Sitting of 8 November 1906

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Blairgowrie, Rattray, and District Water Order Confirmation Bill, "to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Blairgowrie, Rattray, and District Water," presented by Mr. Sinclair; read the first time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a second time upon Friday, 16th November, and to be printed. [Bill 351.]
Dover Harbour (Works, etc.) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.
  Petition from Hull, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS (CONTRACTS) BILL.
  Petition from Walsall, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  Copy presented, of Report on the Poplar Union by J. S. Davy, esquire, C.B. [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSAL POSTAL UNION.
  Copy ordered, "of Report of the British Delegates at the Sixth Congress of the Universal Postal Union, held at Rome in 1906, with the Postmaster-General's Letter forwarding the Report to the Treasury."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of Petitions to the House of Commons in favour of Women's Suffrage for each Session from 1890 to 1906, inclusive; (2) the number of names attached to such Petitions." —(Mr. Alfred King.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Exhibition of Names of Country Post Offices.
  MR. A. WILLIAMSON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will order the issue of a circular to country post offices authorising and suggesting the convenience of their placing the name of the place over the words "post office."
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is already the rule that the name of the place followed by the words "post office" should appear in a conspicuous position outside every village post office. If the hon. Member is aware of any case in which the rule is neglected either in spirit or letter, I will have inquiry made if he will furnish me with the name of the office.

  Australian Trade Marking Laws
  Mr. SEAVERNS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to The Commerce (Trade

  721
  Descriptions) Act, 1905, of the Commonwealth of Australia; is he aware that the Act contains provisions for the marking and description of British goods which will hamper British export trade to Australia, and which are in all cases onerous and in some quite impossible of accomplishment; and will he make representations to the Commonwealth Government on the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Secretary of State has received representations from the London Chamber of Commerce to the effect that the regulations under the Act referred to will hamper British trade to Australia, and he will communicate with the Common-wealth Government on the subject. In the meantime I understand that the Minister for Trade and Customs of the Commonwealth has given instructions that, in the administration of the regulations, every consideration will be given to those merchants or traders who may inadvertently not strictly comply with the regulations in the first instance through mere want of knowledge, or the difficulty attendant upon the first working of the regulations.

  Ships in the Navy List.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the reason for the insertion of the cruisers "Appollo," "Intrepid,'" "Spartan," "Retribution," "Rainbow," "Tribune," "Naiad," "Melampus," "Andromache," "Pique," "Pomone," "Pactolus," "Philomel," "Medea," and "Medusa" in the only Return issued to Parliament, entitled Fleets, Great Britain and Foreign Countries, 24th April, 1906, when the Navy List, corrected up to 20th April, 1906, and all subsequent Navy Lists, omit these fifteen cruisers.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The names of these vessels have not been omitted from the Navy List.

  Application for School at Woldingham, Surrey.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has received any application from the education committee of the Surrey County Council for power to acquire land for the purpose of building an elementary school for the parish
  722
  of Woldingham in Surrey; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the children of Woldingham and their parents are inconvenienced by the present lack of school accommodation nearer than Caterham, he can see his way to give such application immediate attention.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand from the Surrey County Council that land at Woldingham can only be obtained by the exercise of compulsory powers of acquisition, and that they are taking the requisite steps preliminary to making formal application to the Board of Education for the exorcise of such powers. Meanwhile they report that they have leased a site at Woldingham for two years, and plans for providing temporary accommodation are now under the consideration of the Board, and are being put forward with all possible despatch.

  Irish School Teachers Registration Fees.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the President of the Board of Education to what fund the fees for registration paid by teachers under Section 4 (a) of the Board of Education Act, 1899, are placed; whether those fees will be refunded should Clause 25 of the Education Bill become law; and whether the Board have registered teachers under the above section since the introduction of the Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) (1) Under the Order in Council the registration foes paid by teachers whose names are entered on the register are placed to the credit of the Teachers Registration Fund from which the expenses of the Teachers Registration Council are met. (2) The passing of Section 25 of the Education Bill would not in itself bring about the abolition of the existing register. It merely removes the obligation at present existing for the establishment and maintenance of a register of teachers. Should the existing register eventually be abolished, the registration fees paid by persons whose names are on it would be refunded to any such persons who applied for it, as I have already stated in Parliament in reply to similar Questions in April, in May, and again in July last. (3) It is not the duty of the Board of Education, but of the Teachers

  723
  Registration Council, to register teachers. Since 9th April last 915 names have been entered on the register. I understand that ever since the introduction of the Bill the attention of applicants for registration has been drawn by the Teachers Registration Council to the clause in the Education Bill which would remove the obligation to maintain a register of teachers.

  Committal of Young Persons to Prison.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will say for what offences the 437 persons under sixteen years of age were committed to prison in default of paying fines of 10s. or less in England and Wales during the: twelve months ended 31st March, 1906; and how many such persons were committed in respect of each offence.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone). I regret that I have not got this information. To obtain it I should again have to ask for Returns from every prison in England and Wales, and I am very unwilling, considering the great trouble taken by prison officials to collect materials for answering my hon. friend's Question of the 31st October,† to ask them to ex- amine the cases a second time to supply this further information. My hon. friend will find in tables VIII. and XIII. of the Judicial Statistics a great deal of information as to the offences of which persons under sixteen were convicted.

  Local Examinations for Indian Civil Service Candidates.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY (Paddington, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can see his way to make arrangements by which Indian candidates for the Indian Civil Service can be examined by the local universities or otherwise in India, so that they may not be put to expense and involved in caste disabilities by coming to England for the purpose of examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) This question formed the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by the Government of India and the Secretary of State in 1893 and 1894, and the correspondence was presented to Parliament in Cd. Paper,
  † See (4) Debates, elxiii., 1092.
  724
  No. 7378 of 1894. I am not aware of any new circumstances that would justify a departure from the decision then arrived at.

