Sitting of 6 November 1906

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords] (BY ORDER).
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th July] "That the Bill to be now read a second time.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. MACVEAGHsaid that when the Bill was before the House on a previous occasion, on account of the partisan manner in which the directors applied their patronage, and to the fact that they applied religious tests to appointments, the House affirmed the principle that the railway companies were the servants and not the masters of the public, and that the company were making improper use of the powers conferred upon them. He was glad to say, however, that the Board of Trade had effected a compromise by which the company had agreed that there should be no partisanship in the selection of employees and no religious tests, so that, while allowing the Bill to pass, it was with the hope that the directors of the company would in the future use the powers conferred upon them in such a manner that when the measure came back to the House again it would find
  310
  the Nationalist Members not enemies to it, but friends.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  SMALL LANDOWNERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Sutherland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL [LORDS].
  Petition from Bradford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 37 (Ceylon, Report on the Results of the Mineral Survey in 1904-5 by Professor W. R. Dunstan, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute); [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the Urban District of Leyton, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Chemists' and Druggists' Shops within the Urban District (by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of Lancaster re-dividing the Accrington Parliamentary Division into Polling Districts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Copy of Rules made by the Commissioners in Lunacy [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish Estates Refused by the Land Judges.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names and counties of the ninety estates in the Court of the Land Judge for which the Estates Commissioners after inspection refused to make an offer, with the reason for the refusal in each case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) This Question appears to have been asked under a misapprehension. In their last annual Report the Estates Commissioners, referring to estates for sale in the Land Judge's Court, make the following remark: During the period inspections were made of ninety estates, in three of which the Commissioners refused, after inspection, to make an offer. The three estates are:—(1) Francis G. Foster and others, trustees of John Wray, deceased, county Tyrone. The Commissioners declined to make an offer for the purchase of this estate, as less than three-fourths of the tenants in rateable value were willing to sign undertakings to purchase at the estimated price. (2) William Dopping and Antony John Dopping, county Westmeath. In June 1905 the Estates Commissioners refused to make an offer for this estate, having regard to the character of the holdings. They recently reconsidered the matter, and in October of this year made an offer for the estate, which is at present under the consideration of the Land Judge. (3) Jeremiah Dunne, Queen's County. This property was inspected, but the Commissioners decided, in the special circumstances of the property, and in the exercise of their discretion, that they would not make an offer for it.

  Clearing of Land at Lagos.
  ME. KEIRHAKDIE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received a petition from Lagos, West Africa, praying for the intervention of the Government in regard to a Bill passed by the Legislative Council of Lagos in August last whereby 6,000 persons will be dispossessed of their property; whether the site which the Bill proposes to clear was selected in
  312
  1865 by the late Sir John Hawley Glover, the then Governor, for occupation by the men of the Hausa tribe on their return from a military expedition, and was cleared by them, and houses erected thereon at their own expense and have since been maintained by them; and whether, under the circumstances set forth in the petition, the Colonial Office will take immediate steps to protect the petitioners and others interested, who will, if the Bill is permitted to come into operation, in the language of the petition, be cast out in their old age, homeless and helpless.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The petition to which the hon. Member refers has been delayed in its course to the Colonial Office, no doubt through the absence from Lagos of Sir W. Egerton, who has been on tour in the interior. It has now been received, and will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State. The healthy and ordered expansion of the town of Lagos, the need of improved sanitation, and of regular barrack accommodation for the forces, are all very necessary and desirable public objects. The Secretary of State has no reason to suppose that every precaution is not being taken to inflict no real material hardship or injustice upon poor people inconvenienced by such improvements, but he will call the attention of the Governor specially to the subject.

  Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society.
  MR. TOMKINSON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether having regard to the number of public meetings held in different parts of the country in opposition to the conversion of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society into a limited liability company, he will order such inquiry as may be considered necessary to ascertain whether or not the members of the society are in favour of such a step being taken.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether any, and, if so, what, action has been taken regarding the affairs of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society; and whether, in view of the action taken by the society's officials and the dissatisfaction of a large proportion of its members,

  313
  he will order an inquiry into the whole matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) Perhaps I may refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the College Division of Dublin, to which I can add nothing at present.†

  Hours of Labour of Crews of the Customs Launches.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the crews of the Customs launches are the only men in the Customs service who are not included in the forty-eight hours week and do not receive any payment for Sunday labour; and will he consider the advisability of treating these men, as to payment for Sunday work, when employed, in the same way as obtains through the rest of the Customs service.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the matter is now receiving the consideration of the Board of Customs.

  "Distress Committees" and Suggested Change of Name.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if his attention has been called to the fact that owing to the name Distress Committee a large number of unemployed men refuse to register themselves in any towns where such committees exist; that on account of this a full return of the unemployed is not secured; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action with a view to a change of name, as also the granting of more extensive powers to such local committees to provide work for the unemployed.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that in some instances the name "Distress Committee" has been objected to, but it is that given to these committees by the Unemployed Workmen Act, under which they are appointed. An amendment of the Act would be necessary for altering the name of these bodies and also for granting them more extensive powers. I do not propose to
  † See Col 122.
  314
  introduce legislation for this purpose at the present time.

  Reserve of 12-inch Guns.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, exclusive of the guns of that class destined for the three armoured cruisers now under construction, there exists a sufficient reserve of 45 calibre 12-inch guns (mark X) to meet any emergency.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Board of Admiralty have provided for all requirements.

  Elementary Teachers' Superannuation Fund — Contribution of Deceased Members.
  MR. HEDGES: To ask the President of the Board of Education to what account have been placed the contributions, under The Elementary Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1898, of these teachers who died before reaching the age of sixty-five and received no benefit under the Act; and whether he is able to say when the Report of the present revaluation will be made public.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) All contributions received by the Board of Education under the Elementary School Teachers (Suparannuation) Act, 1891, including these specially referred to in the Question, are paid over monthly to the National Debt Commissioners as required by Section 3 (2) of the Superannuation Act. In reply to the second paragraph of the Question I have to say that no revaluation has yet been decided on, still less begun, and I am not yet in a position to say when the actuarial investigation which is being conducted for the Board of Education and the Treasury will be completed.

  Education Bill, 1906—Payment of Additional Grant.
  SIR C. HILL: To ask the President of the Board of Education if the additional Grant of £1,000,000 will be paid to the local education authority under Section 13 of the Education Bill during the financial year 1907–8, or during the subsequent financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the Answer given to

  315
  the hon. Member for Lichfield on 9th July last, † which was to the effect that a Bill will be introduced next session in which the whole question of the additional Grant of £1,000,000 for elementary education will be dealt with.

  Publication of Parliamentary Elections Expenses Return.
  MR. STRAUS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can say when the Parliamentary Elections Expenses Return will be in the hands of Members, ordered to be printed by the House on 2nd August.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I hope the Return will be in the hands of Members by the end of this month.

  Post Telegraph Offices—Permanent Staff —Overtime.
  MR. W. T. WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a Departmental Committee, consisting of the principal officers of the Post Office, recommended that as a broad principle in telegraph offices the permanent establishment of an office should be framed to meet the minimum requirements; whether a further recommendation was made that delays of thirty minutes on press work should be ignored, and that the officers who did not comply with the economical requirements demanded were not to be promoted; whether the Committee recommended the use of overtime and temporary assistance and learners; and whether he will state if he has discontinued the policy adopted by the department as contained in these recommendations.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member is quoting from the Report of a Committee which sat more than twelve years ago; none of the members are now in the service. This principle does not represent the present policy of the department.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Leah Guinn Garvaghy of Irvinestown.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary
  † See(4) Debates clx., 493.
  316
  to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received any application from Mrs. Leah Guinn Garvaghy, Irvinestown, county Fermanagh, an evicted tenant, to provide her with a holding; whether the Commission has acquired, or is about to acquire, any untenanted land in the neighbourhood of Irvinestown on which holdings for evicted tenants in that district could be provided; and, if not, will he represent to them the desirability of doing so.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mrs. Guinn's application was lodged with them in June last. The Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of untenanted land in the neighbourhood of Irvinestown, and Mrs. Guinn's application will be considered in connection therewith.

  Appointment of Mr. Murphy as Sanitary Sub-Inspector, etc., at Lismore.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Michael Murphy was elected sanitary sub-officer and collector of labourers' cottages rents by the Lismore Rural Council on 18th May last, eleven members being present and seven voting for him and other candidates; that the Local Government Board in September last informed the district council that they could not sanction Mr. Murphy's appointment; that the district council by resolution passed unanimously, sixteen members being present, requested the Local Government Board to give their reasons; and that subsequently the Local Government Board wrote asking if there was a quorum present when Mr. Murphy was elected; and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board have received a complaint with regard to neglect as to the local water supply of which the sanitary sub-officer acts as caretaker, they will now sanction the appointment made.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The facts are substantially as stated. An advertisment was issued by the board of guardians inviting applications for the position of relieving officer, and the advertisment contained the following statement: "It has been arranged that the person elected relieving officer will be appointed by the district council as sanitary sub-officer for

  317
  the district." The guardians elected a man named Higgins as relieving officer by seventeen votes against thirteen given in favour of Michael Murphy, who is referred to in the Question. After the election of Higgins, nineteen members (including, apparently, all Higgin's supporters) left the board room. It was then proposed to make a separate appointment as sanitary sub-officer, there being only eleven members present. At this election only seven members voted, and only four of these votes were cast for Murphy. The remaining four members, including the chairman, declined to vote. If, therefore, Murphy's election were now sanctioned, the result would be that the nominee of only four out of the thirty-nine members comprising the council would be chosen. Having regard to all the circumstances the Local Government Board have informed the district council that they are not prepared to express their sanction to the appointment of Murphy as sanitary sub-officer, unless the proposal be ratified at a meeting of the council of which due notice is given to each member.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Retired Naval Officers' Pay and Pension.
  MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what number of lieutenants promoted from the ranks, and also of commissioned warrant officers, in the Royal Navy on the retired list, are now serving and holding Admiralty appointments in dockyards and other home towns; whether such officers receive their pensions in addition to their pay; and also, whether their Lordships will consider the advisability of replacing these retired officers, when vacancies occur, by these on the active list of the same rank and so accelerate promotion.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The numbers asked for in the first part of the hon. Member's Question are, six lieutenants and carpenter lieutenants, and ten commissioned warrant officers. One retired lieutenant receives retired pay and a salary, and four retired commissioned warrant officers receive certain
  318
  special allowances in addition to pension. The remainder draw the pay and allowances of their rank when on the active list, plus the usual bonus of 15 per cent. allowed under the Order in Council governing the employment of retired officers, but not their pensions. All these officers being on the retired list, I am informed that their employment does not affect the promotion of others.

  Speed of Battleships.
  *MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the six designs of battleships from which the "Dreadnought" was selected comprised any ships of different speed; whether the ships of different speed carried similar armament in respect of heavy guns; and whether the six designs of cruisers, from which the "Invincible" was selected, embraced ships of less speed than the "Invincible" and costing less than £1,750,000 each.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is not in the public interest to give the information asked for.
  *MR. BELLAIRS: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been directed to the adverse opinions expressed by Captain Mahan and other experts as to the cost of excessive speed? In the interests of economy would he consider the point?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, Sir. I should like to have a copy of the article from my hon. friend.

  The Home Fleet.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the names of the six battleships to be withdrawn from the Channel, the Mediterranean, and the Atlantic fleets and added to the home fleet.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: As the vessels in question will not be removed for some months it would be premature to give their names.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has not the right hon. Gentleman decided on the names?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The removal may not take place for months, and meantime there may be a change.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the names some time before the removal.
  *MR. BELLAIRS: Will they be given before the adjournment of Parliament?
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question and give the names?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have answered the Question.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will give the names as soon as the Admiralty thinks I ought to.

  Admiralty Chain Tenders.
  *MR. HOOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a recognised trade union of chainmakers can obtain a copy of the form of tenders for contracts supplied by the Admiralty to firms when invited to tender for chain, cables, rigging, and pitch or block chains, such firms carrying on business within the district of the trade union.
  MR. EDMUND BOBERTSON: The trade union referred to can obtain a copy of the form of tenders for naval contracts on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. The union should therefore apply in the first instance to the Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee.

  War Office Chain Contracts.
  *MR. HOOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a recognised trade union of chainmakers can obtain a copy of the form of tenders for contracts, supplied by the War Office to firms when invited to tender for chain, such firms carrying on business within the district of the trade union.
  MR. HALDANE: A recognised trade union can obtain from the War Office a
  320
  copy of the form of tenders for Army Contracts, on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. The union to which the hon. Member refers should therefore apply in the first instance to the Secretary of the Parliamentary Committee.

  Tidworth Barracks Hospital.
  *CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any provision, and, if so, what, has been made for suppyling a hospital for Tidworth barracks, Salisbury Plain.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR, (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington): Arrangements have been made to re-appropriate part of Delhi Barracks for the purpose of a temporary hospital, and it has been decided to remodel Mooltan Barracks so as to provide a permanent hospital at Tidworth.

  Woolwich Arsenal Discharges.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the frequent discharges of Government labourers, and the destitution caused thereby, he will cause printed notices to be periodically publicly affixed in the Arsenal, warning men that the employment is probably only of a temporary nature.
  MR. HALDANE: If the hon. and gallant Member refers to the labourers employed by the Army Ordnance Department at Woolwich, I would inform him that there are comparatively few men rated as temporary, and they know that they are temporarily employed. As regards the employees of the Royal Arsenal, the suggestion embodied in this Question is, I am afraid, not one which can be adopted, because, as a general rule, the employment in the Arsenal is not of a temporary nature. Hitherto it has been the custom, where men are required for a particular piece of work which is known to he temporary, that they have been individually advised that the employment offered is temporary.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the distress prevailing in Woolwich owing to the discharge of men from the

  321
  Royal Arsenal, any, and if so, what steps are in contemplation for providing work for the men thrown out of employment.
  MR. HALDANE: As far as employment in the Royal Arsenal is concerned, I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member last Wednesday.† As regards the question of other employment at Woolwich, I can only state that it is obvious that the matter is not one with which the machinery put by Parliament at the disposal of the War Office can enable it to deal.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of these men have expressed a desire to emigrate to Canada, and would it be possible for the War Office to give them any financial assistance?
  MR. HALDANE: I am afraid Parliament has made no provision in the Estimates which would enable us to do that, but I will inquire.
  *MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask my right hon. friend whether he has given consideration to the face that the responsibilities occasioned by the discharges and imposed upon the local authority are really Imperial responsibilities, since the Government of the country established the Arsenal?
  MR. HALDANE: That Question means, if my hon. friend is right, that the War Office is bound to make provision for the unemployed where it has works. I cannot assent to that view.
  *MR. ALDEN: Would it not be possible for the War Office to make a grant to these trade unions which pay "out of work" pay so as to encourage trade union insurance against unemployment.
  MR. HALDANE: If I were something else than the Minister in charge of the War Office and responsible for bringing the Estimates down to the standard which the House of Commons insists on, I might give specious Answers to these Questions,
  † See (4) Debates,clxiii, 1090.
  322
  and possibly do something; but I do not think the House of Commons would let me, even if I wore willing.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men employed in the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, to meet the emergency caused by the African War, were not temporary hands; whether these men have not all long since been discharged; and whether the total number of men now employed in the Arsenal is not less than before the declaration of war in 1899?
  MR. HALDANE: The men taken on during the war were not all temporary hands, and these men have not all been discharged. The total number now employed in the Ordnance Factories is somewhat less than before the war. Every care has been taken to avoid making discharges not demanded by public interests.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: Has the number of officials been reduced correspondingly?
  MR. HALDANE: I can assure my hon. friend that we are looking as closely into their case as into that of the workmen, and we are reducing them wherever we can.

  Indian Excise Administration.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Excise administration of India and to promote reforms therein has now been considered by the Government of India; and, if so, whether he can arrange for its circulation to Members of Parliament during the present session.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): I have ascertained from the Government of India that they are considering the report, and that owing to the importance and complexity of the questions involved, some time may elapse before they can come to decisions on the recommendations of the Committee. I quite understand my hon. friend's desire to be put in early possession of the Report, and I will see that it is presented

  323
  as soon as the Government of India have dealt with it.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Report on Excise Administration in Bengal, that the excise revenue for the year 1905–6 amounted to 153 lakhs (£1,019,898), representing an increase of 11 lakhs (£73,326), or 7·9 per cent. on the figures of the previous year; whether he is aware that the Bengal Excise Bill, which was under the consideration of the provincial Legislative Council two years ago, was designed to diminish the facilities for the sale of intoxicating liquors; and whether, in view of the spread of drinking habits among the people, this measure will now be proceeded with.
  *MR. MORLEY: I have referred to the Report, and I find the evidence in it that the increase in revenue is duo to a considerable extent to increased duties on drugs and heavier license fees. I have ascertained from the Government of India that it is proposed to reconsider the Bengal Excise Bill in the light of the recommendations of the Excise Committee before proceeding further with it.

  The Partition of Bengal.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can indicate, even generally, what are the political reasons: that prevent him from re-opening the question of the partition of Bengal, which he admits to be offensive to the nation concerned; and whether he can lay upon the Table any official report or letter which suggests that there is political danger in doing justice in regard to this national grievance.
  *MR. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask, with reference to the expression "national grievance," whether mass meetings of Mahomedans have; expressed their gratification at his statement that this policy is a settled fact, and have denounced the agitation against it as factitious and manufactured in Calcutta; further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Hindu
  324
  cultivators of Eastern Bengal have expressly protested against, and repudiated the agitation: whether he is aware that the Christians of Calcutta—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order;: this is in the nature of a speech.
  *MR. MORLEY: I think I had better not intervene in this discussion. In regard to the Question on the Paper, I have nothing to add to what I said on Thursday, † that the production of Papers would in my view be prejudicial to public interest, and that the disadvantages of reopening the question of partition would greatly outweigh any possible advantages. But I should like to remove a misapprehension. It was suggested here on Thursday that the present House has had no opportunity of discussing, with full information before it, the question of the partition of Bengal. That is not the case. The full Papers promised by my predecessor were published in the autumn, and on 26th February last an Amendment to the Address was moved by my hon. friend the Member for West Denbighshire, and debated for nearly four hours.‡ Since that date I have answered some forty Questions on the subject, and I hope hon. Members will therefore recognise that their desire for discussion and information has not been altogether baulked.
  *MR. LUPTON: May I ask whether in the last fifty years there has been a similar agitation in Bengal, and whether the information of the last eight months would not give some justification for the reconsideration of a decision necessarily taken on very slender information?
  *MR. MORLEY: As to what has happened in the last fifty years, the hon. Gentleman perhaps knows better than I do. I fail to see what bearing the point has upon this question.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: May I ask whether the Prime Minister did not promise that, if further facts were laid before the Secretary of State, he would further investigate the matter?
  † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 1316–18.
  ‡ See (4; Debates, clii., 811 et seq.
  *MR. MORLEY. What the Prime Minister said was that he was quite sure that if new facts, on good authority, were placed before me, I should be quite ready to listen to them and weigh them all.

  Indentured Labour in Trinidad.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the regulations as regards indentured labour, framed in 1846 for Trinidad, are still in force; whether the expenses of indentured labourers are met in the following proportions—-three-fifteenths from employers applying for labourers, five-fifteenths from the general revenue, and seven-fifteenths from an export tax on produce; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the whole question, in order to decide the advisability of stopping the recruiting of indentured labour for the West Indies at an early date.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The Trinidad Masters and Servants Ordinance of 1846 is still in force; it does not, however, apply to Indian immigrants, who are governed by Ordinance No. 19 of 1899. The proportions in which the expense of indentured labourers are met are as stated. The Secretary of State sees no reason for such an inquiry.

  Great Britain, Russia, and Persia.
  SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made that negotiations are now proceeding between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia for the delimitation of spheres of influence in Persia; and whether such delimitation would be consistent with the guarantees for the integrity and independence of Persia exchanged between Lord Palmerston and Count Nesselrode in 1838 and subsequently renewed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Any negotiations with Russia respecting Persia will be conducted on the basis of the integrity and independence of Persia.

  Diplomatic and Consular Service.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State or Foreign Affairs whether a knowledge of the English language is made a condition of all appointments in the diplomatic and consular services.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A knowledge of the English language and British nationality is a condition of all appointments in the diplomatic and salaried consular services. If unsalaried consular appointments are held by persons unable to speak English, it is because no suitable English-speaking residents could be found. Unsalaried consular appointments are made at places where British interests are not sufficient to justify a salaried consular appointment.
  SIR J. RANDLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman also be careful to see that the Consuls know the language of the country to which they are accredited?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Under the rules in operation now every candidate for the consular service has to undergo an examination in which a knowledge of the language is, of course, one of the features.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: Am I to understand that before any appointment is made of an unsalaried official efforts are-made to obtain a British subject for the post?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: As I explained the other day †, unsalaried appointments-are only made when it is considered that the British interests are insufficient to justify a salary. In such cases a choice has to be made from people resident in the locality, and if there is one of British nationality of course we give him the preference.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what fees and emoluments are received by unsalaried members of the consular service.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Unsalaried consular officers either receive allowances
  † See (4) Debates, clxiii., 880.

  327
  equal to about three-quarters of the value of the fees levied by them, or allowances to cover their actual office expenses. In the latter case they also retain a proportion of certain fees, as authorised by the Orders in Council made under the Consular Salaries and Fees Act of 1891. In any case the allowance is calculated in order to cover out-of-pocket expenses.

  The Congo Free State.
  MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official Report to the effect that King Leopold has conceded territories in the Congo Free State to an American syndicate; whether the Crown demesne has also been leased to an American group; how far the reforms suggested as the result of the Commission of Inquiry have been carried into effect; and whether he could make any statement with regard to the question of the appointment of British or European Consuls.
  SIR EDWAED GREY: No information has been received to the effect that territories in the Congo Free State have been conceded to an American syndicate, or that the Crown demesne has been leased to an American group. With regard to the reforms, I have nothing to add to the reply given on November 5th. † His Majesty's Government already have consular representatives at Boma, Stanleyville, and Leopoldville, and they do not at present propose to make further appointments. I am unable to make any statement with regard to the appointment of Consuls by other European Powers, except that a Belgian Consul has recently been appointed at Boma.
  In reply to Sir GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)—
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the British Government were represented at the places named in his Answer by one Consul and two Vice-Consuls.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the practice of the Foreign Office, the following members of the Diplomatic Service are British subjects, namely, Count Gleichen, Sir W.
  † See Col. 119.
  328
  Goschen, and Messrs. Dos Graz, A. Mavtelaos, Hohler, Baelz, Alvarez, Clemow, Marinitch, and Abbas Kuli Khan; and further, whether the following salaried members of the Consular Service are British subjects, namely, Messrs. Rafael Antonio Foutana, Sundius, Pitzipios, de la Croix Anatole Sauzier, J. Falanga, de Bruyne, Zohrab, de Coetlogon, and du Vallon.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Out of the first list, three only are members of the regular Diplomatic Service, and they are British subjects. Of the second list one i —Mr. Falanga—is only employed temporarily. The rest are British subjects with the exception of Mr. de la Croix, and Mr. de Bruyne, who are Consuls with permission to trade, and were appointed over thirty years ago under a system which is now obsolete.

  Servia.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations are now in progress for a commercial treaty between Great Britain and Servia; and, if so, what precautions will be taken to prevent repudiation similar to that which occurred with respect to the treaty of commerce between the two countries in 1881.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Negotiations have not actually begun, but when they do take place they will be conducted as is usually done between independent States.

  Macedonian Outrages.
  MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign A flairs how many deaths by violence have been reported as occurring in the three Macedonian vilayets respectively during the present year.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Consular Officers have reported 577 deaths by violence in Salonica, 481 in Monastir, and 188 in Kossovo for the nine months ended 30th September.

  Turkish Outrages at Rodevo.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary

  329
  of State for Foreign Affairs what punishment has been carried out in connection with the outrages recently committed by Turkish troops at Rodevo.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No information has yet reached His Majesty's Government as to the punishment inflicted, but His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople was authorised to make representations to the Grand Vizier on the subject, and to report the action taken by the Ottoman authorities.

  Taxation of Motor Cars.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now consider the expediency of placing a tax on motor cars on a scale rising in proportion to their horse-power.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E): The Royal Commission have recommended against the taxation of motor cars on the basis of horse-power or cylinder capacity, in view of the administrative difficulties involved and of the fact that the experience of its working in France is not entirely satisfactory (see paragraph 158 of Report [Cd. 3650]). The whole question of the taxation of motor vehicles is being considered in connection with that Report, but I am not in a position to say whether I shall have any proposals to make on the subject until the time comes for introducing the Budget.

  Registry Office Fees.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received particulars as to the fees charged by registry offices | to male applicants for situations; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action in regard to the matter, in view of the information that has been supplied to him.
  *TIIE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W): In consequence of an Answer which I gave in May last† to the hon. Member for Blackburn on this subject I have received from the Caterers' Employees' Union particulars of alleged excessive or fraudulent charges at certain offices, and I am investigating the matter.
  † See (4) Debates, clvi., 716.

  Refreshment Caterers and the Truck Act.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to stoppages from wages of refreshment catering employees in the shape of fines upon such pretences as glass money; and, if so, whether it is his intention so to amend the Truck Act as to make such fines a penal offence.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have received a copy of a resolution on this subject from the Caterers' Employees' Union. As the hon. Member is aware, the question of the Amendment of the Truck Acts is now under consideration by a Departmental Committee, and until their Report is received I am unable to make any statement on the subject. In the mean-time it is open to the catering employees to furnish information to the Committee on the matters complained of, and I will refer the resolution I have received to the Committee for their consideration.

  Diseased Immigrants.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that trachoma, from which certain immigrants rejected by the United States and brought back to this country are suffering, is a dangerous and highly infectious disease of the eye, and the third cause of total blindness; whether any steps are taken to segregate such cases and prevent the infection being conveyed to others; and whether he can state by whom the cost of treating diseased emigrants rejected in the United States is borne.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I am well aware of the serious character of the disease called trachoma. I gave particulars last Tuesday, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield, † of the conditions laid down in the single instance in which I have permitted an alien transmigrant reported by a Medical Inspector under the Aliens Act to be suffering from trachoma to remain in the United Kingdom. The cost of the woman's treatment will be borne, I presume, by these who were interested in obtaining permission for her to remain in this country.
  SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say he will not in
  †See (4) Debates, clxiii., 885.

  331
  future admit aliens rejected by the United States who are suffering from this terrible disease?
  *MR GLADSTONEsaid he was awaiting a Report on the subject.

  London Cabs.
  MR. THERNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee upon the abolition of the railway privilege cab system.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: As I said yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, this question is one of well-known difficulty, but I am of opinion that it j must be dealt with.†
  MR. THORNE: When?
  *MR. GLADSTONEreplied that there were great difficulties in the way, but the question would be dealt with as soon as possible. He thought a solution ought to be found, and he was endeavouring to find one.

  Lottery Circulars in the Post.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any regulation exists whereby the delivery through the post of continental and foreign lottery circulars can be withheld; and whether, failing any such regulation, he will consider the advisability of framing one or introducing some legislation on the subject designed to prevent the postal service of this country being made the conduit for these undesirable alien communications.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): When lottery circulars are posted in open covers they are, when detected, withheld from delivery; but when sent in closed covers the Post Office has no cognisance of the contents and cannot prevent their transmission. I do not think that I should be justified in seeking powers to interfere with closed letters.

  Betting by Telegraph.
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Post-
  † See Col. 125.
  332
  master-General whether he is aware that Arthur Magnus, a bookmaker, who has recently been fined £100 in Liverpool for keeping a betting house there, is now carrying on the business by the assistance of a special telegraphic address granted him by the Post Office; whether he will state where these betting telegrams are delivered in order that proceedings may be taken against the occupiers of the premises; and whether the Department will refuse such facilities to a known betting house keeper.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No telegraphic address has recently been registered in the name of Arthur Magnus, and in any case I feel I have no power to refuse to the senders or addressees of betting telegrams the facilities common to other members of the public.

  Cocking Overseers' Correspondence.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General by whose authority a registered letter, addressed by Mr. E. Stewart of Horsham, on the 18th August, to the overseers of the parish of Cocking, Sussex, was redirected, as stated in a letter from the Postmaster-General to Mr. Stewart, without the authority of the sender, to the assistant-overseer.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I understand that the overseers of the parish of Cocking had requested that all correspondence addressed in the manner stated should be delivered to the assistant overseer; and the registered letter in question was dealt with accordingly. It is not the practice of the Post Office to obtain the authority of the sender before redirecting a letter in compliance with the wishes of the addressee. The delivery of the letter to the assistant overseer was a proper one so far as the Post Office is concerned.

  Cards for Members.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in the event of the authorities of the House arranging to have addressed to Members any cards, not delivered, he will give instructions for such cards to be retained in the Lobby post office until called for by Members; or whether he will confer with the First Commissioner of Works

  333
  and the authorities of the House in order that other steps may be taken to that end.
  MR SYDNEY BUXTON: I am afraid it would be difficult to arrange to do as the hon. Member suggests, which I understand to be that these cards should be placed with letters to be called for. It is not desirable that cards or other articles which have not passed through the post should be placed with mail matters, and receive treatment only accorded to letters, etc., unless indeed they are to be charged with postage. Perhaps the hon. Member would speak to me on the subject.

  Religious Instruction in Schools.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state how many council school departments there are in England and Wales according to the latest available Returns; and whether he can say in how many of these there are neither religious observances nor religious teaching day by day, together with the name of the local education authority or authorities in the areas of which such schools are situated.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): The total number of council schools on 1st January, 1906, was—in England 5,796, and in Wales, 1,004. The return as to religious instruction recently presented to Parliament gave no information as to the number of days in each week on which religious instruction is given in the schools. So far as can be gathered from the answers sent in by local authorities to Question 5 in the Return, it seems that there were seven schools in England and 158 in Wales in which, so far as the local authorities were aware, there was neither religious instruction nor religious observance; but I understand that, from the wording of several of the replies, it seems to be not quite certain whether in some of these schools there may not have been some religious observance as distinct from religious lessons. The schools in question were in the areas of three non-county boroughs, viz., Hyde, Glossop, and Rawtenstall in England and in the urban district of Ebbw Vale in Wales, and in five counties, viz, Carmarthen, Cardigan,
  334
  Brecon, Pembroke, and Denbigh, in Wales.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it not quite incorrect to say that in schools under sixty-eight local authorities there is no religious instruction of any kind? That was the statement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It is a very inconvenient plan to ask questions about statements made in another place.

  Procedure Committee.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he can say whether it is intended that the Procedure Committee should meet again, in view of the fact that it has not been called together for a long time.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Sir HENRY FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The position of the Procedure Committee is this. We have made two Reports to the House. The House has dealt with one Report The other Report, which is, I think, the more important one—with reference to the constitution and the enlargement of the functions of the Standing Committees —has not yet been considered in the House. I do not see that there can be any advantage in calling the Committee to meet and discuss any further alterations until this matter, which forms a pivot in dealing with procedure, has been settled. The Prime Minister authorises me to state that he hopes the consideration of that Report will be taken by the House before the termination of the present session.

  Burwell Estate, Cambridgeshire.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if, in view of the general interest taken in the scheme for conversion of the Burwell estate into small holdings, he will give a Return of the previous residences and occupations of those who have become tenants of these holdings, together with the number in each family and the respective acreage of the holdings.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The information desired by

  335
  the hon. Member is not in the possession of the Government, and my noble friend doubts whether it is worth while granting a Return on the subject. I am, however, authorised by my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket to say that he will be glad to supply the hon. Member with full particulars, so far as he is able, if he will confer personally with him on the subject.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what was the average weekly wage of the labourers formerly employed by the Crown on the Burwell Estate in Cambridgeshire and since dismissed; and what was the size of and rent asked for the small holdings on the said estate which were offered to the displaced labourers, and which the majority did not avail themselves of.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The average weekly wage of the thirty-two adult labourers who were employed on the Crown farm at Burwell was about 14s. In addition nine lads under twenty were employed, whose average weekly wage was 9s. One of the adult labourers was a woman who was paid 8s. a week. My noble friend has no information on the other matters referred to in the Question, but I have no doubt that my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket will be willing to give the noble Lord the particulars he desires.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman can furnish the House with more details as to the offer of small holdings said to have been made to the labourers?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHE: Perhaps the noble Lord will confer with the Member for Newmarket who can give him information on that point.

  Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the meetings of the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society, on 19th September and 5th October, whereby certain resolutions were purported to have been passed converting the society into a company; and whether he is aware that thousands of members of the
  336
  society were unable to obtain admission to such meetings and vote and otherwise exercise their right as members; and whether he will refuse to sanction the registration of such resolutions until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing the matter.
  MR. MCKENNA: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin, † to which I can add nothing at present.

