friend's Amendment is aimed. We must also admit, and I think my noble friend the mover will probably himself admit, that at some points his Amendment as it stands might operate somewhat inconveniently to the parties concerned. My noble friend will not press his Amendment to a division, but we reserve to ourselves the right of recurring to the point at a future stage.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKsaid the statement was commonly made that in towns, of course, matters were all right, because there were two classes of schools and everybody had a good choice. He pointed out, however, that if care was not taken to provide for certain urban areas something in the nature of the arrangement that was to be made in rural areas, there would be serious disparity and injustice of treatment. There were immense suburban areas in which, under the proposals of the Bill, there would be no facilities at all. He was glad, therefore, to know that the noble Viscount was still turning the matter over in his mind.
    *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYagreed with what had been said by the right rev. Prelate, that in towns, as a rule, there was a choice of schools; but he admitted that there were large areas within towns—he mentioned, as an instance, Fulham—where there was no such choice. He would give four instances illustrative of the point put by the noble Earl the Lord President. In Acton there were only 252 children in voluntary schools, and 6,307 in board schools. Supposing that in Acton one Church school was closed because the local authority found it not necessary for the public school accommodation, was the Amendment to carry forward a sort of lien for 252 places, or was it to be a general right for every child? If the former it would lead to very troublesome book-keeping and would be impracticable; while, on the other hand, if they were to say that all the Church children of Acton should have a right to
    18
    claim religious instruction, that would be establishing an unconscionable bargain. In Beckenham there were 205 children in voluntary schools as against 2,769 in board schools; in Wood Green there were 553 children in voluntary schools as against 5,781 in board schools; and, to go to the country, there were in Rowley Regis in Staffordshire 301 children in voluntary schools as against 6,749 in board schools. It was clear that the closing of one of these small schools could not possibly be taken as creating an equitable right to claim facilities. He was confident that the noble Viscount's proposal was an impracticable one, and that the Board of Education would find it quite impossible to administer.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMsaid that a very large number of Churchmen felt strongly the grave injustice which was being done. In very many districts there was practically no accommodation except where the Cowper-Temple teaching was given; on the other hand, there were a very large number of districts where the condition was exactly the opposite. Now, what was being done by this Bill? There was being taken away the control which provided the donominational teaching in the one class of districts, but there was no rectification being provided on the other side.
    He had just re-read an article on elementary education by the Minister for Education which appeared in the Independent Review for October, 1903. Mr. Birrell there considered what would be a just and equitable exchange. The thing to be desired, Mr. Birrell then said, was that all the Church schools should become provided schools, and he said there was only one exchange which Nonconformists had to prepare themselves for.
    "What," he said, "has Nonconformity got to offer to the Church of England? But one thing—the Cowper-Temple Clause. It will be hard to part with.… It is all that is left of the compromise of 1870."
    Mr. Birrell went on to point out in. this article that this was one thing which must plainly be given up if there was to be, on the other hand, a surrender

    19
    of Church management of the non-provided schools. That equitable exchange had not been carried out, and, as the account now stood, there was a very grave injustice being done on a large and widespread scale to those who cared for denominational teaching.
    He could not but profoundly regret that the proposal to carry out that exchange which Mr. Birrell himself had propounded as the only equitable one was not persisted in. There would be, it seemed to him, if the noble Viscount's proposal were carried out, a slight instalment of the justice which on the whole could only really be rendered if they had facilities on a universal scale.
    *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNdid not think the dilemma which Lord Stanley of Alderley had put to him was a difficult one. To take the case of Acton, the school authorities and the Board of Education could continue the single denominational school, which was what they ought to do, or they could find places for the 252 children in one of the many board schools. He could not see any difficulty so far as children now in a denominational school were concerned. He did not wish to continue the discussion, and would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYhad the following Amendment on the Paper—viz.—
    "In page 3, line 20, after 'authority' to insert 'but any teacher employed at a public elementary school shall be at liberty to give such instruction if convenient arrangements can be made,' and also to insert the following new subsection."
    "(3) Any question which may arise between persons supplying instruction under facilities afforded under this section and the local education authority as to the mode and times in which these facilities are afforded shall be determined by the Board of Education."
    He said he would withdraw the first part in deference to the appeal of the noble Earl the Lord President, on the perfectly clear understanding that the subject was coming up again for discussion on Clause 8. The second part of the Amendment was quite independent. It had been pointed out to him
    20
    that the alternative words suggested by Lord Balfour of Burleigh,viz.—
    "(3) Any question which may arise under this section between the parent of any child attending the school or the persons providing or proposing to provide any religious instruction in pursuance of any facilities afforded or acquired under this section, and the local education authority shall be determined by the Board of Education,"
    were a little clearer in expression without practically having any difference in intent; and, with the permission of the Committee, he would like to be allowed to move his Amendment in that form.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: The Amendments are by no means the same.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Which will you accept?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not like either, but, of the two, I think the most rev. Primate's would be the least difficult.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid it seemed to him to be absolutely essential that there should be some authority to which reference should be made, and he could suggest no other than the Board of Education.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 20, after the word 'authority,' to insert the following new subsection:—' (3) Any question which may arise under this section between the parent of any child attending the school or the persons providing or proposing to provide any religious instruction in pursuance of any facilities afforded or acquired under this section, and the local education authority shall be determined by the Board of Education.'"—(The Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: This Amendment does not involve any great point of principle. It is one of administrative convenience, and I am doubtful as to how far it is necessary at all. As the Bill now stands the facilities have to be given in the morning, and by an Amendment of the right rev. prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, to which we cordially agree, they must be given for a clear half-hour. I confess I do not see, under these circumstances, how any great difficulty is likely to arise in making arrangements for them.

    21
    The most rev. Primate must remember that these arrangements fall, in case of dispute, for discussion before the Commission, and, therefore, it is impossible to give an appeal of this kind both to the Commission and to the Board of Education. I must further point out that in one respect the most rev. Primate's position has been weakened, but that is by an Amendment passed by noble Lords. As we brought in the Bill, the mode and time at which facilities could be given might be made part of the conditions under which the school was transferred. Noble Lords opposite have insisted upon all schools being transferred, and, therefore, the transferring body cannot exercise on the local authority in this respect the pressure which they could have exercised as we brought in the Bill. As I say, I do not oppose the Amendment as one of principle. At the same time, I think, particularly as drawn up, it would not be an improvement of the Bill, and it certainly would be in any case necessary to alter the provision under which an appeal is made to the local authority as regards the transfer.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Might I ask which Amendment we are on?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: The second Amendment of the most rev. Primate. The first is one of those which I suggested would be better postponed until Clause 8.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Is not what will come before the Commission merely the making of the agreement? The question afterwards as to whether the agreement is being observed has to be settled by somebody.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the proposal had been made that these questions would be referred to the Commission. But was the Commission going on for ever? These question, she apprehended, would continue to arise for an indefinite period. As the Bill stood, the Commission was to last until the end of 1908. But what was to happen in the case of questions arising after that time? He thought it would be desirable that these matters should be submitted to the Board of Education and not to the Commission.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl has, in fact, raised the same point as was raised by the most rev. Primate. As regards the future arrangements that have to be made, no doubt he is correct. The Commission will not be sitting, and if an appeal is given at all it must be to the Board of Education; but, as the Amendment is drawn, it appears to us that it would allow of concurrent appeals to the Commission and to the Board of Education in the first instance. On the general question, I am bound to add that we do, as a general rule, distinctly deprecate these continued appeals to the Board of Education on matters of this kind; but, if the most rev. Primate presses the Amendment, although I cannot agree to it, yet I do not propose to divide the Committee against it.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYregarded the answer of the noble Earl as somewhat unsatisfactory. So far as he gathered, there was to be an appeal, so long as the Commission lasted, to both the Commission and the Board of Education.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I said there would be, according to the Amendment.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the Act of 1902 fully provided for these matters and gave an appeal to the Board of Education. No difficulty had arisen, and he thought it would be well if the noble Earl would state what he really did intend in the matter.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he understood the noble Earl the Lord President to say that the appeal would be to the Board of Education or to the Commission. Unfortunately that was the state of confusion which pervaded the Bill. If their Lordships took Clause 2 in conjunction with Clause 9 they would see that there was an entire confusion between the Commission and the Board of Education. What was to determine whether the appeal was to be made to the Board of Education or to the the Commission?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: As the Bill stands, the appeal is to the Commission

    23
    alone in respect to what occurs when the transfer is to take place.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdid not understand the point made by the noble Earl the Lord President. It did not appear to him that if they accepted the Amendment of the most rev. Primate there would be an appeal in matters of this kind to the Commission. The Com mission would, no doubt, adjudicate finally as to terms and arrangements when the school was to be transferred, but as soon as the transfer had taken place they would have completely performed their function and would be at an end. It was then that a difficulty might arise as to the proper supply of accommodation required for giving facilities. Who was to decide that? The Government had no right to leave the Committee without guidance. If the noble Earl admitted the difficulty he thought they might call upon him to admit their remedy unless he had a better to propose. The present proposal was imitated from a provision in the Act of 1902 by which in the event of difficulties arising in carrying out the policy of that Act the Board of Education decided. He believed that arrangement had worked well.
    *THE EAEL OF CREWE: The noble Marquess forgets that we brought this Bill to the house with a definite proposal, which was that the question of the mode and times in which facilities were to be afforded should be one of the conditions which it was possible for those who transferred the school to insist upon. Noble Lords have destroyed that condition in their general process of battering this Bill out of recognition, and then the noble Marquess asks me to invent some plan for getting him out of his difficulty. I respectfully decline to do anything of. the sort.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the difficulty would have arisen, though perhaps not so largely, under the Government plan as the Bill was brought to their Lordships' House. The Government, however, proposed no remedy, and he suggested that the noble Earl should take theirs.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP or CANTERBURYdid not think the difficulty had been created by what had been done by the Committee. In any case difficulties in matters of administrative detail would be likely to arise which some authority would have to decide. Let them take the case where an agreement had been made that there should be religious education given in the schools at certain times. After a while the local education authority might say, "We cannot allow you to have that particular room; you must have another, and that other room might be totally unsuitable for the purpose. There was no authority in the Bill to whom they could appeal in such a case. This was a purely administrative detail, but they wanted to see it carried out. All that he asked was that some arrangement should be made whereby, when difficulties arose about agreements, some authority should exist with power to settle them.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I hope His Majesty's Government will vouchsafe a little more explanation upon this point. We did not invent facilities. In the Bill as it was presented to your Lordships facilities found a place. Our case is that in the interpretation of those facilities it is inevitable that from time to time new points should crop up which require some authority to adjust them. Will the noble Earl tell us to what authority such a difficulty will be referred? We appeal to the experience of the Act of 1902, and we say that an arrangement of the kind suggested has worked perfectly well. It is surely obvious that unless you provide some means of this kind you will have, as time goes on, inextricable confusion. The most rev. Primate, in moving this Amendment, has made an honest attempt to improve the machinery of the Bill, which machinery is, we shall never cease maintaining, thoroughly defective. I do think that might have been admitted, and that the noble Earl opposite might have met us half way and avoided the suggestion that we were in this matter endeavouring to impose upon His Majesty's Government any alteration of the Bill which could in the least interfere with its proper working.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am anxious not to prolong the discussion, but I feel it my duty to point out that by far the greater part—nine-tenths, I think—of the difficulty was caused by the fact that your Lordships made the taking over of all these schools compulsory. As regards the remaining one-tenth, I confess I do not think it is a matter of very great importance. It is one of a class which the Board of Education do not like dealing with, and I certainly am not prepared to say that the kind of appeals which have been made under Clause 7 of the Act of 1902, to which the noble Marquess has alluded, have been altogether easy for the Board of Education to decide. But, as I say, I have no wish to divide the Committee against this proposal if the most rev. Primate wishes to press it.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERmoved an Amendment to secure that a local authority should give permission that the religious instruction of a special character given under this section might be inspected. He said they believed very strongly that without inspection the instruction would deteriorate and a syllabus would become illusory. It was because he wished the special religious instruction to be sound and efficient that he had tabled his Amendment providing for regular inspection. Clause 76 in the Act of]870 was similar to his proposal, and for 36 years it had been attended with good results. They need not be afraid of inspectors entering the schools. The entry of these inspectors had produced no sort of disturbance, but had been productive of unmixed good. He hoped the Government would give some sympathetic consideration to the Amendment.
    Amendment moved—
    " In page 3, line 20, after 'authority' to insert ' (3) A local education authority shall give permission that the religious instruction of a special character given under this section may be inspected, but no part of the expense of such inspection shall be paid by the local education authority.'"—(The. Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the request contained in the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate was a fair request, but the words should be drawn a little differently. The voluntary schools, under the Act of 1870, had a special provision to enable them to arrange for diocesan or other inspection. The board schools, if they wanted religious inspection or examination, used to notify that on a particular date the school would not exist as a public elementary school. Notice was then given to the children that attendance was voluntary, but that if they did attend they would have religious examination. But, now that all schools became provided schools, he thought it was reasonable that the former owners of transferred schools should have the right to demand one day in the year, of which they should give reasonable notice—say two or three weeks—for the examination and that on that day the schoolhouse belonging to them should not be used by the local authority as a public elementary school. The children who had shared that instruction would then be informed that if they were desirous of being examined they could attend on that day.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord who has just sat down expressed a sympathetic view of the right rev. Prelate's Amendment, because it is one towards which we also feel a great deal of sympathy. I need hardly say that my noble friend behind me has given an absolutely correct account of the law and the practice up to the present time. The right rev. Prelate, of course, will understand that as the law is, and as our Bill runs, it would be quite competent for the local education authority to give the permission he requires in the manner which the noble Lord behind me indicates —that is to say, by giving up on a particular day the use of the building as a public elementary school and allowing the examination to be held. As to the question whether it is possible to impose that duty upon the local education authority, as was done in the case of voluntary schools by Section 76 of the Act of 1870, that is a matter about which I am not so certain. But I can assure the right rev. Prelate that we