  Mr. Addison's Appointment as Secretary of the Delhi Municipality.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state under what circumstances Mr. Addison, a junior member of the Civil Service of India of three years standing, has recently been appointed to the office of Secretary of the Delhi Municipality; and, seeing that the appointment will result in Mr. Addison having to try cases as a magistrate which it will be his duty as Municipal Secretary to institute, will the expediency of rescinding the appointment be considered.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no information as to the circumstances of Mr. Addison's appointment, but I will inquire.

  Action of Mr. Jack in arresting Ryots at Alipura.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will ascertain under what circumstances Mr. Jack, a settlement officer in the Patuakhali District of India, was recently engaged in assisting Mr. Kemp, a police superintendent, in searching for lathials, and, seeing that they wrongly arrested as lathials newly settled ryots in the village of Alipura, will he state what action it is proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand that the proceedings of Mr. Jack have recently been under investigation in a court of law; until the cases connected with them have been decided I see no reason to take any action in the matter.

  Reduction of the 40th Brigade Royal Field Artillery.
  MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to reduce the batteries of the 40th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery, to two-gun batteries; if so, whether the change would involve the abolition of a colonel's command and of captains' commands; and if he can state where the 40th Brigade, Royal Field

  725
  Artillery, will be quartered on its arrival in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not intended, at present, to reduce this brigade to a two-gun establishment; there will therefore be no immediate reduction in officers. Eventually this brigade will become a training brigade, and it will then have a colonel but no captains. Its station on its arrival from India is not yet finally decided on.

  Church Parades and Sunday Sports.
  MR. SLOAN (Belfast, S.):To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on Sunday, 2nd August last, the 16th Brigade of the 8th Division, who were on manœuvres, were compelled to march seven miles to Fermoy to attend Divine service without any rest whatever; if he can state why the 15th Brigade of Infantry and the Artillery, with guns and horses, had to march three miles to Moor Park to attend Divine service, although these are all stationed at Fermoy; and by whose authority on the afternoon of the same date military sports were held.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The General Officer Commanding 8th Division, Cork, reports as follows:—The 16th Brigade marched on Sunday, 2nd September (not August) from Skeheen Mountain camp to Moor Park (not Fermoy), distance seven miles; and two batteries, 31st Brigade, with two battalions, 15th Infantry Brigade, marched from Fermoy to Moor Park, distance three miles, where the remainder of the 31st Artillery and 15th Infantry Brigades were encamped, and where Divine service was held. Major-General Sir William Knox selected this day as the only one on which he could concentrate the whole division to address them before handing over command. The sports held the same afternoon in Moor Park were organised by Sir William, on his own authority, for the amusement of the troops.

  Chinese Labour on the Rand.
  MR. VERNEY (Buckinghamshire, N.): To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will reconsider the suggestion made last session of buying out any vested interests in the Chinese labour traffic and bringing it to an end at once in the interests of public policy and of public morality.
  726
  (Answered by Sir II. Campbell-Banner- man.) I regret that I am not able to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, which would not be in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government, as frequently explained to the House.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Memorandum — Unarmoured Cruisers.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Memorandum on Admiralty policy, issued last November on the advice of the present Sea Lords of the Admiralty, stated that the best of the unarmoured cruisers have been retained for the present, but that it is recognised that they must be allowed to die out within a few years; and whether the three "Invincibles" of the 1905–6 programme are the only armoured cruisers to be laid down under the programmes of 1905–6, 1906–7, and 1907–8 to replace the large number of cruisers numbering over eighty which, in the opinion of the Admiralty, must die out within a few years.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but the inference in the second part of the Question is incorrect.

  First Class Battleships.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that thirty-four British first-class battleships have their waterlines at both ends unarmoured, thirteen have unarmoured sterns, and only the most modern thirteen have complete belts; whether all the French and German battleships have complete belts at the waterline; whether his attention has been called to the published opinion expressed last November by the present Sea Lords of the Admiralty concerning certain first-class battleships that their unarmoured ends make them vulnerable to a second-class cruiser, and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Board of Admiralty are familiar with the

  727
  constructive details of the ships mentioned in the hon. Member's Question, and no action is considered necessary.
  *CAPTAIN HERVEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Russo-Japanese War the unarmoured parts of ships had holes torn in them by shell over an extent of ten feet by eight feet?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member ought to give notice of that Question.

  The "Xema" Expedition.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the s.s. "Xema," bound for the Guano Islands on a mineral expedition under the British flag, flying the blue ensign, was stopped by one of His Majesty's cruisers; whether he is aware that His Majesty's cruisers "Crescent," "Terpsichore," and "Pelorus," were in that neighbourhood at the time; whether they were sent to that neighbourhood for the purpose of intercepting the s.s. "Xema"; if so, by whose order the ships were despatched on this mission: and whether the costs of despatching the above cruisers are to be paid by the Government of this country or by the Government of Cape Colony?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. His Majesty's ships "Terpsichore," and "Pelorus" were in the neighbourhood of the Guano Islands at the same time as the "Xema," but not His Majesty's ship "Crescent," which was at Simon's Bay. The two vessels first named proceeded to Walfisch Bay to carry out battle practice in accordance with arrangements made by the Commander-in-Chief so far back as June last. On the representation of the Cape Colony Government the Commander-in-Chief directed them to call at the Guano Islands en route. The "Terpsichore" found the "Xema" there, but took no action beyond warning her master of the Cape Government's proclamation against landing, and immediately left for Walfisch Bay. The "Pelorus" passed the islands without sighting the ''Xema." The point raised in the last art of the Question does not arise.