  Trade Unionists on Government Contracts.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the case of George Kilner, a cutter in the employ of Messrs. Wyman and Company, Government printers, Reading, who has been dismissed, after five years' service, on the plea of slackness, although he has recently joined the trade union, and his place was immediately filled by a non-unionist; and, if not, will he inquire into the matter.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Mon-mouth, N.): I have communicated with Messrs. Wyman through the Controller of the Stationery Office on the subject of this Question. I am informed that Kilner was dismissed owing to a reduction of staff, and that his place has not been filled.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that Messrs. Wyman and Company, Government printers, Reading, are dismissing some of their employees because they are members of the National Amalgamated Society of Printers' Warehousemen and Cutters; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action in regard to the matter with a view to the firm complying with the fair wage clause of the Government.
  MR. MCKENNA: Messrs. Wyman inform me that the imputation contained in this Question is unfounded.

  Corrupt Practices at Elections.
  MR. STRANGERI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether
  † See Col. 122.

  337
  he will consider the advisability of amending Section 2 of The Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, so as to render punishable not only acts, such as are set out in the section, which are proved to have been done with a view to compel a person to vote or abstain from voting or in consequence of his having voted or refrained from voting, but also all acts of intimidation and undue influence which are proved to have been done in consequence of or in order to prevent any lawful act or conduct on the part of any person at and in connection with an election.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: The terms of Section 2 of the Corrupt Practices Act 1883 need revision. There is great difficulty in enforcing the law as it stands and there would be still greater difficulty in giving effect to more stringent provisions. It may, I think, be expected that the reprobation of enlightened public opinion will tend to check the practices to which the hon. Member refers.

  Charlotte Bronte's Portrait.
  SIR WILLIAMBULL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the director and trustees of the National Portrait Gallery are satisfied that the alleged portrait of Charlotte Bronte is genuine; and, if not, whether any steps can be taken better to safeguard the expenditure of public money on works of art.
  MR. MCKENNA (for Mr. HARCOURT): I have not been able to obtain the views of the trustees, but I am in communication with them; and if the hon. Member will put down his Question again later in the session I hope to be able to inform him of their reply to his inquiry.

  Dr. Dittmars Report.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will again consider the expediency of laying upon the Table of the House the Memorandum by Dr. Dittmar, the Local Government Board's Medical Inspector, entitled "Statistical Data presented by the Lews for ten years to 1904," especially having regard to its importance in connection with the Report on Physical Deterioration and the increase of phthisis in the Island of Lewis.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): I can add nothing to the Answer recently given to my hon. friend, which was in the negative. As I have already informed my hon. friend, the Memorandum which he desires to have printed does not add materially to the information already published, which is receiving the earnest attention of the Government.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman have it published if I pay the cost?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I should like notice of that Question.

  Migration of Cottars from Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the expediency of requesting the Lewis District Committee to submit a list of the names of cottars and others now resident in the island who are willing to migrate to the mainland if the Congested Districts Board arrange reasonable aid for their settlement.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir. The Congested Districts Board is not in a position to make any such request, but the Board is willing to receive any such names.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I received the names twenty-four hours ago? Will he put a little more energy into the Scottish Office?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, as the result of his recent visit to the Island of Lewis, he is satisfied as to the accuracy of Dr. Dittmar's Report in regard to the insanitary condition of the townships in the island; and, if so, will he state how he proposes to remedy the evils disclosed in the Report.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I beg again to assure my hon. friend that this subject is receiving my earnest attention.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied as to the accuracy of the Report?
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Report is a valuable official document and it is receiving the attention it deserves.
  MR. WEIR: I am glad to have that admission.

  Scottish Local Government Inspectors
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland in view of the fact that whilst the Local Government Board for Ireland employs one medical commissioner, seven medical inspectors, nine general inspectors, and four temporary inspectors, and two temporary assistant inspectors, the Local Government Board for Scotland employs one medical member, one medical inspector and four general superintendents who are inspecting officers, will he state on what grounds he refuses to approach the Treasury for an additional staff' of medical inspectors for Scotland.
  MR. SINCLAIR: They are not in my opinion required.

  Foreign Trawlers in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the number of foreign trawlers observed fishing in the Moray Firth since the unanimous decision of the Judges of the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh in respect of the Moray Firth foreign trawlers' case.
  MR. SINCLAIR: No foreign trawlers have been observed working in the Moray Firth since the date of the decision in the High Court of Justiciary.

  Insanitation in Stornoway
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that an inspector from the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who recently visited the Island of Lewis, reported that there are a number of insanitary houses in Stornoway; and, seeing that Murray's Court and Pringle's Court consist of houses which are much overcrowded, especially during the fishing season, will the Local Government Board for Scotland take such action as may be necessary to ensure these and other insanitary properties being put in such a condition as will
  340
  conform with the requirements of the Public Health (Scotland) Act.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have drawn the attention of the Local Government Board to the Report referred to by the hon. Member and it is now before them.

  Illegal Trawling off Cape Wrath.
  *MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why the trawler engaged in trawling within the three-mile limit off Cape Wrath, in the early part of September, was not prosecuted, the number of the trawler having been taken by the lighthouse keeper.
  MR. SINCLAIR: There was not sufficient evidence available to secure a conviction.
  *MR. MORTON: Is it not a fact that the lighthouse keepers, although instructed to make these reports, are not allowed to leave the lighthouse to give evidence?
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Northern Lights Commission allow them to help in this matter on condition that they shall not leave the lighthouses and thus interfere with the efficiency of the lighthouse service.
  *MR. MORTON: But are they allowed to leave if they are required to give evidence?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir.

  Clare Railways.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Government has been called to the burden imposed on the ratepayers of county Clare by the present arrangements in reference to the Clare Railways; and whether he will consider the desirability of devising some plan which will relieve the ratepayers of this burden; and whether the Government will take some steps in this direction.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Answer to the first part of the Question is

  341
  in the affirmative Relief to the rate payers could only be obtained by legislation transferring the burden to other shoulders. I understand that the county council have taken steps to bring the matter before the Viceregal Commission on Irish Railways now sitting, and pending the Report of the Commission on this and similar eases it would not appear to be desirable that the Government should consider the question of taking any steps in the matter.

  Claremorris District Council Clerkship.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the demand of the Roman Catholic clergymen of Claremorris that no candidate for the vacant clerkship of that district council should be considered by them unless he held a certificate from his parish priest, he will say whether such request was agreed to by the district council; whether he has addressed any remonstrance to the district council against this treatment of candidates other than Roman Catholics; and whether, if the Claremorris Urban District Council should in making the appointment fail to consider all candidates on their merits and apart from their religious professions, he will order a fresh election.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that the reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. It is not within my province or that of the Local Government Board to address a remonstrance in the matter to the Claremorris Rural District Council. The election of clerk of the union rests with the Board of Guardians, which, however, consists of the same persons as the rural district council. Before the Guardians can elect a candidate, it is necessary that he should be proposed and seconded. If the Guardians should refuse to put to the vote the name of any candidate duly proposed and seconded, it would, I am advised, be competent for the Local Government Board to declare the election to be invalid, but the Board could not interfere if any candidate failed to get a proposer and seconder.

  Religious Meetings at Boyle.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  342
  Ireland whether he is aware that Mrs. Kennedy, a Protestant lady who lived near Boyle, county Roscommon, had been accustomed for years past to hold religious meetings in her house; that a new parish priest, named Father McDermott, has recently been appointed to the parish, and that he denounced these meetings from the altar; and whether, seeing that as a result of his action a crowd with fifes and a drum surrounded Mrs. Kennedy's house for several nights, that she was boycotted in the local shops, that a person who supplied her with the necessaries of life was in turn boycotted, and that Mrs. Kennedy has now been compelled to leave because of insufficient police protection, he will say what action he proposes to take to secure religious equality in Roscommon and Galway.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the facts are not as stated in the Question. Mrs. Kennedy, a Dublin lady, has been accustomed for several years to visit Ballinafad where she has held religious meetings in Protestant farm houses. It is, I am informed, not the case that Father McDermott has denounced these meetings as alleged. On three successive Sunday evenings a fife and drum band played along the public road, but did not surround the house in which Mrs. Kennedy was lodging or, indeed, go within 300 yards of it. It is not the case that Mrs. Kennedy or the person with whom she lodged was boycotted in the local shops; nor is it the fact that Mrs. Kennedy was compelled to leave because of insufficient police protection. The police afforded her the fullest protection during her stay at Ballinafad, and I am informed that no breach of the peace occurred, or was even attempted.

  Land Purchase in County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that for some time past the landlord on the Coote property and the landlords on the Dicken property outside the town of Kilmallock, in the county Limerick, have been arranging for the sale of those properties to their tenants; is he aware that on both estates there are some 300 acres of untenanted lands; and will he instruct the Estates Commissioners to purchase

  343
  those lands for division among the poorer town tenants in Kilmallock, as in the case of the Cahirconlish tenants, and for a few evicted tenants, should such be in the locality.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that proceedings for sale in respect of the two estates mentioned have been instituted before them, but the 300 acres of untenanted land referred to do not appear to be included in the sale. The Commissioners, however, will have inquiries made upon the subject of the untenanted land.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say how matters stand as to sale and purchase between the landlord and tenants on the Stafford Delmege property around Knocklong and Glenbrohane, county Limerick; is he aware that on that property there are between 200 and 300 acres of untenanted lands which might be brought into requisition for the benefit of labourers, poor farmers, and evicted tenants; and will he see that as soon as may be convenient the Estates] Commissioners put themselves in communication with the landlord or the agents of the estate, the Messrs. Sanders, of Charleville. county Cork, so as to purchase these untenanted lands in the interest of the landless people of the locality.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an orginating application for the sale of portion of the Stafford Delmege Estate has been lodged with them, and the estate will shortly be inspected. The untenanted land referred to in the Question does not appear to be included in the sale, but the Commissioners will communicate with the landlord's agents on the subject.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he say whether the Commissioners have sent an inspector to see after the claims for reinstatement to their holdings of John M'Grath and Thomas Barry on the Cooper property at Knocklong, county Limerick, where negotiations for sale and purchase are in progress between landlord and tenants; is he aware that a Mr. Hatte is making a claim for compensation as a planter
  344
  while in reality he is only clerk in the office of the agents, the Messrs. Sanders; and will he cause inquiry to be made of Mr. P. Magner, rate collector of Kilfinane, whether it was Miss Cooper, the landlady, or Mr. Hatte who paid him the rates for the evicted farms.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the documents relating to the two cases referred to have been sent to their inspector who has been directed to inquire into the cases. The Commissioners will ask their inspector when dealing with the cases to inquire into the circumstances alleged in the Question.

  Distress in the Bawnboy Union.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a memorial from the ratepayers of the Bawnboy and Ballyconnell Electoral Divisions of Bawnboy Union, county Cavan, praying for relief works in the district, in view of the fact that the potato crop, constituting as it does the mainstay and support of the inhabitants of the district, is a total failure this year, will steps be taken to alleviate the lot of these people, and combat the sufferings consequent upon the impending famine.
  MR. BRYCE: I have received the memorial referred to. The Local Government Board have directed their inspector to visit the electoral divisions mentioned and report upon the circumstances of the people. The hon. Member may rest assured that the question of distress in the parts of Ireland where the potato crop has suffered will not cease to engage the attention of the Government.

  Annagh Magistrates.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a lunatic had to be detained for two days in the police barrack at Annagh, Borrisokane district, recently, because two magistrates could not be got to attend to sign the necessary committal to a lunatic asylum; whether he is aware that the Lord Chancellor was asked to appoint additional magistrates for this particular district as far back as March last, and that no appointment has yet been made; and whether, in view of

  345
  the necessity for more magistrates, he will see that appointments are made as soon as possible.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed that on Saturday, 15th September, the police at Annagh were unable to obtain the attendance of two magistrates early in the day. Two magistrates, however, were procured in the evening, and the necessary committal was then signed, but as there was no train to Clonmel, where the asylum is situate, until Monday morning, it was necessary to detain the lunatic at the police station. It appears that most of the magistrates of the locality wore absent at the Banagher annual horse fair, and it is stated that there is, as a rule, no difficulty in procuring a sufficient attendance of magistrates. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he has recently appointed two new magistrates to attend at Borrisokane Petty Sessions, in which district Annagh is situate, and that he is about to appoint a third, who is resident near Annagh.

  Earl of Drogheda's Queen's County Estate.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that agreements to purchase their holdings have been signed by the tenants on the estate of the Earl of Drogheda, Ballyhupahaun, Rosenallis, Queen's County, at prices ranging from 25 to 26¼ years' purchase, exclusive of bonus; and whether, seeing that before the passing of the Act of 1903 the Land Commission, after inspection, refused to sanction a sale upon this identical estate at 18 years' purchase, when no bonus was payable, and in view of the fact that this is only a small and the poorest portion of the Drogheda estate in the locality, and in view of the increase of price, can he say if the Estates Commissioners are prepared to sanction this sale.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that sixty-eight agreements for the purchase of holdings | on the estate mentioned were lodged with them in January, 1905. The purchase prices are; as follows:—In three cases of second-term judicial rents, 26·3 years purchase; in twenty-three cases of first-term rents, 239 years purchase; and in the remaining forty-
  346
  two cases of non judicial rents, 25·7 years purchase. The estate is at present being inspected, and until the Commissioners have received their inspector's report, which will deal with the matters referred to in the latter part of the Question, it is not possible for them to say whether they will sanction the advances applied for.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that two tenants on the estate of the Earl of Drogheda at Rosenallis, named Dan Geoghegan and Joe Costello, were at the late quarter sessions in the Queen's County decreed for interest at the rate of 3½ per centum, payable to the Land Commission, pending completion of the purchase of their holdings; will he say whether the price agreed upon is 26¼ years purchase, and is he aware that Geoghegan had been served, previous to signing the agreement, with an eviction-made-easy notice under the Act of 1887 for 1½ years rent, and that those arrears together with costs were added to the purchase; and can he say whether the Estates Commissioners have sanctioned this sale.
  MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Land Commission that Daniel Geoghegan, a tenant who had signed an agreement for the purchase of his holding upon the estate mentioned, was proceeded against at the sessions referred to for non-payment of £5 1s. 10d., interest in lieu of rent, being at the rate of 3½ per cent. on the purchase money, which purchase money is at the rate of 24·3 years purchase of the rent. Joseph Costello was not proceeded against, as he had paid the interest due by him. The Commissioners have no information as to whether Geoghegan had, before signing the purchase agreement, been served with notice under the Act of 1887. The Estates Commissioners have not as yet auctioned any of the advances applied for in the case of this estate. The estate is at present being inspected.

  County Court Eviction Notices in Ireland.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, out of a total of 707 eviction notices filed in the county courts

  347
  in Ireland during the quarter ended 30th September 1906, 275 were in Ulster; can he say whether these eviction notices were on account of arrears of rent due; and can he state in how many cases the rents were judicial rents, first or second term; and whether any of them were non-judicial rents.
  MR. BRYCE: The Return of Eviction Notices filed under Section 7 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1887, during the quarter ending 30th September last, shows the fact to be as stated in the first part of the Question. The section quoted applies only to the case of judgments in ejectment for non-payment of rent; the Answer to the second inquiry is therefore in the affirmative. The Government have no information as to the number of cases in which the rents wore judicial rents. There is no provision in Section 7 requiring that these particulars should be given in the notice.

  Dromore Floods.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from 166 residents in the neighbourhood of Bally bay| and Cootehill, county Cavan, complaining of the losses entailed by them every year through the flooding of the Dromore river; whether he is aware that the sufferers employed at their own cost an engineer to draft a drainage scheme, and offered to pay the cost of carrying it out, but that the Board of Works rejected the scheme, and declared themselves unable to suggest any alternative scheme; and what steps the Board of Works now proposes to take.
  MR. McKENNA: I replied to a similar Question by the hon. Member for South Monaghan on the 26th July last, and I have very little to add to the Answer which I then gave.† Although the cost of the scheme, if sanctioned, would have eventually been borne by the owners of the lands affected, a loan would have had to be made in the first instance by the Board of Works, with re-payment over a number of years. As previously stated, the scheme appeared to the Board to be defective, and they assure me that the question of amending
  † See (4) Debates, clxi., 1440.
  348
  it was carefully considered and found to be impracticable before the scheme was ultimately rejected. The Board have no power to take further action in the matter.
  MR. MACVEAGHasked if the Board of Works would allow the local authority to carry out these works?
  MR. MCKENNA: They will not advance money for this particular scheme, and it is quite open to the owners to put forward another scheme.
  MR. MACVEAGH: What is the objection to this scheme?
  MR. MCKENNA: I cannot state that in answer to a Question.
  MR. MACVEAGH: And the Board of Works cannot explain it either.

  Kilgarvan Letter Delivery
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the train carrying the mails stops at Kilgarvan Station; can he state what would be the additional expense involved if the letters for Kilgarvan wore taken out and conveyed to the village, which is only a few hundred yards distant from the station; and whether, in view of the fact that, under existing arrangements, letters for Kilgarvan are carried to Kenmare in the afternoon, detained there during the night, and sent back to Kilgarvan the following day, he will reconsider his decision in the matter.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is true that the train which conveys the day mails stops at Kilgarvan Station, but the letters for Kilgarvan, although carried on to Kenmare, are not retained there until the following day as the hon. Member supposes, but reach Kilgarvan the same evening. The cost of making a direct despatch to Kilgarvan would be about £9 a year; and, as I have already explained, I should not be justified in incurring this additional expense to effect the desired improvement, the amount of correspondence involved being very small.
  MR. BOLAND: If it is not possible to have a separate delivery, can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the letters

  349
  shall be kept at the Post Office so that people may call for them?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: If the hon. Member will write me to the effect I will consider the matter.

  Employment of Ex Soldiers and Sailors.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, what action, if any, the Government propose to take to carry out the recommendations made by Sir Edward Ward's Committee on the employment of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMP BELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I am not as yet in a position to say what action the Government proposes to take in this matter.

  Appointments of County Magistrates.
  MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, as the Lord Chancellor has to rely entirely on the Lord-Lieutenants, for the most part Members of the House of Lords, and opposed to the democratic principles held by the majority of this House, he will take into consideration whether the selection of county and borough magistrates could not be vested in a Minister or Ministers, who may be a Member or Members of this House, who would be able to obtain information as to the eligibility and suitability of persons recommended.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a matter of policy which I can hardly deal with in answer to a Question.

  Structural Changes in the House.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to grant a day for the discussion of the recent structural changes within the House.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I cannot yet fix a day.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Might I ask, having regard to the strong feeling which exists, and which is not confined to this side of the House, whether the right hon.
  350
  Gentleman would not consider the advisability of this matter being discussed, and whether, seeing that Mr. Speaker had announced from the Chair that an opportunity would be afforded, the Prime Minister could not fix a definite date?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the noble Lord considers the amount of business before the House he will see it is quite impossible to allocate at present the particular hour or two required for this matter. I am not aware of any strong feeling.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only reason that I and certain of my friends left off calling attention to the presence of strangers was that we were promised an opportunity to discuss the question?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: You shall get your opportunity.

  Withdrawal of the St Helena Garrison.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister in view of the intended withdrawal of all troops from St. Helena, and the consequent impoverishment of a number of people on the island, whether the Government will take into consideration a Grant in Aid for the inhabitants.
  SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Secretary of State for the Colonies is considering the probable effects of the withdrawal of the troops on the financial position of the island, but it would be premature to discuss the question of a Grant in Aid.

  STRANGERS IN THE HOUSE.
  At the conclusion of Questions.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURrose, and said:— Mr. Speaker, I espy strangers.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The House has twice pronounced an opinion on the matter to which the noble Lord calls my attention. I think it must be taken that the House has decided that, for the present at least, that part of the House in which the noble Lord spied strangers is not inside the House. What the eventual decision of the House may be is another matter, but for the present,

  351
  until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter, I must take it that the House has already decided that that portion of the House is not within the precincts of the House.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: May I call your attention, Sir, to Standing Order 273, which says that, if at any sitting of the House a Member takes notice that strangers are present the Speaker or Chairman must forthwith put the Question that the strangers be ordered to withdraw?
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGasked whether the House having decided on two occasions to tolerate strangers in the House, they had not still to see whether the House would tolerate them on a third occasion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am fully alive to the mutter, and I do not think anything further need be said.
  SIR FRANCIS LOWEasked whether it was not the fact that that part of the House in which strangers had been spied had formerly not been excluded from the House itself. He understood that the reason why the Speaker disallowed this Motion to be put was that that part of the House was not within the House. It had never been decided by Resolution of the House that the scats under the Gallery should be excluded from the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member did not follow the ruling I gave. I have nothing to add to what I have said.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Prime Minister whether, after the ruling just given, he did not think it in the highest degree expedient that the House should soon have an opportunity of dealing with this question. He held that the matter could not be allowed to remain for long in suspense.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether the Prime Minister was aware that the part of the House referred to had boon generally vised by Members to get a quiet slumber.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: I think it is a matter that ought not to be unduly delayed. I am sure we have no disposition to defer the opportunity for debate beyond what is reasonable.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsubmitted that, in accordance with the Standing Order, the Speaker had no power but to put the Question that strangers be requested to withdraw as soon as an hon. Member had called atttention to their presence.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it was over intended that the Standing Order should be applied in the way the noble Lord seeks to apply it. If it were so applied, although the House has pronounced against the view of the noble Lord, he would be entitled to raise the same question day after day until the end of the session. That would be a great straining of the Standing Order, and I am sure I strain it less by the interpretation I have put on it.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he had not before espied strangers. He asked what would happen if there wore introduced on to the floor of the House a stranger whose presence hon. Members on his side of the House objected to. Would it be out of order for an hon. Member to spy strangers?
  *MR. SPEAKER: In the case of any stranger finding a place on the benches of this House the attention of the House should be at once called to the fact, and I should put the Motion on notice being taken of it. But the action of the noble Lord in pointing particularly to the exact place which has already been the subject of consideration and division in this House led me, I think rightly, to believe he was raising the same question which was raised the week before last.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the House was to understand that Standing Order 273 was practically repealed.
  * MR. SPEAKER: There is no Standing Order 273. There are only ninety-six Standing Orders. The hon. Member is really referring to Standing Order 91. On that I have nothing to add.

NEW BILL.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  "To secure a Weekly Rest-day," presented by Mr. Goddard Clarke; supported by Mr. George White, Sir Alfred Thomas, Mr. Steadman, and Mr. George Hardy; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 348.]

  LAND TENURE BILL.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURmoved the adjournment of the debate. He said he did so on several grounds, each one of which would, in his opinion, justify his action. The first ground was the convenience of the House. The Government were disappointed, no doubt, in their plans with regard to the Plural Voting Bill, owing to the regrettable illness of the Minister in charge of it, but they told the House on Friday that they were prepared to go on with the Merchant Shipping Bill and were even anxious to discuss it. The House therefore understood that that Bill would be taken, and hon. Members in the faith that it would be taken had, of course, made their arrangements. All that had been upset by the plan of conducting Government business, which appeared to him absolutely arbitrary. The course adopted was inconvenient for another reason. The Bill before the House was originally a private Member's Bill, and the Government having taken charge of it proposed to amend it, and some of the Government Amendments only appeared on the Paper that morning. The Opposition had therefore had no opportunity of examining or discussing them. But for some reason, so far absolutely mysterious, the Government, instead of taking a Bill with which they were ready, had determined to take another Bill without the smallest notice, their Amendments having only appeared on the Paper on the very morning of discussion. That alone would justify him in asking the House to postpone the further discussion of the Bill until there had been time to consider the Government Amendments. But there were
  354
  other reasons. Nobody acquainted with the methods by which it had been habitual to carry on business in the House during the last two Parliaments would say that the reasons he had given were not reasons which would have been powerful with the predecessors of the Government. On 4th August the Government asked the House to pass a Motion that for this part of the session Government business should hare precedence, and that at the conclusion of Government business each day the Speaker should adjourn the House. He did not suggest that there had been a technical broach of that Resolution, but there had been a substantial breach. The House had no notice at that time that the Government intended to make this Bill a Government measure. He was not aware that anything fell from the Prime Minister suggesting that course. Indeed, a Minister, in answer to a Question, while admitting that the Bill was favourably looked on by the Government and that they would like to see it passed into law, never for a moment suggested that it was going to be made into a Government measure. Therefore in starring the measure they had not less certainly violated the common understanding of Members on both sides of the House when they had suddenly added to the list of Government measures with respect to which they asked the House to pass the Resolution of 4th August last. Besides these two grounds of justification for this Motion, he had a much stronger reason affecting the fundamental principles on which the legislative procedure of the House ought to be based. The measure before them was a private Bill which passed its Second Reading after four hours' discussion on a Friday afternoon, and was then sent up to a Grand Committee for consideration. On that Committee there was not a single English law officer present. The Government wore not always successful in their attempts to mould legislation in the direction they desired. They were beaten by their own friends, and, as usual, accepted this beating with that serene philosophy which was so peculiar to the present Administration. On the Grand Committee the Government were not and could not be adequately represented, for the reason that that Committee sat at an hour when the majority of hard-worked Ministers could

  355
  not find time to attend. The growing and salutary practice of that Assembly was to leave the framing and conduct of great controversial measures in the hands of the Government and to the admirable staff which assisted them in the drafting of their measures. It had been the practice of successive Speakers of late years always to give the closure at the end of a Second Reading debate on a Friday afternoon to measures formerly talked out. This practice was adopted only because private legislation of a controversial character had practically no chance of getting through the House, and was useful mainly as directing public attention to subjects on which legislation was desired and obtaining a preliminary decision on the subject whether legislation should be attempted or not. Private legislation still had a useful function to perform, chiefly connected with uncontroversial subjects. How could that practice be permitted to continue, if the Government were afterwards going to wait until a Bill had passed the Second Reading and a Grand Committee before they starred it? There was no precedent for such a proceeding. In 1893 or 1894 the Liberal Government gave an opportunity for discussing the Miners' Eight Hours Bill, but the experiment proved a disastrous failure, and led to no decision, although there was a long wrangle, in which the miners from the north expressed vigorously their differences with the miners from other parts of the country. On that occasion the Government did not take up the measure as their own, but they simply gave time to wrangle it out on the floor of the House. The Government had now seized the facilities which private Members enjoyed, and taking advantage of those privileges, they took over this Bill, which had passed its early stages, in its adult maturity, and they had adopted it as their own child. No Bill of this character could have got through on a Friday afternoon had it been a Government measure. Closure would not have been given after three or four hours to a Government measure of this kind. Closure, therefore, was obtained on false pretences. It was claimed because everybody supposed that the Bill would suffer the fate of controversial measures in the hands of private Members. Having got the Second Reading by false pretences, they were now squeezing their advantage
  356
  to the last-drop, with what motive he knew not, nor did he care to inquire. Whether they were building up what they called a case against the House of Lords he really neither knew nor cared. The House of Lords were amply qualified to look after themselves. What he did care for was that the Government had in effect aimed a most serious blow at the practice of discussion of private Members' Bills in that House. Evidently the House would acquiesce in the rapid closure of debate on these Bills no longer if they were in total ignorance whether it might not place the Government months afterwards in a position to take the Bill into its own hands and it having gone through its initial stages adopt it if the Government thought it was going to be popular or subserve some political interest of their own. The right hon. Gentleman was now the responsible Leader of the House. In his hands the business of the House necessarily lay. He pressed upon the House the view that the right hon. Gentleman had been lading in that consideration for the minority which it was desirable should always animate the Leader of the House.
  But, putting that minor point aside, did the right hon. Gentleman not think that by the course he had adopted he was aiming a blow, not at the minority, but at the whole practice of the House with regard to Fridays and private Members' legislation? If Mr. Speaker should think fit to vary the practice which had hitherto guided the Chair by declaring that the closure could not be granted after a four hours debate, unless it was evident that the Government did not intend to take the Bill into their own keeping, he did not know that the minority would lose by the change, but surely the House as a whole would think that it was a great disadvantage to take a decision on these Friday afternoons which, though never binding as to the details of a Bill, did show the way in which the current of public opinion was moving with regard to legislation on a particular subject. It was a valuable privilege to possess, and it was one which the Government were endangering by what they were doing that afternoon. It was for that reason, more than any special ground of complaint with regard to the manner in which they had been treated over this particular measure, that he desired that the

  357
  practice, which had been hitherto adopted by general consent, should be continued —a practice which, it seemed to him, would be thoroughly shattered if it was not merely in the power, but within the will, of a single Minister to come forward and say, "Although the measure has received on the Second Reading but a half or a third of the general debate which it would have excited had it been a Government measure, and although that measure has been treated as a private measure all through the stages of the Grand Committee, nevertheless we intend to take all the advantages which would have been ours had we gone through the ordinary procedure of the House in regard to Government measures, we intend to pass it through this House, we intend to adopt it as our own, and, having got it forward by these illegitimate methods to a stage which, had we shown our hands, had we been honest enough to say what we intended to do, it could never have reached, we mean to take advantage of every technical privilege given to us by the House, at whatever sacrifice of the rights and privileges of unofficial Members."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."— (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)said that the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman divided itself into two parts. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman found fault with the particular disposition of business this week. The House had been engaged on the Plural Voting Bill in the early part of last week and in the later days of the week on the Trade Disputes Bill. The intention of the Government would have been to proceed with the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill on Monday, but the interval hardly afforded time enough for the framing of the necessary Amendments to carry into effect the promises that had been made by his right hon. friend in charge of the measure. He had made these promises out of consideration to members of the Opposition, and in order to meet their requests. His right hon. friend had made a number of promises that he would reconsider
  358
  certain points and introduce words relating to them. There was not time before Monday to have these Amendments ready; therefore the Government proposed to devote Monday to the Merchant Shipping Bill, and then proceed with the Report stage of the Plural Voting Bill on Tuesday. Then supervened the unfortunate illness of his right hon. friend in charge of that Bill, who had made so many promises to hon. Members opposite that no one could very well take his place without a long delay, because the right hon. Gentleman was master of the subject in a higher degree than anyone else could be. Being unable to go on with the Plural Voting Bill on Tuesday, the Government therefore proposed to go on with this Bill. So far as these questions were concerned, therefore, the case of the right hon. Gentleman fell to the ground. The Leader of the Opposition now said that the Government had no right to "star" a private Member's Bill at all. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was brought forward on a Friday, that the Second Reading was taken on a Friday, in accordance with the practice which allowed a Bill to pass that stage with a comparatively short period for discussion on the general understanding that it was only an academic discussion and there was no chance of the measure going further. But the Bill was not closured on that Friday. A hostile Amendment to the Bill was rejected 322 to 77 votes, and the Second Reading was carried by 334 to 81 votes. The closure was allowed on the question of referring the Bill to a Grand Committee, not on the merits of the Bill. That Motion was carried by 306 votes to 72, and the Motion to refer the measure to a Grand Committee was carried nem. con. It went to the Grand Committee, who discussed it for nine days. The Government were in favour of the Bill. Substantially the same Bill had passed a Second Reading in 1895, and it was a measure with which the House was tolerably familiar. Were the Government and the House to lose all the work expended on the Bill? No; being in favour of the Bill and having had its provisions fully discussed in the Grand Committee, the Government resolved to give an opportunity to pass it into law; and they therefore starred it. Was that procedure exceptional? [Cries of "Yes."] Was no controversial Bill