    27
    will take the whole matter into full consideration, and, if he pleases, consult with him as to the best possible method of giving expression to his wishes. I think it is pretty clear that, as the words stand, they would not be exactly satisfactory or meet the desires of the right rev. Prelate.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNheld that the words in the right rev. Prelate's Amendment were not quite clear. They did not make clear what sort of inspection was meant, nor by whom the inspection "was to be carried out.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERexpressed his gratitude to the Lord President of the Council for the answer he had given, and, on the understanding that the matter was to come again under review, he withdrew the Amendment in its present form.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYmoved to insert a new sub-section. He stated that there were in existence in the thirty-six dioceses of England and Wales forty-nine such associations as were mentioned in his Amendment, all of them constituted with the aid of the Board of Education, besides he did not know how many associations representing the other denominations. These associations had been proved by experience to be of great value, as bringing together the clergy and laity of the Church of England in the matter of school work, in a way that was not common before. Provision for the continuance of these bodies had been omitted from the Bill, and this, he presumed, was because the authors of the Bill felt that the subject was not so very pressing as many other subjects were. The Amendment was in no sense antagonistic to the Bill.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 20, after 'authority' to insert the following new sub-section. ' (3) If associations are constituted in such manner and in such areas and with such governing bodies representing the owners and trustees | as are approved by the Board of Education, it shall be lawful for such associations to take over the powers, duties, and funds of the existing associations of voluntary schools constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act,
    28
    1897, and also to receive any sums payable for the purchase or hire of schools in their areas and to administer them for the purpose of carrying out the trusts or purposes for which such schools have been previously held, including payments for religious instruction, and to perform any other duties, and to exercise any other powers which the owners or trustees of such schools may think lit to delegate to them.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Salisbury.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this Amendment, of course, is not in the strict sense a controversial one. It is certainly not one which His Majesty's Government are disposed to treat as a matter of controversy, but it undoubtedly raises various important points upon which I think it is desirable that the Committee should be informed. Your Lordships have already dealt with Clause 2, and, at the instance of Lord Barnard, you passed an Amendment to this effect—Provided that such an arrangement—that is to say, the arrangement for transferring the school—includes, as far as may be, having regard to the altered circumstances of the case, adequate provisions for the preservation of such trusts, and for the protection of the endowment subject thereto.
    I shall be glad, I confess, before the debate on this Amendment is concluded, to hear the opinion of Lord Barnard. That noble Lord stands, so to speak, like a warning angel with his sword drawn in his hand, barring every road which does not lead to the Charity Commission; and if, as it appears to me, this Amendment necessarily involves some remarkable dealings with trusts, I hope we shall hear what the noble Lord has to say on the subject. The Amendment states that these associations may receive any sums payable for the purchase or hire of schools in their areas and administer them for the purpose of carrying out the trusts or purposes for which such schools have been previously held, including payments for religious instruction, and perform any other duties and exercise any other Dowers which the owners or trustees of such schools may think fit to delegate to them. I am no lawyer, but it is certainly strange to me that it should be suggested that trustees may delegate to others powers of this kind.
    What are these trusts? They comprise sums of money or buildings left by pious and far-seeing people in former

    29
    times for the benefit and education of a particular parish, and the suggestion is, as I understand it, that if the trustees agree to delegate their powers to these associations, all the sums received by way of rent or otherwise by them may be pooled into one large sum and distributed according to what I have no doubt are very rightly considered the superior needs of poorer places and the lesser needs of wealthier places. That, I venture to think, is an exceedingly rational proposition, and in itself it is not likely to receive any severe criticism from this side of the House; but, being in charge of the Bill, I am, I think, bound to point out that it does involve very extensive dealings with trusts and endowments.
    Before I sit down I might point out that the wording of the right rev. Prelate's Amendment is perhaps open to some criticism on the ground that the associations of voluntary schools constituted under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, are themselves no longer in existence Their place has been taken by the bodies appointed under the Act of 1902 to deal with the balances of parliamentary grants and other matters. But that is merely a matter of wording, and one which could no doubt, be easily corrected. It is important to point out that in this matter the Board of Education has merely to act in its capacity of Charity Commissioners, and not to take any part on its educational side in considering or criticising what might be done under the Amendment. The point to which I specially wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that which I have mentioned relating to trusts, and I should be very glad to have the opinion of noble Lords opposite on that.
    LORD BARNARDsaid he was entirely in agreement with what had fallen from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council as to the effect which the proposed new sub section would have on the words introduced into the Bill on his (Lord Barnard's) Motion at an earlier stage. When he first read the litter part of the right rev. Prelate's Amendment he came to exactly the same conclusion as the noble Earl, that it was the intention to pool the endowments on all the schools, which would be contrary to the intention expressed in
    30
    Clause 2. But he thought, on careful perusal, that it was not impossible that an arrangement made under Clause 2, or a scheme made under Clause 9, might provide that the duties of preserving the trusts might be transferred to such an association. He was doubtful whether the wording of the Amendment now before the Committee made this point clear, and he strongly advised the right rev. Prelate to withdraw his proposed new sub-section at this stage.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked whether the Committee would not be willing to adopt the Amendment as it stood and then amend it on Report in any way that might be thought best. He denied that it was the intention to pool the endowments.
    LORD HENEAGEhoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment at the present stage. It was not at all in a satisfactory state, and even if it were, he did not think it should be added to the present clause, but should, after it had been put into a shape which would be workable and practicable, constitute a new clause of itself.
    LORD ASHBOURNEsaid it was obvious that the drafting of the clause required consideration. The matters dealt with were of the highest importance, and he suggested the withdrawal of the Amendment in order that the wording might receive closer examination.
    THE LORD BISHOP or SALISBURYasked whether the Government accepted the principle that it was desirable that some bodies representing the owners or trustees should be formed under the Bill.
    LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that, if they allowed owners of existing schools to combine or associate, the initiative ought to be entirely in the hands of the owners. There ought to be no compulsion upon them to make them hand over funds in the way proposed.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid he had consulted an eminent lawyer with regard to his Amendment, and had been told that the clause, as drafted,

    31
    made none of the powers compulsory but only optional.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: In the opinion of His Majesty's Government this is a question for the trustees and owners themselves. It is purely a domestic matter, and one on which we do not feel competent to form an opinion. I am speaking, of course, on the assumption that the proposed bodies called associations are to be entirely advisory and are not to take over any of the powers of the trustees.
    THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid he had every sympathy with the object of the clause, but he had considerable doubt whether the criticism of Lord Stanley of Alderley was not just. He certainly would not advise that the clause should be passed under the impression that there was an entire option. He did not think there was.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYrepeated his question, whether His Majesty's Government sympathised with the general principle that it was desirable that some bodies representing the owners or trustees should be formed under the Bill.
    No Answer was given.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Moved, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHasked what exactly was the effect of the Amendment adopted on Thursday night on the Motion of the Bishop of Oxford. Did it mean that facilities for religious instruction might be given on every day of the week in the case of all children that required such instruction?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am very glad that the right rev. Prelate has raised this point, because it does seem to me to be one on which considerable confusion exists even in the very highest quarters. I read in The Times this morning a letter from the most rev. Primate, in which he dealt with the numerous changes which have so far been
    32
    made in the Bill by your Lordships after enumerating some of the earlier changes, the most rev. Primate said—
    "Further, in a rural area, where there is only one school for the children of the parish, we require the local authority to allow ' facilities' on every day to those parents who desire denominational teaching, whether the school in question has hitherto been a provided or a voluntary school, the cost of such teaching being borne by the denomination which requires-it. This, too, I believe, corresponds with the intention of almost all fair-minded people."
    Now, my Lords, what actually occurred was this. We passed an Amendment moved by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, providing that in single school districts in rural areas existing council schools should be subject to the requirement to give facilities as though they were transferred schools. At the time that Amendment was passed the facilities to be given in transferred schools were limited to two days, and I believed, and I am still under the impression, that that was the intention of the right rev. Prelate in moving the Amendment.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDassented.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: Consequently, the most rev. Primate is, in effect, incorrect in stating that it was decided that in such council schools five days' facilities should be given. But what was afterwards done by the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford had no reference whatever to single school areas. That Amendment decided that in every transferred school, no matter where, if desired, five days' facilities might be given. I was not perfectly certain at the time that all your Lordships knew what you were doing in voting for that Amendment. I stated that it was, in my opinion, destructive of the fabric of the Bill. But, unfortunately, the discussion wandered away on to a side issue, and it occurred to me that it was just possible some noble Lords, and even some right rev. Prelates who supported that remarkable Amendment, wore not quite conscious of what its full effects were. It is perfectly evident that the most rev. Primate has misapprehended the effect of the Amendment, because in the letter from which I have quoted he has limited to single school areas the provision of five