  The Disturbances at Portsmouth Naval Barracks.
  MR. GODFEEY BARING (Isle of Wight): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of the recent insubordinate conduct amongst the naval stokers at the Naval Barracks, Portsmouth.
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: A court of inquiry has been constituted to inquire into the whole Question. Their report is not expected until next Monday, and in the meantime it will not be possible for me to make any statement.
  MR. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any information to justify the belief that an order was given with the intention of punishing and humiliating the men? Will the men have full opportunity of stating their case before the inquiry?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There is no doubt.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman favour the House with the terms of reference?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the terms of reference would include inquiry into the general circumstances of the disturbance.
  MR. DALZIEL: Will it include inquiry into the character of the officer and the allegations made against him?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot say anything further on the subject.
  MR. BOWLES: Is it the present intention of the Admiralty to lay the report before the House?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The practice has not been to make public important documents of that kind. They are intended for the opinion of the Admiralty: but the action of the Admiralty will be made public.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): Will the men be represented on the Court?
  *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The court will consist of a rear-admiral and a commodore.

  The Home Fleet.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to Clause 3 of the Admiralty Memorandum of the 24th October, how many ships will be withdrawn from the Channel, Mediterranean, and Atlantic Fleets in the process of organising the new Home Fleet; how is the statement in Clauses 1 and 3, that a distinct Fleet will be constituted from the ships in commission in reserve, reconciled with the further statement in Clause 3, that the existing sea - going Fleets are to be reduced for the purpose; with reference to the statement in Clause 2 that the vessels first required in war will have the largest complements what proportion will such complements bear to full complements; what is considered an adequate complement of officers and men for ships in special reserve (Clause 2): and what will be done with the ships in special reserve which are replaced by other ships (Clause 2).
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The hon. and learned Member invites me to make a series of statements respecting the details of the scheme for the redistribution of the Fleet. As that scheme is still in course of development, and will not assume a complete shape for some months, it is not possible to give any definite information at present as to points of detail; nor, if possible, would it—in the opinion of the Admiralty—be in the interests of the public service to do so. I hope the hon. and learned Member will, in the meantime, be content with the assurance given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Gravesend, that the Admiralty consider that the redistribution of ships about to be made adds to the fighting efficiency of the Fleet.
  *CAPTAIN HERVEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that no man shall be kept in barracks who is available for drafting to one of the ships of the newly-constituted Home Fleet?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I will submit the suggestion to my colleagues at the Admiralty, but there is no intention to increase the number of men in barracks.
  CAPTAIN HERVEY: Is there any intention to decrease the number of men in barracks?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: We believe that the net result of the scheme, which is still incomplete, will be an increase and not a diminution of the sea-service officers and men, taken as a whole.

  Obsolete Battleships.
  MR. F. E. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether in view of the fact that the Admiralty have placed the six so-called first-class battleships, "Sanspareil," "Anson," "Camperdown." "Benbow," "Howe," and "Rodney," in the class of obsolete warships on which no money is spent for maintenance, their names will be removed from the next annual Return of Fleets (Great Britain and Foreign Countries) when at present they appear in the list as first-class battleships; and whether he can explain why these ships appear in the Navy List, while a number of cruisers in the same class of the reserve have had their names removed from the Navy List.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The question of removing the six battleships named from the next annual Return of Fleets will certainly be considered. The hon. and learned Member does not mention the names of the cruisers to which he refers, but I am informed that there are no cruisers in the same class of reserve as that to which the ships mentioned by the hon. and learned Member belong.
  *CAPTAIN HERVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that the annual Return of the ships presented to this House shall include only those ships which are considered by the Admiralty as efficient for taking their place in the line of battle?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Return is made in obedience to the order of this House, and perhaps that order will have to be amended.
  *CAPTAIN HERVEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the order of the House is amended?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am desirous that the Return should give an accurate, complete and faithful picture of the strength of the Navy.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Have the Admiralty received any protest from the mover of the Return against the form in which it is given?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I never made a protest because the Return must be made in the form which the Admiralty think most convenient.

  Army Service Corps.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take to attract the best officers of the Army to the Army Service Corps, and so re-establish it in the high position it should fill in public estimation, having regard to the importance of its duties to every soldier in peace or war.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddington): There is no lack of suitable candidates for the Army Service Corps. Measures are under consideration to ensure that selected officers of this corps shall undergo technical training in the higher duties of military administration.

  St. Helena.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the cost of maintaining the garrison at St. Helena during the last financial year; and what economy it is anticipated will be realised by the removal of the troops to other quarters.
  MR. HALDANE: The cost of the garrison of St. Helena in 1905–6 was approximately £35,000. Practically the whole sum will be saved by the removal of the garrison, as the troops withdrawn are not required for service elsewhere.

  Employment for Discharged Soldiers.
  COLONEL WARDE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  732
  War whether he can state how many soldiers who served in the South African War and have since been either passed to the Reserve or discharged have been given employment in Government Departments.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir, the information required is not in the possession of my Department.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for the Army, take steps to ascertain from other Departments how many soldiers have been given employment?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know if there is material from which to gain the information.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: If a Return is moved for will the right hon. Gentleman agree to it?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not know if I am in a position to do that.

  War Office Allotments at Fittleton.
  MR. ROGERS (Wiltshire, Devizes): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the allotment holders on War Office property in the parish of Fittleton, Wilts, were informed, when they went to pay their rents for the past year, on the 17th October, that the rents had been increased by ¼. a pole, without due notice having been given to the tenants of such increase; and that the alleged reason is to make the tenants pay the cost of rates on the land; and whether, in view of the fact that the rents are already fully commensurate with the value and situation of the land, and have been hitherto, as in the case of neighbouring allotments on War Office property, taken to include payment of rates, he will inquire what justification exists for disturbing the existing terms on which these allotments are held.
  MR. HALDANE: The rents were raised as stated. It appears from the inquiry that has been made that the rents can be raised only by determining the agreement except with the tenants' consent, and that the agreement can only be determined by three months' notice expiring at Michaelmas being given.