  359
  ever starred? The right hon. Gentleman's own name was on the back of the Musical Copyright Bill. It was very stoutly opposed; the Government were appealed to by him to star that measure. It was a private Member's Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman's argument meant anything, it meant that no private Member's Bill should be starred. The present Bill was no more controversial than the Musical Copyright Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now said that he would take every advantage [Cries "No, no," "He was quoting you "] to oppose the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: NO, no; I never said that.
  SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMANquite accepted that explanation, and therefore they might hope for a reasonable and quiet and not a dilatory discussion of the Bill. There was one little point of no great importance raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to the Government Amendments which had been put down that day. The Motion for the omission of Clause 3 had been put down in reference to the opinion of a number of the right hon. Gentleman's friends; and the other Amendments did not commence until Clause 11, which was not likely to be reached that night, and were consequential on the Amendment to Clause 3. So there was nothing on that ground. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."] There was nothing in any of the grounds advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that the House would proceed to its business without further delay.
  MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid he did not think that the House generally, if it divested itself of Party feeling, could possibly feel satisfied that the Prime Minister had met the case made out by the Leader of the Opposition. It was only fair that the Prime Minister should have pointed out that it was only on Friday last that the House knew that the Land Tenure Bill, which was a private Member's Bill, was going to be added to the Government's programme for the autumn sittings; and the conditions under which the Government had accepted the Bill as a Government measure did not appear until their Amendments were put down on the Paper. He thought that that was a very strong proceeding to take. He maintained that anyone outside the
  360
  House, who was shown the Order Paper of 4th August last and saw the division there made between what was Government business and what was not, would certainly gay that the Resolution then passed precluded such a proceeding as the Government had now adopted. He fully admitted that although the action of the Government might not be a breach of the Standing Order, it was a distinct breach of the spirit of the understanding on which the adjournment in August was agreed to, and on which the business of the House had been conducted until last Friday. But in addition to the Land Tenure Bill, the Government had starred the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill, and the Provision of Meals for Children Bill. It would have been, he thought, a somewhat unprecedented proceeding to pick and choose large controversial measures from amongst private Members' Bills in an ordinary session; but he maintained that in this case it was a distinct broach of the agreement made between the Parties in the House in August last. Moreover, the step which the Government had taken was a direct attack on the principle of the ballot by which the precedence of private members' Bills was determined. He thought there was a very real danger in that. Three years ago he warned the Government then in office that by relegating private Members' Bills to Friday, when they would be inadequately discussed, they ran the great danger on an unscrupulous Government making use of the privileges of private Members to force forward unduly Bills in which they were interested, and in a manner never contemplated. If the Government had brought in this Land Tenure Bill, which included an Amendment of the Ground Game Act, there would have been a long discussion on the First Reading; whereas, it being a Private Members' Bill that stage passed without discussion, and the Second Reading was carried after only four hours' debate when the only law officer of the Crown present was one from Scotland. Surely, it was not right that a Bill having passed its Second Reading in that sort of way should be adopted as a most important Government measure, and it was not in harmony with the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, which stated that a special Grand Committee should be set up during the whole session to deal with private

  361
  Members' Bills. He supported the Amendment because he believed with the Leader of the Opposition that this procedure was a real menace to the rights of private Members, and also a breach of the understanding come to in August last.
  *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid that the opinion which he held was largely in agreement with that of hon. Gentlemen opposite and especially with that of the right hon. Gentleman who had spoken. He believed that discussion on a Bill dealing with a controversial subject, introduced by a private Member, should be looked upon as academic, even if it passed its Second Reading. But it was not from that point of view that he rose to support the Motion before the House. He believed that there were many Members who shared the opinion that this Parliament had boon returned in order to do something real and practical for agriculture and rural questions. If they were to do something for rural housing and in the interests of small holdings, it seemed to him that the Government should have at its disposal before introducing legislation on these subjects all possible material upon which to found that legislation. There was a great deal in this Bill with which he was in entire agreement. He believed that some of the clauses were highly controversial, but there was a great deal to be said for the argument that legislation might be necessary in the direction aimed at. But if they were to have practical legislation for the agricultural districts of England it was necessary that all the information that could be obtained should be at the disposal of the Government in order that they might frame their legislation upon it. There had been sitting for the last two years a Select Committee, which was exhaustively examining into the small holdings question, and before the end of the year that Committee would have reported and submitted to Parliament specific recommendations. There was another Committee, of which he happened to have the honour to be Chairman, dealing with the rural housing question, and there would be points in their Report and recommendations which were closely connected
  362
  with the subjects dealt with by this Bill. If this measure were passed in its present state it would create obstacles to the large development of small holdings throughout the country. He asked the Government to reconsider whether they could not postpone this particular legislation until they had the whole of the materials for it to their hand. The record of this Government in two years time would largely depend upon their agricultural legislation, and he was sure that they would be better able to pass useful legislation for the agricultural districts, if before they attempted to do so, they had all the materials at their disposal. After all, it would only be a postponement for a few months, because next year the Government would be in a position to introduce a Bill carefully framed by a Government Department. Such a Bill would of necessity be a much more useful and practical one than a measure which, like the present, was introduced upon the incomplete information at the disposal of private Members. There wore now a number of private Members' Bills "starred" by the Government, and some of them were of great importance. There was one of almost universal importance to which he would like to allude. There was great danger that the Bill dealing with the provision of meals for children might be crowded out. Some hon. Members might not agree with all its provisions, but he believed that, speaking generally, it was supported. It could be easily amended and it would prevent great hardship upon children in industrial centres if it were passed. He earnestly suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that as the result of this debate he might consider the advisability of postponing the present Bill until he had before him the whole of the information in regard to the housing and small holdings in agricultural districts, and was thus enabled to bring forward a comprehensive measure dealing with the whole subject.
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid he would not have intervened in the debate, which struck him as being singularly unreal and uncalled for, but for the remarks which had just been made by the hon. Member for the Chippenham Division who seemed to think

  363
  that this Bill was a wholly novel and unconsidered set of proposals upon which the Government and the hon. Members who had made themselves responsible for it had an entirely insufficient supply of information. It was perfectly well known that the hon. Member who drew the Bill was the hon. Member for South Molton. He himself and that hon. Member had both served upon the Agriculture Commission of 1893, which reported in 1897. That Commission obtained most exhaustive and authoritative evidence on the subject from every part of England and also from Scotland and reported exhaustively upon all the issues raised by this Bill. The present President of the Board of Agriculture was the Chairman of the Welsh Land Commission, which also went exhaustively into the whole subject and reported on those particular issues as they affected Wales. He ventured, therefore, to point out that the hon. Member was not well advised in suggesting that they were now proceeding to deal with matters upon which the Government and the private Members who were responsible for the Bill had not the fullest and most complete information. His hon. friend had also alluded to the fact that the Small Holdings Committee had not yet made their Report, and had urged that provisions of this Bill might tend to defeat their wish to see a large extension of small holdings. He (Mr. Channing) was a member of the Small Holdings Committee, and of course could give no indication whatever of what was likely to be the nature of their Report. But the Government, to a certain extent at any rate, in regard to Scotland in the Small Landholders Bill had shown its hand as to the conditions under which it expected small holdings to be successful, and so far from standing in the way of an effective Small Holdings Bill during the coming session he welcomed this measure as paving the way or satisfactory proposals.
  ME. MILDMAYsaid it seemed to him that the question was a very simple one. They had been discussing the Trade Disputes Bill and the Plural Voting Bill, and had been led to expect that they were going to debate the Merchant Shipping Bill. Suddenly and practically without notice, a Bill had been sprung upon them in
  364
  which a totally different class of constituents were interested. There were many constituencies which were purely agricultural in their nature, such as his own. They had no trade unionists and no shipping interest, and the Members for those constituencies would have thought themselves at liberty to be absent from the House for the week. Was it therefore quite fair to spring upon them the Land Tenure Bill? He was quite sure the right hon. Gentleman was actuated by the same desire as previous Leaders of the House not to place the Opposition at a disadvantage, and, on reconsideration of the matter, he could not, he thought, but see that their complaint was justified. He would put this to him. Would he treat the Irish or the Labour Party in such a fashion? He was quite sure the Irishmen would not stand it. During his twenty-one years experience of the House he had never known business to be thus sprung upon them when hon. Members genuinely desirous of taking part in the debate were absent, and he thought if the right hon. Member would dispassionately consider the matter he would see they had just cause for complaint.
  MR. ROWLANDSthought hon. Gentlemen had gone a little wide in their arguments in drawing any possible inference from the Report of the Small Holdings Committee, of which body he happened to be a member. Up to the present time not a single word of that Report had been decided upon; the Committee only sat that morning to consider their draft Report, and, as far as he could see, all the questions dealt with by that Committee would be outside this Bill. The Prime Minister had not mentioned the whole of the time of the House which had been given to this Bill. Besides the Second Reading; debate and the nine days spent in Committee, they had had two days on the Report stage, when very large divisions were take. One of the most striking things which showed the way in which they were fought was that the Speaker granted the closure after two days had been spent upon the Report stage.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYthought he could break

  365
  down one of the chief arguments used by the Prime Minister. When he said that the whole of the Amendments which represented the Government views were on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken, as that which in the opinion of the House was the chief Amendment to this Bill was not on the Paper. It was a matter of public notoriety and public knowledge that a great deal of the interest in this Bill, at all events in the minds of a great number of people, centred upon the fifth clause, on which the President of the Board of Agriculture had spoken with emphasis in the country. On every occasion on which the noble Lord had spoken he had stated clearly and definitely that an Amendment embodying the view of the Government was going to be put on the Paper in reference to that clause. It was not yet there. The Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded was a matter of trivialimportance, whereas the other was one to which those who were interested in the Bill had been looking forward with the utmost concern. He was not going to allege for an instant that the right hon. Gentleman, or those who worked with him, would take any unfair advantage of their position; but what was it they were making possible in the future? The present Government had an enormous majority in this House, and had absolute power as to what business they should make Government business during the session. They could indefinitely prolong the session for the purpose of carrying out the business they selected as especially their own. They had an enormous advantage in the ballot, and could get the great preponderance of private Bill legislation. It therefore followed that they could pick and choose if they liked from the Private Bills in order to put them forward as their own. That would be multiplying indefinitely the power placed in the hands of a majority, and if would be absolutely against fair play and the rights of the minority. The Government had not only their own majority, but they might utilise the power of private Members in the ballot. They could take for electioneering purposes those Bills which were most
  366
  advantageous, passing over others, thus utilising not only their own power but also the rights of private Members to promote their own ends at the expense of public propriety and public justice. It was generally understood at the time of the Adjournment in August that the Government would have autumn sittings only to proceed with the business of the Government as it was understood in the summer, and no other. No one had any idea that they were going to press other measures into their list. The House would very soon lose credit as an assembly if they did not understand the merits of playing fair one with another. To add to their list of measures a Bill as to which the Government had given no sign that they contemplated taking it up was very unfair against the opponents of the measure. The Opposition fought this Bill in the summer fairly and honestly under the rules of the House, and, having been beaten in a fair fight, was it fair that its supporters should come behind and take advantage of that to which they had no right? The hon. Member for Northamptonshire had argued that the House was in possession of ample knowledge of these matters, partly because of the Report of the Royal Commission of which he was a distinguished member. That Royal Commission reported adversely to a good many propositions contained in the Bill, and therefore he might further use that argument in support of the contention that on grounds of fair play and to prevent a grave Parliamentary scandal the Bill should not be proceeded with. For these reasons he confidently appealed to the generous sense of the House to support them in their contention.
  MR. J. WARDsaid that one of the reasons that had been suggested for this Motion which seemed at all practical and germane to the subject was that certain hon. Members, because of absence from the House, were unable to take part in the debate. He supposed that was another way of saying that these hon. Gentlemen were shooting or hunting. Those who were in attendance ought not to have to wait the pleasure of others who were not. A remark had been made

  367
  to the effect that the Government would not dare to spring upon the Labour Members or the Irish Members a subject in which they were specially interested without giving them notice. As a matter of fact, he believed the Labour Members would be only too delighted to have any legislative work dealing with labour forced upon them at any time. The Labour Members were present to work, and he felt disgusted with the waste of valuable time to-day in a barren discussion which might have been devoted to the consideration of the Bill itself.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid that Labour Members would reasonably complain if a Bill to which they were opposed were suddenly brought forward as a Government measure. He could not understand what had induced the Government to take this extraordinary and unprecedented course. No reason had been put forward by the Prime Minister why, in the absence of the First Commissioner of Works, he should not put down the Merchant Shipping Bill. He wondered whether the action of the Government was due to the threat of the President of the Board of Agriculture. It was certainly not from any pressure from any large body of Government supporters in this House, because it was within public knowledge that a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government were strongly opposed to the provisions of this Bill. The President of the Board of Agriculture had made a great many speeches during the recess, but that was certainly no reason why the Government should have adopted this Bill without any demand for it among the class most interested. The President of the Board of Agriculture had been rushing up and down the country trying to find a farmer in favour of it, and he believed he had found one. But he was certainly not successful in Scotland, however successful he might have been in England. The Scottish Chamber of Agriculture had refused to adopt the suggestions in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had put down as an Amendment that the Bill should not extend to Scotland. Beyond that the hon. Gentleman had introduced a
  368
  Bill called the Land Tenure (Scotland) Bill, which modified this Bill very considerably and especially left out Clause 5, to which so many hon. Gentlemen objected. If the Bill was not likely to benefit Scotland, he did not think it was likely to benefit England. The English Chambers of Agriculture had only given a very qualified support to its proposals. He agreed that it was a most unfortunate opportunity to take to attempt to deal with the land question. The Departmental Committee dealing with the question of small holdings and the Select Committee upon the Housing of the Working Classes, both of which had been sitting for a long period, were about to report, and whatever might be the effect of those Reports or of any measure founded upon them it was absolutely impossible for the Government to deal with the whole of these questions in the broad and statesmanlike manner desirable until they had considered those Reports. He protested most strongly against the attitude of the Government in this matter. It would have been a strong action for the Government to take at this period of the session after proper notice, but he believed that in the circumstances it was unprecedented. He agreed with his hon. friend that it was a most unsportsmanlike action.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that all who desired to take part in this discussion felt most strongly the action of the Government in bringing the Bill on in the manner they had. If he were to use the strongest language possible and accuse the Government of a breach of faith he did not think he would be going too far. If the Resolution passed at the August adjournment did not mean that the Government was going to devote this part of the session to their Government business, it meant that every order on the Paper at that time came within it, and in that case the Resolution was worth nothing.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the Government had already announced that they were going to give facilities both for this Bill and the Town Tenants Bill.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYasked where that announcement was made, because

  369
  the Opposition, including his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, were entirely unaware of it.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid if the noble Lord appealed to him he would point out that it was thoroughly understood by Lord Lansdowne at all events, because the noble Lord in his letter to the Peers on the meeting of Parliament mentioned as one of the subjects which was sure to come for-ward the Land Tenure Bill, which had made such progress in the House of Commons.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he was unaware that the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition themselves were expected to take the Government programme from the Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House.
  SIR H CAMPBELL - BANNERMANsaid the noble Lord had said it was not understood. He thought he had said sufficient to show that it was, at all events by Lord Lansdowne.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he could not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as an answer. It only showed that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman did not affect the statement made by the hon. Gentleman opposite who had said it was announced definitely by the Government that this was to be a part of the Government business during the autumn session.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid in the case of the Town Tenants Bill it was announced across the floor of the House, and in the case of the Land Tenure Bill it was announced in reply to a deputation, the proceedings of which were reported in the Press.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYthought that if the hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the, proceedings of that deputation he would see that he was far from stating the fact. In point of fact, it seemed to many from the reports that appeared that the Government were more inclined to drop the Bill altogether. But quite apart from the question of
  370
  breach of faith there was a question of courtesy to the House. He thought the business of the House was arranged as far as possible to suit the convenience of both sides. Of course it was well known that when members of the Labour Party were absent from the House they were away on the business of their constituencies, and that when members of the Opposition were away they were fox hunting and shooting. But what was more to the point was the question of courtesy between the Parties in the. House, and the question was whether the relations between those Parties were to be embittered more than they need he by the nature of the controversies between them. If they were, the Government had taken the best course to attain that object. His right hon. friend had explained that it was inconvenient to take this B II to-day owing to the illness of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, who took a, keen interest in the measure, but apparently it was the privilege only of members of the Government to be excusably ill, and that privilege was not to be extended to the members of the Opposition. He thought they might have been treated with more courtesy by the Government. Then there was the interest of legislation to be considered. Was the House to suppose that the interest of legislation had been considered when a Bill, brought in on a Friday, and inadequately discussed because it was a private Member's Bill, and sent to a Grand Committee in spite of the feeling of a great many members of the Opposition that it ought to be discussed in Committee of the Whole House, was brought before them in this way. What during the nine days the Bill was before the Grand Committee was the attitude of the Government? The hon. Member for South Somerset sat on the Committee from day to day and nominally represented the Government. He represented the Government by a policy of silence and studied indifference, and it was only after constant joggings by the Minister for Agriculture that one day he ventured to intervene, his intervention merely amounting to saying that the Government did not so much mind what was done with regard to a particular Amendment, that he would leave it to the promoters of the Bill, and whatever they wished the Government would support.

  371
  That was the sole guidance the Committee received from the hon. Baronet who was supposed to represent the Government before the Committee. Then what about the Law Officers of the Crown. There were many complicated subjects before the Committee on which it wanted legal advice. He admitted the hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General for Scotland gave such advice as he was able in the most impartial and learned manner, but he could only speak for Scotland. The Solicitor-General for Scotland was not the Solicitor-General for England, and the law of Scotland was not the same as that of England, especially in these difficult agricultural questions. If this Bill was to be treated seriously and made a Government Bill he thought that the Committee upstairs were entitled to the advice and opinion of the Law Officers for England. Further time should be given to the Bill in all its stages, having regard to its magnitude and importance. As a Government Bill it ought to have received proper treatment and not to have been sprung upon a reluctant House at the last minute and taken up by the Government in the way it had been.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONsaid he desired to make a few remarks upon the proposal now before the House. The policy of the Government was said to be interfering with the rights of private Members. He thought the House would readily agree with him when he said that those sitting on the Labour Benches would always be prepared to guard most jealously any interference with the rights of private Members. The policy adopted by the Opposition with regard to this special Bill seemed to suggest to him that their action was dictated from a desire to protect not so much private Members' interests inside the House as the private interests of certain Members outside the House. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] He had attended every discussion which had taken place upon the Land Tenure Bill, and he had no hesitation in repeating that the discussions suggested to him that the Opposition were anxious to protect not the interests of private Members in the House, but the interests of Members outside the House. Let them examine for a moment the three Bills which the Govern-
  372
  ment were condemned for having starred. The Government had had the audacity to star three Bills to be taken during the autumn sitting with a view to preventing all the work done on them in this House and upstairs from being absolutely wasted. First of all, there was the Land Tenure Bill. That measure had received the careful consideration of the Committee for no less than nine days. He believed that since it came from the Committee two Fridays had been spent upon the same Bill. Were they to be told that a Bill, simply because it was. introduced upon the responsibility of a private Member, after it had been considered by a Committee upstairs and had had two days devoted to its Report stage was not to be taken up by the Government? Why was the measure not to be proceeded with? Simply because of the hundreds of Amendments put down against it from one particular section of the House, and now the Leader of the Opposition asked the House that all this valuable work should be absolutely wasted, and that the House should begin with the Bill next session de noro. An hon. Member had hinted that it would not have been quite so objectionable if the Government had made its selection in a different way, and had not taken up Bills introduced by its own supporters. It was a fact that only one of the three Bills starred was introduced on the Government side of the House. The Land Tenure Bill, by the fortunes of the ballot, was introduced by one who was a supporter of the Government when he sat in this House, but the Town Tenants Bill was introduced by an hon. Member sitting behind him. As they all knew, the Provision of Meals Bill was introduced by a Member sitting on the Labour Benches, and it was the first Bill which passed without a division being challenged. It was sent to a Committee, witnesses were called, and a prolonged inquiry was held. Being a member of that Committee, he followed the Bill through all its stages, and the Member of the Government in charge of the measure when it passed its Second Reading promised that Government time should be given when the Bill returned to the House. This point has been disputed by an hon. Member, but he would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, gave a definite promise that

  373
  the Bill should have Government time immediately it returned to the House. Now, when the Government felt that it ought to facilitate the progress of those measures, he was not going to object to their taking hold of a private Bill. He only hoped that they would take hold of private Bills oftener, because one of the most heart-breaking proceedings in the House of Commons in the past had been that private Members could introduce their Bills and get the verdict of the House upon them and then get no further. So far as the Labour Members were concerned, they hoped that the Government would take up such Bills as these, have thorn starred and push them through. He trusted the Government would not be daunted by this Motion, but persevere with the Bills they had starred, and it would be to their credit if at the end of the autumn sittings they had passed not only those measures for which they were mainly responsible, but also the three measures which they had now take a the responsibility of starring.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid it would be fair to remember that some of the opposition to this Bill had come from sources well qualified to deal with it. He agreed, however, that some of the discussion had been unnecessary and some of it selfish. They must not overlook the fact that a very strong opinion had been expressed by the Chambers of Agriculture which consisted of 05 per cent, of tenant farmers. He believed that the Bill which he had drafted and brought in for Scotland went a little further than the measure under discussion. The question was not only one of doing work, but of doing the right work. Although he supported much that was in this Bill, he did not think that it was particularly applicable to Scotland in all respects. It might be quite possible to provide for some of the special needs of. Scotland in the Bill, but still he did not think, if that was done, it would be nearly so satisfactory as if it were done by a Bill brought in by the Government. One of the proposals made by the Government itself, and one which he cordially supported, was for the creation of a separate Board or Department of Agriculture for Scotland. He was quite sure if that proposal were agreed to such a board would not apply this Bill to
  374
  Scotland, but would introduce one much more on the lines suggested by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture. In all this legislation it would be wise to take a survey of the land question as a whole. As a member of the Small Holdings Committee, he did not think that this Bill traversed to a serious extent the line on which they might advance in regard to small holdings. At any rate, whether in regard to small holdings or any other part of the land question, he thought it would have been better if a Bill had been brought in by the Government next session, when they had received the Reports of the inquiries which were being made by Committees, and after they had taken a survey of the land question as a whole.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the speech to which they had just listened and the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Chippenham Division would go a long way, although not the whole way, to justify the Motion made by his right hon. friend. But even those two Members did not show that they were seized of the force of the objection which his right hon. friend had raised. The hon. Member for the Leith Burghs had given many excellent reasons why this private Member's Bill should not be "starred." He had pointed out that the Bill could not easily be applied to Scotland. That was just the kind of mistake—if they might call it a mistake—which a private Member living in the South West of England would inevitably fall into. It was not his business to know the form of land tenure which prevailed in Scotland. It was a mistake into which a Minister might fall, but he would be at once corrected by the law officers of the Crown. The matte. would go to the legal advisers of the Treasury and such points would be raised weeks, or even months, before leave was asked of the House to introduce a Bill at all. Therefore he was not for a moment reflecting upon the ability of private Members, more especially the Gentleman who was no longer a Member of this House and who was responsible for the Bill in the first instance. The hon. Member for the Chippenham Division had raised the point that

  375
  it was dangerous to deal with the occupying tenant alone and that the tenants in any rural districts of England were not the whole of the agricultural population. It was not a question of landlord or tenant, but a question of what was best for the agricultural community. He did not intend, however, to speak upon the merits of the Bill. Two supporters of the Government had shown that the Bill ought not to be starred and taken up at the last moment by the Government, but they had fallen into the error of speakers of the Independent Labour Party, inasmuch as they did not see the force of his right hon. friend's contention. His contention was that if the action of the Government were taken in respect of the Bill before them or any Bill which was both controversial and of widespread application, they would have to reconsider the whole practice which obtained in the House with respect to private Members' Bills. That point had not been touched upon and certainly not met by the speeches in favour of the action of the Government. It was inconceivable that they should be content with a three or four hours debate upon a question of such magnitude if it were, after two or three weeks or months, to be taken up by the Government and ranked as a Government measure. That was the objection of hon. Members upon his side of the House, and it had not been touched upon by the two members of the Independent Labour Party, who naturally, if he might say so, attached less importance to matters of precedent than some hon. Members who had been in the House sixteen or twenty years. Their inability to understand the argument was not solely due to the fact that they had not been Members for a long period, but partly to the fact that they had missed the point of the contention. The previous speaker and the hon. Member for Barnard Castle had imputed motives to the Opposition. They had said that he and his friends were not doing what they had professed to do that afternoon, that they were not standing up for the protection of the practice in relation to private Members, but were wasting the time of the House by obstruction in the interests of certain individuals. That was the
  376
  imputation made by two hon. Members who most earnestly deplored the wasting of the time and work of Parliament, but there could be no more subtle form of obstruction than to prefer and then repeat somewhat discourteous attacks upon Members who for their part only claimed terms of absolute equality with other hon. Members. He thought hon. Members of the Independent Labour Party—
  MR. SHACKLETON: There is no Independent Labour Party in this House.
  ME. WYNDHAMsaid it hardly rested with any member of the Labour Party to denounce any other member for having the interest of a class at heart. By the practice which had prevailed in the House for many years it had been the habit of hon. Members, to whatever class they belonged, to bring forward their arguments to be judged by other Members who were their equals. Every one must belong to one class or another, and might be unduly actuated by the passions and prejudices of his particular class, but hitherto hon. Members had always endeavoured to leave their passions and prejudices at the door, and when they had come to listen to the arguments in this House they had simulated impartiality even if they did not possess it. They had been told that they had no right to complain because some hon. Members who should be present were away amusing themselves. That was not the kind of argument which tended to shorten debate. He supposed the Labour Party would hardly contend that no one should consider a measure except those who agreed with them or the Government, and yet that pretension on the part of the supporters of the Government was being pushed further day by day. It assuredly did not lie in the mouths of the Labour Members to denounce others for having class interests at heart; and it was certainly unwise on the part of the supporters of the Government, and particularly unwise on the part of the Labour Party, to take it for granted that every one who supported the Government must be right, and that any who-preferred greater deliberation must be

  377
  wrong, as well as being actuated by selfish motives. His right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin was absent through illness. Hon. Members might differ altogether from the political views of his right hon. friend, but surely when a question touching the rural life of England was being discussed every Member of the House would be glad to have him present. There were other hon. Members in the House who ought to object to this measure being brought on to-day, because they had not had proper opportunity of preparing themselves for the consideration of the matter. There were some who, rightly or wrongly, believed that the Bill might not improbably prove to be the first step in legislation for this country not dissimilar to the legislation which had been passed for Ireland, legislation which in the long run would involve an immense burden being placed on the credit of the country in dealing first with the farmer and next with the labourer. To be called upon to deal with a Bill of this character after only twenty-four hours notice was the way neither to economise the time of the House nor to aid its smooth working. The Prime Minister had not appreciated that; he had rested his case on the precedent of the Musical Copyright Bill, and he thought the Leader of the Opposition ungenerous because he objected to the "starring" of the Land Tenure Bill, which dealt with the ramifications of the rural life of England and might involve the Imperial Exchequer in an enormous credit draft. He believed that the Labour Party were in favour of land nationalisation. That was a most expensive process. When they gave to certain persons a certain right to property in land they invariably showed that they would like to have the whole property. This Bill was the first step towards the nationalisation of land, and it was not dissimilar to the Act passed for Ireland. In either case it was a Bill of enormous moment; and yet it was compared to the Musical Copyright Bill—a Bill which would have been passed six years ago but for the indomitable confidence in his own view of the hon. Member for Mid Lanark! That put the last touch upon the effrontery with which the Government had disregarded the case put forward by his right hon. friend. The House had
  378
  not had the least excuse or apology from the Leader of the House for going back on the understanding come to on 4th August. The right hon. Gentleman had said: "That is my case"; but he had not explained how it came to pass that he, the Prime Minister of the country and Leader of the House—they were not concerned with what was going on in another place —did not think it worth his while to say why, seeing that on 4th August he stated that nothing but Government business would be taken in the Autumn sittings, this private Member's Bill was now brought on on a few hours notice. He did not call that a breach of faith; he should describe it in a more complimentary phrase as a colourable transaction. The right hon. Gentleman had changed the colour of his horse in order to qualify in the race. And when they ventured to demur the right hon. Gentleman said "Do you not read Lord Lansdowne's letters to the Peers?" as though there were no rights and privileges of the Lower House. Reference had also been made to a letter written by the Leader of the Opposition in another place and to the speeches made by Lord Carrington. Were they to take their orders of the day at third hand from the impression made on the mind of one Peer from the stump oratory of another Peer, from speeches made by one noble Lord interpreting correctly or incorrectly the speeches of another noble Lord? After all, an understanding was come to with the Members of this House by the Government, and this House ought to stand up for its privileges and dignities.
  MR. HUBERT BEAUMONTrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  *VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid that he proposed to put into practice what hon. Members below the Gangway had advanced in theory, and so would only intervene for a few moments, as he had no desire to prolong this discussion to undue length, but he would like to emphasise the remarks which had fallen from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The conduct of the Prime Minister could only

  379
  be described as most unjustifiable, and as an unwarrantable endeavour to eliminate the opposition to the Bill. He had always considered that of the arduous duties of the Prime Minister, by no means the least was that of furnishing an example to embryo statesmen, but he considered that in the example which the right hon. Gentleman had set on that occasion he had singularly failed in his duty. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward an example which would prove that the operations of that House had been carried on in a manner which he might call scarcely honest. The arguments put forward by the Prime Minister had materially weakened his own case, because he had said that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Plural Voting Bill was unable to be present owing to illness. They on the Opposition side of the House most heartily concurred in the statement that that Bill should therefore be postponed, because it was necessary for the efficient conduct of that measure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who during the course of the Committee stage had displayed the ability of an expert and a courtesy singularly foreign to the Party to which he had the misfortune to belong, should be in his place on the Treasury Bench. The plea of the Leader of the Opposition that in the absence of the right hon. Member for South Dublin the Land Tenure Bill could not be efficiently discussed, was similar to that put forward by the Prime Minister with regard to the absence of the right hon. Member for Rossendale. No one in the House was more cognisant of the details of the Land Tenure Bill than the right hon. Member for South Dublin, who was unable to take part in the discussion on account of illness. He had every reason to believe that the Government, as a Government, knew very little about the matter dealt with by the Bill. In fact, he did not believe they had gone deeply into the subject. They had brought forward the measure at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, whose presence in the Cabinet he deplored perhaps more than the presence of any other gentleman. They all knew the right hon. Gentleman's views; and he believed that the right hon.
  380
  Gentleman would be handed down to posterity as having a desire rather to be notorious than to bring in legislation for the benefit of the community. He maintained there was no urgency for the Bill, and there was no demand for it. It would be in the recollection of all that the Bill had been brought forward in a very admirable speech by an hon. Gentleman who he regretted was not at present in the House. He always had the opinion that the Land Tenure Bill had been introduced for the purpose of enabling that gentleman to make his maiden speech rather than that the speech was made to introduce the Land Tenure Bill. They all remembered that this Land Tenure Bill had been seconded in an equally brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Barn-staple; but he did not think that anyone with the widest stretch of imagination could look on the hon. Member for Barnstaple as in any sense representative of the interests of the British farmer. He desired to press on the Prime Minister the desirability of reconsidering the decision which he had come to in a somewhat hasty manner. And that for three primary reasons. First of all, there was no urgency and no demand for this measure. It was not desired by any one interested in the industry of agriculture, the welfare of which they all had at heart. In the second place, it was not previously a Government measure. And in the third place, he urged that if the right hon. Gentleman reconsidered his decision he would be exhibiting that spirit of compromise without which it would be impossible to carry on the business of the Assembly in which they sat.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid the hon. Member for Leith Burghs had made some remark about a right of way, but there was another consideration, and that was the right of time. He would not pass any remark as to the unfairness of the Government in adopting a private Member's Bill at all, but especially considering the gigantic nature of the subject which had been so suddenly imposed on the House. He himself was a member of the Small Holdings Committee, which was sitting for four hours per day for several

  381
  days in the week. He believed that they were doing that to oblige the Government; and if they kept on at the present high pressure rate they might produce a Report in some days' time. He put it to the House, if any Member was engaged four or five hours per day in Committee on a particular subject, what time had he to consider a Bill on a similar subject and Amendments to it which he had not seen? All Bills on the land question should be treated as a whole; and the Report of the Small Holdings Committee ought to be in the possession of any one who wished to deal seriously with the question of land tenure. He was particularly interested in one part of the Bill—that which dealt a very unfair blow at the interests of the agricultural labourer and he would be curious to see how the Labour Members were going to support it. Hon. Members must remember that they had another audience outside that House which would have a great deal to say on this point. He also pressed for a postponement of the Bill on the ground of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, especially as the Plural Voting Bill had been postponed because of the illness of a Minister. Where was the need for hurry? He urged the Government to withdraw the Bill till they had got all the reports on kindred subjects from the Committees now sitting, otherwise their work would be piecemeal and patchwork. He was aware that the President of the Board of Agriculture was most anxious to get the Bill through. He had been going up and down the country doing a good deal of trumpet blowing, which was being "found out," but he could assure the Government if they pressed the measure forward they would waste the time of the House and the result would be piecemeal legislation.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he had been hoping that they would hear a good and satisfactory answer from some member of the Government to the arguments which had been addressed to them. It seemed to him that the only reason why this measure had been brought before the
  382
  House was to "save the face" of the President of the Board of Agriculture, who had been spending his holiday in the congenial task of going round from one Chamber of Agriculture to another and making the same speech which was everywhere received with the same chilling silence. Having pledged himself, his reputation depended upon this Bill's being adopted by the Government, and he had reverted to that sort of pressure to which the Front Government Bench were so susceptible, based on the principle that he who asked often and asked much was most likely to get it. One argument which had been brought forward he repudiated with the utmost force of which he was capable. They were told that they were wasting time and that it was being done to support their own private interest. He did not care whether this Bill was against his private interest or not, but he did say that it was against the best interests of a large class of the tenant farmers of the country. [Ironical cheers from LABOUR MEMBERS.] He thought that such cheers came from hon. Members with a very bad grace after they had got their Bill from the Government by constant pressure and by never leaving their victims alone. If the expense of maintaining his buildings, etc., was put upon the tenant farmer the Legislature would create a system of dual ownership and breed distrust between landlord and tenant. Hon. Members might say that nothing of the sort would happen, but in cases where landlords had previously done their best for their tenants, if they became disabled through a heavy death duty or other cause from helping them they would take advantage of the clause and the tenants would suffer. He thought this was a Bill which they were bound to oppose, not because it inflicted injury upon the interests of the landlords, but because it would injure tenant farmers. There were a certain number of Members on the Ministerial side who resided in agricultural districts, but the greater number of them did not know that the majority of agriculturists were against the provisions of the Bill. He rose, however, strongly to repudiate the suggestion that those who were opposing this Bill were acting in their own interests; they were doing it in the interests of all classes of

  383
  agriculturists and not from the unworthy motives attributed to them.
  MR. WINFREYsaid he could not allow the statements of the hon. Member to pass without comment. He had said that there was no one on that side of the House who was competent to represent tenant farmers.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid he had expressly stated that there were some hon. Members on the Ministerial side who understood agricultural matters, and that would include the hon. Gentleman, who had more knowledge of them than anybody else.
  MR. WINFREYsaid he did not claim to have superior knowledge, but he did claim equal knowledge, and that so far as the tenant farmers of the Eastern Counties were concerned they wanted this Bill and they would be bitterly disappointed if the Prime Minister did not get it through. Deputations of tenant farmers from Essex and Lincolnshire had waited or were about to wait upon the President of the Board of Agriculture in favour of the Bill. From the latter county the deputation represented no less than 600 tenant farmers, and yet the Lincolnshire Chamber of Agriculture, largely composed of landowners and land agents, passed a Resolution against it. They ought to listen to the views of the tenant farmers, and he thought the President of the Board of Agriculture had done good work in going about trying to get views from the tenant farmers of the country. Having been associated with agricultural labourers for the last twenty years, he had no hesitation in saying
  that there was nothing in the Bill that would prejudice the acquisition of small holdings, and he felt certain that it would be supported by agricultural labourers generally when they came to understand its provisions. It was a Bill to give tenant farmers proper security in their holdings. He would not enter into the question as to the reasons the Government had for taking up the Bill. It was sufficient for him to know that the measure was very much overdue, and he would be very sorry if all the time they had occupied in Committee was thrown away. He trusted they would have an opportunity of dealing fully with the Bill on the Report stage.
  MR. HUNTsaid the Bill was very badly drafted, and personally he felt that it would do a great deal more harm than good. A great majority of the farmers did not want the Bill at all. He was satisfied that it would not help the labourers or the small holders, and for those reasons he really thought the Government might have had sense enough to withdraw the Bill and bring in another measure next session after giving the matter their very serious consideration. He was sure this measure would not do the Government any good.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 356; Noes, 104. (Division List No. 377.)