    33
    days' facilities. As a matter of fact, in these single school rural areas the provision was intended to be two days' facilities, and it was only owing to the subsequent Amendment, which applied five days' facilities to all districts, that these single school districts were included.
    *THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDthought it would be very strange if noble Lords had not realised the effect of the Amendment, which had been down on the Paper for some time in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in whose absence he (the right rev. Prelate) had moved it. Before the Bishop of Hereford's Amendment was put to the House he expressly drew the attention of noble Lords to the fact that the question whether or not facilities were restricted to two days was loft entirely open, and that the Amendment of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh had given notice was still on the Paper. He did that because in one speech it had been incidentally assumed that the facilities would be for two days only. Among the many anxieties that arose in the mind after one had made a speech was whether one had made clear what one meant to say. He had just-received the Hansard proof of his own speech in moving the Amendment, which relieved him of any anxiety as to whether his explanation was ambiguous. He had explained it as plainly as he could.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I certainly did not mean to hint that any confusion that might have arisen in the minds of noble Lords or of right rev. Prelates was due to any lack of lucidity on the part of the right rev. Prelate who has just-sat down. An entirely different point as to how the two days' facilities could be used was afterwards raised, and it did occur to me that noble Lords might have imagined that in voting as they did they were enabling each child in all circumstances to get two days' facilities and not enabling all children to get five.
    *THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid he was grateful to the noble Earl for acquitting him of obscurity in the matter. There was a great deal more he would like to say with regard to the Amendment which their Lordships adopted on Thursday night, but he would postpone it until a later stage. He believed the
    34
    Amendment had been reasonable, just, and necessary.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that for his part he could not be a party to asking for facilities in all their schools on every day in the week, and he could not imagine that such a proposal would be entertained for a moment outside.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsubmitted that there was no obscurity as to what had taken place. The Bishop o£ Oxford's Amendment, which was perfectly clearly explained, had, of course, a retrospective reference to the former clause. Personally he perfectly understood the effect of the Amendment, that it gave to every child the power of being taught for half an hour every morning in the week, and it was for that reason that he voted against it.
    LORD BURGHCLERE: On a point of Order, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees what the Amendment is before the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There is no Amendment before the House. The Question is that Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill. I think noble Lords are perfectly in order in discussing it.
    THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he had not a copy of his letter by him, but he would look into the matter at once, and if he found he had expressed himself in a way open to misconstruction he would take the earliest opportunity of setting it right. With regard to the final words of the clause, it was very desirable that the Government should make it clear that it was not intended to impose on those who gave the religious instruction a portion of the whole expenditure incurred in the school at the time of such instruction. The question had been raised in the House of Commons, and the highest legal authority there stated that there was no ambiguity, and that the provision could only mean the payment for books and the actual expenses incurred in giving the special instructions. If that were so, he thought it was most-desirable that His Majesty's Government should make it clear in the clause itself.
    *THE EARE OF CREWE: It is certainly our intention, as the most rev. Primate has stated, that the expense which is incurred by the religious body should be limited to the cost of teaching and books, and anything which can be said directly to have regard to the teaching itself. Such matters as the lighting and warming of the rooms we intend should be paid for by the local authority. The local authority keeps the school going during the whole of the time, and therefore pays those expenses. We are advised that the words of the section sufficiently give effect to this intention, but, if any noble Lord or right rev. Prelate thinks he can find happier words, we shall be pleased to consider them.
    On Question, Motion agreed to.
    Clause 4:—
    LORD HENEAGEmoved to substitute for the first "may" the word "shall," in order to make the clause mandatory instead of permissive. In the few remarks which he intended making he would adhere entirely to the Amendment and its object. He took it for granted that on both sides of the House there was a clear understanding that this clause in some shape or other must form part of the Bill, and they had the statement of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, on the Second Reading of the Bill, that without this clause he would be no party to the Bill. Therefore whilst every noble Lord on the Opposition side desired this clause they might take it for granted that those sitting on the Government Benches also desired it. He did not, therefore, propose to go into the question of the objects of the clause as a whole, but simply as to whether it was to be a mandatory clause or to be left permissive to the local authorities.
    The clause was, in his opinion, absolutely worthless, unless it was made mandatory on the local authorities to carry it out. He believed that local authorities generally would approve of its being made mandatory, and those who objected to that course were the very ones on whom they ought to make it mandatory. The noble Earl the
    36
    Lord President of the Council had on several occasions during these debates referred their Lordships to what took place in the other House of Parliament. He would like to return the compliment on this occasion, and to ask the noble Earl to remember what took place when this Amendment was discussed in the other House. First of all it was supported by Mr. Paul, who said it was a real indulgence to Roman Catholics and to Jews in a Protestant Bill; but he claimed that it would be of very great advantage also to the Church of England and to Nonconformists. Dr. Macnamara had distinctly stated that he was in favour of making the clause mandatory and he strongly objected to the contracting-out Amendment, and he (Lord Heneage) entirely agreed with him. He would like to see the contracting-out part of the Bill entirely done away with. It was also supported by Mr. Harwood, who termed the contracting-out clause a cruel alternative; and Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, the Labour representative, was strongly in favour of the clause being mandatory, and instanced the Factory Acts as a case where, if there had not been a mandatory provision, in many instances they would not have been carried out by the local authorities. Moreover, the division in the other House disclosed that there was a great difference of opinion on this matter even among the occupants of the Ministerial Benches. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 21, to leave out the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall.' "—(Lord Heneage.)
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, said he regarded this clause as by far the most important clause in the Bill. Under Clause 1 their Lordships were willing to lay down a fundamental proposition that all elementary education in this country should have as part of it religious education. That he believed to be a very valuable declaration of opinion, which, if it formed ultimately part of an Act of Parliament, would be looked back to as one of the great milestones in the

    37
    history of this educational controversy. But, as it stood, it was very little more than a declaration, a solemn declaration, of the opinion of Parliament. No teachers were provided by that Amendment in order to carry out the wishes of Parliament, and, more important than that, there were no means laid down for securing, not merely the actual period of religious instruction, but the religious spirit which ought to belong to and to penetrate all parts of education. Hitherto that religious spirit had remained alone in the voluntary schools, and, therefore, it was of the first importance, in considering this new Bill, to realise what the fate of the voluntary schools was going to be. Would there be henceforth what had been called a religious atmosphere in these schools? This religious spirit was as equally important from an undenominational as from a denominational point of view. He wished they could persuade noble Lords who sat opposite and their friends in the country how great their anxiety was, not so much for denominational religion as for the religious spirit itself. They might depend upon it, the existence of that religious spirit in our education was only secured if it was under the control of the denominations.
    The Government said this clause was frankly denominational, and he desired to consider first of all the general religious result of the clause, and then its denominationalism. He was quite aware that this was not the place and he was not the man to deal with the more sacred and spiritual aspects of the question, but he might say this much, that these children were entering upon life, they were realising for the first time the awful powers of good and of evil which they would be called upon to meet, and over them was placed a teacher, who occupied a position of, he was going to use the word supremacy, which in their Lordships' class they could have no notion of. When he was a boy, and he had no doubt it was the case with many of their Lordships, they did not necessarily—he was sorry to say it, perhaps—respect very highly all the pronouncements and views of the teachers who were set over them. But, then, they belonged to the upper class. They came from educated and cultured homes,
    38
    where their fathers and mothers were quite as competent, and sometimes far more competent, to pronounce an opinion upon this great question even than the schoolmasters under whom they were taught.
    That was not so with the lower classes. The teacher there was placed in a position of extraordinary ascendancy over their persons and over their minds. His word was law. He was the source to them of all learning. To the child he had solved the mysteries of all knowledge, and he was the arbiter of conduct, the judge of good and evil, and so forth. That being the case, the religious position of the teacher was all-important for the argument he was now addressing to their Lordships, not necessarily his denominational position, but the fact whether or not he was a religious man. That was of supreme importance, because, if he treated religion with hostility—and cases of the kind had been mentioned by the most rev. Primate—or even with indifference, let them conceive what the effect would be on the child's mind. How were they to be sure that the child would be penetrated with the religious spirit? There was no way of securing that the teacher should be a religious man except by giving authority over his appointment to someone to whom his religious character was of supreme importance. Therefore, they wanted a great deal more in respect of their denominational schools than merely the facilities which had been provided to some extent by Clause 3 as it reached their Lordships' House.
    The voluntary schools were to be done away with. That seemed a great pity. They were entirely satisfactory; they gave a first-rate secular education which was approved, and, besides that, they ensured that the teacher should be a man who was appointed with strict regard to his religious qualifications. Noble Lords on that side of the House did not contest that decision of Parliament; they submitted to it. It was no longer possible to trust the old system, which had hitherto secured what was so essential to be secured. But was there nobody else to whom they might appeal and in whose hands they might leave it to see that this religious spirit was

    39
    maintained? Was there nobody except the denominations who were interested in securing that the teachers should be religious and that the atmosphere should be religious? Their Lordships would anticipate the answer. It was quite obvious where that responsibility might be made to rest—upon the parents, who were themselves more interested than anybody else in the welfare of their children. Therefore, in any school where, the preponderating opinion of the parents was in favour of the maintenance of the old religious spirit of the school, in that school it ought to be maintained. It was not a question of "may" so far as the I parents were concerned; their rights in the education of their children were indestructible and must be conceded. It was a question of "shall," and must be "shall."
    All the other limitations which the Government had put in were almost equally absurd. It was not a question of urban and rural. The supreme claims of the highest of all influences upon a child could not depend on whether the child lived in a town or in the country; it could not depend on whether the population was 5,000 or 5,001. These propositions were so absurd that he did not think even this Government would defend them. The parents stood at the bar of their Lordships' House and asked for their rights. It was not a question of "may" and "may not," but a question of "shall." The parents had a right to demand it. To a great extent the Government themselves had admitted this principle as the logical development. They had admitted that where the parents, in a large proportion had a particular religious view that view must be taken into account. They had admitted that under those circumstances no absolute discretion must be allowed to vest in the local education authority.
    The Government had admitted, nay, hey had claimed, that this clause was frankly denominational, and he believed they had also stated that this section completely saved schools. Did it save the denominational schools? How could it be said to save denominational schools? He called upon his Majesty's Government to show how. with all these pettifogging restrictions, it
    40
    could be said to save the great mass of the denominational schools of the country. There were not only the restrictions which he had mentioned. When these wretched parents who were interested in the education of their children and were perfectly satisfied with the school as it had always existed had fulfilled, as the clause stood, all the restrictions about urban and rural and about 5,000, and so forth, they then had to convince the local education authority. What did that mean? The process of convincing a public body in England meant that they had to go at the time of the election into all parts of the constituency in order to get up an agitation in favour of their view. So that under the previous plans of the Government every contested election for a local education authority in England would have to be made the battle-field of this religious struggle. The parents or their agents would have to organise meetings, issue placards, and use all the squalid paraphernalia by which public opinion in England pronounced itself.
    Then there came the local education authorities, who, when they were elected, had to consider the request. The Government treated these authorities badly. They did not say, as they were bound to say in a matter of this importance, "You ought to do this" or "You ought to do that"; they said "We leave it to your discretion. "So that after the great friction at the hustings there was to be this friction in the council chamber, and when, after a spirited struggle during the election and a spirited struggle in the council chamber, a decision adverse to the parents was arrived at, then they had to go up to the Board of Education. The Board of Education had again to consider the matter, not to decide whether the local education authority had complied with the law or not, but whether the local authority in the exercise of their discretion had exercised a wrong discretion or not. That was always a bad kind of appeal, and it invariably led to a great deal of heart burning and friction.
    It was important for their Lordships to realise the sort of considerations which would be present to the mind of the Board of Education when it was deciding whether it would override the decision

    41
    of the local authority or not. What would these considerations be? It depended upon who was Minister for Education for the time being. The present Minister for Education, he supposed, would always consider the interests of Roman Catholics against those of Protestants. He did not know whether that was true or not, but everybody knew that this clause was introduced in order to satisfy the claims of Roman Catholics. This Government, supported by the votes of Nonconformists of the more extreme section of the population, would go down to history as having brought in a Bill containing provisions whereby Roman Catholics would have privileges which were denied to the Church of England. That would be, he presumed, the kind of consideration which would affect the mind of the Minister for Education when he was exercising his discretion under this clause.
    It should be laid down what were the rights of the parents; they might be limited, of course, but that was for their Lordships to consider. He did not say that every parent, or every small number of parents, necessarily should have all these rights, but he did say that, when they had fixed upon the limitations, those limitations should not be a matter for the discretion of the local education authority or the Board of Education, but should be laid down in the Act of Parliament for the authorities to carry out. He would try and anticipate what kind of arguments would be used against this proposal. First of all, he believed it likely, from what passed in another place, that the Government would say that a mandatory provision would be unenforceable; that there would be no means, if they said the local education authority should grant these extended facilities if the conditions were satisfied, of enforcing that obligation on a reluctant education authority. He did not agree with that. He did not think the Government really believed it, because they themselves had provided an appeal in certain cases, and if an appeal could be enforced at all, then it could be enforced in every case.
    The difficulty of the Government appeared to be based on a misconception. There was no real difficulty in enforcing by mandamus an order of a public de-
    42
    partment. It was done by many public departments and done continually. The detail, which was the difficulty, was dealt with in the order, and provided the order was within the powers of the particular Department and was not ultra vires, there was no difficulty whatever for the Court of King's Bench to enforce the Order by mandamus. Therefore if the Board of Education was empowered to place the details in an order, then that. order could be enforced en bloc by mandamus, just as in the case of other public departments who had power to issue orders. 80 that difficulty disappeared when it was looked into. The Government might say they were claiming these great rights for the majority of the parents; what about the minority? He recognised that difficulty, and he believed that noble Lords on his side of the House would do everything in their power to safeguard the rights of minorities, subject only to the one limitation that they did not deny the rights of the majority. He urged their Lordships on this most important point in the Bill not to forget that justice was due to the parents in the exercise of the most sacred of their rights.
    *THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)said the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment now before the House had said that he intended to confine himself strictly to the terms of it, and he thought those of their Lordships who listened to his speech would agree that Lord Heneage entirely fulfilled his promise. He made a short speech, and a speech to the point; but he (Lord Fitzmaurice) could not help thinking that when Lord Heneage told the Committee so pointedly that such was his intention, he had some vaticination conveyed to him of the speech which the noble Marquess was about to deliver, and desired, if possible, to prevent him doing so.
    He would not follow the example of the noble Marquess, who had made a Second Reading speech, and had dealt with the clause as a whole; he would keep to the Amendment. In the first place, however, he expressed regret, which he was sure would be shared by many noble