  733
  As this notice was not given this year, instructions have been issued to refund to the allotment holders the amounts of rates levied in the shape of increased rents. I may add that the sum in question is £1 11s 3d. per annum only, which is spread over some twenty-five allotments.
  MR. ROGERS: Do not the rents represent the full value of the land?
  MR. HALDANE: I will inquire.

  Private Contractors and Government Contracts.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if there is any agreement between the Government and private contractors as to the allocation of contracts for war materials and stores; and, if so, will he inform the House as to its terms.
  MR. HALDANE: As regards allocation of orders between the Ordnance

  Period.

  Number of Discharges.

  Workmen Producers.

  Officials.

  Reduction.

  Other Causes.

  Reduction.

  Other Causes.

  From week ending 6th January, 1906.

  1,128

  458

  21

  46

  To week ending 27th October, 1906.

  Workmen producers.

  Officials.

  Strength on 27th October, 1906.

  12,291

  1,490

  Cost of Production at Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can supply the House with particulars as to the cost of war materials and stores produced at the Woolwich Arsenal, and the cost of similar materials and stores purchased from private contractors.
  MR. HALDANE: The cost of stores produced at Woolwich Arsenal is given
  Factories and the trade, there is no agreement with private contractors, nor are there any fixed proportions governing the allocation of various stores, but for guns there is a general understanding with the trade that as a rule the proportion shall be one-third for the Ordnance Factories and two-thirds for the trade. Also that the rough forgings for the largo guns allotted to Woolwich shall be ordered from the steel trade. The allocation of orders is dealt with each year on the amount of the orders required for the year.

  Discharges from Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of workmen (producers) discharged during the year from the Woolwich Arsenal, and also the number of officials; also the number of workmen (producers) retained, and the number of officials.
  MR. HALDANE: The figures asked for are as follows:—
  in the annual accounts of the Ordnance Factories. It is not the practice to divulge the prices paid for similar stores to private contractors.
  MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, while discharges of workmen have been carried out at Woolwich Arsenal and expensive plant of the nation

  735
  made non-productive, the private contractors engaged in the manufacture of war material and stores have been well employed.
  MR. HALDANE: No, Sir, the information at my disposal does not bear out the hon. Member's statement as regards those firms having been well employed on the orders of this Department. As I stated on the 31st ultimo, in reply to a Question of my hon. friend the Member for North Paddington, † I am satisfied that the Government factories have received the fullest possible proportion of the Government orders for war material.
  MR. BARNESsaid his Question was as to the allocation of the work having regard to the fact that the other places were busy. He wanted to know what the other works were doing.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was only dealing with Government work. There was a certain amount of material which the Department must order in part, at any rate, from contractors. They could not break the practice, because it was necessary to encourage other establishments in case of an outbreak of war. Their first care, however, was for their own factories.
  MR. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W.R., Sowerby)inquired whether it was not the fact, while orders were given to certain private firms in order to ensure a reserve of machinery, that when it came to a time of war there was no reserve of machinery, and that every machine which was capable of turning out Government work was employed.
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot say whether that is so.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked what proportion of Government orders was given to private factories?
  *MR. WALTERSasked whether the workmen employed by private factories were not as deserving as those employed by the Government.
  † See (4)Debates, elxiii., 1089.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether, when an undertaking was given to supply certain factories with work for a certain number of years, the possibility of discharges from the Arsenal was taken into account.
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, that is considered.
  MR. CROOKSasked whether contractors who were now taking particulars of work at the Arsenal paid a bonus for the information which was being supplied from the Arsenal, and whether he was aware that the contractors were in the Arsenal getting the information day after day. If they were foreigners they would be locked up.
  MR. HALDANEsaid that if such a thing were brought to his notice he would deal with it very sharply.
  MR. CROOKS: They are there. Two were there on the 6th inst.

  Crimean and Indian Mutiny Veterans.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many Crimean War and Indian Mutiny veterans are inmates of workhouses, and how many are in receipt of out-door relief; what are the maximum and minimum pensions given to such pensioners; and whether he will consider the advisability of arranging that old soldiers who have merited a pension and whose infirmities or age prevents them following any occupation should be awarded such an allowance as will prevent them applying for poor law relief, or being wholly or in part dependent upon charity.
  MR. HALDANE: With regard to the first clause of the Question, the information asked for is not in my possession; as regards the second clause, the minimum pension to those in necessitous circumstances is 9d. a day, which is increased to 1s. a day when the veteran reaches the age of seventy. Moreover, when the veterans have been wounded or discharged for disability or are suffering from a disability due to military service, these pensions are raised to 1s. 6d. a day for a private, 2s. for a corporal, and 2s. 6d. for a sergeant. The

  737
  provision made for these old soldiers appears to me to meet the necessities of the case.