  AYES.

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

  Barker, John

  Bertram, Julius

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't)

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Waldon)

  Adkins. W. Ryland D.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Billson, Alfred

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Barnes, G. N.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire).

  Alden, Percy

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Boland, John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Beale, W. P

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brace, William

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Brigg, John.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Bright, J. A.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bell, Richard

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Brodie, H. C.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Brooke, Stopford

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

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

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Bryee, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Ginnell, L.

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs,)

  Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John

  Mac Veigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Killop, W.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Maddison. Frederick

  Cameron, Robert

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hammond, John

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Meagher, Michael

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Menzies, Walter

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harwood, George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Clough, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mond, A.

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Montagu, E. S.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Cory, Clifford John

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morrell, Philip

  Cowan, W. H.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morse, L. L.

  Cox, Harold

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Murphy, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hodge, John

  Murray, James

  Crombie, John William

  Hogan, Michael

  Myer, Horatio

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Napier, T. B.

  Crossley, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nicholls, George

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  .Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Norman, Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  .Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Nuttall, Harry

  Delany, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Dewar, Arthur (Ed'nburgh, S.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Dowd, John

  Duckworth, James

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Grady, J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommom, N.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Mara, James

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Shee, James John

  Elibank, Master of

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Parker, James (Halifax,

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Paul, Herbert

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lambert, George

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

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lamont, Norman

  Perks, Robert William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lough, Thomas

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Fuller. John Michael F.

  Lundon, W.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rees, J. D.

  Gilhooly, James

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  386

  387

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Ward W. Dudley(Southampton

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wardle, George J.

  Richardson, A.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wedgwood. Josiah C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whitbread, Howard

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Summerbell, T.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Sutherland, J.E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Robinson, S.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rose, Charles Day.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Rowlands, J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Williamson, A.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thorne, William

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

  Seddon, J.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

  Shackleton, David James

  Toulmin, George

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

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Verney, F. W.

  Winfrey, R,

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Hudderst'd)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Young, Samuel

  Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Snowden, P.

  Walsh, Stephen

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fell, Arthur

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbnry, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gibb, James (Harrow).

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Haddock, George R.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude. George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marbleyone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

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

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Keswick, William

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cave, George

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn.Victor C.W.

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

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

  Liddell, Henry

  Thomas. W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Thornton. Percy M.

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Turnour, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

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

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Younger, George

  Cross, Alexander

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Viscount Valentia.

  Question put accordingly, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 341. (Division List No. 378.)

  AYES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Haddock, George R.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Helmesley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Carlile, E. Hildren

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Cave, George

  Keswick, William

  Starkey, John R.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  King, Sir Henry Seymour(Hull)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

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

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

  Chance, Frederick William

  Liddell, Henry

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lew'sham)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

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

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Turnour, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Cory, Clifford John

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Whitbread, Howard

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Cross, Alexander

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Younger, George

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  and Viscount Valentia.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  NOES.

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)-

  Acland, Francis Dyke

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

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bell, Richard

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Alden, Percy

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Billson, Arthur

  Cameron, Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Boland, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Brace, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Barker, John

  Brigg, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers't)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clough, William

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Barnes, G. N.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brunner, J. E.RL.(Lancs., Leigh)

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

  Beale, W. P.

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

  Cooper, G. J.

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

  Hodge, John

  Murray, James

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hogan, Michael

  Myer, Horatio

  Cowan, W. H.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Napier, T. B.

  Cox, Harold

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nicholls, George

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)

  Crombie, John William

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Norman, Henry

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Crossley, William J.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Nuttall, Harry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Davies, David(Montgomery Co.)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Delany, William

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Grady, J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Malley, William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Mara, James

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shee, James John

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paul, Herbert

  Dunne, Major Martin E.(Walsal)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Perks, Robert William

  Elibank, Master of

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lambert, George

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

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamont, Norman

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Fullerton, Hugh

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

  Richards, Thomas (W. Momn'th)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richardson, A.

  Gilhooly, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Glover, Thomas

  M'Killop, W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  M'Micking, Major G

  Robinson, S.

  Grant, Corrie

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rowlands, J.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Markham, F. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Hammond, John

  Meagher, Michael

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Menzies, Walter

  Sears, J. E.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Seddon, J.

  Harwood, George

  Mond, A.

  Shackleton, David James

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Mooney, J. J.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Morrell, Philip

  Snowden, P.

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

  Morse, L. L.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Higham, John Sharp

  Murphy, John

  Stanger, H. Y.

  392

  393

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Toulmin, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Verney, F. W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wallace, Robert

  Williams, Llewelyn-(Carmarth')

  Sullivan, Donal

  Walsh, Stephen

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Summerbell, T.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Williamson, A.

  Sutherland, J. E.

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

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Winfrey, R.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersfd)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Young, Samuel

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Thorne, William

  Weir, James Galloway

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Tomkinson, James

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Pease.

  MR. ABEL SMITH,who was indistinctly heard, moved an Amendment to Clause 1 to provide that all notices under the Act should be in writing. He was understood to say that under the second sub-section of the first clause it was laid down that all questions under the Agricultural Holdings Act or this Act which were to be settled by arbitration were to be settled by a single arbitrator, and therefore all the important matters brought within the purview of the Agricultural Holdings Act for the first time would come under the rules of arbitration laid down in the Act of 1900. Perhaps the Solicitor-General would be able to tell them whether that provision covered other matters. For instance, the fifth clause dealt with very difficult questions indeed. Questions of compensation for disturbance would have to be dealt with by a single arbitrator, and he was sure the representative of the Government now in charge of the Bill would agree that such important matters required very careful treatment. He did not believe that under the Act of 1900 it was absolutely certain that the claim should be made in writing. In future he thought it should be made perfectly clear that all these notices should be in writing, and he begged to move.
  SIR FEEDERICK BANBURYseconded the Amendment. It could not do any harm as the only effect of it would be that both parties would know exactly what was going on. In the case of verbal notices one party might forget or not under-
  394
  stand, and in matters like this it was absolutely essential that everything should be clear and that there should be no misunderstanding between landlord and tenant.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 4, at end, to add '(3) "All notices given under this section shall be in writing.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)said the section itself did not specifically contain any reference to this matter, but it referred to the Act of 1900. Therefore this Amendment would affect notices under the Act of 1900. Under that Act certain notices must be in writing, but there were other minor notices which need not be in writing. He thought that in a great majority of cases the parties would desire to give notice, and would prefer that such notice would be in writing. If there were any strained relations between a landlord and his tenant the tenant would certainly prefer to give notice in writing. On the other hand, there were many cases in which the relations of landlord and tenant were of a friendly character and notices were not necessary in regard to some matters. In the interests of greater elasticity and in order to avoid technical hardships it was thought better to leave the provision as to notices the same as it was under the Act of 1900. He thought they should be left as they were under that Act, because they had

  395
  worked satisfactorily and no complaint had been received in regard to them.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid the Solicitor-General apparently had not realised that under this sub-section all the claims under the Act would be brought in. The section was laying down what in England was a novel claim, namely, the claim for unreasonable disturbance made under the fifth section. He suggested to the Solicitor-General that it would be almost impossible to adjudicate upon a question of what should be paid for unreasonable disturbance without having obtained proper particulars in writing from both parties to the dispute. In the Irish Act dealing with this subject there were most elaborate provisions as to how the case was to be brought into Court.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGremarked that it had been said that where friendly agreements were arrived at it was unnecessary to have the notice in writing, and that such written agreements would perhaps be to the detriment of one or the other party. From his experience, and he was sure this was the experience of other Members who represented rural constituencies, no more harmful thing could be done than to pass word with regard to agreements from the landlord to the tenant or from the tenant to the landlord or his agent. Difference often arose in regard to what had been said, sometimes unwillingly, sometimes not. Undoubtedly it was far more satisfactory, no matter how friendly the relations might be between the landlord and the tenant, that the notice of claim of compensation should be in writing. He urged the Government at the outset of the discussion to consider favourably the Amendments that were proposed, for they had been most carefully prepared with the view of making the Bill workable. He did not speak any more for landlords than for tenants. There had recently been very costly litigation simply in consequence of the fact that when an agreement was about to be arrived at word was spoken that it was "all right." If that "all right" had been transferred to paper a great deal of ill-feeling, trouble, and annoyance which had occurred
  396
  in connection with land legislation in Ireland would have been avoided. He hoped those who were now plunging into similar legislation for England would benefit by that experience. The Government would do well to adopt this innocuous Amendment, which would do the Bill no harm, but would rather improve it.
  MR. COCHRANEhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his opposition to this useful Amendment, which might be a very substantial improvement. It would not be fair that a tenant of a large farm having made a large improvement should not give proper notice in writing in his dealings-with his landlord. The hon. Gentleman himself insisted upon notice in regard to compensation. It seemed most unreasonable not to accept an Amendment which would provide that notices in writing should be given.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid these notices were absolutely unnecessary in all cases. They were introduced under the Act of 1900 at the instance of the Party opposite, and they were now only following the same precedent by refusing to make any alteration. What was good enough for the 1900 Bill ought to be good enough for this Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Government were making a mistake in starting this discussion in the manner in which it had been started by the Solicitor-General and the hon. Baronet. They only appeared to have one argument, and it was that they were following the Act of 1900. It certainly was gratifying to find that the were following the example of a Conservative Government in this matter, and he was sorry they were not following them in other respects. When analogous subjects were brought forward in connection with Irish legislation most careful precautions were placed round the provisions. The idea of leaving the question undealt with other than by writing never crossed the minds of the framers of that legislation. No reason had been given why the Government should adhere to this obstinate attitude.

  397
  Under this Bill the controversies between landlord and tenant would go before what was to all intents and purposes a Court. It was a Court which took the form of a single arbitrator, and he thought it would be absurd not to provide that the disputes should come up in a formal shape having a binding effect on both parties. In the ordinary course of estate management this practice of reducing notices to writing was habitually followed. Why the Government should refuse this simple Amendment he could not comprehend. Was the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill going into the discussions on the Report stage with the determination to oppose any Amendments which modified in any degree the letter of a Bill which he did not frame, for which he was not responsible, and for part of which, he supposed, he was ashamed? Why was he going to give to the House and the country the impression that he would oppose everything whether good or bad, without offering a single reply against the arguments adduced by the Opposition? He submitted that if the Government wished the happy passage of the measure through the House they ought to accept Amendments which were harmless, and which hon. Members on that side thought were important to the proper conduct of the delicate relations between landlord and tenant in this country.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that a great many of these arrangements would be on a friendly footing. Was it not exactly in the arrangements between friends that they ought to be most formal? There were many cases in which friendships were broken for want of formality in business relations. He asked the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter from that point of view, and to accept the Amendment.
  MR. GUESTappealed to the Government to yield the small concession asked for, on the ground that the measure made a great alteration in the relations subsisting between landlord and tenant. It was surely a small thing to ask that the notice should be placed in writing and recorded. Conciliatory action on the part of the supporters of the Bill would do a great deal to satisfy those who did not regard it as the best
  398
  possible measure for dealing with the agricultural situation.
  MR. CAVEthought that one of the things that ought certainly to be made in writing was a claim for compensation for improvement. He cited the precedent of Section 1G in the Irish Land Act of 1870 in favour of the Amendment.
  THE SOLICITOK-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE, Linlithgowshire)said he was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that the only reason for the action of the Government was that they were following the precedent of the Act of 1900. That would be, he quite agreed, an insufficient reason. Let the right hon. Gentleman remember that there had been six years experience of the working of the Act of 1900, and no one had got up to say that that experience supported the claim in favour of writing. Under the Act of 1883 a claim in writing had to be made, but the provision was deliberately struck out in the Act of 1900. The reason for that was obvious. It would be a very hard thing on the tenant to be told when he went before the arbitrator that his claim was barred because he did not give notice of it in writing at some time anterior. All claims under the game clause must be given within a reasonable time after the claim arose. If this Amendment had suggested that the notice anterior to the arbitration must contain certain particulars he could have understood it, but it was to be a notice in the most general terms and therefore the Amendment would serve no good purpose.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYjoined issue with the learned Solicitor - General for Scotland as to the experience acquired since the passing of the Act of 1900. It was that experience which ought to lead the House to insert these words in the present Bill. There was no doubt in the world that the omission of these words from that Act had been found to be a very serious drawback. No other business relations in the world were carried out by word of mouth, and therefore it seemed to him to be rather peculiar that in the matter of agriculture it should be deemed unnecessary to have notice in writing in making a claim such

  399
  as might be made under that Bill. Necessary as such written agreements had been found to be since 1900, when this Bill came into force they would be found to be more necessary still. In another part of the Bill itself it was provided that a notice of claim must he in writing. Why then, if it were admitted
  in one instance, was it not also admitted in all cases of claims that might be made under the Bill?
  Question put.
  The House divided. Ayes, 88; Noes, 323. (Division List, No. 379.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nield, Herbert

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

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fell, Arthur

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford. John (Lancashire)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Haddock, George R.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cave, George

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord R.(Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Cross, Alexander

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Abel Smith and Viscount

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Meysey-Thompson. E. C.

  Helmsley.

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  NOES.

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

  Bertram, Julius

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Billson, Alfred

  Chance, Frederick William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Alden, Percy

  Boland, John

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Astbury, John Meir

  Brace, William

  Cleland, J. W.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Branch, James

  Clough, William

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Brigg, John

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bright, J. A.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barker, John

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somers)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Corbett, C. H. (Sussex E. Grinstd)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Barnard, E. B.

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

  Cowan, W. H.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Cox, Harold

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Beale, W. P.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Crombie, John William

  Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Crooks, William

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Bell, Richard

  Byles, William Pollard

  Davies Ellis William (Eifion)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cairns, Thomas

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R

  Cameron, Robert

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Delany, William

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

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

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Perks, Robert William

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Philipps, Owen C, (Pembroke)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pollard. Dr.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kekewich, Sir George

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

  Duckworth, James

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Duncan. J. H. (York. Otley)

  Lambert, George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamont, Norman

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Edwards. Frank (Radnor)

  Lever. W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Rees, J. D.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richards, Thos, (W. Monmouth

  Eve. Harry Trelawney

  Lynch, H. B.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Everett. R. Lacey

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

  Richardson, A.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gill, James (Harrow)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Robinson, S.

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Killop, W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Gill. A. H.

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

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rowlands, J.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Glover, Thomas

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Grant, Corrie

  Meagher, Michael

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Sears, J. E.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Menzies, Walter

  Seddon, J.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Shackleton, David James

  Hammond, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

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

  Hardy. George A. (Suffolk)

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morrell, Philip

  Snowden, P.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morse, L. L.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Henderson, Arthur Durham)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Murphy, John

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Murray, James

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Myer, Horatio

  Steadman, W. C.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hodge, John

  Nicholls, George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hogan, Michael

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Summerbell, T.

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hudson Walter

  O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  O'Grady, J.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Kelly, James (Rocsommon, N.

  Tomkinson, James

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Malley, William

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shee, James John

  Walsh, Stephen

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Parker. James (Halifax)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Jenkins, J.

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Paul, Herbert

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  402

  403

  Wardle, George J.

  White, head, Rowland

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

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Winfrey. R.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Weir, James Galloway

  Willams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n)

  Young, Samuel

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Williamson. A.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Pease.

  MR. NUSSEYsaid that the object of the Amendment standing in his name was to cheapen arbitration under the Bill. He thought that all parties were agreed that the number of arbitrations, instead of landlord and tenant settling matters, as formerly, by mutual agreement, were increasing. It was therefore desirable to make these arbitration proceedings as cheap and simple as possible, in the interest of both the landlords and the tenants. The scheme which the Government had adopted at the eleventh hour was that by the second sub-section of the first clause of the Bill all cases of dispute between landlord and tenant should be determined by a single arbitrator, in accordance with the provisions set out in Part I. of the Second Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings, Act, 1900. That scheme was received with such disfavour in the country that only three members of the Chamber of Agriculture supported it while the remainder of the members of the Chamber voted against it. He ventured to think that the scheme would not be a success in cheapening arbitration, but would rather increase its cost. How could a poor farmer put his case before a single arbitrator in competition with his landlord unless neither party were represented at the arbitration by counsel or solicitor? He believed that in many cases the small tenant farmer would go to that small and decreasing class of pettifogging solicitors whose interest it was to promote litigation by every means in their power. It was in order to obviate those difficulties that, in the interest of the tenant who was often a poor man, that he moved his Amendment.
  *MR. EVERETTseconded the Amendment and thought' that the object which it had in view would commend itself to everyone. Its aim was that the valuation necessary when a new tenant came or the landlord
  404
  took a farm over himself should be as simple and inoffensive as possible. In the county in which he lived they were perfectly satisfied with the practice which had hitherto been adopted. The parties each appointed a valuator, and if they did not agree they appointed an umpire whose decision was to be final. The object of the Government in saying that there should be only a single arbitrator was, he supposed, to prevent the matter from going into the Courts of law. If that was so, it was a commendable object on their part, but he understood that often if counsel were employed, arbitrations were more expensive than going to a Court of law. They did not want to have counsel and lawyers mixed up with their valuations at all, and the Amendment which had just been moved would make it clear that their valuations when farms changed hands would not be attended by the necessity of employing either solicitor or counsel, because if they were employed by the rich landlord the tenant would be at a great disadvantage if he could not employ them himself. For himself he would like to see the Amendment stop at the word "solicitor," so that it would read "neither party shall be represented at the arbitration by counsel or solicitor." The latter part said that they should not appear unless the claim or counterclaim should exceed in amount the sum of £50. He did not think that they wanted a solicitor or counsel in regard to any sum of money when a farm changed tenants.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 4, at end to add the words neither party shall be represented at the arbitration by counsel or solicitor unless the claim or counterclaim shall exceed in amount the sum of £50.' "—(Mr. Nussey.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid that of course everyone would wish that these arbitrations should be carried on in the most

  405
  simple way possible, and the hon. Member was right in saying that these arbitrations had been conducted in his county in this way and he thought in time that there would be no difficulty in carrying them out in a more economical way. Each party would proceed by his valuer as he was doing at present, and it would only be in case of difference that an umpire would be called in. They had already settled the question whether there should be one or two arbitrators, and the question at present was whether either party should be forbidden to be represented before the arbitrator either by counsel or solicitor. Although at the first blush it might seem a reasonable Amendment, he thought that when it was carefully considered it would be seen that cases might easily arise where the amount of the claim was under £50 and even only £15 or £20, but the point at issue might be a very complicated one in regard to which it would be advisable to employ a solicitor or counsel to argue for the landlord or the tenants. This sum of £50 would only be applicable in the cine of small owners who would be the last men capable of standing up and arguing against the landlord. Then again in the interest of the landlord, it might be a case of the trustees or executors of landlords who might say "We cannot take upon ourselves the responsibility of arguing this case. We must have legal advice." Or there might be the case of a widow who was not able by herself or her trustees to appear before the arbitrator and might desire the appearance of a solicitor or counsel. In the majority of cases he thought these would not be needed, but there might be hard cases, both in regard to a landlord and also in regard to a small tenant, and it was the small tenant they had to look after in this matter. Therefore it was necessary that they should give some freedom of choice in the matter, and there was no reason why any restriction should be put into the Bill. For that reason he was obliged to resist the Amendment of his hon. friend the hon. Member for Pontefract.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired i whether the Government were not in a very inconsistent position. They had simplified the Court by weakening it, and to simplify the Court and not to simplify
  406
  the procedure before it was unreasonable. What they wanted was to simplify the tribunal and reduce the expense. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Kill had said that although the matter might be small in regard to the money involved it might be extremely complex, that the small holder might not be able to state his case before the tribunal, and that although the sum might be only £15 or £20 he must be allowed to bring in the services of a professional adviser. But how much of the £15 or £20 would remain after he had paid his professional advisers? If the arbitrator was worth anything he would be a man who understood agricultural affairs, and he would find no difficulty in seeing the point put by the tenant whether the tenant was big or small. It seemed to him almost inconceivable that the arbitrator called in under this Bill, even in the case of a relatively poor tenant explaining his case, would say "I do not understand what you are talking about; you are unable to put your case before me and I decide, against you." Such things did not happen. The Government appeared to contemplate that both parties would be represented by solicitors and counsel to deal with complicated questions which touched only small sums of money. Whom was that going to benefit? It was going to benefit the counsel and the solicitors, but this Bill was not intended for them nor primarily for their advantage. Who was the next party it would benefit? It would benefit the wealthy and litigious landlord in a contest with a small tenant. The case would be decided in favour of the person whose purse was long enough to secure a decision in his favour. It seemed to him one of the anomalies in our social system that justice so often went in favour of the rich man who could afford to employ gentlemen of legal capacity which the poor man could not do. That state of things might be necessary, and no one had seen his way to deal with it, but when they were dealing with arbitrators whose duty it was to decide these simple cases of landlord and tenant, why should they introduce all the complications of our legal system from which we could not free ourselves in the Courts of the country? He thought both landlords and tenants would suffer if the first clause Mere kept as it was, but the class who would suffer least were the class whose purses

  407
  were the longest—the class which could afford to pay for the argument of these complex cases which it was said must come before the arbitrator. He did not know to what class of complicated cases the hon. Baronet referred. He only took his words. He thought it was in the interests of every party except gentlemen of the long robe, not only that we should have a simpler tribunal, but that we should have a simpler procedure.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman would be serious and alarming if they were not dealt with in the light of experience. The right hon. Gentleman when he was at the head of the Government did not think it necessary to introduce any disabling section into his Act of 1900. He should like to know in how many cases under that Act those whom the right hon. Gentleman described as gentlemen of the long robe had been brought in. There were very few cases in which counsel did appear, and there were a great many reasons why counsel did not appear upon matters involving claims for less than £50. It was said that the landlord might avail himself of costly legal advice to the detriment of the unhappy tenant. But experience showed that during the last few years it had not been the practice to introduce solicitors, and certainly not counsel into cases involving small claims. In cases where the tenant did not wish to appear for himself, or could not appear, was he to be debarred from having a representative while the landlord would be entitled to employ his agent? It was not proposed that while the landlord was to be able to employ any agent he pleased, the tenant should be deprived of his choice of agent. He might prefer a valuer, but if he thought the case was one in which a local solicitor whom he knew would better serve his purpose than a valuer whom he did not know, it was not proposed to deprive him of that choice. During the last six years under the Act of the right hon. Gentleman these evils had not arisen, and the Government did not anticipate that they would arise in the future under this Bill. What had happened in the past would happen in the future, each party would probably have a valuer. It had been said that the tribunal had been simplified on the face of it and should be simplified in fact.
  408
  The present system was for each party to appoint an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators if they could not agree appointed an umpire, so that in the arbitrators each party really had his own agent. That was the system which in substance would prevail in the future, An agent would be appointed by the tenant, but not as an arbitrator, and there was every reason why, if the tribunal was so simplified that there would be only one arbitrator, the tenant should have the choice of an agent.
  *MR. WHITBREADexpressed the hope that the discussion would not close before some Member on the front Bench had given an opinion upon a matter in regard to which there was considerable doubt. A great deal of apprehension had been felt as to whether this section of the Bill, which was intended to simplify and cheapen procedure, would not have the opposite effect. Under the Acts of 1883 and 1900 it was the custom of each side to appoint an agent, and when those agents, who were generally valuers, were unable to come to an agreement, for them to appoint an umpire. In the large majority of cases, however, which had to be decided under this method, a satisfactory conclusion was arrived at by the two valuers without recourse to an umpire. The question arose whether under the system which this Bill provided it would be possible for a satisfactory conclusion to be arrived at between the two agents without any recourse being had to the arbitrator. There appeared to be some uncertainty with regard to that. That was a point which he thought ought to be made quite clear, because on reading the text of the Bill it did not appear whether it would, or would not be necessary in all cases to appoint three persons to adjudicate. On the face of it he was inclined to support the Amendment, because it would appear that it would cheapen the procedure, which was going to be much more costly in the future than it had been in the past.
  MR. HICKS-BEACHjoined in the appeal of the hon. Member that this interesting point should be cleared up, because great objection had been raised by the Chambers of Agriculture throughout the country to

  409
  Clause 1, which said that all cases should be determined by a single arbitrator. The custom in the past had been for each party to appoint their own valuer, who settled the claims between the parties. Under this section it would be necessary for a third person to be appointed, who would be over the two agents. Had the promoters of this Bill used a little discretion last session they would have been well advised to drop this section. It had given rise to great animosity throughout the country, and had it been dropped it would have disarmed opposition at that time and would have rendered it unnecessary for anyone to raise the particular Amendment now before the House. Reference had been made to the Act of 1900, but that Act was not very material to this matter, because it dealt only with the improvements of a holding by the tenants. This Bill went further. Here the arbitrator would have to decide not only the extent of the improvements made by the tenant, but also the amount of damage that had been done to the holding by game. He would also have to decide whether the cause for disturbance was reasonable or unreasonable. He defied any valuer in the country to give a proper definition of reasonable disturbance, and unless some Amendment of this kind was put into the Bill he thought the number of cases in which the rich landlord: would employ the most learned counsel he could in order to settle whether the disturbance was reasonable or not would be very great indeed. The tenant, by reason of the length of his purse, would not be able to enjoy the same facilities, and in order to set this matter on a reasonable basis there should be some such Amendment as was proposed. He should be pleased to support the Amendment, because he believed it was a step in the right direction and in the direction of economy. His only doubt was whether it went far enough, and whether they ought not to leave out the latter part of the Amendment, because in the larger cases the rich landlord would have a larger pull over the tenant than he ought to have.
  *MR. LEIF JONESsaid he could not but think the | hon. Member who had just spoken had to some extent forgotten what the Amendment was. He had delivered a speech to prove that the present Bill was
  410
  most complicated. That seemed to point to the necessity of employing rather than excluding lawyers. If the case was simple laymen might settle it, but if questions of law came before the arbitrator it might be necessary for him to have lawyers before him to decide it. The more complicated the Act from a legal point of view the more necessary became the assistance of lawyers. No case, in his opinion, had been made out for the Amendment now before the House. He did not think it would benefit the tenant to rule out. a counsel and solicitors. On the contrary he thought it probable that tenants would sutler, and landlords perhaps benefit by the proposed limitation, but he did not think any case had been made for limiting the freedom of choice of either party. He imagined that the procedure in the future under this Act would be the same as that with which they were all familiar at present. If there were really any doubt about the two parties being able to come to a settlement without an appeal to an arbitrator, he thought the Government would insert words in the Bill to ensure that being possible. To his mind, however, it was clear that there was nothing to prevent two valuers coming to an agreement which would be binding on both parties, without reference to an arbitrator, who would only be called upon to act in the event of disagreement between the valuers. This being so, he saw no advantage in adding the words proposed, and he hoped the Government; would resist the Amendment.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the real question underlying this discussion was the cost of arbitration, which was really a very serious burden on agriculture. As to having one arbitrator, he would be very strongly opposed to any change in that matter so far as Scotland was concerned. One of the reasons which made it so difficult to combine Scotland and England in one Bill was that in the former country they wanted one arbitrator, while in England the system prevailed of calling in two friends who very often settled the matter in dispute. He did not know that he altogether agreed, however, with the Amendment. If counsel and solicitor were prohibited as proposed, there would be nothing to prevent advisors from consulting solicitor and

  411
  counsel, and he did not think any expense would be saved. That was a point that could not be entirely dismissed from the consideration of the Government, but if this clause did not carry out the object for which it was intended he certainly did not think the Amendment would do so. If the representative of the Board of Agriculture would undertake to limit the costs of arbitration he should be in favour of everything being submitted to arbitration as between landlord and tenant. If there were an unlimited number of arbitrations the burden on agriculture would be so heavy that something would have to be done by the Government to reduce the costs. The Government would be living in a fool's paradise if they thought that by merely limiting the number of arbitrations they would be thereby doing good to owners or occupiers. If arbitrations were not good in themselves it was because of the cost, which agriculture could ill bear. He was not at all sure that this particular Amendment would meet the point, which he regretted had not received a little more consideration from the Government before they adopted the Bill.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid everyone would agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in deprecating the piling up of expenditure upon landlords and tenants. This Amendment would strike at a class of lawyer they were all too familiar with, namely, what was called the pettifogging solicitor. Hon. Members had only to read the records of the Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation to see how the pettifogging lawyer dragged the unfortunate claimant from one Court to another. He believed the same class would push their way into these arbitrations. If, as the Government said, this was a Bill to reduce expenditure and facilitate the working of the land system, let them curb this class of solicitors, so that in small claims under £50 or £100 they would not be able to extract their blood money. Those who were best acquainted with the tenants, such as the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division, and the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire, took the view that in the interests of tenants it was desirable that an Amendment of this kind should be carried. Those who took the opposite view took the professional view, which was that no trans-
  412
  action in this country could be properly carried out unless a member of the legal profession was consulted on every point.
  MR. LEIF JONES: My view is not professional.
  MR. COCHRANE: I only said the hon. Member was speaking from the professional view.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I am not a lawyer.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid the hon. Member stated his case so clearly that he forgot for the moment that he was not a lawyer. At any rate if they gave the loophole, as this Bill would, to pettifogging lawyers, all sorts of questions of detail would be raised. There ought to be some simple method of settling differences, and, after all, there were the Courts of law for the purpose of settling legal questions. Arbitration at the best was only a substitute fur law, and a very inefficient substitute, and if these cases were to be argued by counsel or solicitor why not send them to the Courts? The Amendment was one of a moderate and reasonable character. At least he would ask the Government to state whether it was intended to allow the system to continue in England under which each side appointed a valuer. He would go one step further than the Amendment. He saw no reason why they should limit the prohibition to claims of £50. If the hon. Member went to a division he should give him his support.
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the procedure under the Bill would be cheaper than it had hitherto been, as it was much simplified. In the great majority of eases in Scotland, he supposed, as in England, it would be a case of mutual agreement between the two valuers, and it would not go to arbitration. If they did not agree there would be one arbitrator, which simplified the matter very much.
  MK. CAVEsaid he was in rather an unusual position in agreeing with the Minister in charge of the Bill, and differing from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side. He thought it ought to be open to either side to employ a solicitor if need be. Members on both