    43
    Lords opposite, that the noble Marquess should have gone out of his way to insinuate a charge of possible unfairness, should the Bill become law, against the President of the Board of Education. The noble Marquess had said that the clause, whatever merits it might have - he was not able to deny, from his own point of view, that there were some merits in it-was really intended by the Government for the sole benefit of Roman Catholics, and that they would subsequently find that it was administered for the benefit, if not exclusively at any rate principally, of Roman Catholics. This kind of charge he ventured to think was much better not made, and he thought the noble Marquess would feel that the imputation against his right hon. friend was an unfair one.
    The noble Marquess had said that the parents of the children were at the bar of their Lordship's House. He (Lord Fitzmaurice) was rather shortsighted, but he could only see at the bar Members of the House of Commons, who appeared to be wondering at the noble Marquess's eloquent denunciation of the clause as it stood. The clause was a great concession to denominationalism, for which the Government had been subjected to many bitter attacks, and no doubt to-morrow's papers would report strong denunciations of the concessions made. Still, for better or worse, the Government stood by the concessions and were not ashamed of them, believing it was right to recognise, in building up the framework of a new and, as they hoped, permanent system of national education, the labours in past days of religious denominations in the service of education. For that reason the clause was inserted. It contained many points open to attack from the friends of the Government, as it contained concessions to those interests which noble Lords and right rev. Prelates desired to protect.
    The daily affairs of public life could not be carried out by mandamus, as those who had had experience of local administration would allow. He mentioned the enforcement of the Vaccination Acts as an instance of the mistake of working by mandamus, by which anti-
    44
    vaccinators were able to assume the position of martyrs. For that reason, much as they respected the high authority of Dr. Macnamara and others in educational matters, the Government came to the conclusion that it was better to keep the mandamus as far as possible in the background, and to rely, in the first instance, upon an appeal to the Board of Education. The noble Marquess had told them that in the last resort there was the mandamus after all. But there was no necessity always to bring in the constable's staff; government could be carried on by agreement and exchange of opinion, holding the strong arm of the law in reserve. The Government had decided to give an appeal to the Board of Education, and would not try to enforce regulations by mandamus, in the first instance.
    Why was so little confidence displayed in local authorities? Nothing had astonished him more than to hear expressions of distrust from noble Lords who, in 1888, assisted in founding county councils, and who, by the Act of 1902, made borough and county councils educational authorities. Would noble Lords who were chairmen of county councils say they anticipated difficulty in carrying out the proposed arrangements, or did they think there was any reality in the lurid picture of a local inquiry drawn by the noble Marquess? He had been at a great number of local inquiries, and knew that passions did run a little high at times, but, with the exercise of patience and good will, matters were generally brought to a satisfactory conclusion. He undertook to say that these agreements would go through in an infinitely easier manner than noble Lords opposite imagined, and, as for the terrors which the noble Marquess had held up, he could safely say that he would not sleep any the worse after listening to them. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
    VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid Clause 4 was a recognition that the denominational system should be allowed to exist in this country. It was, he contended, clearly the intention of the Government and the House of Commons that where the conditions were fulfilled the extended facilities

    45
    should be granted, but by retaining the word "may" a local authority would be enabled, in spite of all, to say, "No, the clause says 'may,' and we shall not give the extended facilities," and so the children might be turned into the meagre pasture of Cowper-Templeism.
    The mere grant of an appeal negatived the word "may." As they meant that the facilities should be granted when the conditions were fulfilled, they ought to say that the facilities "shall" be granted. The first step then would be an Order by the Board of Education, that Department having satisfied itself that the conditions were fulfilled, to the local education authority to carry out its statutory duties, and, if they did not then fulfil them, the Department would fall back on the mandamus. In the name of the Roman Catholics he disclaimed any idea of asking for any privileges that their fellow-subjects and the Church of England did not equally demand, but they intended that the denominational facilities should be a reality and not a sham.
    VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid an ounce of fact was worth a pound of theory. When the county council in Yorkshire refused to pay a portion of the salary of the teachers for denominational teaching nobody supposed they were acting in accordance with the law. They said, "We are not going to pay for denominational teaching, and whatever the Act says, we do not intend to do it." It was not until afterwards it was found upon appeal that they had something to stand upon. Unless the clause was made mandatory the facilities would not be extended to a single school.
    *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given as his two main reasons against this proposal, first, that His Majesty's Government did not wish to live in an atmosphere of mandamus, and, secondly, that they ought to trust the local authority. He would like to answer those two arguments by a short and simple reference to Clause 3 of the Bill. The Government used "shall" in Clause 3, and what about the atmosphere of mandamus there? Why did
    46
    the Government not show that confidence in the local authority in regard to Clause 3 which they now showed in relation to Clause 4? And what was the difference between the two that required "shall" in the one case and not in the other?
    THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONacknowledged the generous words which had fallen from the noble Viscount (Lord Llandaff) with regard to claiming no special privilege for the body to which he belonged as compared with the Church of England. He said he smarted under the great injustice which was being done to Church children in the twenty square miles in London where there were no Church schools at all, and he would bring up an Amendment on Report to endeavour to remedy that injustice. They were not bound to any special form of getting the denominational principle; they were bound to the principle itself. He supported the Amendment in the interest of the Church schools in London. They were bound to stand up for their Church schools on this clause. They hoped for immense things from Clause 4, but if "may" was retained at the beginning of it their hopes fell to the ground at once. He implored their Lordships to accept the Amendment. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House had said that without this clause the Bill would be unworkable and unjust; and he (the right rev. Prelate) ventured to assert that without this Amendment the clause itself would be unworkable and unjust.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I suppose that it is right for me to say one or two words on this Amendment. The debate has been kept within very close and narrow limits since the speech of the noble Marquess opposite, who, having a speech to make, made it, and I am sure we all thought it was a very brilliant speech, although some considerable part of it had no very close reference to the clause. When the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down said it was necessary to turn "may" into "shall" in order to secure the existence of these schools, he seemed to imply that if "may" does not mean "shall" there was some doubt in individual cases whether the school would become subject to the four-fifths facilities. I have only

    47
    to repeat what was said by my right hon. friend in another place, that we do distinctly intend and desire that under this clause these special facilities shall invariably be given whenever the conditions are fulfilled. As to the fulfilment of the conditions I say nothing, because on those conditions noble Lords opposite have Amendments later on in the clause: but, if the conditions are fulfilled, we say that it is certain under our arrangement that a school in which this special instruction can be given every day in the the week and be given by the teacher can exist. That, of course, is the point at issue at this moment.
    What is it that will be done under the Bill as it stands? After the necessary conditions have been observed and it is found that the parents of four-fifths of the children attending the school desire special religious instruction, and that the minority of the children can be provided for elsewhere, if no agreement can be come to, an appeal is provided to the Board of Education, and the Board may make an order that the school should be a four-fifths school, or, in certain cases, a State-aided school. The province of the Board of Education, owing to the fact that the word in the clause is "may" and not "shall," is to consider the whole matter in a friendly spirit with the local education authority. They can only do that, I may remind your Lordships, owing to the fact that the word "may" is in the clause. If the word "shall" were inserted the Board would have no option but immediately to make the order on the local authority; and it is just because we know the kind of influence which the Board of Education and its excellent officers and administrators have with the local education authorities, and that an authority which makes difficulties is infinitely more likely to be brought to a settlement by these methods, that we inserted "may" in the first instance instead of "shall."
    My noble friend behind me pointed out that this mistrust of the local authorities comes strangely from noble Lords opposite. I, too, have often been surprised at it. They regard these great local authorities as monsters, yet noble Lords opposite are the Frankensteins
    48
    to whom the creation of those monsters is due. It is necessary to remember that local authorities have, perhaps not always within a perfectly wise Emit, a very considerable amount of amour propre in these matters, and, dealing with facts as they are, it certainly does seem to me infinitely more sensible and more appropriate first to approach them, having given them these great educational powers, as was done by noble Lords opposite, in a friendly and conciliatory spirit.
    The noble Marquess who supported the Amendment seemed to imply that if a mandamus were necessary to enforce the order on the local authority it would be at once granted by the Court on the application of the Board of Education. As I have had occasion before to observe, I am not a lawyer, and, therefore, I regret more the absence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor; but it is news to me that a Government Department can go into Court and get a mandamus as easily as a man might walk into a shop and buy an umbrella. I should have thought that the Court would have to be fully satisfied that the local authority were refusing to carry out what was really a statutory obligation. The noble Marquess opposite (Lord Londonderry), as President of the Board of Education, had experience in the case of Wales. Those attempts to apply a mandamus met with such little success that a special Act of Parliament had to be passed to deal with the local authorities. If some future Board of Education were placed in a similar position by the adoption of the Amendment, I am afraid that they, too, would have to go to Parliament for fresh legislation.
    I do not think it would be desirable, or that it would meet your Lordships' wishes, if I were to do more than just mention the further alternative of the State-aided schools. They arise under Clause 5, but, in stating the whole case, it is necessary to refer to those schools. I do not know whether it has occurred to your Lordships, but it certainly has occurred to me, that there might be some, and not an inconsiderable number of cases where the schools would prefer to be State-aided schools. After all, Amendments have been moved in the

    49
    other House to provide that any school that liked to stand out should have the power to do so. If that is so, I should think it is very possible that, where there is a certain amount of money available, some schools might prefer to stand out, if the Board of Education agreed, getting the Government grants but not being subject to the control of the local authority. Therefore there are some cases in which it would not be a hardship, and noble Lords must remember that in instituting one of these State-aided schools the Board of Education will have regard to all the circumstances of the case. If it is obvious that the school is too poor to be carried on as a State-aided school, or if, for any other reason, it is inconvenient or impossible for it to be so carried on, and the Board of Education think this clause ought to operate, in that event they would undoubtedly have recourse to the legal process.
    The point in this discussion is really one of methods rather than of aims. It is our absolute desire that these schools shall be able to retain the religious atmosphere upon which, as we know, the Roman Catholic Church, and also, I frankly admit, a considerable body of the Church of England, set so much store. That is our intention. We believe that our plan, intricate though it may seem at first sight, carries it out better than the simple substitution of the word "shall" for the word "may." Your Lordships must remember that if "shall" is substituted for "may" State-aided schools must inevitably go, because it is impossible to combine that discretion of the Board of Education with the absolute mandate which is to be laid on the local authority in all circumstances.
    There is one further point which has not been alluded to in this debate. If you leave in the word "shall," every such school which can prove that it has got the four-fifths and has satisfied the other conditions imposed by the clause must be taken over and carried on in this way. That
    would prevent, in cases where there are a considerable number of denominational schools, an arrangement being arrived at by which one or two of the principal schools should be allowed to be carried on under this new condition.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Will the noble Earl tell us whether there is any answer to the question put by the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn as to why the word "shall" occurs in Clause 3, and why the word "may" is insisted upon in Clause 4?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: My impression is that the word "shall" was inserted in Clause 3 because it is simply a matter of contract between two parties. I am inclined to think, at first sight, that the necessity to take over all schools might possibly lay that clause open to the same objection in the matter of the mandamus that we think Clause 4 is open to.
    *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNthought that the demand that ordinary facilities should be granted was not simply a matter of contract between two parties, as the local authority had no option in the matter.
    LORD DAVEYopposed the Amendment. He said it was quite clear that under Clause 3 the facilities were given as part of the arrangement by which the local authority acquired the school, and, therefore, they must fulfil their contract, and in that case "shall" was perfectly proper. In his humble judgment, to introduce "shall" instead of "may" in the clause now under discussion would dislocate the whole scheme, because the clause was that the local authority should, in the first place, exercise their discretion, and then there should be an appeal to the Board of Education, who might take one of two courses.
    On question, "Whether the word 'may' shall stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 46; Not Contents, 157.