  Discharges from Netley Hospital.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will postpone the discharge of invalids unfit for work from Netley Hospital until the House of Commons has had an opportunity of considering what provision can he made for them.
  MR. HALDANE: I am afraid that, as I intimated in answer to a supplementary Question on the 5th instant, † until Parliament places the necessary money in Army Estimates, I cannot undertake to depart from the course being followed. The Question does not refer to people suffering from wounds, but to people suffering from ordinary illness contracted a long time ago. It is absolutely necessary, in the interests of mercy, that they should give place to more urgent cases. The number of beds is strictly limited, and if they were occupied by people who were merely bedridden they would be depriving others, for whom the accommodation is absolutely essential, of the opportunity of treatment. The course which is being taken is that which is taken in the other great hospitals in the country.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not, in the circumstances, postpone the discharge of these invalids till the House had had an opportunity of giving him the provision which he had no doubt it would give.
  MAJOR SEELYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries into the facts of the case. Were there not many hundreds of beds unoccupied? If that was the case, if he had been misinformed, would he consider the advisability of giving these unfortunate men a certain amount of respite?
  MR. HALDANE: If there are unoccupied beds, that would be a reason for not being in a hurry. I will undertake to inquire, and if that is so, to take more time in the matter. It is obvious, how-
  † See Col. 109.
  738
  ever, that these invalids are proper people for a home.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTpressed the right hon. Gentleman to give a pledge that those invalids who were unfit for work would not be turned out of the hospital until the House had had an opportunity of considering their case. If the right hon. Gentleman refused to give such a pledge, he intended to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. J. WARDhoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether he might not make an exception at least in those eases where the illness was contracted while the men were on foreign service.
  MR. HALDANE: Where the illness has arisen in the service of the nation or is due to some accident in the public service there would be a strong case for consideration. I will consider that case.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he had a case in mind.
  MR. HALDANE: I will consider that case and what my hon. and gallant friend has put to me, but I can give no further pledge.

  Newfoundland Modus Vivendi.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that in the case of the modus vivendi of 1890, on which it was stated by His Majesty's Government that the Government of Newfoundland were consulted, it being modified to meet their views, though not assented to by the Colony, Sir Baldwin Walker was successfully sued for damages which were afterwards paid by the British taxpayer: and whether, having regard to the two judgments in the Baird case, the provisions of a Newfoundland Act can be overridden by Imperial administrative arrangements not based on statute.
  THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): I am aware of the legal proceedings against the late Sir Baldwin Walker to which the right hon. Member refers and of their result; but I am unable, in answer

  739
  to a Question, to discuss their bearing upon the present situation.

  Labour in Johannesburg Mines.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the annual report of the Simmer and Jack Proprietary Mines of Johannesburg, wherein it is stated that in 1899, when Kaffirs were employed, for every 1,000 Kaffirs there were employed 130 white men, whilst in 1906, when Chinese and Kaffirs were employed, there were 156 white men employed for every 1,000 Chinese and Kaffirs, showing that with Chinese this great mine employs 19 per cent, more white labour than with Kaffirs before the war; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made whether the proportion of white men working at the producing mines has increased or diminished since the introduction of the Chinese.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen an account of the general meeting of the mine referred to in which the statement occurs that "through the general efficiency of the Chinese nearly 20 per cent, more white labour is now being employed than was the case with the Kaffirs before the war." The official figures for May, 1904, and August, 1906, show that in the former month the proportion of white men working on the producing mines on the Rand was 177 per thousand and in the latter month 118 per thousand, or a diminution of 33 per cent.

  Chief Tilonko's Appeal.
  MR. BYLES (Salford, N.): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the native chief Tilonko made application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on Friday last for special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decision of a court-martial in Natal which had sentenced him to ten years penal servitude and a fine of 500 head of cattle; that the application was dismissed with the costs on the ground that there was no right of appeal; that Tilonko's objection to the jurisdiction of the court-martial was on the grounds that he was not a military man, that he had not been taken in the field, that he had never taken up arms against the Government,
  740
  and that the civil Courts were sitting at the time of his trial; and whether any power resides in the Imperial Government to abate the heavy sentence awarded by court-martial on this distinguished subject of His Majesty.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen the account of the proceedings before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in The Times of the 3rd instant, when their Lordships decided that they could not entertain an appeal. His Majesty's Government are not in a position to interfere in the matter.

  Egyptian Irrigation.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether having regard to the fact that of the 50,000,000 tons of Nile mud which pass through the Assouan dam annually it is estimated that 30,000,000 tons are lost in the sea, while only 20,000,000 tons are utilised as manure, he will advise the Egyptian Government to adopt measures whereby such a large amount of waste may in future be prevented.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The Egyptian Government are fully aware of the importance of utilising the Nile flood to its fullest extent, and large sums are yearly spent in improving the irrigation system of the country. Irrigation has made very great progress in the last few years, and the progress will be continued, but it must be gradual.

  Egyptian Capitulations.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further action has been taken by the Egyptian Government in sequence to the circular which, as Lord Cromer states in his Annual Report for 1905, page 2, was addressed to the Powers suggesting, in anticipation of a renewal in February, 1905, of the functions of the Mixed Tribunals in Egypt, certain reforms in the working of the Egyptian capitulations; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of the replies received to that circular, and other information showing the present state of the negotiations.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The circular, to which the hon. Member alludes, invited the Powers to take part in an International Commission to consider the question of making certain changes in the law and procedure of the Mixed Courts. The assent of all the Powers having been obtained, the Commission commenced their deliberations, with the result that in March last, five draft laws applicable to foreigners, which had been drawn up by the Commission, were submitted to His Majesty's Government for their approval. His Majesty's Government notified their approval to the Government of Egypt in April, but I have not yet been informed whether the approval of all the other Powers has been obtained. The only correspondence of which His Majesty's Government have cognisance, is that between them and the Government of Egypt, the purport of which I have already notified above. The replies of the other Powers will doubtless be dealt with in Lord Cromer's Annual Report, which will in due course be laid before the House; the matter does not appear to His Majesty's Government to be of sufficient urgency to warrant the immediate publication of separate papers.