  413
  sides talked about pettifogging solicitors and so forth, but he was sure those who said that were not very well acquainted with what was done in the country districts, where the solicitor was often a man whom everybody had confidence in, and would entrust his affairs to. The real reason he objected to this Amendment was that it was another piece of grandmotherly legislation. He thought that business men—because landlords and tenants were very often business men—should be left to make their own arrangements in business matters. It was very odd that throughout this discussion everybody who had spoken said that the existing system was best, yet the Government had thought fit to change it. That was the first mistake, but to adopt this Amendment would be mistake No. 2. People were getting on very well now, and the more they interfered with what business men thought was the best thing to do, the more would matters be confused and expense increased.
  *MR. BERTRAMsaid that with regard to the words of the Amendment he might point out that every member of the class described as pettifogging solicitors would without a moment's hesitation advise his client that he could, so to speak, drive the proverbial coach-and-four through these words. They had only to make a claim of £51 in order to do just as they pleased in regard to the employment of counsel or solicitor.
  *CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he certainly thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put forward an aspect not touched before, but he might point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the claim were for about £49 and there was a counter-claim of £49, instead of being £51 as the hon. Gentleman suggested, this clause would be dealing with an amount of £9S. Although a coach-and-four might well go through the clause he thought the Amendment was more drastic than some Members of the House at first recognised. The Bill had been hurried before the House, so that those who wore interested in it had had; no real opportunity of going into these matters in the way they would have liked. Still, at the last moment they must make out a case where they saw
  414
  serious grievance introduced in the Bill. One of these would be obviated by this Amendment, or some assurance that in I small claims which amounted to about £50 the expenses should be kept down. Tenants in some instances were shy of even small costs in arbitration. The custom of settling differences varied in different parts of the country. In some cases a friend of both parties was I asked to decide the point in dispute. This Amendment permitted of that being done, without having the responsibility put upon the tenant of employing an expensive lawyer or a very learned counsel at a large fee to encounter a costly solicitor or barrister on the other side. It was to obviate that that the Amendment was introduced. Having regard to the multitudinous claims that would immediately be made under this Bill, he thought the Minister in charge had no conception of the magnitude of the step he had taken in fathering this clause. If the people were able to take advantage under this Amendment of the customs hitherto practised in various parts of the country it would go a long way towards improving the clause. Costs in each and all of these thousands of claims, whether settled in favour of the landlord or of the tenant, would be an intolerable burden on the agriculture of the country, and mounting up year by year, were a tax which the country was not fitted to bear. In order to eliminate costs in the smaller claims, he held it was absolutely essential that they should have an Amendment of this nature. Those who were interested in seeing agriculture flourish in the country had not been given a fair chance in this question. This was an Amendment which would undoubtedly simplify the matter, it was desired in every quarter of the House, and he hoped that the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would give an assurance that that current of thought, would receive careful attention.
  *MR. WARDLEsaid he desired to point out what appeared to him to be the real crux of the question. They were told that the cost: was the thing which was at issue. They who represented workmen in the House found themselves in a very similar position with regard to the Workmen's Compensation Act and other legal difficulties which workmen had to meet. What had they done? Hesuggested

  415
  that the tenant should do as they did done. They should combine and have a small insurance society, and then they would get over this small difficulty. After all, £50 might be a great deal to these men. By the single method which workmen had put in force, this body of tenant farmers and holders of small holdings would got that legal advice to which they were entitled.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that the Amendment had been advocated on the ground that the tenant wanted protection as against the possible encroachments of the landlord, and yet the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Hill opposed it on the ground that what its supporters thought it would effect was contrary to what would really happen. The hon. Gentleman opposed it because he thought it would be against the interest of the tenant. If the House wanted proof of the extraordinary bad judgment which had been shown in the bringing forward of this Bill, he did not think they could have better proof than they had from the hon. Gentlemen opposite in the discussion of this Amendment. He thought the balance of argument was in favour of the Amendment, which he believed would work in the direction of putting the tenant on more level terms with the landlord, and, in so far as that would be the result, the Amendment had his approbation. The landlord's agent was frequently a solicitor, and it was not desirable that he should be barred from appearing. Another interesting point was that Scotland was diametrically opposed to England in regard to the appointment of a single arbitrator.
  MR. NUSSEYmoved to amend his Amendment by leaving out the words after "solicitor."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words unless the claim or counterclaim shall exceed in amount the sum of £50.' "—(Mr. Nussey.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.
  MR. FORSTERsaid it seemed to him that the Amendment to the Amendment introduced a really different question. The Amendment as amended would prevent either party from being represented at the arbitration by a lawyer, however large the question involved might be. He did not think the hon. Gentleman was well advised in leaving out the latter part of the Amendment.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he should have been perfectly prepared to support the Amendment as at first proposed, but he entered a caveat against the method of procedure which the mover had followed. By striking out the latter part of the Amendment he had destroyed the whole of the reasoning on which the Amendment in its original form had been supported. It was right that the parties should not be put to unnecessary expense in trifling cases, but he could not assent to the proposal that lawyers should be barred from appearing where large interests were involved.
  MR. NUSSEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 72: Noes, 301. (Division List No. 380.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Craig, Chas. Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Agnew, George William

  Boyle. Sir Edward

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craik. Sir Henry

  Atherley-Jones. L.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cross, Alexander

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Davies, David(.Montgomery, Co.

  Banbury. Sir Frederick George

  Carlile, K. Hildred

  Douglas, Fit. Hon. A. Akers-

  Baring. Hon. Guy (Winchester;

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Fell, Arthur

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

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Finch, Mr. Hon. George H.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cochrane Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Forster. Henry William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Collings, Rt. Hn.J (Birming'ham

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Haddock, George R.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Meysey-Thompson, E.C.

  Starkey, John R.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Nield, Herbert

  Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

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

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whitbread, Howard

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Wilson. A. Stanley (York, E.P.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Nussey and Mr. Everett.

  NOES.

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

  Clough, William

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Alden, Percy

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Allen, A. Acland-Christchurch)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Henderson, Arthur Durham)

  Allen, Charles P. (Strond)

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Cox, Harold

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cremer, William Randal

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

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crombie, John William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crooks, William

  Higham. John Sharp

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury. E.)

  Crosfield. A. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hodge, John

  Barker, John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogan, Michael

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hooper, A. G.

  Barnes, G. N.

  Delany, William

  Hope John Deans(Fife, West)

  Beale, W. P.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hope. W. Bateman (Somerset, N

  Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Beck. A. Cecil

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bell, Richard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hudson, Walter

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Duckworth, James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

  Duncan, J. H. (York. Otley)

  Jackson, R. S.

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Betram, Julius

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jenkins, J.

  Bethell. J. H. (Essex. Romford

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead,

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, W. (Nuncaton)

  Billson, Alfred

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Boland, John

  Eve. Harry Trelawney

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lambert, George

  Brace, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lamont, Norman

  Brigg, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Bright, J. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gardner, Col..Alan(Hereford, S.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gibb, James (Harr W)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

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

  Gill, A. H.

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Ginnell, L.

  Lundon, W.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lynch, H. B.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Glendinning, R. G.

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Glover, Thomas

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Cave, George

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Callum. John M.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hammond, John

  M'Crae, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Hardie. J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  M'Kean, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Kenna. Reginald

  Cleland, J. W.

  Harmsworth," Cecil B.(Worc'r)

  M'Killop, W.

  418

  419

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

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

  Summerbell, T.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Maddison. Frederick

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Mallet. Charles E.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rees, J. D.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Tomkinson, James

  Menzies, Walter

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

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Richardson, A.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ure, Alexander

  Mond, A.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Verney, F. W.

  Money. L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Vivian, Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Morgan, (J. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Morse. L. L.

  Robinson, S.

  Wardle, George J.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Murphy, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Murray, James

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Myer, Horatio

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Rowlands, J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Nicholson, Chas. N.(Doncast'r)

  Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Norton. Capt. Cecil William

  Seddon, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  O'Brien. Kendal (Tipperary Mid

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Dowd, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  O'Kelly. Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Snowden, P.

  Williamson, A.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  O'Malley. William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

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

  O'Mara, James

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Shee, James John

  Steadman, W. C.

  Winfrey, R.

  Parker. James (Halifax)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Paul, Herbert

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Young, Samuel

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Perks. Robert William

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Pollard. Dr.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Whitley and Mr. J. A.

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh, Central)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Pease.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he moved the omission of Clause 2 for two reasons. First, because the clause would not attain the object in view, and would cause bad feeling; and, secondly, because it would abrogate contracts already entered into. The object of the clause was apparently to give compensation to the tenant for damage done by game which he had not the right to kill. Supposing for a moment that game was preserved in the ordinary way, and did some damage to the crops of the tenant farmers, how on earth was it going to be proved that the damage was done by partridges and pheasants, and not by rooks or pigeons? He maintained that partridges did no harm at all, and pheasants only at certain seasons, and then only if they were in excessive numbers. Moreover, how could it be proved that
  420
  the damage was done by the partridges and pheasants belonging to the landlord? In the case of a small estate the game often came over the border, from the land of a neighbouring landlord, and did the damage. Was it a fact that there was such an amount of damage done by excessive game preservation that it was necessary to interfere with freedom of contract as between landlord and tenant? It was perfectly well known that a tenant in taking a farm where he knew there would be a large amount of game preserved got compensation in the way of abatement of rent. But it might be said that where the amount of loss was very small, and the number of holdings very large, the tenants were were in the hands of the landlords. He believed that that was the opinion of writers in Radical newspapers. But every-

  421
  body knew that it was quite contrary to the fact, and is nine cases out of ten the tenant could make what terms he chose. He could say that there was too much game on the place, and he must have a reduction of rent. Therefore his interest was already safeguarded. If this change in the law was introduced, the tenant, in cases whore it could not be told whether the damage was done by rooks, pigeons, partridges, or pheasants, might go to a pettifogging lawyer, or the lawyer might come to him and he might make a claim which he could not prove. The result would be ill-feeling between the landlord and tenant. Then he objected to the words, "any agreement to the contrary shall be void." Why should the House interfere in this manner between two sane men, and say that they might not make any arrangement they liked? The relations between landlord and tenant were in a great number of counties extremely satisfactory, but those friendly relations would terminate and strained relations would be substituted if the Rill were passed. It would tend to destroy the rural life of England. One would have thought that if this Bill was to be introduced the Government would have followed the precedent of the Ground Game Act and made it not to apply to the agreements existing at the time of the passing of the Act. The Ground Game Act exempted such cases, but there was nothing in this Bill which would do that.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG, in seconding the Amendment, said the House found itself in the particularly objectionable position of having to discuss this particular clause on short notice. Clause 2, although the title of the Bill was the "Land Tenure Bill," was one which he thought everyone in the House would agree affected a very large question outside the question of land tenure, and one which required very much care and thought. He really sympathised with the hon. Baronet who had to father this carelessly drawn measure, and although many of them — at least speaking for himself, it was the case—certainly approved and always had approved of reasonable compensation where damage by game had been sustained, still he objected that this clause, which was loosely framed, had been thrust upon
  422
  them at such short notice that they had hardly had time to frame Amendments to make it reasonable. They were, therefore, face to face with it and had to debate it upon very short notice and without having proper Amendments before them. The measure principally referred to winged game and not to ground game, but in the first three lines they found such an anomaly that, although he was heartily in agreement with compensation where the damage had been done by the landlords game on a tenant's farm, it would render the working of the -Bill particularly irksome. The tenancy might be for four, five, ten, or fifteen years, and yet it was to be at once cancelled. There might be an agreement by the landlord fixing a reduction in rent, say, of 1s. per acre with no claim for damage, and yet it was to be abrogated. That was the Scottish system, which had worked well for thirty years, and which he would like to see embodied in this clause. There was no other plan so plain and simple, and no method by which this compensation could be more speedily and rapidly carried out, or could be so well understood both by landlord and tenant the Scottish system was utterly ignored by this Bill, which, it might be pointed out, applied to Scotland as well as to England. Whore they found an old custom, as in Scotland, it would be better to continue it, and certainly the case of Scotland ought to he applied to for regulations in regard to game, for there they had had more experience in regard to moors than perhaps in any other country in the world. Where they found laws in existence which had proved so satisfactory for so many years, it would be much better to re-enact them rather than to provide others.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. -Member was now dealing with how the clause might be amended and not with the Amendment to strike out the clause altogether.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he was obliged for the ruling, but it was his warm feeling against this clause which was responsible. He wished to urge that it should be left out altogether. The objections to it were that first and foremost it broke contracts, and he

  423
  was trying to elaborate the point that if they found a contract which Was to be in force for a number of years, they should not pass the words "any agreement to the contrary shall be void." It made an agreement entered into by men of sound common-sense, such as the tenant farmers in Scotland and their landlords, null and void. But then it was said that these two people might come forward and make another agreement. From the first to the last line, of the clause there was the greatest looseness of phraseology, and therefore he supported its omission from the Bill. He submitted that they should have some argument in support of the clause. They had indeed heard no argument from the front Government Bench in support of the Bill. When a measure was suddenly brought forward, the Opposition, small as it was, deserved courtesy. He did not, however, blame the Government for want of courtesy, but he did blame them for not giving them the opportunity to convince the House that this section was wrong.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Clause 2."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the clause down to the word ' had,' in line 5, stand part of the Bill."
  *SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment seemed to complain that he (Sir Edward) had not explained the clause, but it was not possible for him to do so until the hon. Gentleman had resumed his seat. The hon. Baronet had expressed himself as being unable to see the object of the clause. Its object was to prevent, excessive game preserving except where compensation was paid to the tenant. A good deal had been said t about creating bad feeling between landlord and tenant. He knew perhaps as t much about that as the hon. Baronet, He thought that the way to preserve t good feeling was to sec that the tenant got compensation where a large head of game was kept up on his land. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen who were on the Standing Committee whom this question was discussed. Many concessions were made protecting the land-
  424
  lords, and the clause was added to the Bill without a division and with the general assent of those who were looking after the interests of the landlords. He would also point out that in the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, in 1893 the right of the occupier to compensation for damage to crops by game was recognised. When hon. Members recalled the fact that there were such men serving on that Royal Commission as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin, whose absence to-night they all deplored, and Mr. Chaplin, and it was clear that they thought there ought to be adequate compensation, he was surprised that the hon. Baronet should seek to strike out this clause altogether and deny to the farmer the right to claim compensation for damage done by the excessive preservation of game. He did not say that he was going to oppose unreasonably any Amendments to the clause that might be required, but he objected to striking the clause out of the Bill.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid that if his hon. friend would agree to this Amendment he would make the Bill what it called itself—a Land Tenure Bill. The hon. Gentleman who himself proposed to leave out Clause 3, one of the game clauses, knew that a great deal more damage was done to farmers by ground game than by winged game, and if the present clause were left out they would have a Land Tenure Bill and not a land tenure plus a Game Bill. A great dual had been said as to the damage done by the excessive preservation of game, but the hon. Gentlemen must know perfectly well that if the winged game did a certain amount of damage it also did a great deal of good. He would like to know from the Solicitor-General how far, if at all, wild deer would come within the four corners of the Bill. He was not speaking of the deer in Scotland, but the wild deer in the west country, where they were preserved for hunting. Their preservation brought tens of thousands of pounds into the pockets of the people of the west. Wore they to conic into the category of game for which the landlord might be sued for compensation for damage? He thought it would be very unfair to put on the small landowners of that district this great responsibility for

  425
  the red deer which wandered all over the country, and which no doubt did a groat deal of damage at times.
  *VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid that they were in a difficulty in discussing the Amendment, because although one might object to this particular clause he might not to a similar and better clause, which would actually carry out the object which the hon. Baronet had announced to be his intention in regard to it. Every one, he thought, would admit that where damage was done to farmers' crops—it was, he might observe, usually very much exaggerated—owing to the excessive preservation of game, the farmer should have compensation, but there were certain things to be taken into consideration in the matter. One ought to bear in mind that it was only the excessive preservation of game they wanted to make provision against, and it had been held in the Law Courts that a tenant farmer could get compensation for excessive damage by common law. The Government were, therefore, not doing anything new; they were only giving under statute what the farmer could now get under the common law if i he cared to apply for it. All the talk about compensation for damage done by! game consequently amounted to little, because they were simply substituting one form of procedure for getting compensation for another. If the clause only gave greater facilities to farmers to get compensation, he should support it, because he thought that would be an advantage; but it went further. It denied, as a matter of fact, that the owner had any rights whatever in the game upon the land, although in all contracts of tenancy he specially reserved to himself the sporting rights. He believed that under the common law the sporting rights in ordinary leases went with the tenancy, but in most cases the landlord reserved them and the tenant recognised that a certain proportion of game was supposed to be on the land and took into consideration any damage which might be done by it. The clause would alter that, for under it the sporting rights would mean nothing. The probability, therefore, was that the landlord would put up the rent to counterbalance the loss of his sporting rights, and if that would be to the advantage of the tenant he (the hon. Member)
  426
  should be surprised. Therefore, on that ground as well as because the clause did not accord with the speeches of the Minister for Agriculture, e should vote against it, hoping thus to make way for a better clause. He was in favour of compensation being given for damage by excessive game, but unfortunately they had to vote on this clause without knowing what Amendments were going to be moved and accepted.
  *MR. NICHOLLSsaid that to a large number of farmers with whom he had come in touch this was the most important part of the Bill. Although they had heard in this House a good deal about excessive preservation of game, no mention was made of it in this clause. The reason why this compensation was required by the farmers was that they had held, in many cases, their tenancies for many years. A good many of them were aged men and did not want to move. They knew not what dual ownership but dual tenantship meant. The farmers had held the land for some years, and the game preserving had gone on year after year for the benefit of the sporting tenant, and the man who had improved the land wanted some consideration. As soon as he complained of the excessive preservation of game and consequent loss to him he was told by the agent that if he did not like it he could shift, and that there were plenty of other people who would take the farm. But he did not want to leave the land which he had improved; all he wanted was reasonable protection against these imported aliens, imported not for him but for another man who rented the shooting. A good deal had been heard of the sanctity of contracts. Many farmers would like more consideration given to that point. There was not much sanctity about it. When it came to a landlord getting more for the spot ting rights than the rent he got from the farmer, if all the tenants could be moved to-morrow and new contracts made, it might be much easier to consider these dual rights, but he desired to protect the farmer during the present tenancy. On some faring he walked over recently, the tenant had been in possession for ten years. Every year the gamekeepers had been increased and yet the landlord could not afford to build better houses. He walked about among the

  427
  game, of which there were hundreds of head in the fields, and which were as tame as poultry. That game was not the ordinary product of the land. It had been brought there and damaged the crops, and when the tenant complained he was told it was no use complaining; he could leave if he did not like it. But every one knew that if the land was of any use there were plenty to take it after it had been improved by the tenant. He submitted that the men who were cultivating the land were entitled to consideration in this matter; they must protect the present tenant.
  MR. HICKS BEACHsaid that although the hon. Member and himself were agreed in a great many things, there were some points in the hon. Member's speech to which he must take exception. The hon. Member had alluded to the excessive preservation of game, and then in almost the same breath had said that if a man left his farm there were plenty of people ready to take it under the same conditions. That would appear to show that the conditions were not very onerous. He therefore failed to see where the hardship came in. Mr. Nicholls said that the hardship came in when the tenant had improved his farm. After ten years hard work, other men were ready to take it and reap the reward of his labour. His capital and labour had increased its value, and he should he considered. Mr. Hicks Beach said that with regard to the Amendment before the House, he wished to say he was in hearty sympathy with the proposal to give compensation for damage caused by the excessive preservation of game, and he frankly admitted that during the discussions in the Committee a great many of the points for the Opposition were met by Amendments, which, strange to say, were accepted or introduced by the hon. Baronet representing the Government. This clause was three times as long as the original clause, which went to prove that the arguments adduced by the Conservative members of the Committee had considerable weight. He, however, did not agree with it in its present form. In his opinion it was capable of great amendment. He had, in order to draw attention to this point, put down an Amendment on the Paper. When a man took a farm, in ninety-nine cases out
  428
  of a hundred he went over the farm and asked people who knew it what was the ordinary amount of game raised upon it and the amount of damage clone by the game. He himself was rather sceptical about the amount of the damage clone by game on the farm. A flock of pigeons would do far more harm in one day than 1,000 pheasants in a month, because pheasants were artificially fed by the keepers and pigeons had to seek their own living. In addition to that, pheasants did a considerable amount of good by consuming large quantities of insects, and particularly wire worm, which in some put of the country was very prevalent and a most obnoxious pest. He had drawn attention to this because, when a tenant took a farm, he offered a rent which he thought was commensurate to the return he could obtain from the soil, and in that offer he also took into account the amount of damage done by the game living on the soil. He ought, however, to receive compensation if he could prove the amount of damage done to be excessive owing to excessive preservation. If the Solicitor-General would give some assurance that In? would favourably consider the Amendment on the Paper to omit the word "any" after "damage" he (Mr. Hick? Beach) would not support the rejection of the clause. Upon that understanding and upon an assurance that an Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash, that not the landlord in every case should be liable for damage done by game but the person in whom the sporting rights were vested, would be accepted, he was prepared to vote against this Amendment. He hoped also that the House would receive some definite answer to the question raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Somerset, as to whether the damage done by deer was included in the clause. That was a very important point to people who lived in the west country.
  *MR. COCHRANEasked for an interpretation of the two sections of the clause. He pointed out that the first section said that the tenant should be entitled to compensation for damage and that any contract to the contrary should be null and void, whilst the second said it should be the subject of an agreement. There appeared to

  429
  be some contradiction in terms which should be cleared up. Where an excessive amount of game was pro-served, it was only fair and right that the man on whose land they fed should have compensation. Bat when he read this clause and compared it with the state of things that obtained in the more favoured country which he represented, he found that, if this passed, instead of putting the landlord and tenant into a better position it would have the opposite effect. The amount of damage done by game was surely better fixed by agreement than in any oilier way. They did not want to drag men on friendly terms into these arbitrators' Courts. It was far better that a friendly arrangement between landlord and tenant should exist than that this question should be fought out at the point of the bayonet. He found by the schedule that this Bill repealed the beneficent law which had been in operation in Scotland since 1877, and under which the landlord might make an agreement which would cover the damage caused by game. In default of an agreement the small sum of 40s. was deemed to be the amount of the damage the tenant would sustain, and if damage to a greater extent than 40s. was done the tenant was entitled to be compensated. He appealed to the Government, at any rate, to leave Scotland where she was in this matter, because there they had always been able since 1877 to manage these affairs in a friendly fashion, and he hoped the Government would not mix Scotland up in this matter with this more benighted country.
  *SIR. WILLIAM ANSONsaid he desired to raise a point in regard to those landlords who made no reservation of sporting rights, namely, the colleges of the Universities who for the most part were accustomed to let their land without reserving the sporting rights. He said, supposing the tenant on such lands let the sporting rights to a shooting tenant he then ceased to have the lawful right to kill the game. The shooting tenant then raised a quantity of game, which damaged the tenants' corn. The tenant could then come to the landlord for compensation for damage caused by the preservation of game over which he had no control whatever, and the landlord would have
  430
  to go to the shooting tenant to recover an indemnity for the compensation for which he was liable through no cause of his own. This appeared to have escaped the notice of the farmers of the Bill. They had not considered the case of the tenant who had shooting rights, who let them, and then came down on the landlord with a claim for damage.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid he did not wish to speak at any great length on the questions put before him. So far as he understood, hon. Members on both sides of the House were agreed on the principle of the clause. A tenant who at the commencement of his tenancy had the right to kill the game would not come under this section at all, because this clause was intended to compensate those tenants who had not the right to kill the game. The smaller points of detail could be dealt with better as each phrase was reached. He thought it would be desirable to insert some definition of game in the Bill. It had been asked whether it was fair that a small landlord should be called upon to pay for damage done by deer that came a great distance. Damage was already done by deer, and it was generally amply and generously made up by the hunt. If the tenant received a right of obtaining redress from the landlord he would probably still go on making an arrangement with the hunt, and if he exercised the right it would only mean that the landlord would have to adjust the matter with the hunt in his stead.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid his objection to voting against this clause was that he was entirely of opinion that the excessive preservation of game was a matter for which the tenant should receive compensation. He was reluctant to vote against a clause which dealt with that subject. He was bound, however, to say that he thought the clause required amendment.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the language of the clause did not shut out the case.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made a statement which he cordially welcomed. If he admitted that the drafting of the Bill might cause a difficulty, and if he

  431
  was prepared with a remedy, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the words which ought to be applied to secure that remedy. His right hon. friend the Member for Somersetshire had raised a point which was a burning question in the west country, and he did not think that the answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman would give much satisfaction. On the question as to whether they on that side of the House should support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the City of London, his objection to voting against the clause was that he was entirely of the opinion expressed by many of his hon. friends and supporters that the excessive preservation of game was a matter for which the tenants should receive compensation. It was for that reason that he was reluctant to vote against the clause which dealt with that subject. He was bound, however, to say that he thought the clause required amendment. If he read the clause aright, it would be quite impossible for any tenant to make such an arrangement with his landlord as would put into his pocket a great deal more by way of reduction of rent than he would lose by the game. If he understood the clause rightly, it might be an arrangement by which he would lose in damages £25, and receive in compensation £50.
  MR. CROOKS: Good business for the tenant.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if it was good business for the tenant, why not let the tenant have it? The clause actually forbad the tenant to make any such arrangement. Was the House really going to lay down the proposition and solemnly enact it that no bargain, however favourable to the tenant, if connected with game at all, was to be a kind of bargain into which he was to be at liberty to enter? That seemed to him to be an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of
  432
  contract, in contradiction to common sense and common judgment. In the mean time while pointing out this particular difficulty to the House, which was the most formidable that had been raised he did not think it would be in accordance with the views of his friends on that side of the House to vote against the clause He therefore suggested to his hon. friend, that he should not press his Amendment, to a division, but when they came to discuss the words of the clause the particular difficulties with which he had attempted to deal must be met by specific Amendments.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that he was very pleased to accept the suggestion of his right hon. friend, he did not introduce the Amendment because he had any sympathy with the excessive preservation of game, but because he held the objection so clearly raised by the right hon. Gentleman that this clause interfered with the sanctity of contract or bargains entered into between landlord and tenant.
  LORD K. CECILdid not think the right hon. Member for Oxford University apprehended the difficulties to which this clause gave rise. The clause said—
  "Where the tenant has sustained any damage from game which he has not the lawful right to kill,"
  he should obtain compensation. Those words were absolute. It seemed to him that if a qualification were inserted which said that the tenant, hail deprived himself of the right to kill game, the clause would be destroyed altogether. He ventured to ask the Solicitor-General what kind of words he would put in to make any reality of the clause at all.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid that he proposed to move the Amendment

  433
  standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Ayr Burghs, viz,, to insert after the word "tenant" the words "under any contract of tenancy made after the passing of this Act." The House would see that that would safeguard contracts already made. He really believed that in the general sense of the House it was desirable, to preserve the sanctity of contracts, unless those contracts were directly opposed to public-policy or to the general interests of the community. The alteration of the (lame Laws was a very serious question. The Ground Game Act of 1880 was defended on the ground that by it the Government were not going to alter any existing contract, and under Clause 5 of that Act such contracts were expressly safeguarded. This Bill should also, he thought, give effect to existing contracts. He could understand the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill taking the objection that the majority of leases were from year to year, and as the operation of this Bill was to be postponed for a year there was no sense in their agreeing to an Amendment of this sort. To that he would agree if Scotland were excluded, because there they had a totally different system of long leases, say for nineteen, twenty and twenty-one years, which had worked very well. The English tenant was going to be put in a better position than he now was in, but the Scottish tenant did not wish his position to be changed, by which any extraordinary damage by game was recoverable from the owner of the gaming rights. All ordinary damage was contemplated in the lease, and if a man took land adjourning coverts he knew that he was likely to have game running into his fields and it was taken into consideration. But if in one year a man raised an extraordinary head of game the tenant could recover compensation. He said that the case for the introduction of some such words as these was irrefragible.
  MR. REMNANTseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 5, af for the word 'tenant' to insert the words 'under any contract of tenancy made after the passing of this Act."— (Mr. Mitchell -Thomson.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton)said the Amendment would destroy the basis of all our existing agricultural legislation. The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 and 1900 were compulsory as regarded the landlord. They overrode existing contracts. This Bill followed the same course. The tenant in possession of a farm now was to be entitled to the same privileges as the tenant who came into possession a year hence. It was the met who held farms to-day who required protection. The Government in this Bill wore giving the minimum amount of protection and of compensation to the farmers for damage caused by game which they had not the lawful right to kill. He was sure that no genuine sportsman would be guilty of the meanness of wishing that he should enjoy sport at the expense of the poor tenant fanner.
  *MR. COCHRANEpointed out the advantages of the nineteen years' leasehold system in Scotland, where the custom usually was for the landlord to give a reduction of rent to the farmer equivalent to the amount of damage caused by the game. The interest of the landlord was to keep a good tenant, not to get rid of him. A landlord had this friendly arrangement with a tenant by which the latter benefited to a considerable extent by having a reduction of rent generally more than equivalent to any damage that might be done to his crops by game; yet, under this Bill, such an agreement was to be null and void, although the farmer might receive his reduction, and at the same time might; go before the arbitrator and make