    CONTENTS.

    York, L. Abp.

    Northampton, M.

    Chesterfield, E.

    Chichester, E.

    Crewe, E. (L. President.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Craven, E.

    Ripon, M. (L. Privy seal.)

    Carrington, E.

    Durham, E.

    Portsmouth, E.

    Elgin, L.(E. Elgin and

    Pirrie, L.

    Temple, E.

    Kincardine.)

    Reay, L.

    Farrer, L.

    Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

    Althorpe, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

    Fitzmaurice, L.

    Sandhurst, L.

    Grimthorpe, L.

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Hereford, L. Bp.

    Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

    Shuttleworth, L.

    St. Asaph, L. Bp.

    Haversham, L.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Headley, L.

    Tenterden, L.

    Aberdare, L.

    Hemphill, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Boston, L.

    Joicey, L.

    Wandsworth, L.

    Colebrooke, L.

    Loch, L.

    Weardale, L.

    Courteney of Penwith, L.

    Monk Bretton, L.

    Welby, L.

    Davey, L.

    Nunburnholme, L.

    Denman, L. [Teller.]

    O'Hagan, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Abp.

    Radnor, E.

    Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

    Saint Germans, E.

    Burton, L.

    Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

    Scarbrough, E.

    Calthorpe, L.

    Devonshire, D.

    Shaftesbury, E.

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Leeds, D.

    Shrewsbury, E.

    Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

    Newcastle, D.

    Stamford, E.

    Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-

    Northumberland, D.

    Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

    william.)

    Wellington, D.

    Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

    Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

    Westmeath, E.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    Abergavenny, M.

    Clonbrock, L.

    Ailesbury, M.

    Churchill, V. [Teller.]

    Colchester, L.

    Bath, M.

    Cobham, V.

    De Freyne, L.

    Camden, M.

    Colville of Culross, V.

    de Ros, L.

    Hertford, M.

    Falkland, V.

    Deramore, L.

    Lansdowne, M.

    Falmouth, V.

    Digby, L.

    Salisbury, M.

    Goschen, V.

    Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

    Winchester, M.

    Halifax, V.

    Dunalley, L.

    Hill, V.

    Estcourt, L.

    Abingdon, E.

    Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-

    Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

    Amherst, E.

    more.)

    Forester, L.

    Ashburnham, E.

    Iveagh, V.

    Gage, L. (V.Gage.)

    Brownlow, E.

    Knutsford, V.

    Gerard, L.

    Cadogan, E.

    Llandaff, V.

    Gormanston, L. (V. Gorman-

    Camperdown, E.

    Ridley, V.

    ston.)

    Carnwath, E.

    St. Aldwyn, V.

    Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

    Catheart, E.

    Hastings, L.

    Cawdor, E.

    Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

    Heneage, L.

    Clarendon, E.

    Birmingham, L. Bp.

    Howard of Glossop, L.

    Dartmouth, E.

    Bristol, L. Bp.

    Kelvin, L.

    Darnley, E.

    Chester, L. Bp.

    Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

    Dartrey, E.

    Lincoln, L. Bp.

    Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

    De La Warr, E.

    London, L. Bp.

    Kinnaird, L.

    Denbigh, E.

    Norwich, L. Bp.

    Knaresborough, L.

    Devon, E.

    Oxford, L. Bp.

    Lawrence, L.

    Doncaster, E. (E. Buccleuch

    St. David's L. Bp

    Leith of Fyvie, L.

    and Queensberry.)

    Salisbury, L. Bp.

    Lovat, L.

    Egerton, E.

    Southvvark, L. Bp.

    Macnaghten, L.

    Eldon, E.

    Wakefield, L. Bp.

    Manners, L.

    Feversham, E.

    Winchester, L. Bp.

    Middleton, L.

    Guilford, E.

    Moncrieff, L.

    Halsbury, E.

    Addington, L.

    Mowbray, L.

    Hardwicke, E.

    Alington. L.

    North, L.

    Huntingdon, E.

    Ampthill, L.

    Ormathwaite, L.

    Jersey, E.

    Armstrong, L.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Lathom, E.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Ravensworth, L.

    Lindsey, E.

    Atkinson, L.

    Redesdale, L.

    Londesborough, E.

    Avebury, L.

    Ritchie of Dundee, L.

    Lonsdale E.

    Barrymore, L.

    Sandys, L.

    Lucan, E.

    Bateman, L.

    Seaton, L.

    Malmesbury, E.

    Belhaven and Stenton, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    Nelson, E.

    Biddulph, L.

    Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

    Northesk, E.

    Blythswood, L.

    Stanmore, L.

    Onslow, E.

    Bolton, L.

    Teynham, L.

    Orford, E.

    Borthwick, L.

    Waleran, L.

    Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

    Brassey, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Plymouth, E.

    Braye, L.

    Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

    On Question, the word "shall" inserted.
    VISCOUNT LLANDAFF,VISCOUNT LLANDAFF, in moving to insert after "1870" the words, "and in accordance with the trust deed, if any, of the school," said that this was almost a formal Amendment, its effect being that the religious instruction under Clause 4 should be in accordance with the trust deed of the school; he presumed that that was what was really intended by the clause.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 24, after the word '1870,' to insert the words 'and in accordance with the trust deed, if any, of the school,' and to leave out 'any,' and insert 'every.'" —(Viscount Llandaff.)
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: The effect of this Amendment, I take it, is merely to bring the law into conformity with what will be done by this Bill when it becomes an Act. As the matter stands at present, the Amendment is not operative. What is known as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause in the Act of 1902 placed the religious instruction in voluntary schools in the hands of the managers. That clause is repealed by this Bill, and the effect, I take it, will be to cause a reversion to the state of things under which religious instruction will be given subject to the provisions of the trust deed, if any, of the school. I have no doubt that from the point of view of the noble Viscount and to those who belong to the Roman Catholic Church that would be an entirely satisfactory arrangement. At the same time, so far as Church of England schools are concerned, I believe it has been the practice, even before the Act of 1902, to treat some quite old trust deeds in a rather rational manner by ignoring practically obsolete provisions contained in them. I see that my noble friend, Lord Barnard, is not in the House; therefore I am able to speak about trusts with more confidence than I could if he were present. If the noble Viscount is content to leave out these words, I believe the Bill as we propose to carry it without them will entirely meet his wishes.
    VISCOUNT LLANDAFFreminded the noble Earl that the managers of the transferred schools would be managers appointed by the local education autho-
    54
    rities, and therefore might possibly not be in sympathy with the religious facilities demanded in the schools. His proposal was simply an indication to them that the religious facilities which they were to afford under Clause 4 must be of the sort contemplated by the trust deeds of the school.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: The managers will have no control over religious teaching under our Bill.
    VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: They will have the appointment of the teacher, which is a considerable control over the religious instruction.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: That is another matter.
    VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: Unless Amendments are introduced, they will have the appointment of the teacher and the control of the whole curriculum of the school.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Viscount adheres to his desire to insert these words, I make no objection at this stage, subject to any correction I may have to make later.
    *THE EARL OF JERSEYin moving the omission of the words "in an urban area," said that circumstances were somewhat altered since he gave notice of this Amendment, the Bishop of Hereford having provided for single school parishes. Consequently the only people who would not be able to get extended facilities would apparently be those who lived in urban districts of under 5,000 population. His Amendment was intended to cover rural parishes.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but I am bound to point out that he is under a misapprehension. The Amendment of the Bishop of Hereford does not provide for the existence in those areas of schools which come under Clause 4.
    *THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid that, under those circumstances, he would

    55
    move his Amendment with all the greater confidence. His object was that there should be no difference between urban and rural districts. Why should not the views of people who lived in a rural district be considered as well as those of the inhabitants of an urban district of over 5,000 population? This, after all, was a question affecting the parents; it was not a matter for the owners of the school. The point was whether parents, wherever they might live, should not have the right, if they were in a majority, to be able to obtain for their children the religious instruction under this clause. He begged to move.
    Amendment moved—
    "In page 3, line 24, to leave out the words 'in an urban area.' "—(The Earl of Jersey).
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that, as he had an Amendment of a similar character on the Notice Paper it might be convenient that he should give his reasons for supporting the Amendment now proposed instead of moving his own. The Lord President of the Council had stated that His Majesty's Opposition had been battering the Education Bill. He (the Marquess of Londonderry) did not accept nor did he entirely repudiate that statement. The Bill might have been battered, but it had certainly been battered with advantage Clause 1 had been amended for the good. Beyond all doubt the date fixed for the Bill to come into operation was absolutely indefensible, and it would be probably admitted that Clause 4 without the proposed Amendment was as indefensible as the other provisions to which he had alluded were in their original form. The exclusion of the words "in an urban area" was one of the most important Amendments which could be brought forward, and he would be interested to hear the reasons for objecting to their deletion.
    The explanations of Ministers with regard to the insertion of the words were very clear. They had declared that in certain cases denominational schools, denominational teachers, and denominational education were absolutely indispensable. That was admitted by the introduction of Clause 4. The Government had also laid down the conditions of such
    56
    schools as were enumerated in the clause, and had virtually claimed that no such school could be established in derogation of the rights, conscientious or otherwise, of any minority attending those schools. That was laid down by the Bill as it stood. Therefore their Lordships were justified in drawing the conclusion that if the conditions laid down were satisfied, no such school ought to be excluded from the benefits of Clause 4. If the premises he had put forward were correct, the position taken up by the Government in objecting to the clause was absolutely absurd, and it was rendered the more absurd by the various reasons which had been given by different members of the Government for the construction of the clause. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education had stated that the exclusion of rural districts was due to the incapacity of the rural voter to exercise the ballot as required by the clause.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: Is the noble Marquess quoting my hon. friend's words?
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he was quoting not the actual words, but the construction which he placed upon them, and if the noble Earl disagreed with that construction he would be glad to quote the exact words afterwards. He did not know what opinion the rural voter would have upon that view of the Parliamentary Secretary, but undoubtedly the description was not one of a complimentary or satisfactory character to the rural voter, and certainly no such slur had ever been cast upon him by any Member on the Opposition side of the House. But the curious thing was that this alleged incapacity of the rural elector did not come into existence until some considerable time after the Bill had been introduced. Therefore the clause was not originally founded on that ground, and it might be well if the noble Earl would give the real reasons why the Board of Education were opposed to the exclusion of the words "in an urban area" from the clause. It was almost impossible to reconcile speeches of various members of the Government not only one with another, but also with their interpretation of the Bill as presented to

    57
    their Lordships' House. Mr. Birrell's explanation of the ground of exclusion was of a totally different character from that of Mr. Lough, his view being that the question of whether there was alternative accommodation for the children of the minority under paragraph (b) of the clause would be very difficult to decide in rural districts. But was that really the reason for which rural districts were excluded from the clause? If so, great as was his admiration of Mr. Birrell's ability and administrative power, he could only say that the right hon. Gentleman must be to a certain extent ignorant of how the Act would be carried out in the various districts. Just as many questions would arise in connection with the giving of facilities in urban districts as in rural districts. It was frequently extremely difficult for children in urban districts to find an accessible school, since, owing to causes which he had already enumerated to the Committee more than once, it was often even more difficult to transport children in an urban district than in a rural district. The explanation of Mr. Birrell was as unacceptable as that of Mr. Lough. Then the Solicitor-General had given an explanation totally different from the two already referred to, but in all probability the real one. The hon. and learned Gentlemen had stated that the clause was simply a compromise, and there were bound to be in it things in themselves indefensible but essential to the compromise. Personally he could not help thinking that that was the true reason. No doubt the restrictions were indefensible, but they were the price demanded by the Nonconformist extremists in the Cabinet and in the Party for allowing the clause to appear at all. Those who had studied the character and the opinions of the various members of the Cabinet could not help knowing that there were certain differences of opinion amongst them. Turning back to the speech of the Minister of Education on the introduction of the Bill, he could find there no denunciation of the denominational schools or any declared intention of their abolition.
    But whatever the differences of opinion might be, the Cabinet as a whole was undoubtedly responsible for the clause as it
    58
    stood. What was the clause intended to do? As far as he could gather it was a compromise between the two parties in the Cabinet, intended to meet as nearly as possible the needs of the Jews and the Roman Catholics and no others, while every effort was made to prevent any benefit accruing to the Church of England. He had had put into his hands since coming to the House an expression of opinion from a Roman Catholic with regard to certain remarks which had fallen from Lord Fitzmaurice, it being stated that the noble Lord implied that it was not, if he did not deny that Clause 4 was, for the Roman Catholics. That statement, however, like the other statements to which he had referred, had been contradicted by another member of the Government, because Mr. Asquith in the House of Commons on May 10th, stated—
    "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."†
    LORD FITZMAURICE: I said that t was not for the Roman Catholics only.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that that emphasised his point, his contention being that the compromise in the Cabinet was designed to meet the views of those who desired to abolish denominational education, and yet at the same time not to cause an open rupture with those who were in favour of denominational schools. For that purpose exceptions were made in favour of the Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, while at the same time the Church schools were to be practically abolished. Everybody with acquaintance with these matters knew full well that Jewish and Catholic schools obtained to the greater extent in large urban areas, whereas the Church of England schools were in greatest force in rural areas, so that by excluding rural areas by the fixing of the population limit of 5,000 it was undoubtedly intended that those rural schools should be abolished. He did not say that it was not a clever move, but at any rate it was one that they could see through.
    Then why was the figure of 5,000 taken? There were a great number of so-called
    † See (4) Debates, clvi., 1525.