  Egyptian Imports of Alcoholic Liquors.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will procure from the Egyptian Government, for the information of the House, a statement as to amounts and values of alcoholic liquors imported into Egypt during each of the years 1900 to 1906, showing the places of origin and destination and the nationalities of the consignors and consignees; also a statement of the number of distilleries and breweries for the manufacture of alcoholic liquors, showing in each case the towns and provinces in which they are situated, and the amounts and values of the outputs together with the nationalities of the proprietors for each of the years between 1900 and 1906.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I will make inquiry and get as much of the information asked for as is obtainable.

  The Admission of Undesirable Aliens.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  742
  if his attention has been called to the frequent cases in which foreign Governments refuse permission to land to undesirable aliens who are refused permission to land in England and are returned to the ports whence they sailed, also to the cases of aliens who are sentenced to deportation by our Courts; and whether he will consider the advisability of some international arrangement under which each country should be obliged to provide asylum for its own native subjects when for any reason they are expelled from a foreign country.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware of certain cases of the nature described. The matter is regarded by His Majesty's Government as one of importance, and is engaging the consideration of my right hon. friend the Home Secretary and of myself.

  Loughborough Brush Company and the Truck Act
  MR. T. F. RICHARDS (Wolverhampton, W.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Loughborough licensing justices have granted a licence to the brush company at Loughborough for the sale at their works of intoxicating liquors for the benefit of those workmen who are living on the premises during the present dispute; and whether, seeing that such permission makes such premises so licensed a public-house, and in view of the provisions of the Truck Act, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what, steps in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): Yes, Sir. I have made inquiry into the matter, but so far as I am able to judge from the facts which have been brought to my knowledge, I cannot find that any breach of the Truck or other Acts has taken place. The magistrates appear to have been within their powers in granting the licence.

  Mining Royalties.
  MR. FULLERTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the value of the mineral royalties which have been paid during the past five years in the

  743
  counties of Cumberland, Northumberland, and Durham, respectively.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information as to the amount paid in mining royalties in these counties later than that which is contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on mining royalties in 1893; but my hon. friend will find particulars as to the rates in question in Paragraph 19 of that Report.

  Case of Richard Flynn.
  MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether representations were made to the Home Office on 4th April, 1906, respecting the case of Richard Flynn, who was arrested, convicted, and sentenced at the Clerkenwell Sessions, 7th June, 1905, for an alleged watch robbery; whether he is aware that in the first trial, on 6th June, 1905, the jury after due deliberation did not agree that Flynn was guilty, and that he was accordingly discharged, but was arrested next day, 7th June, 1905, tried upon the same charge, and convicted, and that the detective, Burrell, who made the charge against Flynn was the same officer who had a case before the Marylebone Police Court on 24th May, 1905, in which Flynn gave evidence in favour of the innocence of the accused; whether he is aware that Flynn was arrested outside the Marylebone Police Court on the mere statement of someone in court who alleged that he recognised Flynn as one of a gang concerned in a watch robbery; and whether, having regard to these circumstances, he will institute inquiries with a view to ascertaining whether justice has been done.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The whole case has received the most careful consideration both from myself and from the late Home Secretary. Flynn was recognised at the Marylebone Police Court on the 24th May, 1905, by two persons as the man who was concerned with another in a robbery committed on one of them; these persons were most positive in their identification and the police would have altogether failed in their duty if they had not arrested and charged him with the felony. On the 6th June, the first jury empannelled to try the charge could not agree; Flynn, of course, was not discharged, but following the ordin-
  744
  ary course, he was put up for trial by a second jury, who, after a careful hearing, found a verdict of guilty. In consequence of his strenuous assertions of innocence the police instituted most exhaustive inquiries in the case, but failed to discover any facts that would have justified the Secretary of State in advising the remission of the sentence. Another man, however, surrendered and confessed to being concerned in the robbery; he was arraigned on that charge and pleaded guilty. The case was full of difficulty, and far too complicated to allow of my attempting any résumé of the facts within the limits of an Answer, but I may say that I entirely agree with my predecessor's decision to release Flynn from prison, and also with his well-considered opinion that the case was not one for recommending any grant of compensation from public funds.
  MR. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the detective actually threatened Flynn when he gave evidence in another case?
  MR. J. WARD: Is there no evidence of bias and malice on the part of the detective, and under these circumstances should not Flynn be compensated?
  MR. GLADSTONE: He got the benefit of the doubt. I do not think we can go beyond that.

  Case of Elizabeth Perkins.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the case of Elizabeth Perkins, who was recently charged at the Tower Bridge Police Court with perjury on the evidence of three police constables and a female searcher, but who was discharged without a stain on her character, the police authorities admitting that a mistake had been made, and agreeing to pay her expenses; and what compensation he proposes to pay this woman for the serious injury done to her.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the full statement which I made yesterday in answer to the Questions put to me by several hon. Members.†
  † See col. 540.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: Is it proposed to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the circumstances of this case and into the efficiency or otherwise of the officer who committed this blunder?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.

  Heavy Sentence at the Bedford Quarter Sessions.
  MR. THORNE (West Ham, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the cases of George Woods and William Charles Hutchinson, who wore sentenced to penal servitude for five years by the recorder, Mr. W. Russell Griffiths, at the Bedford Quarter Sessions, for breaking window panes; and if he will consider the possibility of reducing their sentences, considering the circumstances under which the offences were committed and there being no previous conviction against them.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentence of five years penal servitude passed by the Bedford Recorder at the Borough Quarter Sessions on two men for breaking a plate glass window in High Street, Bedford; and whether in view of the punishment awarded and the character of the crime, he will take steps to secure a reduction of the sentence.
  MR. GLADSTONE: This extraordinary case was brought to my notice some days ago by my hon. friend the Member for Bedford. I inquired into it at once, but I am not yet in possession of all the facts, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his Question.