  435
  claim for the damage done by the game. If agricultural questions were to be approached in such a one-sided way the Government would be dealing the industry a severe blow.
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid everyone who represented a Scottish constituency would agree that the present system between landlord and tenant in Scotland was perfectly satisfactory, and he could see no real reason for disturbing it. The proposal of the Government to interfere with the arrangement seemed to him to be mischievous and meddlesome. He would like to sec the friendly arrangement which existed in Scotland extended to this country.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the Civil Lord of the Admiralty must think landlords very big tools if he imagined that under this Bill they could enter into an agreement with their tenants in the way suggested. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the landlord did his best to put every difficulty in the way of the tenant, whereas absolutely the reverse was the case. Under this Bill the friendly feeling between landlord and tenant would be interfered with.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid he should like to ask the Lord-Advocate a question. This section said that any agreement should be null and void. How would that be the ease in the event of a landlord by agreement allowing his tenant a reduction of £50 for damage done bv game? Would the landlord be enabled to withhold the reduction he had promised?
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether the Civil Lord of the Admiralty really thought that contracts deliberately made could be broken on one side only? If the tenant were free to break a contract the landlord would feel compelled to put an end to any arrangement under which he had
  436
  perhaps made a considerable rebatement to the tenant.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that it would be seen in Clause 2 that where the tenant had sustained damage he was to be entitled to compensation, and any agreement to the contrary was to be void. But such an agreement us that cited by the hon. Member was not an "agreement to the contrary." An agreement to fix the damage was a perfectly legitimate agreement.
  *LORD HELMSLEYsaid he did not think the Solicitor-General had appreciated the real point. The question was whether it was generally not an agreement, but a tacit understanding, that was arrived at between the landlord and tenant. A field likely to be visited by game would be let, say, for 12s. an acre instead of 20s. The tenant having got the field at 8s. reduction to allow for damage, could he afterwards claim for compensation as well?
  MR. J. HENDERSONas representing perhaps the largest agricultural constituency — fifty miles square—stated that such an allowance being made at the beginning of the lease was quite unknown in Scotland. Whenever a farm became vacant there were ten or twelve men after it, and the factor generally let them bid against each other so that the tenant fixed his own rent. The small farms having been thrown into big ones, there were now more farmers than farms.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at one minute after Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against. 1. Of inhabitants, parishioners, ratepayers, or parents of children attending schools in the following towns or parishes, viz.—Llandaff; Barnack-cum-Southorpe; Ipswich (St. Clement's); Blackburn (St. Paul's); Stoke-on-Trent; Marsworth; Hamer; Long-grove; Canterbury (St. Gregory); Streat; Frampton Cotterell; Teston; Teston; Radlett; Bullington; Lydd; Knares-borough; Idle; Berwick; Shipley; South Leverton; Boughwood; Bishopstowe; Offley; Stoke Row; Bilsington; Mere; Birkenshaw; Bispham; Ganton; Bettws; Belchamp Olten; Birstall; Batley; Dacre and Soulby; Newbiggin; Stainton; Wedlebury; Deene-cum-Deenethorpe; Sulham; Sulham; Swin-don; Chapel Allerton; North Cray; Llowes; Moor Monkton and Kersey; Moor Monkton; Burham; Scarborough; St. Arvans; St. Enedor; Wake-field (Holy Trinity); Hackforth; Mount Pellon; Wakefield (Holy Trinity); Dulwich (St. Barnabas); Bradwell; Friern Barnet; Aycliffe; Old Brentford (St. Georges) (2); Scarborough (St. Martins); Chatteris; Esdon or Exton; Nettlebed; Llanrhystyd; Pea Kirk; Thursby; Aikton (2); Waverton-cum-D undraw; Laxton; Corston; Southampton (All Saints); Sherfield English; Hunslet: Aberavon; Morden, Merton, and Wimbledon; Lampeter Velfrey; Lowick and Slipton; Paddington (St. James); Lend-field; Gosforth - on - Tyne; Wasing; Wereham; Little Wittenham (2); Wraxall; Stedham; Liversedge; Brace-borough; Hope Mausel; Belton; Or-lestone; Royston; Stogumber (2); Nun Monkton; South Cadbury; Aldington; Chelford; Kirkbride; St. Pauls, Silloth; Longville, Orton; Malpas; Barrington (2); Darwen; Rustington; Failsworth; Pennington; Bromberrow; Holborn (St. John's) (2); Islington (All
  238
  Saints); Barnsley; Harlow; Walcot; Fakenham; Clelwood; Slaithwaite; Heathkeld; Alderley; Messing; Vern-ham Dean (3); Grafton Underwood; Balderstone; Elland; Holme; Long Crendon (2); Shudy Camps; Great Orton; Holme Cultram; Wigton; Chi-Chester and District (2); Preston-on-Stour; St. Mary Stoke (Ipswich); Wimlish (Saffron Wallden); Petersham; South Raynham; Helhoughton; York (St. Lawrence); Swan bourne; Hinton; Seer Green; Monkton and Herrington; Clunbury; Drayton; Hindringharn; Bournemouth (St. John's); Bournemouth; Branksome; Stinchcombe; Hinton-on-the-Green; Llancarfan; Mog-gerhanger; Arrnloy and Wortley; Prestbury (2); Eaton; Cannington; Dowdes-well; Hampnett and Stowell; Martin-dele; Thursby; Rosley-with-Woodside; Hampnett and Stowell; Sambrook; Upton; Newark - on - Trent; Arnold; Bleasby; Newark; Shelton; Codnor and Loscoe (2); Breedon-on-the-Hill; Sparkenhoe; Brighouse; Canterbury (St Martin's); Redenhall (2); White Colne; Llandon; Culmington; Edgcott; Acton Turville; Stocklancl; Sibthorpe; Cud-desdon; Gonalston; Wingerworth; Lullington; Doverage; Ossington; East Bridgford; Sunninghill; Tideswell; Carsington (2); Llangattock; Torquay (St. Lukes); Laxton; Llanvihangel; Bramley; Barrow Gurney; Newbury; St. Erth; Caterham Valley; Westonbirt (2); Llandewi; Shaw; Cofton Hackett; Waterhead; Stone; Nether Stowey (2); Crick; Wentbridge (2); Eltham; Llangattock; Little Horwood (2); Burchetts Green; Stubbings; Little Billing; Shaw; Cranborne; Long Wittenham; Kirk Fenton; Darrington; Hull (St. James'); Darrington; Normanton; Cranborne; Bettws Penport; Brassaleg; Hull; Bath; Llanetltlyd; Kelmseote; Icomb; Bolton-le-Moors; West Grin-stead; Norton; Rockfield (3); Enfield Forty Hill (2); Hurley and Stubbings; Llanwrim; Norton; New Brompton; Saintbury (St.Nicholas); Bolton Percy; Leigh; Sudeley Manor (2); Speen; Perraton (South Featherstone); Wart-ling; Axbridge (2); Norwich; Middle-ton; Hoyland Nether; Whitwood Mere; Oxford (St. Mary Magdalene); Coveley; Bicton; Fiddington; Harringworth: Horsley Wood-house; Harringworth;

  239
  Allestree; Newbottle and Charlton; Eakring; Ballingham; Llan-rothall; Whitbourne; Middleton-on-the-Hill; Kingstone and Thruxton; Yarkhill; Lingen; Hereford (St. Martin's); Ackworth, Yorks; Leominster; Canterbury (St. Mary Magdalene); Goodrich and Marston; Yarkhill; Spelsbury; Llanwarne; Kimbolton; Islip; Aston Ingham; Openshaw; Hessle; South Dalton; Wolvercote; Ashton-under-Lyme; Little Moss (Manchester); Lees-field; Waterloo Ashton; Park Bridge (Leesfield); Gatefield; Leesfield, Knolls Lane (Manchester); Welton; Probus; Newsan-cum-Plush; Ashton (Manchester); Weeley; Berry Pomeroy; Fritwell; Leeds (St. Johns); Graveley; Hawkesbury and Tresham; Hallaton (2); Winchcombe (2); Michaelston-le-Pet; Fakenham; Highbury; Ashford; Nottingham; Westcote; Norton-sub-Hamdon; Fyfield; Biggin; Puttenham; Hucclecote; Weekley; Clandown; Whitminster (2); Whatley; King's Lynn (St. Margaret's); Brookthorpe and Whaddon; Blackburn (St. Michael's); Pen-zance (St. Mary's); Truro; Dunnington; South Petherton; Ashleworth; Hinck-ley; Bray; Langford; Holmes (Asking-ton) Mareham and Garford; Penzance (St. Mary's); Bonvilston; Glodwick (St. Mark's); Sleaford and District; Walton-le-Dale; Pontenewydd; Hors-ley (2); Frankby; Coleford; Blackburn (St. Silas); Holcombe; Cheltenham (St. John's and St. Mark's); Boston; Childrey; Llanarth; Goodby Marwood; Hanging Heaton; Garnsley; Whitbourne; Kilmington; Black Notley; Brimscombe; Staplehill; Gedling; Broadwell; Bournemouth (Saint Paul's) (2); Leafield; Raynham, East; Raynham, West; Woolston (Gloucester); Tredington; Norton; Llanvair Kil-geddin; South Cerney; Haughton (Saint Mary's); Chedworth, Clevedon; Trull; Cawthorne; Princes Risborough; Tick-encote; Bishopsworth; Marbury; Cul-ham; Lydney; Worksop; Dyflryn; Kilburn (St. Augustine's); Farnsfield; Leicester; Scarborough; Kingswinsford (St. Mary's); Lyminster; Westham; Pevensey; Westmeston; Isfield; Brighton; Amberley; Stonegate; Sed-lescombe; Danehill; Slindon; Wool-beding; Brighton (St. Stephens); South-over; Eastbourne (All Saints); Mayfield;
  240
  Clapham and Patching; Hastings (All Saints); East Chiltington; Compton and Upmarden; Bepton; Eastbourne (Holy Trinity); Brighton; Fittleworth; Eastbourne (Christ Church and St. John's) Clayton-with-Frickley; Penrith, West; Charlton and Newbottle; Norwich (St. Giles); Morley St. Botolph; East Dean; Staplefield (St. Mark's); Nuthurst; Poling; and Brighton (St. Margaret's); 2. Of Norwich Rural Deanery; Manchester Diocesan Conference; Roman Catholic Residents in the Borough of Preston; Aikton Habitation of the Primrose League; Chapter of Clergy of the Rural Deanery of Wigton; Teachers and children of the parishes of Bowness-on-Solway and Aikton; Managers of Aikton Church of England School; Managers of Bigland's School; Governors and Managers of Wiggonby Endowed School; Delegates of Managers of Affiliated Schools (Northern Division of Cumberland); and Parish Council of Aikton and Clergy and Laity of the Rural Deanery of Wigton.
  Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS. ETC.

  COLONIES (MISCELLANEOUS): No. 37. CEYLON.
  Report on the results of the Mineral Survey in 1904–1905 by Professor W. R. Dunstan, M.A., LL.D.. F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904 (LEYTON URBAN DISTRICT).
  Order made by the council of the urban district of Leyton, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for chemists and druggists' shops within the urban district.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER).
  Order made by the council of the county of Lancaster re-dividing the Accrington Parliamentary Division into polling districts.

  LUNACY ACTS, 1890 AND 1891.
  Rules made by the Commissioners in Lunacy under the above Acts, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 4:—
  LORD KENYON,in the absence of Viscount Ridley, moved to omit the words "after holding a public inquiry with reference to the application "in the first sub-section, in order to insert" or, in a case of dispute with the applicants for the facilities, if the Board of Education are satisfied." He said that the subsection, as he proposed to amend it, would read —
  "(1) A local education authority shall afford extended facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and in accordance with the trust deed, i f any of the school, in any transferred voluntary school, by permitting the religious instruction given in the school to be instruction of that special character, notwithstanding anything in that section, if an application is made to them for those extended facilities, and if they are satisfied, or, in case of dispute with the applicants for the facilities, if the Board of Education are satisfied,—"
  This Amendment was largely consequential on the substitution of the word "shall" for "may" in the opening line of the clause. The clause as amended provided that the local education authority should, subject to certain conditions, grant extended facilities. Those conditions were largely matters of fact, and it did not seem necessary that a local inquiry should be compulsorily held. Such inquiries necessarily created a good deal of local disturbance, and it seemed to him that it would be better if the matters in dispute went to the Board of Education in the first instance.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, to leave out from the word ' satisfied ' to the end of line 29, and to
  242
  insert the words ' or in case of dispute with the applicants for the facilities, if the Board of Education are satisfied.' "—(Lord Kenyon.)
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, it is no doubt perfectly true that the situation as regards Clause 5 is materially modified by the decision to which your Lordships, as I think very unfortunately, arrived yesterday. So far as the appeal to the Board of Education is concerned, it may not appear to matter very greatly whether that appeal is mentioned in this clause or in the other. But if, as I understand, the noble Lord proposes to abolish the inquiry to be held by the local authority, that is not an arrangement to which we are disposed to agree, and if the noble Lord presses that point I am afraid we shall have to oppose him.
  LORD KENYONsaid it was the provision with regard to the compulsory inquiry that he was trying to amend. He was prepared, if the noble Lord wished it, to insert after the words "public inquiry" the words "if they think fit."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, we have no desire whatever to get rid of the local inquiry. In many cases it may be most necessary that a local inquiry should take place, but I understand that what my noble friend has in his mind is that there might be cases where a local inquiry would be superfluous, and that in those cases it is not necessary to put the locality to the expense and inconvenience of holding one. That seems a reasonable proposal. But I could not agree to the proposal that the whole reference to the local inquiry should be taken out of this clause at this point.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Perhaps the matter might stand over on that understanding.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYmoved to omit the paragraphs (a) and (b), of the first sub-section, and to substitute the following—
  "(a) That a majority of the parents of the children attending the school desire such

  243
  facilities; and (b) that satisfactory arrangements in respect of religious instruction can be made for the other children attending the school."
  He said that he did not think the ballot was a very good way of finding out the wishes of people in rural districts. It would be quite possible for the local authority to arrive at the wishes of the district in the first instance by means of petitions presented to them, and, after the parish had approached the local authority and asked for these extended facilities, the local authority could hold a public inquiry and all sides could be heard. He admitted that there were differences of opinion as to the word "majority." It was thought by some that a bare majority would be enough and by others that there should be a two-thirds majority. He would leave that point to be decided by the Committee. As to the proposed new sub-section (b), he thought it would be possible for arrangements to be made in a building close by for the children who wished to avail themselves of the conscience clause.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, to leave out from the word ' satisfied ' to the end of line 42, and to insert,' (a) that a majority of the parents of the children attending the school desire such facilities; and (b) that satisfactory arrangements in respect of religious instruction can be made for the other children attending the school."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, it occurs to me that the noble Earl has perhaps covered a rather unnecessarily wide field in the form which his Amendment has taken. He deals with three entirely different points—the number necessary before one of these schools can be constituted, the ballot, and the provision for the religious instruction for the minority elsewhere. I should like to ask your Lordships whether it would not be more agreeable and convenient, as we are in opposition to him on each of these points, that they should be taken separately rather than together, and with that purpose in view I suggest that an Amendment standing in the name of Earl Cawdor, moving to omit the provision for a ballot, should be considered first. It certainly does seem
  244
  to me rather to confuse the issue if we have to take all three questions at once.
  EARL CAWDORsaid it was difficult to fall in with the view of the noble Earl, as all these questions were linked up together. His Amendment on the Paper was to leave out the words—
  "As the result of a ballot taken previously to the inquiry as to the wishes of the parents in accordance with this section, it appears that."
  He did not think he could be excluded, in speaking on that Amendment, from dealing with the other matters referred to by the noble Earl, as they were all part and parcel of the machinery by which the Government proposed to establish efficient facilities under this clause. He proposed at this stage to say what he had to say upon his Amendment. Under this clause he assumed that the Government were absolutely pledged, not alone to putting facilities into the Bill, but to making those facilities absolutely and truly efficient. Before the Bill was introduced pious opinions were expressed by members of His Majesty's Government as to what ought to be done, but they had time after time looked at the clauses of the Bill without finding any provisions carrying out those views. He was perfectly ready to accept the statement that noble Lords opposite and His Majesty's Government were in earnest in endeavouring to make these extended facilities absolute realities.
  He asked their Lordships to consider for a few moments how this proposal was to be carried out. The Bill as it was introduced merely provided that extended facilities should be granted, or might be granted if four-fifths of the parents desired them. Then in Committee in the other House an Amendment was carried by the Government providing that the ballot should be brought into force in order to ascertain the wishes of the parents. The ballot was to be absolutely secret. Their Lordships had before them the draft ballot regulations which had been issued in connection with this Bill, and to them he proposed to refer in a few moments. He thought it was most desirable that they should ascertain the views of the parents in favour or against extended

  245
  facilities by the very best method in order that those opinions might be expressed freely and fully without being hampered or biassed by undue influence. He cared not whether this was done by means of the ballot or in any other way; he wished the parents to be able freely to record their opinions. But how was this clause going to work?
  He had been surprised at the want of effort on the part of His Majesty's Government to make the Bill a workable Bill. For the first time that day they had Amendments placed on the Paper by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. Some of them would no doubt have looked with curiosity to see what those Amendments were, but they proved to be merely trivial drafting Amendments. Did noble Lords opposite mean to assert that the Bill was so well drafted and so carefully considered that it was going to be an easily worked Bill? If so, they were the only people in the world who thought so. If they wished to make the Bill a workable one, why did not the Government come down to their Lordships' House and point out how the clauses, one after another, could be turned into workable clauses in place of the inextricable confusion in which they now were?
  Let them consider for a moment what it was that was required under this clause in order that facilities might be obtained. First of all, four-fifths of the parents must desire to have the facilities; and, in the second place, it must be shown at a public inquiry that there was sufficient public school accommodation in the schools not affected. The draft ballot regulations provided two things. They first of all provided that the parents who wished for extended facilities should vote in one column, and those who did not wish for extended facilities were to vote in another column. Both classes, those in favour and those against, were clearly by the ballot regulations intended to vote, and provision was made accordingly. Let them assume that four-fifths of those who voted asked for extended facilities. They came then to the second consideration. Before I a case could be established at the local; inquiry it must be shown that for the children other than the children of the
  246
  parents who had asked for the facilities there was sufficient suitable school accommodation in the district. How were they going to ascertain this? How could they possibly tell whether there was accommodation for these children unless in the first instance they knew who the children were, what kind of accommodation they wanted and whether it was in the infants' school or in the higher standard schools? It was necessary further, to know where they lived and whether they could get to the schools proposed for them.
  The ballot was secret. If they were going to maintain the secrecy of the ballot, he contended that it was absolutely impossible to prove a case for extended facilities under this clause. He asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to explain step by step the method by which proof could be given, at the same time maintaining the absolute secrecy of the ballot. Some parents, of course, would have voted for extra facilities, and a good many might not have voted at all, and. therefore, he held that before they could come to any definite conclusion it was absolutely essential that they should ascertain who the children were. In this case there was an attempt made in the clause to combine two things that were really quite incompatible first, the secrecy of the ballot, and secondly, the necessity before a public inquiry to establish a case in favour of extended facilities by showing that there was accommodation in other available schools for certain definite children.
  He wished to say one word with regard to a note it the draft ballot regulations. There was laid down in these draft regulations the form in which the vote was to be taken and a sample of the counterfoil, and then followed what appeared to him a very peculiar note. It appeared three times and was to this effect—
  "If a person votes in favour of the affording of extended facilities, the child ill respect of which he so votes cannot be reckoned in the number of those for whom accommodation is to be required in other schools under Section IV., (l),sub-section (b) of the Education Act of 1906."
  But if the secrecy of the ballot was maintained, how could they possibly identify any child or any parent as coming under this note? He adhered

  247
  to the view that it was of the essence of the clause that they should find out, in the best possible way, exactly what the free and independent opinion of the parents was, but they must not, while posing before the country as giving extended facilities in this clause, kill those facilities by the machinery put into the Bill. He asked the noble Earl how he thought it possible to maintain the secrecy of the ballot, and at the same time enable anyone coming before the public inquiry to establish a case in favour of extended facilities by showing that there was accommodation for certain definite children.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, before I reply to the observations of the noble Earl who has just sat down, perhaps I may be permitted to ask where we stand. I appealed to your Lordships just now to take these matters separately. The noble Earl opposite objected, stating that he desired to deal with a number of other matters in this clause, without which he considered he was unable to make his speech. As a matter of fact, he did not deal with any of them, and I should be very glad if one of your Lordships on the Front Bench opposite could inform me whether we are taking these matters together or one by one. Are we going to deal first with the question of the ballot and divide upon that—and then deal with the question of numbers and divide upon that? Or is it the intention of your Lordships to take these perfectly distinct and different matters together and have one division upon them?
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagreed with the noble Earl that it was difficult to discuss these several matters at once. He suggested that they should discuss the ballot first, and then, if the ballot was rejected, they could come to the consideration of the Amendment moved by Lord Jersey; the question of the majority could next be discussed, and the other questions to which the noble Earl referred could be dealt with later.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: That seems to me a most reasonable suggestion, and it entirely meets my views. It would be obviously unfair, I think, to discuss all
  248
  these questions at once, because some noble Lords might approve of one and disapprove of another. Consequently if the course suggested by the noble Viscount is taken it will entirely meet our wishes on this side of the House.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I do not think my noble friend Lord Cawdor in any way suggested to the Committee that we should decide upon all these questions by a simultaneous vote. He argued, I think with very great force, that these points are overlapping points, and that it was not possible to discuss the question of facilities without referring to the whole of these matters.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsuggested that the Committee might consider the omission of all the words from "application" to "section" inclusive. That would enable their Lordships to decide the question of whether there was or was not to be a ballot, and it would then be equally competent for Lord Jersey to move his Amendment as to the majority of parents.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I will now proceed to say a few words in reply to the noble Earl opposite. The noble Earl's speech did not appear to me to stand in any particular relation to his Amendment. His Amendment is to abolish the ballot altogether, but he did not adduce a single argument in favour of that course. What he did was to endeavour to show that our ballot regulations were inconvenient, and did not carry out their purpose, but, on the question whether a ballot was the proper form of deciding the question as to how many parents were in favour of these particular facilities, I understood the noble Earl to have something of an open mind. If so, he was undoubtedly following the example of the Leader of his Party in the other House, because when the matter was before the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour, while, I think, making the same criticisms as those made by the noble Earl, certainly did not express himself as being altogether against the ballot. I confess, therefore, that I am somewhat at a loss to know whether I ought to argue the question as to the necessity of the ballot as against

  249
  a system of open voting, or whether I am merely expected to say something in reply to the special points in relation to the ballot regulations issued by the Board of Education, to which the noble Earl objects. Perhaps I had better say a word on the question of the holding of the ballot as the Motion is to exclude the ballot.
  I must remind your Lordships that yesterday you extended these facilities to rural districts, and I got into a little trouble, I am afraid, with some of your Lordships opposite through venturing to hint that there might be parts of rural England in which the action of individuals was not so perfectly free as it is in others. The noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne said I had drawn a somewhat lurid picture of rural life in England. I thought my picture was drawn in very sober colours indeed, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess attached perhaps too much weight to his own experience, to the state of things which, as I know, exists on his own estate, and, I hope, on many other estates, and did not make allowance for what might obtain in other parts of the country. However, I will take it as being the opinion of the majority of the Committee that there is no part of England in which the fact that a man is a very ardent Dissenter or a very active Radical can operate in any way to his material disadvantage.
  Not only is it the fact that the noble Earl opposite agreed that the vote of these parents ought to be given everywhere without fear or favour; it is also the fact that we wish to get a perfectly definite opinion from these parents, and we desire, I frankly admit, to put them to a certain degree of trouble to express that opinion. If a mere list of names were enough, such a list, I have no doubt, could be easily obtained in many places. There is nothing simpler than to add one's name to a list when no liability whatever is involved. I remember once being on a body who had to administer a charitable fund for the benefit of old and sick people engaged formerly in a particular employment. Those people were appointed to the benefits of the charity largely on the recommendation of the many employers of that particular kind
  250
  of labour in the neighbourhood. We found discrimination difficult owing to the fact that all the employers of labour in every case wrote their names at the, bottom of the lists in favour of all the candidates. And for a very obvious reason. When a man comes to your house to ask you to put your name to a paper, your object is to get him out of the house as rapidly as you can, and where no liability is concerned the probability is that the simplest way to do that is to comply with his request. Consequently, in a case of this kind we do not desire to rely on indiscriminate signatures, but we mean that there shall be a definite expression of preference on the part of the particular parents who desire these special facilities.
  I am quite; aware of the difference which exists between noble Lords opposite and ourselves in this matter, it is true, as the noble Marquess Lord Lansdowne yesterday pointed out, that we look on this matter from a different point of view. Noble Lords opposite wish to have the denominational system as the rule and the undenominational system as the exception. As the Bill now stands noble Lords opposite have only left somewhere about 5,000 schools or less, out of the whole number in England, in which no denominational teaching can be given. We are quite aware of what their point of view is. Our point of view is the opposite one— that the undenominational system should be the rule and the denominational the exception. That sets a great gulf between us and your Lordships opposite. Whether in the course of these discussions that gulf can be bridged, I cannot say; but, unless it can, there can be no question of arriving at a settlement of this matter.
  Now, my Lords, I come to the point raised by the noble Earl opposite. He first of all complained that we had not put a number of Amendments on the Paper. I must once more repeat that the Bill as it comes up from the other House represents the views of His Majesty's Government, and, as regards minor Amendments relating to improvements in form, I can only say that we do not desire to put down

  251
  Amendments on such points as those until we have had the benefit of receiving the valuable advice of noble Lords opposite. After all, there are several stages in a matter of this kind, and Amendments which have to do with form and not with substance are always, I think, more fitly dealt with in quite the later stages of the Bill. I am bound to say that if symmetry is what is aimed at, the Bill as it has been amended by noble Lords opposite leaves a great deal more to be desired than when it arrived in your Lordships' House. On the question of the ballot the noble Earl drew attention to the draft regulations. Those regulations, it must be remembered, are only draft regulations; they are not regulations finally agreed upon to be issued in this form. I understand that the point to which the noble Earl particularly addressed himself was as to how it was possible, at the inquiry to be held after the ballot, that, a parent should be able to say he had not voted without the identity of all the parents who had voted becoming—
  EARL CAWDOR: I did not say that the fact of a parent stating that he had not voted would disclose how someone else had voted. What I said was that there were to be two categories of voters, and that if you disclosed either of these you would be violating the secrecy of the ballot.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I apprehend the noble Earl's point. What happens is this. The ballot is held, and four-fifths of the votes are in favour of extended facilities. The next proceeding is to fulfil the second condition in the Bill, as to whether sufficient accommodation exists. The same number of places would have to be found in other schools as there were minority voters. I can assure the noble Earl that he overrates the difficulty of finding places for a given number of children. It is perfectly easy to strike an average in that matter. It is not necessary to know who the individual child is.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What does the noble Earl mean by striking an average?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: An average of age. I understood the noble Earl's point was that a certain number might be children of the higher standards and a certain number infants. I think the noble Earl made that point.
  EARL CAWDOR: That is so. I said that you would require to know how many were infants and how many required accommodation in the higher standards. They might all be children requiring accommodation in infant schools. You surely could not average those children. You must know who they are, and without that information you cannot put them in their right places.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl seems to assume that the number of vacant places must inevitably be so limited that it is necessary to find, so to speak, a square hole to put every child in. In practice it will be found that in. one or two neighbouring schools there are a considerable number of places over. That would happen in nineteen cases out of twenty, and to suppose that it is necessary that every child's age, height, and weight must be discovered before you could find accommodation for it in another school is the most fanciful suggestion I have ever heard made in this House. I do not know whether the noble Earl desires me to dwell on the point as to what would happen in the event of a parent not voting. If a parent is indifferent to obtaining accommodation elsewhere and desires to continue in the four-fifths school, it is competent for him to go before the inquiry and, by a very very simple and ingenious contrivance, make it clear that he has not voted, and, therefore, his child or children need not be taken into account when it comes to be a question of finding accommodation.
  EARL CAWDOR: I never suggested that you disclosed the ballot on finding out that some one had not voted. It is an argument which the noble Earl is producing for his own purposes.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not hint that the noble Earl had used that argument. It is an extremely good argument from our point of view, because it docs add considerably to the chance of

  253
  those who have fulfilled the four-fifths condition not losing the benefit of that through the possibility of there not being accommodation enough elsewhere. We consider this provision for a ballot to be of the first importance, and we are therefore quite unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I understand that it is the general opinion of the House that it would be convenient as far as possible to confine the present discussion to the question whether there should be a ballot in any case, reserving further discussion as to what the numbers in the clause should be or how the ballot should be conducted. I venture to submit to your Lordships that, although it is quite possible that recourse to the ballot may be a part of the necessary proceedings in certain cases, it does not follow that it is necessary that there should be a ballot in every case. It is quite possible that there may be cases in which the claim for extended facilites is of so clear a character that there is no necessity for a preliminary resort to the ballot.
  The noble Earl who had just spoken said that he attached very little importance to any expression of opinion on the part of the parents which did not involve some trouble on their part. I presume that his attention has been called, as mine has been, to certain cases in which the parents of children attending voluntary schools have already in the only way they could, by attaching their signatures to a memorial, expressed a desire that the denominational character of the schools should be maintained. I admit that those signatures are not proof that there is any very strong or active desire on the part i of those parents, but at all events they are proof that they entertain no objection to the continuance of the school as a voluntary school; and I do not see why the evidence furnished by such memorials should not be taken into consideration and given effect to without having recourse to a perfectly unnecessary ballot.
  I am acquainted with a town of considerable importance in Yorkshire where Nonconformist opinions are very strong.
  254
  The largest and the most numerous schools in that town are council schools, but there are two small voluntary schools, the parents of the children attending which have almost unanimously signed a memorial in favour of the retention of denominational instruction in those schools. Now, my Lords, I want to ask what conceivable harm can be done to anyone in such cases as those if, on application being made to the local education authority, those schools are permitted to continue as they are? There is ample accommodation in the council schools for all the children who do not want to make use of the voluntary schools; and the voluntary schools are actually attended by a considerable number of Nonconformist children, who might perfectly well, if their parents desired it, make use of the council schools. I fail to see that in that case the preliminary resort to the ballot required by this clause should be thought necessary. It is quite possible that the result of the ballot might not be to continue the denominational character of school, for, as I have said, a very considerable number of those attending the school are the children of Nonconformists. An agitation might be got up against the continuance of those schools, and the parents who have signed this memorial might be induced to vote in the ballot against their retention as denominational schools.
  I ask, who can possibly be injured by the retention of the denominational character of those schools in such circumstances? There can in this Cease be no question that the parents of the children attending them have objection to the religious instruction which is given in them; there can be no question that there is ample accommodation for the children who desire religious instruction; and who is damaged by allowing the authority in that case, if they think fit, to sanction the granting of special facilities in those schools without going through the preliminary process of ballot, which possibly might result in a different conclusion? I admit there may be cases of a less obvious character. There may be cases in which it is doubtful whether the majority of the parents do

  255
  or do not desire that these facilities should be given, and it may be desirable that in a subsequent stage of the proceedings resort should be had to the ballot or some other means of ascertaining the facts; but I submit that it is an unnecessary proceeding to require that a ballot should in all cases be taken before the authority is even permitted to extend these facilities to existing voluntary schools.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)said the point raised by Earl Cawdor as to the difficulty of identifying the children was a good but an ingenious point, and one of those points which were too small to be really taken into consideration in a matter of this kind. De minimis non curat lex was a very sound maxim in this matter. The Board of Education and the local authorities had constantly to deal by the law of averages with questions relating to accommodation in the schools and he saw no difficulty in applying that rough and ready rule to this case. In that way the difficulty raised by the noble Earl would be got over. Any suggestion from the noble Duke opposite was bound to receive the most careful and earnest attention of His Majesty's Government. As to the case of the town in Yorkshire quoted by the noble Duke, he would repeat that it would have been unjust if, in cases where the wishes of the majority were met, there was not also protection for the teaching desired by the minority. Therefore the noble Duke and His Majesty's Government in regard to this matter were, so to speak, animated by a common desire. The view of His Majesty's Government was that it would be better on the whole to have uniform machinery to deal with all the cases. Though the Government could not accept this Amendment, they were, nevertheless, inclined to admit that the matter was one in regard to which a good deal might be said, and on further consideration means might be discovered for] meeting the cases described.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My*Lords, after the statement to which we have just listened we shall certainly not suggest to my noble
  256
  friend behind me to press his Amendment. I desire, however, to make it perfectly plain that when he placed it on the Paper he did so, not because of any objection entertained on these benches to the ballot as such, but because we believed that the ballot clause in the Bill would be unworkable. The sole object of the ballot is to give protection to those who are about to vote, and though some of us may not consider that that protection is so necessary as noble Lords opposite appear to think, I freely admit that, after hearing the statement which the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council made to us last night with regard of the pressure to which he believed voters in such a case were liable, I should be reluctant to resist any proposal made by him for the purpose of rendering such pressure impossible.
  But, my Lords, as I said just now, the clause as it stands seems to us unworkable. That, I think, was demonstrated by my noble friend behind me, and it has scarcely been denied on the benches opposite that he was successful in making his point. I am afraid I must add that the explanation offered by the Lord President left my mind in a greater state of bewilderment than it was at the outset as to how it can be possible to ascertain whether sufficient places had been provided for the minority without some steps being taken to find out how the minority was constituted, the ages of the children, the standards at which they had arrived, and their places of residence. I, however, will not labour that point. I merely wish to take note, and I do so with satisfaction, that the point is one upon which His Majesty's Government desire to reserve their opinion. That being so, we shall certainly not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that before their Lordships left this subject he would like to ask a question as to the way in which sub-section (a) would work. The noble Earl the Lord President, when appealed to with reference to the draft ballot regulations, stated that it did not follow that the ballot would be worked under those draft regulations. What was the good of laying draft regulations on the Table

  257
  if it did not follow that they would be used? To adopt the expression used on the previous night by Lord Grimthorpe, it was "pulling the leg" of the House. It had to appear, as the result of the ballot, that the parents of at least four-fifths of the children attending the school desired the facilities. How were they to get that by this Bill? Supposing there were 100 parents, and of sixty who voted fifty recorded their vote in favour of extended facilities and ten against. How were they to obtain by means of the ballot the opinion of the other forty, and in what position would they be?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: In reply to the noble Earl I have to say that, under such circumstances as those to which he has alluded, the conditions of sub-section (a) of Section 1 of Clause 4 would not be satisfied, and the school would not have the chance of becoming a four-fifths school.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: Are the absent parents counted either way?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The parents of four-fifths of the children have to vote.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Duke of Devonshire had made a suggestion which he understood from the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs His Majesty's Government were quite prepared to consider. Might he ask whether they would object to the insertion of words in the clause in order to carry out the suggestion that the ballot should be at the option of the local anthority? If those words were inserted the ballot would not be held unless there was real reason for it in the view of the local education authority. That could be effected by the insertion, after the word "ballot," of the words "which may be directed by the local education authority to be taker."
  EARL CAWDOR: Will the noble Earl also reply to my point in regard to the Note?
  * THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the noble Viscount will allow us to consider the point and give him an answer at a later stage. I cannot reply at the
  258
  moment. The noble Earl (Lord Cawdor) called attention to the Note appended to the Schedule, and his point was, I think, that the Note was open to some objection on the ground that it would infringe the secrecy of the ballot. I think I can reassure the noble Earl on that point. It is simply a warning to a parent that, if he votes in favour, the number of places which are required, or possibly might be required, elsewhere for accommodation is reduced by one.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: By the number of his children, I suppose.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: He had a ballot paper for each child. Therefore if he had six children it would be reduced by six. Supposing there was a school with 150 children. In order to warn the parent what the effect would be he is told that if he gives his one vote, or six votes, whatever the case may be, in favour of facilities he must not then go and ask for accommodation elsewhere.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not know that the noble Earl has explained what further opportunity will be given of considering the question of the preliminary ballot. I understand that the Amendment before the Committee is the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Jersey, and if the words which he proposes to omit are left in the clause the question of a preliminary ballot will be thereby concluded.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwas convinced that nothing but mischievous results would follow from allowing local authorities an option in regard to the ballot. The Government had undertaken to consider the question and see what could be done between now and the Report stage, and he hoped that no hasty pledge would be given across the Table.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid he would like to know, if his noble friend Lord Cawdor withdrew his Amendment, what further opportunity there would be of discussing the matter, and whether fresh draft regulations would be prepared before the next stage, so that noble Lords