    59
    rural districts which largely exceeded the 5,000 limit; in fact he believed that through not taking advantage of provisions in various Local Government Acts there were districts called rural which contained a population of considerably over 5,000. In the county of Durham, which he knew very well, there were seven parishes which satisfied in every way the conditions laid down in Clause 4, the population being over 5,000, and there being more than one school in the area, and yet because in a technical sense those parishes were situated in a rural and not in an urban area the children would be deprived of the privileges conferred by the clause. If that was the state of things in one county similar instances could doubtless be given from the rest of the country. Why were the children in rural districts to be deprived of the education which their parents desired them to receive? Why was it imagined that their consciences were different from those of children in urban districts? He would like the Lord President of the Council to explain why this differentiation was made. On behalf of those interested in religious education, he desired an answer to be given as to why the number had been fixed at 5,000, and why rural districts were excluded, unless it was because they were the stronghold of voluntary schools.
    *LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that before replying specifically to the questions which had been put he desired to point out to the noble Marquess that he could not accept the broad premise which he had not only laid down but suggested had been accepted by the Government. If he understood the noble Marquess correctly he stated that the Government had admitted that denominational schools were necessary everywhere.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Under this clause.
    *LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he understood the noble Marquess to lay down a somewhat broader proposition. What he wanted to point out was that this clause was an exception inserted in the Bill chiefly out of deference to the historic claims of great denominations which
    60
    had built schools in the past, and partly out of concession to the views of the Party opposite, because in these cases, however great the majorities might be in the other House, in order to place a Bill on the Statute-book there must be a certain amount of give and take between political Parties unless there was to be endless controversy. The religious instruction which, not only in regard to this clause, but speaking generally in regard to the Bill as a whole, the Government admitted was desirable, although they themselves did not make it compulsory-though the Committee had since practically made some religious instruction compulsory in every school-the religious instruction which the Government considered desirable, and which it still believed was accepted as satisfactory by the great bulk of the population of the country, was that which, broadly speaking, was known sometimes by the name of undenominational, sometimes by the name of un-sectarian, and sometimes by the general description of Christian education-a phrase which had been inserted in the schemes of nearly all secondary schools, and in schemes which in many cases were drawn up and passed into law while the noble Marquess himself was at the head of the Education Department. That was the broad principle of the Bill, but, for the reasons he had already stated, the Government had admitted that there were cases in which they were quite willing not only to consent to but to encourage denominational education.
    They were asked why, in the first place, they limited these facilities to urban areas. His reply was that the circumstances of urban areas and of rural districts differed materially. It was idle to say that there was no difference between the educational circumstances of town and country merely because in both there was an institution known by the same name, namely, a public elementary school. All legislation in regard to every branch of local government reposed upon a broad distinction between the urban and the rural area, and one of the most marked distinctions between the educational circumstances of an average town and those of the country district adjoining was that in nine cases out of ten, or in an even

    61
    larger proportion of cases, there was in the town a choice of schools, while in the country districts there was only a single school. Only the other day the Committee were discussing an important Amendment, moved by the Bishop of Hereford upon another clause, and supported by the Opposition, which also was based upon the distinction between the rural district and the town. That being so, the Government had applied this exception to the towns because there were in nearly every town numerous schools, and generally a Church school at one end of the town, and a council school at the other. They proposed this exceptional clause because they wished to be practical. They were not suggesting the clause in order to deceive Parliament; they were not putting something forward which they knew in practice would be unworkable; but they believed that in every case where there was a denominational school in a town that school would by this clause be preserved under slightly altered circumstances. The Government were perfectly aware that with many of their most trusted political supporters and allies the proposal was unpopular, but they were not afraid to face that unpopularity, believing as they did that they were doing what might be called an act of justice, without inflicting any injustice or disability upon anybody else.
    He would take the case of a town which for many years he had the honour to represent in Parliament. Swindon was a great educational centre, with an active population devoted to the cause of education. It was a town which in popular parlance might be called a school-board town. The great bulk of the schools were old board schools; there was an undenominational secondary school established by the county council and borough council together, and there was a higher elementary school established by the borough council. The bulk of the population were devoted to that system of schools which with some assistance from the county council they had established themselves. But there were in that town a Roman Catholic school and a Church of England school. Would it not have been an act of injustice to those two
    62
    schools, when practically every child in the town could go to a council school if it chose, if the Government had insisted upon calling upon the Roman Catholic school and the Church school to put up their shutters? He for one would not have been a party to any such action, and he believed that this clause would cause the schools in that town to work with all the more zeal because, taking advantage of the natural situation and of the plain and obvious facts of the case, they preserved at one end of the town a very efficient Roman Catholic school and at the other an equally efficient Church of England school. But he would contrast this state of things with that which obtained in the rural district around-a vast and rather melancholy area of small villages-where by a policy which may have been successful, but which he thought had not been altogether wise, it had been the object, too successfully attained, of the Church of England entirely to sieze and keep the whole of the accommodation of the district. No doubt here and there might be found a struggling British school, or a council school quite recently handed over by the managers, most of whom were old-fashioned country gentlemen of Whig principles mostly extinct and a certain number of Nonconformists. If the Committee extended, as the noble Marquess invited them to do, these privileges to the rural districts, he knew what the Liberals and Nonconformists in that district would say. They would say, "'Will you walk into my parlour?' said the spider to the fly." It was only natural on the part of the Church of England that they should desire to have these schools, and even to have a monopoly; from their point of view he did not blame them, but what he contended was that if these facilities were extended to rural districts in every case where there was within nominal reach a struggling British school or a council school, the Church of England with its great wealth, ability, and sincerity would claim that the privileges of this clause should apply to them. The struggling Liberals and Dissenters in those districts would have to fight for dear life in regard to every school, and they would gradually find coming back upon them

    63
    the old denominational schools, monopolising the whole of the neighbourhood, a system to check and limit, which was the principal object of this Bill. If that provision was taken away he was absolutely certain that the Bill would lose the greater part of its charm. [OPPOSITION laughter.] Yes, he was speaking perfectly straightforwardly; the great charm of this Bill was that it would give to the rural districts of England for the first time some chance of having a real system of national education under the control of the people. That was a charm in the eyes of the inhabitants of these rural districts, and in his judgment they were thoroughly justified in so considering it. Turning to the smaller question of the 5,000 limit, he thought a great deal of unnecessary heat had been imported into the discussions in the Press and elsewhere upon this point. It seemed to be the impression of some persons that behind this figure of 5,000 there was some dark design, some plot that could hardly be avowed. He had attempted to explain on the Second Reading of the Bill that it was simply a matter of detail of local administration involving no question of principle at all. It constantly happened when Bills relating to local government were under discussion, it signified not whether they were educational or local government Bills, that the Committee found that there lay upon the border line between town and country as known to the law-that was to say, between the borough and the rural district-a certain number of communities concerning which it was very difficult to ay, whatever they might be in the eye of the law, whether they really corresponded in fact with the definition of town or country. If he wanted to prove his case out of the mouth of a friendly critic, who held opinions different from his own, he could do so by an article which appeared in The Times in September last, where, commenting upon a very interesting report upon public health matters by one of the inspectors of the Local Government Board, it was pointed out that there were a great number of these so-called urban districts, little places with a population of about 5,000, which really were not urban districts at all, and which the law ought to treat as rural districts.
    64
    That article, after criticising the expenditure of some of these places, said—
    "The report of the inspectors strongly urges on county councils the necessity of caution in the subdivision of districts and expresses a very intelligible fear that this process has already been carried too far."
    That was, the process of making these small rural districts into urban districts, and giving them the rights and privileges of urban districts; and the article finished up by saying—
    "These so-called urban districts are inhabited by what it would be perfectly correct to describe as rural populations."
    This clause being intended to draw a line between town and country, all that was meant by the 5,000 limit was to take those populations which were in fact rural, though urban in law, and to place them on the rural side of the account in order that the legislation on this subject should correspond with the facts of the case rather than with arbitrary legal definitions. At the same time this was obviously not a question of principle, and if at a later stage noble Lords really thought it desirable to draw a hard and fast distinction between town and country and to place all urban communities, whether large or small, on one side of the line, and all rural communities upon the other side of the line, it ought not to be found impossible or difficult for the two sides of the House to come to an agreement. It so happened that in his own county there were a considerable number of these small places, and all he was anxious to assure the Committee was that the exception in regard to small places below the 5,000 limit was purely one of administration in regard to which the Government might perhaps be able to meet the views of noble Lords opposite. But the important question in regard to which agreement would be far more difficult would arise on the larger proposition of the noble Marquess that there should be no distinction between town and country. On that he was afraid he could hold out no hope of acceptance.
    LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTHasked what was meant by the expression "extended facilities." It seemed to be very much governed by the preceding clause, Clauses 3 and 4 both relating to what was to be done in the case

    65
    of transferred schools. Under Clause 3, if certain representations were made under certain conditions, it was laid down in the mandatory part of the clause that ordinary facilities should be given to transferred schools. As he took it, all the claim that the transferred schools made was not merely to have facilities afforded, but to have them continued. For the purposes of his argument he was assuming that the schools were Church schools, and they were merely asking to be able to continue the same denominational education as before. Clause 3 laid down that if certain conditions were observed, the local authority should—
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: Is the noble Lord addressing himself to the Amendment to omit the words "in an urban area?"
    LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTH: Yes, I was coming to that.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I merely wished to say that at present I do not see the connection.
    LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNG-WORTHsaid his point was that if they wore to extend these denominational facilities to transferred schools under Clause 3, why should they take away the possibility of transferred schools enjoying the same facilities under other conditions when they simply related to schools in an urban area? It seemed to him that practically speaking this clause was largely governed in principle if not in detail by Clause 3. Clause 4 might be right or it might be wrong, but if it was right in Clause 4 that, following the lines, although perhaps not the actual words of Clause 3, religious denominational facilities might be continued to these transferred schools, why were they to be forbidden simply because the schools did not happen to be in an urban area? He therefore asked what was the exact meaning of "extended facilities" under Clause 4, it being a different expression from the "ordinary facilities" previously referred to. As far as he could understand, they meant the continuance of facilities for denominational teaching whether
    66
    the schools happened to be in an urban area or in a rural area. He thought however, the Committee had some difficulty in understanding why, if it was a case of conscience, a distinction should be drawn on such grounds.
    VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid that as the noble Lord had stated that Clause 4 was an exception to the general system and that the Committee should not graft an exception upon an exception, he would ask why if an exception was just in one case it was not just in all similar cases. If it was right to respect the consciences of Church people who lived in towns, why was it not equally right to respect their consciences if they lived in the country? If they lived in a town, did their consciences acquire rights different from those acquired if they lived in the country? He asked their Lordships to consider what would happen if this clause were not extended to rural districts. In a district with which he was very well acquainted there were one or two very good Church schools which he had known for the last forty years. There had always been admirable reports from the Education Department, and he had never known a single complaint to be made as to the management of those schools. Within a mile and a half there were two council schools, one very good and the other less good. It constantly happened that children in the neighbourhood of those council schools preferred, for reasons of their own, to go to the Church schools. If this clause were not extended to rural districts, those Church schools would be exterminated, and the arrangements which had satisfied the inhabitants of the district for the last fifty years would be completely upset. Such a provision would really be extremely harsh and unfair. Lest it should be supposed that he was speaking from a Party point of view, he would quote from a letter by Mrs. Humphry Ward, who he believed belonged to the Unitarian body. In regard to the whole of the questions underlying the present Bill, Mrs. Humphry Ward, in a letter to The Times at the beginning of the year, said—
    "The supreme need of the present time is to prevent a much more profound injustice to the Church schools and to the Church feeling of the country being done than was done."—