  Case of Max Nettlau.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been reported to him that M. Max Nettlau was refused permission to land in this country because he refused to undergo a medical examination under the terms of the Aliens Act; whether he is aware that Dr. Nettlau is a Doctor of Philosophy who for twenty years past has paid an annual visit to this country for the purpose of studying at the British Museum;
  746
  and whether he will give instructions to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have this matter under my consideration, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will post-pone his Question for a few days.
  *MR. BYLES (Salford, N.): Is it not possible to introduce a Bill to repeal this inhospitable and un-English Act?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Committals for Trial.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the number of cases in which persons are kept in prison for long periods before being brought to trial; whether he is aware that, according to the judicial statistics for 1904, eighteen persons were acquitted after having been kept in prison for several months before trial; and whether he will take any steps to remedy this state of things.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have had under my consideration the statistics to which the hon. Member refers, and have consulted the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice with regard to the long delay which occasionally occurs before prisoners can be tried. The result was that in August last I issued a circular strongly urging on magistrates the importance of granting bail more freely in proper cases to prisoners committed for trial.

  Judicial Statistics.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the judicial statistics for the year 1905 will be published.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The preparation of these statistics is an enormously heavy task, but I hope that if no fresh demands are made upon the Statistical Department of the Home Office, the criminal statistics may be published in about six weeks.

  Child Life Insurance.
  MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether

  747
  his attention has been given to the number of cases in which parents draw-considerable sums from insurance companies on the death of their infant children through neglect and ill-usage; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to put an end to the practice of infant insurance.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Cases of the nature referred to have, occasionally, come to my notice. I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave in this House on the 16th July last to the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, † in which I explained the law on the subject, and I may add that the matter is under the consideration of my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, who hopes, if opportunity offers, to introduce legislation further limiting the sums of money which can be obtained in this manner.

  Quarry Accidents.
  MR. ELLIS DAVIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps, if any, have been taken in view of the statement on page 99 of the Reports on Mines and Quarries for 1905 (Labour) that accidents by falls would be reduced if more quarries were worked in steps or galleries instead of with a vertically continuous face of great height; whether he is aware that 33 per cent, of fatal accidents in quarries are due to falls; and whether, under those circumstances, the Report has been brought to the attention of quarry owners with a view to their adopting the gallery system wherever practicable.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No special steps have been taken to bring this particular remark to the notice of the quarry owners. The Report itself is widely circulated by the Home Office, and is reviewed at length in the trade papers. The point is no doubt present to the minds of all the inspectors, but they have no power to direct the adoption of any particular method of working. Special precautions against falls are contained in Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Special Rules for Quarries which has been established at a large number of quarries. These are enforced by the inspectors.
  † See (4) Debates, clx., 1335.
  748
  Quarry legislation is one of the numerous subjects which call for my attention.

  Borough Council Elections.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of voters were shut out and prevented from voting at the recent borough council elections in consequence of the polling stations being closed at 8 p.m., and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation next year to extend the hours of polling to 10 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question. I do not find that the Local Government Board have received any representations as to voters being prevented from voting at the recent elections of borough councillors on the ground to which my hon. friend refers. Note will be taken of the suggestion for legislation on the subject, but no promise could be given at the present time to introduce a Bill with regard to it next year.

  Loch Ryan Oyster Fishery.
  MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the action of the Loch Ryan Oyster Fishery Company in laying on the solum of the loch quantities of broken bricks and also boxes filled with stones; and, seeing that such action is a danger to shipping using the loch, which is of shallow depth, and is an important waterway between Scotland and North of Ireland, whether he will cause the practice to be prohibited in future, and also cause the present obstructions to be removed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the matter to which the hon. Member refers. It would take too long for me to read out the details of the case, but I shall be happy to show them afterwards to the hon. Member.

  The Ladies' College, Cheltenham.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education

  749
  whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the authorities at the Ladies' College, Cheltenham, the college being on the list of the Board of Education training colleges for elementary school teachers, to accept a pupil from the Leeds City Council Thoresby High School for Pupil Teachers, who, in accordance with the regulations, applied for admission; whether he can state that, in applying for admission to the Ladies' College, Cheltenham, the social status of the applicant determines admission; and, if so, seeing that the college in question is subsidised to an extent from public funds, what steps he intends to take in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): My attention has not been called to any such case as that described in the Question, except by private correspond-once with a Member of this House, in which no details of the case were given. I have no information whatever as to the grounds on which the College authorities refused admission. If the hon. Member will cause the case of the girl who was refused admission to be officially submitted to the Board, I will have it carefully investigated, as indeed I had already promised to the hon. Member who first named the matter to me.

  Bibles for Non-Provided Schools.
  MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W.R., Barkston Ash): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the Local Education Authority have refused to provide Bibles for use in the non-provided schools while making no such refusal in the case of the provided schools; and, if so, whether he will take steps to prevent such inequality of treatment in future.
  *MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W.R., Skipton): Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, is it not the fact that local education authorities are under no obligation to provide Bibles, catechisms, or any other religious textbooks in denominational schools, and has not the Court of Appeal decided chat the West Riding local authority has no control over, and consequently no responsibility whatever regarding re-
  750
  ligious instruction of any sort in non-provided schools?
  MR. LANE-FOX: I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with particulars of a case.
  MR. BIRKELL: No information has reached the Board of Education with regard to any such action on the part of the West Riding.
  DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.): Are we to understand that, so far as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there exists in this country a single denominational school not adequately supplied with Bibles by the managers, having regard to their well-known zeal for religious teaching?
  [No Answer was returned].