  259
  would have an opportunity of fully and fairly discussing the matter.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The ballot regulations are in substance what we propose to issue, but we do not wish to pledge ourselves to the precise words and terms in every instance, and therefore they were laid as draft regulations. Great pressure was put on my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education to give the substance of the regulations as early as possible, and therefore he brought them out in this form, which he could not say was absolutely final. But they are in the form in which, speaking generally, they will be issued. In respect to the point raised by the noble Duke, I assume that if there is any question of reconsidering any part of this matter all the Amendments which would cause the complete abandonment of the ballot are withdrawn. I imagine that is understood. As regards the possibility mentioned by my noble friend behind me of some modification after consideration, I must, of course, remind the Committee that any modification of that kind would be almost necessarily contingent on the whole of the rest of the clause remaining in that form in which it was when it came up to this House.
  EARL CAWDORsaid that, before consenting to withdraw his Amendment, he would like to know whether they were going to receive at a later stage a statement of the views of His Majesty's Government on this clause, which was at present unworkable. He thought they were entitled to an answer to that question.
  LORD FITZMAURICEheld that he had shown that the clause in itself was perfectly workable. There might possibly be a case where a decision could be come to without the necessity for a ballot, and that case would be considered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas sure the enormous majority of their Lordships were satisfied that the Lord President had made no answer to the difficulties which had been pointed out, and, seeing it had been shown that the
  260
  clause was unworkable, the Government should bring up new words.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think we are entitled to ask for some suggestion from noble Lords opposite. We are perfectly prepared to carry the clause as it stands, and have not the slightest desire to make any alteration in it whatever. The noble Earl opposite drew attention to one point, and I explained that, although it might have a certain plausibility, I did not think that in practice anything would arise out of it. The point raised by the noble Duke is an entirely different one, and it requires no redrafting of the clause. If any concession of that kind were made, as to which I can say nothing whatever, it could be done by the insertion of a very few words. If noble Lords do not like this clause I hope they will draw up one and put it on the Paper. If. however, noble Lords dislike the clause and wish to see it out of the Bill I should advise them to divide against it on the present occasion.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Opposition had no objection to the principle of the clause. They desired as strongly as noble Lords opposite that the wishes of the parents should be ascertained without the smallest external pressure whatever. If the Government thought that in ordinary cases the best way was the ballot, then the Opposition had not the smallest objection to the principle of the ballot. All they asked was that the Government should deal fairly with the practical difficulty which had been pointed out.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I repeat that we will certainly consider the whole matter before Report in the light of the speech of the noble Earl and the suggestion of the noble Duke.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXreferred to the statement of the noble Earl the Lord President to the effect that the question which divided the Committee was whether denominational teaching should be the rule and undenominational teaching the exception, or vice versa. He denied that that was the question which divided the Committee. The question which divided

  261
  them was whether or not parents who sent their children to school should have the kind of teaching they preferred for their children. He supported the Amendment, and, having quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer as saying that if the parent of a single child objected, the extended facilities would not be allowed unless there was another school to which this single child could go, ridiculed the idea of calling this impartial treatment of the 99 per cent. of children whose parents wanted the extended facilities. He insisted that if a majority of the parents in a transferred Church school desired the extended facilities they were entitled to have them.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESpointed out that the first part of the Amendment, in the form in which it was before the Committee, scarcely read with the clause. He suggested it should run "If it appears that the parents of a majority of the children attending the school desire such facilities."
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid he accepted the Amendment in that form.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFregretted that they could not get a decision upon the question of the ballot now while this clause was before them in Committee. He had an Amendment on the Paper, which would involve the question of the ballot as well as that of the four-fifths majority. To his mind Earl Cawdor had clearly established that the secrecy of the ballot and the ascertaining of the alternative accommodation were incompatible. The explanation of the noble Earl was that it was enough to have regard to the vacant places in the locality. But, supposing a minority of forty who objected to facilities were all Baptists and that the fifty vacant places were in a Roman Catholic school, how could it be said that those fifty places constituted alternative accommodation? If alternative accommodation existed in provided schools in a district the minority in the voluntary schools had no grievance at all. They were there by their own choice. What right, therefore, had they to vote on a question affecting the future management of the voluntary school? He thought it was most unreasonable
  262
  to insist that the parents of four-fifths of the children of a transferred school should decide the religious character of the school. It must not be forgotten that the voluntary school was established for the purpose of giving instruction in a particular religion, and surely it was enough for a majority of the parents of the children attending it to decide that its special religious atmosphere should continue under the new conditions. Could it be contended, on any principle of justice, that the minority should be allowed to overrule the wishes of the majority, and take possession of a school which, from its foundation, had had a particular character and atmosphere about it? The case seemed to him to be very strong in favour of the Amendment moved by Lord Jersey. The proposition that alternative accommodation must be afforded for the minority, however small, was monstrous. They might have one Baptist child in a Church of England school of 300, and yet the existence of that child, if alternative accommodation could not be found, would deprive the 299 Anglicans of the privilege they at present enjoyed. This was so exorbitant a proposal that he did not know how to deal with it more effectively than simply to state it. He appealed to their Lordships to adopt the Amendment,
  LORD HENEAGEasked whether his noble friend Lord Jersey would not accept the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, to leave out the words "of at least four-fifths" and insert the words "majority of the."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That is exactly the question before the Committee.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid the extended facilities were intended to meet the case of perfectly homogeneous schools, which practically consisted of children all of the same denomination, and if the provision as to four-fifths of the parents of the children attending such a school was changed, it would alter the whole character of the clause. He thought it was an unreasonable demand. Some noble Lords supported it because they desired an atmosphere, as if the children could not

  263
  breathe freely in another atmosphere. The extended facilities should be confined to those schools which were practically homogeneous, and only contained by accident a few children of a different denomination.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid he knew of several Catholic schools which contained a considerable number of non-Catholic children. These children attended the schools for their own convenience, and it would be intolerable if the doctrine of the right rev. Prelate were accepted and the schools were to lose their Catholic atmosphere. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had told them that three were only two logical alternatives that could be put forward—one was secularism, and the other the granting of universal facilities. But the alternative of secularism had been rejected by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, and the other alternative had been rejected by His Majesty's Government. Therefore their Lordships had to make the best of a bad job. He quite agreed that there were only two logical alternatives, but they had now to take the least illogical of the various illogical propositions that had been put forward and the one which would cause the least grievance. There never was a more illogical Bill than this. They had the Minister for Education telling the country that minorities must suffer, apropos of a Bill, whose main provision, as far as they could see, was that majorities should suffer. And the Bishop of Hereford now spoke of the great injustice to the minorities, and took no account whatever of the injustice to the majority for whom the schools were built. Their great grievance was that the Government seemed to deny any rights whatever to parents. At a meeting, last April, of the Education Committee of the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches it was stated that one of their objections to this clause was that it—
  "Introduces into legislation the false principle of giving the parent, as a parent, an additional direct control beyond that which he exercises as a citizen."
  He protested strongly against that doctrine. The net result of it was that the
  264
  well-to-do parent, who was able to afford tutors and governesses was to be allowed to exercise the rights of a parent, but the poor man, who could only send his child to the elementary school, was to be given only that control to which he was entitled as a citizen. He did not know whether that was the voice of the advance guard of the new Socialism, one of whose doctrines, he believed, denied the rights of home life, but a statement of that sort was an outrage.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was, in my opinion, perfectly correct in the description he gave of the object of His Majesty's Government in the fourth clause of the Bill—namely, that where it could be shown that there is a distinct predominance in a particular school of one particular kind of religious opinion, every effort should be made to preserve the denominational character of that school. But further than that we do not go, and we are utterly unable to tamper with the figure four-fifths, or to accept the Amendment which has been moved by Lord Jersey. My noble friend opposite, Lord Halifax, misunderstood what I said the other night with regard to denominational and undenominational education. He and I, I think, meant, in fact, the same thing. He starts from the idea that the parent has a right to demand any kind of religious education he likes, and that, therefore, as a consequence of that, denominational schools should have the preference wherever they are to be found. We, on the contrary, say that the national rule and system should be undenominational education, and that where distinct bodies of persons can be found demanding a special type of religious education, means should be provided for enabling them to carry on that education for themselves.
  The noble Viscount on the cross benches, Lord Llandaff, dealt with the question of the ballot as well as with the question immediately before your Lordships. I do not complain of that. I return to the subject of the ballot for the purpose of correcting one misunderstanding into which the noble Viscount fell. We have not reserved the question of the ballot. On the contrary, I do not think

  265
  any word which fell from any of us on this side of the House could properly give colour to that opinion. All that I said was that we were prepared to give a respectful consideration to the suggestion made by the noble Duke, and, I also added, to consider if on further thought there was more in the objection raised by Earl Cawdor than appeared to me at the time he made it. The noble Viscount on the cross benches assumed, I think, something which ought not to be assumed, and that is, that the minority in these four-fifths schools are necessarily hostile, or even likely to be hostile. I should have thought that the fact that a number of children, not perhaps of the particular denomination, had been in the habit for some time past of attending those schools was a reasonable warrant to suppose that they would wish to go on attending them, and that in that case they would vote for religious education being continued as before. It is inconceivable to suppose that in the case of an urban area to which we confined the operation of this clause, the case of one Baptist child could be used to stop the machinery of the clause. Therefore, if it should happen elsewhere the noble Viscount (Lord Llanda ff) must not blame us.
  The noble Lord opposite, Lord Denbigh, stated that this was not a logical Bill. Whatever defence has been made of it, I do not think anybody has ever said it was logical. If we had meant to make it logical we should have stopped at Clause 1. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite would have liked it any better for that. I am of the same opinion that I have always been, that the secular system and the system of universal facilities are the only two which can be described as logical. The secular system, at any rate for the present, is rejected by the country; the all-round facilities system was not pressed by noble Lords opposite; and, if it had been pressed and carried, I should very much like to know what the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, and his co-religionists would have said about a system of universal facilities which must inevitably be destructive of what they value, namely, the special atmosphere of their schools.
  Then the noble Earl asked, How is it that you cannot provide the same
  266
  facilities for the poor that the rich are enabled to find for their children? Obviously it is impossible. If you have people of five and six religious denominations in one neighbourhood, you cannot find five or six schools for them. All that you can secure is that as little hardship as possible is inflicted on individuals, and that is what we have attempted in this Bill. The parent as an argumentative instrument is, I must admit, rather a modern invention; four years ago we did not hear much of it; it was the sanctity of the trusts more than the rights of the parent that was then dwelt on. Yet the two things stand in no real relation to each other. All that we can say is that in this clause we believe that we have met the case of the vast majority of schools which can be described as predominatingly denominational; the case of the others we do not pretend to meet. We do not profess or desire to meet the case of the continuance as denominational schools of schools in which one faith is not predominant. That fact alone, simply stated, is enough, I think, to justify us in the absolutely uncompromising opposition we are compelled to offer to this proposal to reduce the figure from four-fifths.
  These Amendments moved by noble Lords opposite do place us in a difficulty, and to show the difficulty in which we are placed I will quote a few words from a speech delivered in the other House on 25th June last by Mr. Chamberlain. I hope I may be allowed to say, in passing, how deeply we regret Mr. Chamberlain's illness, and how his political opponents share with his political friends the hope that he may very soon be resored to complete health and to his old activity. Mr. Chamberlain on that occasion was in full agreement with the noble Lords opposite as to the imperfect and anomalous character of Clause 4. He considered that the Government could only do away with what he termed the absurd distinctions of place and number. Your Lordships have done away with distinctions of place, and are now, I conceive, engaged in doing away with distinctions of number. But Mr. Chamberlain went on to say that if those conditions were satisfied—
  "They (the Government) would have introduced a Bill in which they would have altogether

  267
  neglected their great principle of freedom of teachers from tests,… introduced a system in which they would not have given the public the control of the denominational schools." †
  Your Lordships will see how difficult it is for us even to consider, much less to accept, the Amendments of noble Lords on the other side of the House, and noble Lords themselves, I imagine, must be in a certain difficulty on that point if they agree with Mr. Chamberlain that these Amendments which they propose are destructive of the two great principles of no tests for teachers and public control. Noble Lords opposite profess to be in entire accord with these two principles, and they are driven to the alternative either of disavowing Mr. Chamberlain and saying that he was mistaken or of admitting that they are engaged in destroying these two ruling principles.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid the speech of the noble Earl emphasised the fact that voluntary schools were going to fare very badly indeed unless those who believed in their necessity came to their assistance with all the force they could command. There was a special hardship in the case of Roman Catholic schools, because in many parts of the country they had been built, in view of the fluctuations of population, far larger than was actually necessary, and children of other denominations had in large numbers sought and obtained hospitality in them. The ratepayers had, therefore, been freed to a great extent from the cost of building schools by reason of the accommodation which had been provided in the Catholic schools. And now they were told that such a school was not to be regarded as a school belonging to, or supported by, a denomination unless four-fifths of the children actually in the school belonged to that denomination.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: No, unless the parents of four-fifths of the children were willing for the teaching to go on as before.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid they were encouraged to believe that that would be the same thing. If that were
  † See (4) Debates, clix, 705.
  268
  so, why make such a point of the four-fifths, and why not accept a majority? The Government were forcing through a Bill which would bring religious strife into every municipal contest and into public life in a way in which it had never been brought before. It was surely a gross injustice that a minority should have power to change the whole character of a school, simply to carry forward the policy of His Majesty's Government to curtail the number of voluntary schools in the country. They knew of many bodies and societies in which the status quo was not allowed to be altered unless two-thirds of those connected with them passed the modifying rule. But here the Government were requiring a four-fifths majority. They had. had no defence of that provision at all. All they had been told was that the voluntary schools had to go. He was sorry his noble friend, Viscount Ridley, was not in his place. His noble friend had an Amendment on the Paper to substitute two-thirds for four-fifths, but the noble Viscount had informed him that he was perfectly prepared to accept the words "a majority."
  LORD KENYON: I have Viscount Ridley's authority to withdraw that Amendment in view of this one.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKwas glad to hear that statement. To the Catholics this was a very vital question indeed, and he sincerely trusted their Lordships would see not only the logic but the justice and fairness of their claim and support Lord Jersey's Amendment.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he quite understood the value that persons might attach to the "atmosphere" pervading the whole life of the school, but he would point out that the claim for the atmosphere pervading the whole life of the school during the secular hours was an absolute invasion and infringement of the principles which had animated the administration of elementary education ever since the passing of the Act of 1870.
  The Roman Catholic Church had deliberately built schools, quite apart from any expectation of fluctuation of

  269
  population, vastly in excess of the needs of the Roman Catholic population, and they had almost invariably sided with the Church of England in opposing the provision of places by means of board schools when there was an insufficiency of accommodation. When the Free Education Act was passed the Board of Education habitually, when a demand was made for free education by Protestant children, preferred vacant places in Roman Catholic schools as suitable and satisfactory, and he had never seen any active protest from the Roman Catholic body claiming that they only wanted their schools for their own community.
  He had always recognised that in a national system there ought to be a large interpretation of the word "suitability" in regard to school accommodation, but that liberal construction was to be used on both sides, so as to give facilities for board school accommodation when that was demanded as well as recognition of denominational schools. Many of these schools had been built in districts in which nearly the whole of the population was Protestant. He mentioned the case of Costessey, in Norfolk, where the only school in the parish was a Catholic school, and another case in Flintshire where the Roman Catholic school, on the admission of the managers, contained 95 per cent. of children of Protestant Nonconformists.
  Therefore they should not let it be put to the Committee that this was a claim on the part of a peaceful, patient minority, suffering for conscience' sake, merely to educate their own children. That was a claim which was absolutely forgotten in the days of their alliance with the Church of England to keep down, if they could, the spread of the popular system and the popular management of the school boards. If this Bill in the form in which the Government had put it on the Paper were accepted fairly and candidly it would establish a thoroughly national system for the people of the country as a whole, under national management, and even in places like Wales it would be recognised that side by side with the national system for the great majority there ought to be a liberal application of
  270
  consideration for exceptional minorities. It was obvious that the object of this and other Amendments was to take the whole life out of the Bill and not frankly to recognise national management and freedom from tests.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMsaid there was a great difference between a willingness on the part of parents to accept for their children teaching which was not exactly according to their own conviction and a readiness to vote for the continuance of such teaching. There was a Roman Catholic school in his diocese which was very considerably attended by children of parents who were not Roman Catholics. These parents, he believed, were perfectly ready to allow the teaching to go on, but he felt quite sure that if it came to a matter of voting they would be very far from being prepared to cast a vote in favour of the continuance of such teaching. This was a point of the greatest importance, and one which their Lordships should have in view.
  A reference had been made by the noble Earl the Lord President to the opinion held by Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain's view was that if they really wanted to carry out a system of State control over all schools and a total abolition of any regard on the part of the State for the religious opinions of the teachers, there was only one way by which that could be effected, namely, by taking away altogether from the State any control or regulation of religious teaching and giving it to the religious denominations. Then, and then only, could the State really decline to have any regard to the religious opinions of the teachers.
  Churchmen and the maintainers of voluntary schools were being asked to make a tremendous surrender, namely, the surrender of the management of their schools so that their children could be brought up with definite religious convictions. He agreed with Mr. Birrell that if there was to be so great a sacrifice there was only one boon that could be regarded as fair compensation, and that was equal facilities all round in all schools. If that was not to be granted, then Churchmen could not be expected to be

  271
  ready to make that sacrifice. Let them see to it that even small minorities were provided for with perfect justice, and that religious teaching was not forced upon children against the wishes of their parents in any school whatever. If all the schools were to be brought under public control, let them see to it that some fair equivalent was given to Churchmen for so great a sacrifice.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I need not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. The point which we have reached is a very narrow one, and I shall confine myself strictly to it. It is a very narrow point, but it is one of immense importance, upon which we on this side of the House feel very strongly indeed.
  Let me say, in half a dozen words, what I understand the proposal of His Majesty's Government upon this particular question to be. I understand it to be suggested to your Lordships that a school, the whole character of which has been denominational, which has been encouraged and supported for years past as a denominational school, which has met the requirements of the locality in which it is situated, and which has been unimpeachably conducted, may have its character entirely transformed in order to meet the views of a minority of parents. That seems to us to involve a great injustice. In our view the desire of the majority should be allowed to prevail. And when I say the majority I am not aware at this moment of any form of words which would define what that majority should be, except the simple expression "the majority" itself.
  We have had upon the Paper references to "sufficient majorities" and "reasonable majorities"—expressions which appear to me to be dangerously vague and to be contrived with a desire to elude the real difficulty before the Committee. In our view it would be utterly unreasonable that in a school such as I have described a minority of, say, 21 per cent. of the whole number of parents should be able to transform the character of the school, and to make it conform to the model they would prefer. It seems to us that a proposal of that kind is contrary to
  272
  common sense. It seems to us also opposed to the pledges which have been again and again given by His Majesty's Ministers. If the thing is wrong in theory we believe that in practice it would work disastrously, and that it would exclude a very great number of schools—Roman Catholic and Church of England—which, if the policy proclaimed by His Majesty's Government is to prevail, should be admitted to the benefits of this clause.
  There is only one qualification which I wish to add to that statement, and it is this, that if we are to allow the views of the majority to prevail, it seems to me to follow logically that we should go almost any length in order to protect the rights and feelings of the minority. We on this side of the House mean what we say upon that point. I am glad to notice that my noble friend Lord Cadogan has an Amendment upon the Paper, to which we shall presently come, which is evidently framed for the purpose of safeguarding minorities whether small or large, and I, for one, shall gladly vote with him if he takes the sense of the Committee upon it. Meanwhile, on this particular Amendment, I gladly record my vote with my noble friend Lord Jersey.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that we have reached a question of the greatest importance, and I cannot but regret the moving of an Amendment which, if carried, would render the intentions of the clause altogether nugatory. His Majesty's Government desired by this clause to give special facilities, in addition to others already given, to those schools which could show that they were substantially of a denominational character, and I believe that to go beyond that, and to propose to give those special facilities to a school in which there was a majority of one of a certain religious opinion, would be to risk the whole of the body of this clause, and it would be absolutely fatal to its working.
  I desire to take a practical view of this question. We have had in relation to this matter of education a great deal too much disregard of what is practical and

  273
  possible. The Committee for this reason stands in the position in which it finds itself, and if a clause of this description is now necessary it is because four years ago you utterly disregarded practical considerations. In one sense of the word I might desire to make this clause universal, but my object, both as a member of His Majesty's Government and as a Roman Catholic, is to place this clause on a basis upon which it is likely to stand. I do not believe that if this Amendment is passed and if you ask the other House of Parliament, with the views which the vast majority of the Members of that House are known to entertain, to pass the clause in the shape in which you desire to place it, you will have any chance whatever of their acceding to the demand, and you run the greatest possible danger of losing all that which under this clause you might obtain.
  The speech of my noble friend behind me, Lord Stanley of Alderley, will show your Lordships what can be said upon this subject; it will show your Lordships what are the opinions entertained by a small number of persons in this House but by a vast majority in the House below. As your Lordships listened to that speech you surely could not doubt that the demand which you are now making is dangerous and excessive. I quite admit that the proposal of His Majesty's Government in this respect—aye, and the proposal of noble Lords much more so—is not logical in regard to the general scheme of this Bill. But the Government have brought forward this proposal, and the other House of Parliament has accepted it, granting it to be illogical, because they believe it will do substantial justice to a large section of their fellow subjects. Such is the object which we have in view, but we cannot consent to adopt a system which is not only illogical, but which would be inconsistent with the fundamental nature and character of the Bill, and which would, I firmly believe, simply have the effect of altogether preventing this measure of justice, to which I. for one attach vast importance, from being passed into law.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONdesired to have from the Government some
  274
  answer to the objections that had been raised that a small number of Nonconformist parents could break up the character of a denominational school. The reply would help them in forming a judgment upon the Amendment now before the Committee.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that, though he should vote for omitting four-fifths, he preferred two-thirds to a mere majority.
  * THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, in reply to the right rev. Prelate I am afraid I can give him but very little comfort of the kind which he desires. It is impossible for us to consider individual cases of hardship that may arise under a clause of this kind. I can hardly conceive any regulation that might be made on this or, indeed, on most subjects, in connection with which it would not be possible to produce an instance of hardship and injustice. If noble Lords carry their majority Amendment somebody might possibly produce an instance where a great hardship was inflicted by the fact that the number of the denominationalist body fell just short of half. I am afraid it is impossible for us to depart from the general principle which we have laid down in this matter—namely, that the school must show a very substantial denominational character before the question can be considered at all. We start, I know, from a very different point in that matter from noble Lords opposite. I can only regret it. But I do believe that, in a very great number of instances, where there is a considerable minority of children whose parents do not ostensibly hold the Church view, there will be many parents of those children who, liking the teaching and the whole character of the school, will vote for its being continued as at present. The other point was as to one child preventing the machinery of the clause from working. I treat that in the manner in which one treats a proposition which one regards as extravagantly improbable, and therefore really hardly worthy of detailed examination.
  On Question, whether the words 'at least four-fifths' stand part of the clause,
  their Lordships divided:—Contents, 48 Not-Contents, 196.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Boston, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Brassey, L.

  Loch, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Burghclere, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Courtney, of Penwith, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Davey, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Reay, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Elgin L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Craven, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Russell, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Temple, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Hamilton, of Dalzell, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Haversham, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Ilchester, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Jersey, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Bedford, D.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Lathom, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Lindsey, E.

  St. David's L. Bp.

  Leeds, D.

  Londesborough, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Newcastle, D.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Lucan, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Rutland, D.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Northbrook, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Northesk, E.

  Addington, L.

  Bute, M.

  Onslow, E.

  Alington, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Plymouth, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Powis, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Avebury, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Balfour, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Westmorland, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Belhaven, and Stenton, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Belper, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Colville, of Culross V.

  Biddulph, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Blythswood, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Bolton, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Borthwick, L.

  Dartrey E.

  Halifax, V.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  De La Warr, E.

  Hill, V.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Braye, L.

  Derby, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Devon, E.

  Iveagh,V.

  Burton, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Llandaff, V.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Egerton,E.

  Ridley, V.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Feversham, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Guildford, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Halsbury, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  De Freyne, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and

  Ravensworth, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Mount-Earl.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Kenyon, Earl

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Digby, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Robertson, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Sackville, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Estcourt, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Fairlie, L. [E. Glasgow.)

  Lovat, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Masham, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Forester, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Stalbridge, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Methuen, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Monk, Bretton, L.

  Harlech, L,

  Mostyn, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Harris, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Napier, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Herries, L.

  North, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  On the Question, "whether the words 'the majority' be there inserted," being put—
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he desired to insert "two-thirds" instead of "the majority," but he was advised by the authorities of the House that the proper course for him was to vote against the insertion of "the majority." If it were carried it would, of course, dispose of the question, but if it were rejected the way would be open to him to move to insert "two-thirds." He was conscious of the injustice of insisting on "four-fifths "; but, on the other hand, it was unreasonable to provide that by a bare majority every denominational
  school should be enabled to insist upon having the extended facilities.
  LORD BELPERagreed with his noble friend, but perhaps, in order to avoid another division, the Government would give some expression of a hope that at a later stage of the Bill they might be able to accept an Amendment which would make the required numbers neither four-fifths nor a bare majority, but something between.
  No reply was given.
  On Question, that the words 'the majority' be here inserted, their Lordships divided: — Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 83.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery E.

  Grafton, D.

  Denbigh, E.

  Leeds, D.

  Derby, E.

  Plymouth, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Devon, E.

  Powis, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

  Saint Germans, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Eldon, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Feversham, E.

  Stamford, E.

  Bute, M.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Exeter, M.

  Guilford, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Hertford, M.

  Halsbury, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Westmorland, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Ilchester, E.

  Winchester, M.

  Jersey, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Lathom, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Abingdon, E.

  Lindsey, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Amherst, E.

  Londesborough, E.

  Hill, V.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Cadogan, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Carnwath, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Cawdor, E.

  Northesk, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Colchester, L.

  Masham, L.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  De Freyne, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.

  de Ross, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Addington, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Napier, L.

  Allerton, L.

  Dunalley, L.

  North, L.

  Alverstone, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Armstrong, L.

  Estcourt, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Redesdale, L.

  Atkinson, L.

  Forester, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Sandys, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Seaton, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Belhaven and Stenton, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Biddulph, L.

  Harris, L.

  Blythswood, L.

  Hastings, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Bolton, L.

  Heneage, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Herries, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Braye, L.

  Kelvin, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Ridley, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Headley, L.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Joicey, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Kenry, L.(E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Rutland, D.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Northampton, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Ampthill, L. [Teller.]

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Camperdown, E. [Teller.]

  Barnard, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Boston, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Brassey, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Craven, E.

  Burton, L.

  Reay, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Davey, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Kilmorey, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Denman, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Digby, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Temple, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Welby, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid that, as he had already moved this new sub-section earlier in the evening, it was hardly necessary for him to say many words on the Amendment he now proposed. The difference between the sub-section he proposed and that of the Government
  280
  Bill was that, whereas in the Government Bill one of the conditions of the clause was that there must be a public elementary school to which the children who did not come under the facilities clause would have to go, the sub-section he proposed would enable the local authority

  281
  to decide whether sufficient accommodation could be found for the children either in a class-room or close by.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 35, to leave out sub-section (b) and to insert the words" (b) that satisfactory arrangements in respect of religious instruction can be made for the other children attending the school.'"—(The Earl of Jersey.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, for the very simple reason which I have already stated in reference to several of these Amendments, namely, that it destroys the intended character of the school. What we propose is that there must be in schools not affected by a permission given under the section public school accommodation for the other children attending the school. We desire these schools to retain their special character, and we do not think it is a desirable arrangement that the children should merely be removed elsewhere for religious instruction. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he felt very great difficulty in dealing with the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper. If it were adopted it would cover the case of the ballot, and he understood that the whole subject of the ballot was reserved to some future time, when their Lordships would know the intentions of His Majesty's Government with regard to any modifications they thought fit to propose in the scheme of the ballot as it now stood. Therefore he supposed he must alter his Amendment to the extent of leaving out everything to the word "that" in line 32. That would leave the words relating to the ballot untouched, reserving that question for a future occasion.
  LORD FITZMAURICE, on a point of order, inquired whether they had not already passed that part of the section. They had passed sub-section (b), to which the noble Lord the Earl of Jersey had moved an Amendment. He supposed that any Amendment to that sub-section would now be too late.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Amendment of the noble Viscount arises under that sub-section (b).
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: It begins in line 30 from the word "that."
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That we have passed, but there is a part of the noble Viscount's Amendment which has not been dealt with, that is that the time allotted to such religious instruction shall not be less than thirty clear minutes, or whatever time is proposed, on each day the school is open. If the noble Viscount confines himself to that he will be in order.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsubmitted that it would be in order to omit everything that followed the Amendment just adopted, providing that" a majority" was to be put in in place of the "parents of at least four-fifths of the children attending the school." The clause as amended ran—
  "The parents of a majority of the children attending the school desire those facilities."
  His Amendment was to omit everything after the word "facilities" down to the end of the section. He did not think it was necessary to ask for the insertion of the words "the owners of the schoolhouse." They deserved re-cognition, because they denoted the character of the school more than anything else. Their Lordships had heard of many schools founded by one denomination and attended perhaps by a majority of another denomination. It seemed to him that the owners of the schoolhouse, the people who founded and built it, indicated its character, denominational or otherwise, more than any other person they could select. It was a pity that the Amendment already carried did not include owners of the schoolhouse as well as the parents of a majority of the children attending the school. He did not move the insertion of the words "owners of the schoolhouse," but he did move to omit everything that followed the word "facilities" down to "in respect of the child," and to substitute the words—
  "The time allotted to such religious instruction shall not be less than thirty clear minutes on each day the school is open."
  Upon that point it struck him that the plan suggested in the Bill, namely, that

  283
  the deciding point should be whether there was alternative accommodation in other schools, was not the best plan to adopt. He had other Amendments on the Paper by which he met more fully the grievance of the minority in the school applying for these facilities. He proposed that those children who were in a minority and disliked the facilities should be entitled to receive such religious instruction as they liked in the schoolhouse, if the dimensions of the schoolhouse made that practicable, but if they did not, then arrangements were to be made for them elsewhere by the owners of the school-house, the local authority, and all the parties concerned. If the children were sufficient in number, they should be entitled to call upon the local authority to supply them with a school for themselves. That would relieve them of the grievance of finding themselves in a school where facilities were granted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words after the word 'facilities' to the end of line 42, and to insert the words, 'the time allotted to such religious instruction shall be not less than thirty clear minutes on each day the school is open.'"—(The Viscount Llandaff.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that the Amendment could hardly be acceptable even to noble Lords opposite. Their Lordships had voted that special facilities should be given anywhere in town or country, and that those facilities should be given if a bare majority of the children attending the school desired them. What was the position? In a village where the only school was, say, a Church of England school, if out of seventy children attending there were thirty-six who labelled themselves as Churchmen and thirty-four as Dissenters, then those thirty-six were to have the whole of the school all the week for their own definite religious teaching, and the other scholars were to be found a classroom in the parish room which did not generally belong to Dissenters but to the Church. The local authority were to keep the schoolhouse in repair, and the bare minority in the school was to be turned out to get what they could. That was the effect of this
  284
  Amendment. He considered the proposal too grotesque.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the noble Lord had totally misrepresented the object of the Amendment. It was to give facilities to minorities in Church of England schools or Roman Catholic schools in the schoolhouse, and to give them the same facilities as he claimed for himself in the schoolhouse, Nothing could be more just or more liberal.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am not concerned with the object of the Amendment, but with its effect.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I venture to say that is the effect.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I need hardly inform the Committee that His Majesty's Government cannot possibly accept this Amendment. The principle on which we have acted, as the noble Viscount correctly stated, is that there must be alternative accommodation in other schools not affected by a permission given under this section, that is to say, in another school without a Church atmosphere. To that principle we undoubtedly adhere. I do not want to argue on this occasion the whole question of facilities and right of entry in these schools, because that would be more appropriately done on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cadogan, which is on the Paper, and which I understand from what fell from the, noble Lord the Marquess of Lansdowne, may be regarded as the official Amendment of the Opposition on this subject. When that is moved I will deal with it. It is perfectly true that the plan which the noble Viscount on the cross benches has put down in a number of special Amendments is a perfectly possible plan, but it is entirely different from and utterly destructive of the plan of His Majesty's Government, and I can only say we do not see our way to accept it, because it would mean the entire remodelling of this part of the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid their Lordships on that side of the House