    67
    he did not admit that it was—
    "by the Act of 1902."
    And she went on to say—
    "The proposals as I understand them out lined by Mr. Birrell and Mr. Lloyd-George appear to me grotesque in their unfairness."
    But it was not only Mrs. Humphry Ward who said that. In one of his last speeches in the House of Commons, Mr. Birrell said that the Bill pro vided that every person who desired that kind of instruction should find an undenominational school in every village But if it was right that those who cared for undenominational teaching should find an undenominational school in every village, why was it not equally right that those who cared for denominational teaching should find a denominational school in every village. He earnestly asked that this great injustice should not be done to the village schools.
    Let the Committee consider what an enormous increase would fall upon the rates if this clause were not extended. Probably some proportion of the Church schools would not be transferred and the local authority would have to provide schools which were absolutely unnecessary, simply for the sake of this assumed logical symmetry, for the sake of supplying something not asked for by the people. He was satisfied that it was quite possible to do something in regard to education which would meet the needs of everyone. He re-echoed what had fallen from pre-previous speakers. If the Nonconformists had a grievance he desired that it should be remedied, and that in single school districts they should have access to Church schools. Personally he would be perfectly willing that the £1,000,000 set aside for rent should be paid over to the Nonconformists to help them to supply their needs in single school districts, but what he would never consent to was to see the denominational schools destroyed throughout the rural districts of the country.
    *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that in supporting the Amendment he desired to express his regret that the Committee had, by an Amendment to Clause 3, extended the ordinary facilities, so that children might receive special denominational instruction on every day
    68
    of the week during school hours. He felt at the time, and he still believed, that in asking for that extension they were asking too much. They were in fact asking more than they had been in the habit of requiring hitherto in most schools. In his own diocese two mornings a week for the teaching of the Catechism and the Prayer Book were considered quite sufficient, and the best managed schools in his diocese were content with that arrangement, believing that they could give quite as good instruction as was necessary for the children, on the other three days by teaching the Bible itself. He regretted the decision also because it considerably weakened the case for the present Amendment. He fully agreed with Lord Fitzmaurice that legislation should correspond with the facts of the case, and not depend on arbitrary distinctions; and his reason for supporting this Amendment was that the clause in the Bill really depended on an arbitrary distinction and was not governed by the actual facts of the case. In this connection he held that the distinction between an urban area and a rural area was an arbitrary distinction, as also was the distinction between a population just over 5.000 and a population just under 5,000 for this purpose, and he thought that better conditions equally effective for the purpose desired could be found. He supported the Amendment on three conditions which he thought their Lordships would consider were reasonable. The clause was confessedly exceptional, designed for the purpose of meeting certain exceptional cases, and of dealing with them in a. reasonable manner. The first condition on which he supported the Amendment was that the school for which these extended facilities were demanded should be a school consisting practically of children of one denomination, that the minority of children who might happen to be in that school should be a very small minority. He therefore hoped that no attempt would be made to reduce the four-fifths provision. His second condition was that there should be another school equally accessible for the minority. They had heard a great deal about the defence of minorities in the discussions on this Bill—much more than was heard n the debates on the Bill of 1902. His

    69
    third condition was—and here he ventured to speak as a member of two local authorities and also as a ratepayer— that the extended facilities should not be given unless in the opinion of the Board of Education the number of children in the neighbourhood was sufficient to maintain two efficient schools without unnecessary expenditure of public money. Those were the three conditions on which he gave his support to the Amendment. If those conditions could be fulfilled his support would be a very hearty one. The distinctions drawn in the Bill were artificial. What they really required was that the conditions should be such that they could meet the reasonable requirements of a school which was com-posed practically all of one denomination, and that they should be careful to inflict no injustice on a small minority. Under these circumstances he was in favour of omitting the words "in an urban area," provided that his conditions were agreed to.
    THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMdesired to make an explanation on a matter which to some of them was important. He did so now because the statement he referred to occurred in the beginning of the speech of his right rev. brother who had just spoken. To those of them who cared about denominational teaching the distinction between denominational teaching and undenominational teaching was not in the least degree identical with the distinction between teaching the Catechism and teaching the Bible. For his own part, he should not much mind if nothing but the Bible was to be taught in any elementary school. What he cared about with all his heart and all his understanding was that the Bible should be taught by reference to such definite understanding of the Christian faith as was implied in the Creed of the Church. Therefore to him the distinction between denominational and undenominational teaching was in no way identical with the distinction between teaching the Catechism and teaching the Bible.
    *THE LORD BISHOP OF HREFORDasked leave to offer a word of explanation. His right rev. brother seemed to have misunderstood him, and had forgotten
    70
    about the clause that they were discussing. He (the Bishop of Hereford) expressed his regret that they had passed an Amendment in Clause 3 which practically gave, as he read it, power to a denomination to go into A school and give denominational instruction to the same children every day in the week.
    THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: I rise to a point of order. Is not the question before the Committee whether we are to omit the words "in an urban area?"
    *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDI understood that it was a question of personal explanation.
    VISCOUNT GALWAYsupported the Amendment, but without the hampering conditions suggested by the right rev. Prelate, on the broad lines that parents in a rural district had equal rights with those in an urban district. He was of opinion that the parents should have the fullest possible rights whether in an urban or in a rural district. It was for parents to decide what religious education they wished their children to. be instructed in, and he did not see why there should be an arbitrary distinction between the parents who lived in urban districts and the parents who lived in rural districts. He was glad to observe that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that the Government were willing to grant all the privileges in their power in urban districts to Roman Catholic and Church of England schools side by side with the board schools. He was quite willing to admit that every denomination should have-equal rights.
    THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think that as several questions have been addressed to me by noble Lords opposite, the Committee will pardon me if I reply. The question which noble Lords as a whole ask is really this— and it is undoubtedly one which should have an answer: "If you insert in this Bill, by sub-clause (b) Sub-section 1 of Clause 4, a provision making it a condition, that there is to be public school accommodation in schools not affected by a permission given under that section for the

    71
    other children attending the school, that is to say, for the minority—if you insert that, why do you want to draw a distinction between urban and rural districts?" Before I say a word on that point I should like to answer the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Zouche of Haryngworth as to the meaning of the words "extended facilities." Extended facilities are those given under this clause as distinguished from those facilities which we gave in the Bill as introduced under Clause 3. Under Clause 3 the facilities were for two days a week, Cowper-Temple teaching was the regular rule of the school, and the teacher was not allowed to give the teaching. Extended facilities under this clause would be special religious instruction on five days a week, no Cowper-Temple teaching at all, and the teacher might be permitted to give the teaching. That is the answer to that question.
    We said that we did not find it possible to agree to give this special privilege in rural districts. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham was perfectly right in the view that he took of the object we had in view in introducing this clause. It is not a question of teaching the Catechism five times a week, it is a question of the whole atmosphere of the school. That is a distinction which we draw between schools which have ordinary facilities and the schools which have these extended facilities. It is in consequence of that that we draw the distinction between the urban and the rural districts.
    What are the distinctions which exist between the two classes of districts? We must of course, speak broadly, because I entirely admit that no distinction of this kind can take effect in every instance; it must leave out here and there an instance which, if you were perfectly logical, you ought to include in the privileges granted by the Bill. In the first place, we think that it is more difficult in rural districts to decide the question of alternative accommodation than it is in urban districts. That matter was explained by my right hon. friend in the House of Commons, and I entirely endorse the view that he then expressed. Noble Lords must remember that under our general law of
    72
    education it is possible for a local authority to say that any school which is within three miles would satisfy the purpose under this Bill. It is quite true that a great many by-laws make the distance two miles, but it is possible it might be three. To maintain that in some of the upland districts of this country it is the same thing for a child to walk on a November or December day along some three miles of bleak road as it is for him to turn round the corner into his village school, is a proposition which is rather ridiculous. Consequently we say that although you might find technically accommodation for the child within the legal district, yet the circumstances might easily be such that a distinct hardship would be inflicted on the children of the minority.
    Then we come to the point dwelt on with great force by my noble friend behind me, that is, what is the real distinction, speaking broadly, between urban and rural in this matter. I confess that, taking the conditions of rural life in some parts of England into consideration, I should be very much averse to placing upon the minority the burden of putting themselves in opposition to the will, not merely of the numerical majority but of the most important people of the parish with whom they live. I need hardly tell your Lordships that I am not one of those who take the view that it is the custom of landowners and others who hold important positions in our rural villages to tyrannise over their dependents, their tenants or their neighbours; but in many parts of England there is a certain survival of a patriarchal feeling—a kind of benevolent despotism— which expresses itself somewhat in this way. It says, "Here are these people for whom we build excellent houses; we give them regular employment; we look after them when they are ill; is it too much to ask that they should not at any rate place themselves in direct opposition to us when they disagree with us in matters of politics or religion?" It is not a question of tyranny, but it is an undoubted fact that there are many parts of England in which that tone of feeling exists.
    SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Where?
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: In many parts of England; more in the South and West than in the North where I myself live, because I am happy to think that north of the Trent a greater feeling of independence exists; but I know something of the South of England. I have property there myself and I have some knowledge of the conditions which obtain.
    I will mention a further point. Some people talk, I believe, about tyrannical landlords. It is not so much the landlord, who I think is very often a man of broad ideas and who takes a wider view, but in many parts of England—not so much on your Lordships' estates as on those of many others— there exists a pernicious practice of letting cottages with farms, a practice which I think is one of the most undesirable that any landlord can follow. In these circumstances it is possible that a member of the minority is likely to be at the mercy, not of one of your Lordships, who I am certain would treat him in the most liberal spirit, but possibly of a somewhat narrow-minded man who, not exercising anything which could be called tyranny, can make things some what less pleasant for that member of the unpopular minority. Nobody will dispute these things. I know perfectly well that none of your Lordships will dispute that such things can and do exist in certain parts of England. That is, to my mind, the main reason for the distinction which it is necessary to draw between rural and urban in this matter. Of course I acknowledge that that distinction must be a rough one, but there are a great number of districts to which the remarks I have made apply, and it is possible to mention isolated cases of districts in which the whole conditions are almost identical with those which obtain in urban districts. I am sorry that these exceptions should exist under the rule which we have drawn, but I fear that it is entirely unavoidable. The noble Lord the Marquess of Londonderry said that in doing this we were attempting to destroy Church of England schools. I should like to know who, having heard the noble Marquess speak, would believe that as a matter of fact there are over 3,000 schools, con-
    74
    taining over 1,000,000 children, that is to say, 57 per cent, of the average attendance in Church of England schools, situated in areas which come within the operation of Clause 4.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY:Something like 8,000 schools are kept out of it.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: That is perfectly true. There are 8,000 schools, but not anything like half the children.
    THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: There are 800,000 children kept out.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: As against 1,488,000 children who are admitted. To speak of this as destroying the Church of England schools in these circumstances appears to me to be a perfect travesty of the facts, if I am not stating it too strongly. The noble Marquess ought to have qualified his observations in that respect. The noble Lord, Viscount Halifax, said that the effect in a particular instance would be to exterminate a particular Church school. Of course, if it is to exterminate a Church school to say that it must have two days' facilities teaching and three days Cowper-Temple teaching, I admit that is undoubtedly so.
    VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My point was that the teacher is not to be allowed to give religious instruction in a transferred school.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sure the noble Lord, if this case is in his neighbourhood, will see that somebody gives that instruction extremely well. I do not see that this means the extinction of Church schools. I have to admit perfectly frankly that it does mean the destruction of the atmosphere, and those who value the daily atmosphere, which, remember, is to run through secular as well as religious instruction, will find that the provisions in our Bill will prevent that being done in ft rural district.
    The noble Lord, Viscount Galway, made an observation implying that parents in rural districts as well as in urban districts should be able