  285
  had, of course, great sympathy with the Motion of his noble friend the Viscount Llandaff, but for a reason which he was going to state they were rather inclined to think that his Amendment did not raise the point in the form in which they would prefer it to be raised if they prevailed with their Lordships to take that view. The reason was that they were so far in agreement with His Majesty's Government that, prima facie, they thought the minority in the atmosphere schools ought to be accommodated in another school suitable for them. For that purpose it would be necessary for them to retain the first two lines of paragraph (b). But when they were faced with the question "What is to happen supposing there is no other school accommodation?" they would venture respectfully to invite their Lordships to consider whether, subject to very careful provisions as to the rights of the minority, which it would not be convenient to discuss on this Amendment, they might not permit the atmosphere school to exist, even when there was no other school or another building in which the dissident children might be accommodated.
  Inasmuch as they thought that so far as the first two lines of paragraph (b) were suitable and appropriate to that purpose, they could hardly agree with his noble friend Viscount Llandaff in his wish to cut them out. As regarded the latter part of paragraph (b) the noble Lord Earl Cawdor had an Amendment, not, perhaps, of an important character, although it did change vitally the character of the paragraph. If the paragraph so amended should meet with the favour of the Committee then, as the Earl of Crewe had said, the i question as to the alternative accommodation within the same building, under strict restrictions as to the rights of the minority, would be probably more conveniently discussed on the Amendment of the noble Lord Earl Cadogan.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFpointed out that if there was alternative accommodation in other schools not affected] by the special permission given under the section, then of course the children could go there and there would be no
  286
  grievance. But the question they were dealing with was the case of the single school area, and the words the Marquess. of Salisbury was willing to retain would shut out the special facilities in each single school area. There not being another public school accommodating the minority the facilities could not be granted. His suggestion was that this was a very harsh, cruel, and unwise way of dealing with the difficulty. He felt that difficulty, and was anxious that the minority should have ample protection and facilities given to them for their conscience' sake; but the right way to deal with it was not to turn the denominational school into an undenominational school (which would be the effect of passing the first two lines of paragraph (b) not to twist round the compass and make the wind which was blowing north blow south, but to deal with the minority in the most liberal way they could by giving them facilities for religious instruction of their own sort in the only school in the area, ur in a preacher's house, or a church, or some other place. It should be left to the local authority to settle what place they should find for allowing the children to receive religious instruction; if they were in a sufficient number he certainly proposed that a school should be built for them. The noble Marquess had overlooked the fact that by keeping in the first words of paragraph (b) they would kill all the denominational schools in the single school areas. If there was no accommodation in the area for the children of the minority the facilities were gone, because that was made a condition of granting the facilities.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that if the noble Viscount would look at the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord Earl Cadogan he would see that the point was covered.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFconfessed that he had not yet mastered that Amendment. The clause as it stood made the existence of some other school in which accommodation could be found a necessary condition of granting facilities. If they left those words in, all denominational schools in the single school areas were gone.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it was rather irregular to read an Amendment lower on the Paper, and if noble Lords opposite took objection he would not do so. He would indicate, however, to his noble friend Viscount Llandaff, with whom in substance they agreed, that if he would look at page 3 of the Amendment Paper he would see that under the words to be proposed by his noble friend Earl Cadogan they were substantially providing for the point to which their attention was called, although they were doing it in a different way.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he must adhere to what he had already said. The Amendment of Earl Cadogan, which would come under discussion presently, did provide for the case of the minority children who would not get the instruction they wanted, but it did not do away with the effect of leaving in the words in paragraph (b), by which it was made a condition of obtaining extended facilities that there should be other public elementary school accommodation in the area. Consequently into single school districts they would not get that accommodation, and their right to the facilities would be gone.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXwished to support the view of the noble Viscount. The words in question affected the school in every single school area.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYagreed with what had fallen from the Marquess of Salisbury. If the noble Viscount would read the Amendment of Earl Cadogan, he would see that the objection he raised was entirely dealt with by the fact that the accommodation for such other children in other schools would be dispensed with. He hoped the noble Viscount would not go to a division, but would allow the question to be discussed on the later Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Amendment so far as sub-section (a) is concerned has already been dealt with, and therefore it will be enough to leave out from sub-section (b) down to the word "child" in line 42.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYappealed to the noble Viscount to preserve the Amendment which stood in the name of Earl Cawdor, which came in at the end of line 36. He suggested that the question should be that the words down to the end of line 36 stand part.
  EARL CADOGAN: Do I understand that my noble friend (Viscount Llandaf E) objects to the Amendment of my noble friend Earl Cawdor or to mine?
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he had not mastered the effect of either of the Amendments referred to. He only looked at the clause as it now appeared, and found that as it stood the passing of the first words of sub-section (b) would prove fatal. The Amendment of Earl Cawdor would leave in the first two lines of the sub-section, and that was what he objected to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEESsaid that probably it would meet the views of the noble Viscount if he put the question that the lines 35 and 36 stand part of the clause.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  EARL CAWDORmoved the omission of the words "the other children attending the school" and the proviso that a child shall not be reckoned among the number of children for whom accommodation is required if the parent shows that he does not require the accommodation and has not voted. He said the proposal of the Government was not wisely drawn. It was that this accommodation should be provided for those children attending the school other than those whose parents had asked for extended facilities. That assumed that all children whose parents had not voted for facilities, or whose parents desired other facilities, or whose parents objected to any; denominational teaching whatever, were to be swept into one net, and without further inquiry were to be considered as "other children." Was it not rather straining a point? He was not going back on anything that had been said as to the ballot arrangement, but all that was

  289
  known first of all was that some parents had not voted at all. Why were they to assume that they wanted different accommodation from that provided in the schools? They had no means of ascertaining, and yet they were being swept by this clause straight into the net of those for whom extra accommodation had to be found. Then, secondly, there were some who had voted against the particular facilities asked for in this clause; they might object to those facilities, but what was there to show in any shape or form that they did not want anything else? What was wanted to be known was exactly what the parents required. The wishes of those who had not voted at all were absolutely unknown, as well as the wishes of those who had voted against the particular facilities. What was required was to find out what these parents really did want, and not to assume for a moment that they wanted something of which there was no proof that such was their desire. Some might be perfectly satisfied with what was going on in the school but had expressed no opinion; others would have voted against the particular facility that was to be given; others, again, might require something more definite. It seemed to him it only required some slight change in the clause in order to get at what he believed all desired to ascertain, viz., the wishes of the parents. The words in the clause as proposed by the Government did not make that provision. He did not claim for his Amendment that it would cover every child; he was only putting it forward as a tentative proposal—
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, to leave out lines 37 to 42 inclusive, and insert ' any child whose parent declares his desire for some other form of religious instruction than that for which the facilities are afforded.''"—(Earl Cawdor.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Earl has stated with great clearness the effect of his Amendment and the words as they stand in the Bill, and I think it must be clear to the Committee at large I that here again we are confronted with the fundamental difference in the point of view that separates us from noble Lords opposite. Noble Lords opposite, and the noble Earl among them, assume that
  290
  the normal school is the denominational school, and, therefore, holding that view, they would throw upon anybody who does not want that particular type of school the onus of coming forward and specifically objecting to it. That is not the principle on which we work. From our point of view these four-fifths schools are an exception to the Bill. They are not put in by any desire of ours except to meet the obvious necessities of the case. We quite see that these schools are in certain cases demanded, but we do not regard the school with the denominational atmosphere as the nor- mal type, in order to depart from which explicit objection must be made by a certain number of parents. We consider it as an abnormal type which can only be brought into being by the explicit declaration of a large number of parents. So long as we look on the matter from that point of view it is, of course, impossible for us to meet the noble Earl. He very properly, from his point of view, said, "The schools had been denomination-al in the past. We want to preserve the status quo, and anybody who objects to that ought to come forward and say so." We do not admit these schools as representing the status quo. In the first place we do not admit at all on this side of the House that the Act of 1902 can be regarded as the basis of the status quo. There is no evidence whatever that that measure has ever received the assent of j the country. It was never presented in any form to the country before the general election of 1900 and we do not consider it has any moral validity. That is an additional reason why we are not prepared to start from the point of view of noble Lords opposite that these schools must by hook or by crook be kept going in the manner they have been kept going for many years past. We say we are, by this Bill, instituting a national system of schools with exceptions, and those schools that want to join the rank of the exceptions must come forward and state explicitly that they want to do so. We are unable to take anything for granted in the matter.
  EARL CAWDORsaid the noble Earl did not seem to have realised in the slightest degree the point he endeavoured to raise. The point he was raising was

  291
  not the main issue from which they started. He was starting on this clause, and not the great broad principle on which he was opposing the noble Earl. He thought they were starting on much the same basis, namely, that these were to be atmosphere denominational schools. One of the noble Earl's colleagues had stated that those schools in which the conditions were carried out were to go on as before as atmosphere denominational schools. Did the noble Earl start on any different basis from that?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: As I understand it this Amendment does not deal with what the school is going to do when started, but with the method of starting it.
  EARL CAWDOR: I was assuming for a moment you had started the school and you were considering one of the details.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I should have thought those details must be considered before starting the school.
  EARL CAWDORsaid the noble Earl was no doubt correct, but they had got to the point that there was no point of difference in this clause.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: As to the manner in which they are to be carried on I do not know that there is, but as to the manner in which they are to be started there is a great deal.
  EARL CAWDORsaid they were going first of all to start with a majority
  of the parents to ask for these facilities. Besides that it was necessary to show that all the children of the parents who did not come in under the conditions governing the majority would be provided for elsewhere. What he was pressing on the noble Earl was that he had rolled into one all the children outside the majority, and assumed that he knew exactly what they wanted, although there was no ground for the assumption. Why should they not find out what the different parents other than those who were asking for the facilities wanted?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am afraid I must have failed to make myself clear. The point we start at is this; that without any reference to the opinion of those parents of whom the noble Earl has just been speaking we say it is a precedent condition of these schools being started at all that the parents of the majority of the children must come forward and definitely say that they want them. It was on that that I entered into what I am afraid the noble Earl considers an abstract argument as to our question of principle. If I take the noble Earl's point of view that the supposition is that, other things being equal, these schools ought to go on, there would be much in what he says, but we do not take that view. What we say is that the parents of the majority of the children must say definitely they desire this particular teaching. I quite understand the point of difference, and I hope my point is now clear to the noble Earl.
  On Question, whether the words pro-proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 152.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Glantawe, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Burghclere, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Headley, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Digby, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Selby, V.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  O'Hagan, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Eversley, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Reay, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Wandsworth, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Apb.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Stamford, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry,)

  Deramore, L.

  Grafton. D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Leeds, D.

  Westmeath, E.

  Dunalley, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Westmorland, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Yarborough. E.

  Estcourt, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Bute, M.

  Cross, V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Exeter, M.

  Falkland.

  Forester, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Hill, V.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  Llandaff, V.

  Harris, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Hastings, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Bath and Wells, L.Bp.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven.)

  Carnwath, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Cathcart, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Cawdor, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Enroll.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Masham, L.

  Derby, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Mowbray, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Napier, L.

  Guilford, E.

  Abinger, L.

  North, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Alington, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Ilchester, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.

  Jersey, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Belper, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Harrington.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.

  Nelson, E.

  Boyle,L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  Stalbridge, L.

  North brook, E.

  Braye, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Burton, L.

  Teynham L.

  Onslow, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, F.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Radnor, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Proposed words inserted.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDmoved to insert after the words last agreed to, the words-
  "And that extended facilities shall not be given unless, in the opinion of the Board of Education, the number of children in the neighbourhood is sufficient to maintain two efficient schools
  294
  without unnecessary expenditure of public money."
  He said that, seeing that this clause related to rural as well as urban schools. and that many of those rural schools were, to begin with, small, there was really a considerable risk of wasting the taxpayers' money. As their Lordships had already amended the clause

  295
  there might be a demand in the case of one of these ordinary facilities schools for the atmosphere of an extended facilities school, and if there happened to be a neighbouring school which could take in the remainder of the children, this new extended facilities school might be so small that it could hardly, in any real sense, be kept efficient. Consequently, they would be laying upon the taxpayers and ratepayers a burden which would be altogether unnecessary. That being the case, he ventured to think some such provision should be inserted in the Bill.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH (who was now in the Chair)pointed out that the proviso to which it was proposed to add words by the Amendment would not read in the form the right rev. Prelate proposed, owing to the decision of the Committee on the former Amendment.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he would alter his Amendment so that it would read "provided that extended facilities shall not be given unless," etc. He ventured to think it was a necessary safeguard against an undue multiplication of the very exceptional schools, and it was a safeguard all the more necessary because their Lordships had changed the four-fifths into a bare majority, the result of which would be that a bare majority in any of the rural schools might come forward and say they desired extended facilities schools, and the minority of the children could be accommodated in the school of the next parish perhaps a mile and a half away. He thought that would involve some hardship on the minority children, and prove a still greater hardship on the ratepayers, besides having the effect of setting up an indefinite number of little schools in which the children would have to be content with an inferior education. For all these reasons he did trust something might be done in the direction of this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, after the words last, inserted, to insert the words, Provided that extended facilities shall not be given unless, in the opinion of the Board of Education, the number of children in the neighbourhood is sufficient to
  296
  maintain two efficient schools without unnecessary expenditure of public money."—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: There is no doubt that if this Amendment were carried it would limit to a very great extent the operation of the clause as it now stands. A very considerable number of schools which under the clause as amended by your Lordships would be able to obtain the advantage of this provision would then be prevented from doing so. Consequently, if the right rev. Prelate were to press this clause, I should certainly be disposed to support him, because I should support any Amendment of any kind whatever which limited the clause in the way it now stands, but I am bound to tell the right rev. Prelate, quite apart from the fact that his Amendment would have no conceivable opportunity of being carried, that it would not be easy to work in the form in which it is placed on the Paper, and there are certain objections to it, which I need not trouble your Lordships about. Under these circumstances. I would be disposed to advise the right rev. Prelate not to press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *EARL CADOGANmoved to add the following words—
  "But if the applicants show to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that suitable arrangements can be made in the school for enabling children whose parents declare their desire for some other form of religious instruction than that for which the extended facilities are afforded to receive such other instruction, or failing that, instruction in accordance with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the condition in paragraph (b) of this section with respect to the existence of accommodation for such children in other schools shall be dispensed with, provided that—(1) if there are not less than twenty children whose parents declare their desire for such other religious instruction the Board of Education may, if they think fit, require that sufficient teachers shall be provided on the staff of the school qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements; (2) the local education authority, in exercising their control over the school and their powers with respect to the appointment and dismissal of teachers, shall permit such arrangements and enable such requirements to be carried out."
  He said that during a previous discussion Lord Zouche had asked what were the various classes of facilities for

  297
  transferred voluntary schools, and he must say that, having listened to the debate during the last few days, he thought it was somewhat difficult to ascertain exactly what these facilities were and how far they would be restricted by paragraph (b). Undoubtedly the restrictions proposed by His Majesty's Government formed a new class of facilities which might be labelled as restricted facilities. He imagined that the object the Government had in view was the protection of minorities, and, as the Lord President of the Council once in the course of the discussion said, the protection of majorities. Inasmuch as the largest portion of these transferred schools were schools to which the Bill proposed to give facilities, it might be said to be a protection for majorities; but the Bill had also been designed for the protection of minorities. Were the facilities which were inserted in the sub - clause, or indeed in the Bill itself, real facilities or were they not? By sub-section (b) of Clause 4 the child of every parent dissenting from facilities must be provided for in some other school in the neighbourhood, and no Clause 4 schools could be established unless the child of every parent who had not petitioned for the establishment of such school could conveniently attend any school in the neighbourhood. The Bishop of London had alluded to this point, and shown that if the parent of one child refused, or did not desire, to have these facilities, it would be impossible to have any Clause 4 school. But Clause 4 schools were the schools for which this Bill was designed. If this obnoxious proviso were deleted he proposed, by his Amendment, to provide means so as to save the rights of Nonconformists and other minorities. He proposed that proper arrangements should be made in the Clause 4 school itself to afford adequate opportunities for giving the children of Nonconformists the religious teaching they desired. What he wanted to do was, if possible, to remove the simple objection of there not being alternative accommodation for the children of parents who were not anxious to have facilities. He wanted to provide accommodation for them in the school itself. He proposed that that should be done in two
  298
  ways. In the first place, if there were not less than twenty children whose parents declared their desire for such other religious instruction the Board of Education might, if they thought fit, require that sufficient teachers should be provided on the staff of the school qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements. It had often been said in these discussions by the most rev. Primate and many others that all they asked for was justice. They did not ask for anything for the Church which they were not willing should be granted to other denominations. They simply desired that justice should be done to all. He believed that some provision of this sort was required if justice was to be done, and he hoped His Majesty's Government would agree that it was necessary to provide in some manner for those minorities other than that of merely obtaining alternative accommodation. He trusted the Committee would look carefully into this matter, because he believed it would provide a certain amount of justice in dealing with this Bill. The Amendment also showed a spirit of compromise and did not conflict with the principles of the Bill as the Lord President on several occasions had complained that other Amendments did. This Amendment embodied a concession to those on the opposite side of the House, who, like himself, were willing and anxious that whatever form the Bill took it should as far as possible be conciliatory and productive of a lasting settlement, and be one which every class and every sect in the country would, at all events, look upon with generous approval.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, after the words last agreed to, to insert ' But if the applicants show to the satisfaction of the Board of Education that suitable arrangements can be made in the school for enabling children whose parents declare their desire for some other form of religious instruction than that for which the extended facilities are afforded to receive such other instruction, or failing that, instruction in accordance with Section of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the condition in paragraph (6) of this section with respect to the existence of accommodation for such children in other schools shall be dispensed with Provided that—(1) if there are not less than twenty children whose parents

  299
  declare their desire for such other religious instruction the Board of Education may, if they think fit, require that sufficient teachers shall be provided on the staff of the school qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements; (2) the local education authority in exercising their control over the school and their powers with respect to the appointment and dismissal of teachers shall permit such arrangements and enable such requirements to be carried out." — (Earl Cadogan.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am quite certain that the concluding words of the noble Earl who has just sat down convey very clearly everything that was in his mind when he put down his Amendment. We must all believe that this is a perfectly honest and ingenious attempt to meet a difficulty created not by the provisions of the Bill which the Government have introduced, but by the Amendments carried by noble Lords opposite. But my noble friend's Amendment is an old friend. It is our old friend "inside facilities all round" re-introduced in a somewhat different form. The proposition, as I understand it, is that, if the majority who apply for the four-fifths facilities show that they can make arrangements for inside facilities for the minority, instead of providing for that minority elsewhere in other schools the minority should be taken in and looked after inside the school itself with, if necessary, special teachers provided for them. That is our old friend the provision of facilities all round introduced in another form, and the question I wish to ask in reference to it is, what is there in the fact of having a majority of one kind of denomination and of having gone through certain processes to have the school put in a particular class, which makes it specially appropriate for the inception of these inside facilities? Why. if offered to schools of this kind, should they not be offered to all schools?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But these are "atmosphere" schools.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Apparently they are going to lose the atmosphere by the Motion that has been made by the noble Earl. How it can be argued that they can remain atmosphere schools in the same sense as they are now, I am unable to understand. How it can be
  300
  supposed that these conditions are equally applied under the noble Earl's Amendment, I am quite at a loss to conceive. Take the case of an ordinary village school. There, for some reason or other, it will be necessary to go through the process of dividing the children, and perhaps out of 100 children fifty-one will belong to the Church of England. That having been done, my noble friend proceeds to see that careful provision is made, perhaps for one, two, or three different kinds of religious teaching for the minority of forty-nine children. Why is that more necessary than if, in the same school of 100, there were three denominations nearly equal, say, numbering thirty-three, thirty-three, and thirty-four? Why should the same conditions not obtain under those circumstances? What is there in this minority or even in a four-fifths arrangement that distinguishes these from all other schools? That is the point I have found difficulty in dealing with, and possibly some later speaker may throw some light upon the subject. I do not see any interdependence between the two things, all round facilities on the one hand, and the fact of a certain religion being predominant on the other. It is perfectly certain that the change effected in the Bill by making the majority the necessary figure for the provision of these schools might have a strange effect on the provisions of our Bill as it was introduced, but that, of course, was not our fault. I confess, therefore, that I do not see why the particular provision is brought in for these schools any more than for schools receiving ordinary facilities or for any other schools. It is quite possible that some subsequent speaker may enlighten us on that point. This proposal is a complete departure from our plan. Our plan was undoubtedly to leave a certain limited number of schools which should be very markedly and distinctly denominational. The noble Lord's Amendment is a reversion to the idea that it is possible within the one building to provide for all the different denominations. I am bound to point out what the general situation is as regards these schools. Voluntary schools which contain the majority of children of one set of opinion will, if the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted, obtain all the privileges which we gave to the four-fifths

  301
  schools, and it practically is to pass as far as I can understand out of the hands of the local authority altogether. Under these circumstances why should we go to the trouble to deal with these schools? Why any local authority should undertake to execute the repairs in those schools is more than I can conceive. The schools will be in a stronger position from a denominational point of view than they are at this moment, and why, under those circumstances, it is necessary to depart from the existing state of things by giving pretended local control over them, and by paying for all the repairs of the schools is more than I can conceive. Schools of this kind have been absolutely taken out of the Bill by the Amendments of noble Lords opposite, and they are to enjoy all their present advantages in addition to certain advantages which we propose to allow them in our Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the reason why the Lord President of the Council did not understand the bearing of this Amendment was that he and his colleagues had never really appreciated what was meant by parents' rights. Those rights they were now urging, not only on behalf of the majority, but with equal force on behalf of the minority, The particular schools contemplated by Clause 4, with regard to which he had used the rather indefinite term "atmosphere schools," would, although the noble Earl did not seem to think so, differ in kind from all other schools, and that would have been so either under the Government proposals or under the Bill as it stood after their Lordships had amended it. They would differ because they would have this religious atmosphere, and that was portrayed in the Government proposals, because in those schools, and in those schools alone, they permitted the teachers to give religious instruction. He did not need to go into the question whether that provision was adequate or not, but it established the fact that in the opinion of the Government they differed and differed in kind from all other schools. That was done because the parents of the majority wished it. The Government only adopted that w the great reluctance in the first instance, and
  302
  they had never carried it out to its logical conclusion. They did not see that because they had provided these very special rights for the majority of the parents in Clause 4 schools, consequently they were bound in all those schools also to provide for the rights of the minority. Lord Cadogan had appreciated that omission on the part of His Majesty's Government and had proposed that in the case of the minority, equally with the majority, the parents' rights should be secured. He was very glad the noble Earl proposed this Amendment, which he (the Marquess of Salsbury) urged upon their Lordships' attention with all the earnestness in his power. They did not desire in any degree to oppress minorities. They were as anxious to secure the rights of Nonconformists as the rights of the members of the Church of England or of any other denomination. How did Lord Cadogan propose to protect and safeguard the rights of the minority? He said in the first instance that under very strict conditions these Clause 4 schools might be admitted even if there was not another building, provided they could give adequate protection to the minority in the same building.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am unwilling to interrupt the noble Marquess, but if he will look at the noble Earl's Amendment, he will see that, if possible, the instruction is to be given inside the building and not outside. Therefore, the proposal is, if possible, that it is to be provided inside the schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the Amendment provided that if suitable arrangements could be made in the school it was not necessary to show that there was another school. The Government proposed that these extended facilities should not take place at all unless there was room for all the minority children in other schools. Now they were proposing that these extended facilities should be given where the majority desired them, even f there was no other school accommodation to which the minority children could be sent, provided the rigid conditions of his noble friend's Amendment were complied with.
  *THE EARL OF CREWB: I do not think the noble Marquess has appreciated my point. My point was, as I read the Amendment, that the accommodation must be given in the school if possible, and if there is not room in the school it will have to be given outside.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that was not the intention of his noble friend, because prima facie the accommodation was to be given outside in another school.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Marquess reads the clause in the light of this Amendment he will see my point.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that as he understood the case, if there was a single child, or however small the minority, some arrangement must be made for the protection of its rights of conscience. It did not say a substantial minority but a minority however small, and unless an arrangement were made to the satisfaction of the Board of Education, they did not ask for extended facilities. They went further in the case of a substantial minority, because then they were perfectly willing to see that proper teachers were provided for those children however denominational the school might be. He thought their Lordships would admit that in his noble friend's Amendment they had gone as far as they could to protect the rights of the minority, and if the noble Earl opposite or any other noble Lard could propose some better way of protecting the rights of the minority, provided it did not interfere with the rights of the majority, they would be willing to consider it. They were most anxious to study the rights of the minority, and this Amendment was drawn entirely with that object.
  LORD WENLOCKsaid he felt rather alarmed at the enormous amount of work which would be thrown upon the local education authority by this Amendment. A very large duty would be cast upon them if they had to provide all these facilities in the schools. If his interpretation of the proposal was correct, there might be 51 per cent, of children belonging to one denomination in one
  304
  school, and they would got their teachers all right, but the other forty-nine would get such teachers as the local authority would be called upon to provide. He was apprehensive that under this proposal a very large amount of money would be called for from the local ratepayers, because a very large stag of teachers would be required to give the religious instruction to the children of the minority as provided in this Amendment. He merely wished to know if his view was correct.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I would suggest that that part of my noble friend's Amendment which deals with the teachers should be postponed. At the request of the President of the Council we have already postponed matters kindred to this until we come to Clause 8. I would suggest that we should stop at the words "shall be dispensed with," and consider the other questions when we arrive at Clause 8; otherwise we shall he anticipating discussions under that clause.
  *LORD CADOGANsaid he agreed with the suggestion which had been made by the most rev. Primate. It had already occurred to him that it might have been better dealt with under Clause 8, and he was quite willing to postpone the last two paragraphs until Clause 8 was reached.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid it might be convenient as a matter of order and discussion to separate these two proposals as had been suggested by the most rev. Primate, but it was really impossible for the Government to consider the proposal up to the words "shall be dispensed with," without considering also what was proposed afterwards, because some machinery, he took it, would have to be proposed in order to carry out the proposition of the noble Lord. He could not help thinking that the proposition which had been made showed that noble Lords opposite were becoming a little alarmed at their own handiwork ["No!"]. It appeared to him that they were now shrinking back
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Amendment was drafted a long time ago.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid noble Lords opposite were now coming forward at the eleventh hour to show their excessive zeal and desire to protect the interests of minorities. Might he ask the noble Marquess opposite why he did not exhibit the same excessive zeal in 1902? Why did he not discover in that year the same zeal buried somewhere within the recesses of his mind to protect Nonconformist minorities in the single school districts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that the noble Lord could not find a single word of his uttered at any time which was not sympathetic towards Nonconformists.
  LORD FITZMAURICEsaid that sympathy would not butter any parsnips. He happened to be in the House of Commons during the discussions of 1902, and the noble Marquess opposite might have expressed a little barren sympathy here and there for the Nonconformists but certainly there was no overt proposition of any kind made at that time by the noble Marquess or his friends in the direction of sympathy with Nonconformists, and every proposal made by the then Opposition pointing out the excessive injustice which would be done in single school areas in the country districts was met with opposition and frequently with mockery. The noble Marquess had given them a treatise to show the excessive zeal of himself and his friends to do justice to Nonconformist minorities in the country districts, and he had spoken with such extraordinary zeal that he almost expected him to say that he was not only a Unionist but also a Unitarian.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid this Amendment would introduce an absolutely new principle into the Bill, and also into the history of English elementary education. It meant that for the residue of a school where they did not like the stereotyped form the promoters could provide religious instruction, if they could show to the Board of Education that suitable arrangements can be made in the school for enabling children whose parents declare their desire for some
  306
  other form of religious instruction." There was no obligation on the local authority even to provide Cowper-Temple instruction. There was the right to provide it, and by the Amendment which had been put into the first clause it would be the duty of the local authority to enable someone to provide it, but not necessarily to give it themselves, and it might depend upon the zeal of volunteers whether that opportunity was taken advantage of. It was not even Cowper-Temple teaching, and if Methodists, Presbyterians, Jews, or Catholics, were to say, "We want these facilities for special teaching," they would be provided if the promoters of the school could show the Board of Education that they were prepared to provide them. He would not deal with the subsequent machinery, because it was prospective, but he wished to say that the State had never undertaken to provide any definite religious teaching for anybody; it had always contented itself with requiring an adequate system of secular instruction, leaving religious instruction to the locality. The State had p id no grants for religious instruction. Now it was proposed to introduce a new obligation both on the State and on the locality to provide religious instruction according to the demands of the people. He wished to correct what he thought was a very glaring misstatement in regard to the operation of this Bill with respect to Clause 4 schools. With the confidence which their majority gave them, noble Lords opposite had spoken as if their Amendments had already become part of the Bill. He wished to point out that at the present moment there was no obligation whatever upon the local authority to provide teachers of any particular type; in fact, as far as the Bill went, there was a prohibition, because there was a general clause in the Bill prohibiting the local authority from imposing tests upon teachers. Further than that, there was no obligation upon the local authority to allow the teachers to give this definite teaching. And lastly, as the Bill stood, there was no obligation whatever upon any teacher to give any religious instruction. The most rev. Primate appeared to think that the local authority was at liberty to enter into these obliga-

  307
  tions subject to a conscience clause, but as the Bill stood, all that was granted in Clause 4 schools was the right to use the school for five mornings in the week for religious teaching, and that was a right which they now held in common with the ordinary school. He wished to protest against this attempt to put a new duty upon the State and upon the local authority, and he hoped the Committee would divide against this proposal.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I rise to make a suggestion. I do not know how late noble Lords opposite wish us to sit, but if there is a prospect of a considerable number of other speeches on this Amendment, to be followed as I imagine they would be by a division, I should like to know what the opinion of the majority of the Committee is with regard to adjourning the debate at this stage?
  *THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYappealed to Earl Cadogan to withdraw his Amendment. The principal objection was that it brought in the Board of Education as arbiter upon the religious question. Upon this point he agreed with Lord Stanley of Alderley. This was an entirely new question. They might, when they saw the Bill on the Report stage, consider it necessary to introduce some Amendment of this sort, but he did not think it necessary to deal with it in this part of the clause. As the noble Earl had already offered to withdraw two sub-sections, might he ask him to withdraw the other and bring it up again on Report? Those acquainted with local government would know that the clause would put upon the local authority a most onerous task, and they would be overridden in their jurisdiction in a most unnecessary way.
  LORD STANMOREasked whether the objection urged against this Amendment on the ground of the expense it would throw upon the rates was not met by the clause which provided that any part of the expense incurred in religious teaching was not to fall upon the local authority.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKsaid his own position did not quite
  308
  accord either with that taken up by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment or with that taken up by the Government. Consequently, he felt the matter was one of some considerable importance with regard to the policy taken by the Committee, and perhaps it would be better it it had the advantage of a little more discussion. He was quite prepared to move the adjournment of the debate.
  *LORD HARRISsaid he desired to add a practical question, and it was, What provision did they propose to make in regard to the teachers? The first subsection of the Amendment declared that the Board of Education might, if they thought fit, require to be provided on the staff of the school sufficient teachers qualified to teach the religious instruction contemplated in the arrangements. If this clause were carried they would have to make provision for teachers of all denominations. This-was a question which he put not so much to the Government, because they objected to the Amendment, as to-his noble friends below him because they were promoting the proposal. He thought they were entitled to some explanation as to what were the arrangements which county authorities, for instance, would have to make in regard to providing all these teachers. It seemed to him to be throwing a very unfair and unnecessary expense on the counties to require anything of the kind.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I rise to answer the question which has been put to me by the noble Lord. As I understand the Amendment, it would not necessarily involve any additional charge upon the rates. What is proposed is that in certain cases where the dissentient minority is of substantial proportions, the Board of Education may, if they think fit, arrange that the staff of the school shall be adjusted with reference to the different religious denominations represented in the school. That does not mean that more teachers would be appointed, but that the teaching staff of the school will be selected with some reference to the views which they will have to teach.

  309
  That is my answer to the question put by Lord Harris.
  With regard to the continuance of the debate it has been suggested by the right rev. Prelate that the House should resume, and as I understand that a considerable number of noble Lords are interested in this matter, I do not suggest that this discussion should continue now.
  House resumed; to be again in Committee to-morrow.
  House adjourned at Five minutes past Eleven o'clock, till Tomorrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.