    75
    to select the religious teaching for their own children. The conditions, unfortunately, make that impossible. It is very difficult in a town to have schools which suit the views of every kind of parent; in the country it is impossible. Therefore, when the noble Lord speaks of parents in this connection he can only mean by the nature of the case Church of England parents who happen to be in a particular instance in a majority. But what is to happen to the minority of parents and their interests in these districts, the noble Viscount does not tell us. I admit once more that this is somewhat a rough line to draw. It is not a logical line. I do not know any line that can be considered logical. Nothing is logical except a provision for secular education only or a provision giving facilities for every child in every school. Everything else, whether proposed by noble Lords opposite or proposed by us, would be distinctly illogical.
    My Lords, all I can say is, that in our view this distinction is one that must be drawn. If the matter is to be settled in the way that we desire to settle it, we must place an undenominational school in every district within the reach of the parents who desire it.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:My Lords, I will not attempt to criticise the interesting picture of English rural life which the noble Earl opposite has just drawn for our information. Its details—he will forgive me for saying so—do not appear to me absolutely correct or in accordance with the experience possessed by most of your Lordships. It might, no doubt, at one time in the history of the country, have been a correct picture, but I think that if he were to assert its correctness now, the charge would be resented not only by the owners of land and by the farmers whom he described in guarded terms as the despots in the drama, but also by the labouring population, whom he described as the victims of that despotism.
    My Lords, if we do not agree with the noble Lords opposite in regard to this clause, it is because we on this side of the House regard it in an entirely different light from that in which they look at it.
    76
    It has been represented to us to-night and upon other occasions as an exception, an exception grafted upon the man fabric of the Bill, an exception for which we ought to be grateful, a sort of small mercy which has been vouchsafed to us. That is not our view at all. We regard this clause as an essential and integral feature in the Bill, a feature in the absence of which we should have refused to look at this Bill at all.
    What is the object of the clause? Its object is that where schools possessing what has been spoken of as a denominational atmosphere are able to fulfil certain conditions those schools should be continued. In our view these schools, when they are able to fulfil those conditions, should be continued wherever they are to be found. If we are to attempt to draw a distinction between the areas within which these extended facilities are to be granted and the areas in which they are to be refused, then I say let us have an intelligible distinction. Our complaint of the distinction drawn in the Bill is that it is a technical and arbitrary distinction. We know perfectly well that there are many rural districts which in point of character are really indistinguishable from urban districts. In our view the schools which are to be found in those districts should be given whatever advantages can be derived from this clause.
    I ask your Lordships to remember that whether these schools are to be found in urban districts or in rural districts they will have to fulfil the same conditions. The same inquiry will have to be held, the same trouble taken, to ascertain whether there is a sufficient majority of children; and the same precautions taken to decide whether alternative accommodation is or is not available. The noble Earl dwelt upon the difficulty of ascertaining in rural districts whether such alternative accommodation was forthcoming or not. I should like to remind the Committee that last week when we were discussing the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford —an Amendment which the Committee will recollect dealt only with rural districts—the noble Earl opposite objected to the extension of the Amendment to urban districts upon the ground that it was so difficult to define a single school area in a

    77
    a town. Here we have the converse argument.
    *THE EARL OF CREWE: In the one case the question was the difficulty of defining the area. In this case the difficulty I submit is that of providing accommodation for the child.
    *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: It is a question of ascertaining whether the alternative accommodation is there or not. In all these cases we have to rely upon the education authority, and if the education authority is to be trusted to make these inquiries and to ascertain whether the requisite conditions are present or absent, I cannot see why they are not to be trusted, in dealing with this particular question, with the same amount of discretion and the same amount of opportunity of satisfying themselves in regard to the facts.
    *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, my noble friend was perfectly right in his opening observations. He said that there was a distinct difference of intention between the noble Lords opposite and the noble Lords on this side of the House. That is perfectly true. He went on to say that he was in favour of giving these facilities to all schools in all places.
    We are not of that view. The object and intention of the Bill is to offer these facilities everywhere except in single school districts. We do not think that it is possible in single school districts to give facilities of this kind to existing schools without placing an undue restriction and burden upon those who do not agree with the denominational instruction given in those schools. Like my noble friend, I am not going to enter into controversy as to what may go on here and there in the country. I think my noble friend behind me only said what is perfectly true, that there are cases such as he has described in various parts of the country. That is not the point before us now. The point before us now is this— is the Committee prepared to give these facilities in single school districts? I quite admit it is difficult to define a single school district. I quite admit, with my noble friend behind me, that the mode in which it is attempted to define it in this Bill is a rough method, but the difference between noble Lords opposite and those on this side of the House is that they are prepared to do that in all districts which we do not think ought to be done where there is no choice of schools.
    On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 180.

    CONTENTS.

    Crewe, E. (L. President.)

    Brassey, L.

    Joicey, L.

    Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

    Colebrooke, L.

    Kinnaird, L.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Coleridge, L.

    Monkswell, L.

    Carrington, E.

    Courtney of Penwith, L.

    O'Hagan, L.

    Chesterfield, E.

    Denman, L. [Teller.]

    Pirrie, L.

    Chichester, E.

    Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kin-

    Reay, L.

    Craven, E.

    cardine.)

    Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

    Kimberley, E.

    Eversley, L.

    Sandhurst, L.

    Portsmouth, E.

    Farrer, L.

    Saye and Sele, L.

    Russell, E.

    Fitzmaurice, L.

    Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

    Temple, E.

    Glantawe, L.

    Shuttleworth, L.

    Grimthorpe, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Althorp, V. [L. Chamberlain.)

    Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

    Wandsworth, L.

    Haversham, L.

    Weardale, L.

    Aberdare, L.

    Headley, L.

    Welby, L.

    Boston, L.

    Hemphill, L.

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Abp.

    Leeds, D.

    Wellington, D.

    Marlborough, D.

    Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

    Newcastle, D.

    Ailesbury, M.

    Bedford, D.

    Northumberland, D).

    Bath, M.

    Devonshire, D.

    Rutland, D).

    Bute, M.

    Camden, M.

    Yarborough, E.

    Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

    Hertford, M.

    Dunalley, L.

    Lansdowne, M.

    Churchill, V. [Teller.]

    Estcourt, L.

    Salisbury, M.

    Colville of (Cu'ross, V.

    Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

    Winchester, M.

    Cross, V.

    Forester, L.

    Falkland, V.

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Abingdon, E.

    Falmouth, V.

    Gormanston, L. (V. (Gorman-

    Ashburnham, E.

    Goschen, V.

    ston.)

    Brownlow, E.

    Halifax, V.

    Harris. L.

    Cadogan, E.

    Hill, V.

    Hastings. L.

    Camperdown, E.

    Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-

    Heneage, L.

    Carnwath, E.

    more.)

    Herries, L.

    Cathcart, E.

    Iveagh, V.

    Howard of Glossop, L.

    Cawdor, E.

    Llandaff, V.

    Kenmare L. (E. Kenmare.)

    Clarendon, E.

    Ridley, V.

    Kenyon, L.

    Dartmouth, E.

    St. Aldwyn. V.

    Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

    Darnley, E.

    Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

    Dartrey, E.

    Bangore, L. Bp.

    Knaresborough, L.

    De La Warr, E.

    Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

    Lawrence, L.

    Denbigh, E.

    Birmingham, L. Bp.

    Leigh, L.

    Derby, E.

    Bristol, L. Bp.

    Leith of Fyvie. L.

    Devon, E.

    Chester, L. Bp.

    Lovat, L.

    Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch

    Chichester, L. Bp.

    Lurgan, L.

    and Queensberry.)

    Hereford, L. Bp.

    Macnaghten, L.

    Eldon, E.

    Lincoln, L. Bp.

    Manners, L.

    Feversham, E.

    London, L. Bp.

    Methuen, L.

    Guilford, E.

    Norwich, L. Bp.

    Middleton. L.

    Halsbury, E.

    Oxford, L. Bp.

    Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

    Hardwicke, E.

    St. Asaph's, L. Bp.

    Monk Bretton, L.

    Huntingdon, E.

    St. David's, L. Bp.

    Mostyn, L.

    Ilchester, E.

    Salisbury, L. Bp.

    Mowbray, L.

    Jersey, E.

    Southwark, L. Bp.

    Napier, L.

    Kilmorey, E.

    Winchester, L. Bp.

    North, L.

    Lathom, E.

    Northbourne, L.

    Lindsey, E.

    Abinger, L.

    Northcliffe, L.

    Londesborough, E.

    Addington, L.

    Oranmore and Browne, L.

    Lonsdale, E.

    Alington, L.

    Ormathwaite, L.

    Malmesbury, E.

    Ampthill, L.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Armstrong, L.

    Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranjurly.)

    Mar and Kellie, L.

    Ashbourne, L.

    Ravensworth, L.

    Morley, E.

    Atkinson, L.

    Redesdale, L.

    Nelson, E.

    Barnard, L.

    Robertson, L.

    Northbrook, E.

    Barrymore, L.

    Sanderson, L.

    Northesk, E.

    Belhaven and Stenton, L.

    Sandys, L.

    Onslow, E.

    Blythswood, L.

    Seaton, L.

    Orford, E.

    Bolton, L.

    Sherborne, L.

    Pembroke and Montgomery,

    Borthwick, L.

    Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

    E.

    Braye, L.

    Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

    Plymouth, E.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Somerhill, L. (M. Clanri-

    Radnor, E.

    Burton, L.

    carde.)

    Saint Germans, E.

    Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

    Stalbridge, L.

    Scarbrough, E.

    Cheylesmore, L.

    Stanmore, L.

    Shaftesbury, E.

    Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

    Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. )

    Shrewsbury, E.

    Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

    Galloway.

    Stamford, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Tennyson, L.

    Stanhope, E.

    Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

    Waleran, L.

    Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

    De Freyne, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

    de Ros, L.

    Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

    Westmeath, E.

    Deramore, L.

    Westmorland, E.

    Digby, L.

    *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid that as he understood the adjournment of the House was to be moved, and that they were not going into further business, he asked leave to give a personal explanation about a letter from himself to Canon
    80
    Holland, which had been published in the newspapers, and to which the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had referred earlier in the evening. Their Lordships would remember that the noble Earl suggested that his letter did not give the complete statement of the facts

    81
    as to what had actually taken place. That was quite true. His letter was inaccurate only in the sense that it did not attempt to be exhaustive or complete, o to give a detailed statement as to all that had been done. Perhaps it would have been better if in making any statement he had tried at full length to develop everything, but he had not attempted to do so. His letter quite correctly indicated that so far as the rural single school areas were concerned the Amendments carried in that House had directed that both in transferred and provided schools denominational facilities might, if so desired, be used on even' school day; but if he had been attempting a full statement of all the facts it would have been necessary for him to have added that in urban areas, although they gave no additional facilities in provided schools, they had by the Amendments extended to five days, instead of two, the possibility of using facilities in transferred schools. He thought that correctly represented the facts, and so far as the brief summary went, which was all that he had attempted, he had certainly not meant to keep anything back in such a manner as to mislead anybody.
    THE EARL OF CEEWE: My Lords, I most cordially accept the explanation of the most rev. Primate. I think it is certainly satisfactory that by his correction the full effect of the changes that have been made in your Lordships' House should be clearly stated. I beg to move that the House do resume.
    House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.

    METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
    The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The orders made on the 24th October and Wednesday last discharged, and Bill committed.
    House adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.