  Tenants of Crown Lands.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he will inform the House of the number of notices to quit served upon the agricultural tenants of Crown lands, specifying the length of previous occupation by such tenants and the special reasons given for terminating such tenancies; and what steps are being taken to form such lands when vacated into small holdings, and where such lands are situate.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: In consequence of the death of two of the Crown tenants, notice to quit has been given to their representatives. The tenants in question had occupied their farms, which are situated at Holbeach and at Walpole St. Andrews and Wingland, for twenty and fifteen years respectively. The farms referred to will not come in hand till next Michaelmas, and my noble friend is unable at present to make any statement as to the use that will be made of them. In addition, before my noble friend was appointed a Commissioner, notice to quit was given in the case of a farm near Scarborough, on the ground that the tenants did not themselves occupy the land, but were merely middlemen and that land was required by the Local

  751
  Authority for small holdings and allotments.

  Crown Receiver.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether it is intended to dismiss the present Crown Receiver; and, if so, for what reason; what steps are being taken to fill the position; what qualifications will be required for the position; and what remuneration will be paid to the next Receiver.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Notice has been given to the two firms who act at present as agents for the Crown lands that their services will not be required in future so far as concerns the agricultural properties which are to be placed under the charge of my noble friend. My noble friend desires me to say that the change of agency is not intended in any sense as a reflection on the honourable and conscientious manner in which the two firms in question have performed their duties, but that for the execution of the policy of utilising as far as possible the Crown lands for small holdings it is necessary to have agents who have had practical experience of the kind of work that will have to be done. Negotiations are now proceeding as to the appointment of new agents, but I cannot make any definite announcement on the subject at the present time. I may add that the Land Revenue Act, 1829, requires that every Crown Receiver should be "by profession a surveyor of lands or land steward, and accustomed to act as such, or otherwise skilled in the management and cultivation of lands, and competent to the superintendence thereof."
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNER: How many years have these gentlemen acted for the Crown?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I cannot say. It would be a considerable time.

  Land Tenure Bill.
  MR. PARTINGTON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can give an estimate
  752
  of the cost of making the records of the conditions of farms under Clause 8 of the Land Tenure Bill.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I am afraid it is impossible to give any estimate of the cost of making the records referred to. It will be a matter of arrangement between the parties in each particular case, and will obviously depend on the size of the farm and the amount of work involved.

  Prosecutions for Corrupt Electoral Practices.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will state the number of the cases, giving the names and places of the persons implicated, in which proceedings, and the nature of those proceedings, have been taken by the Treasury under the Corrupt Practices Act in respect of the general election of January, 1906.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): I have already answered this Question. I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with a list of the cases if he desires.

  King's Bench Trials.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that 70 per cent, of the cases tried in the King's Bench Division are in respect of sums of £100 and less; and whether he will advise a modification of the Order in Council, issued under the County Court Act, 1903, in order that such cases may be dealt with in the county courts.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I do not think a modification of the Order in Council would quite meet the case to which the hon. Gentleman calls attention. Legislation would be required, and I am not. prepared to advise at present that that course be adopted.

  Scottish. History.
  MR. GULLAND; I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish Education Department intends to take any definite steps to remedy the neglect in Scottish schools of Scottish history complained of by the Convention of Royal Burghs, and admitted in the recent Report on Secondary Education.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The responsibility for what history shall be taught in their own schools and what text-books shall be used rests in the first place upon school boards and school managers. But the Department has under consideration the advisability of issuing for the guidance of managers and teachers suggestions for the teaching of several school subjects, including history. The suggestions for the teaching of history will deal with the point mentioned by the hon. Member.
  MR. GULLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend Sir Walter Scott's Tales of a Grandfather as a text-book?
  MR. SINCLAIR: I shall be glad to consider that suggestion.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY (Cavan, W.): I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a Resolution from the Blacklion and Dowra Teachers' Association, drawing attention to the miserable salary paid to Irish national school teachers, to inadequate pensions, and to the delay in advancement and promotion of teachers; and, if so, in view of the gravity of delay in having the teachers' grievances put right, will he give this matter his first consideration.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): I have received the Resolution referred to. The whole question of salaries to Irish primary teachers is under the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education, and the Irish Government will gladly consider any proposals on the subject which the Commissioners may make.

  Evicted Farms in County Cavan.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners' inspector visited county Cavan recently; and, if so, how many owners of the fifty-two evicted farms now on the landlords' hands were visited; did any of these landlords refuse to see the inspector; did any of these
  754
  landlords refuse to allow the evicted tenant back; and, if so, how many.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that one of their inspectors is at present making inquiries into the cases of evicted tenants in county Cavan. Until these inquiries have been completed the Commisssioners are not in a position to give the details asked for in the Question, and, moreover, they do not think it desirable that they should furnish at irregular intervals piecemeal reports as to the progress of the work in different localities.

  Galway Election Disturbances.
  MR. BARRIE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there was much riot and disorder connected with the recent election for the town of Galway; and can he state the number of the electors on the register at present in force, the population of the town, and the number of police that were employed to keep order during the three days preceding the election and on the day of polling.
  MR. BRYCE: Reports which I have received from the police authorities indicate that on the afternoon of the 1st instant considerable disturbance and fighting took place at Galway. On the following day there was no disturbance, and on the third, the day of the polling, there was no general disturbance or riot, but some little fighting occurred. The number of electors in Galway is 2,250, and the population about 16,000. No extra police were employed at Galway on 31st October. The number of police employed on 1st November was sixty; on 2nd November, 100; and on 3rd November, the polling day, 200. These figures include ten men of the ordinary town force.

  Lord Fermoy's Limerick Estates.
  MR. LUNDON (Limerick, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the preliminary documents for sale and purchase as between landlord and tenants were perfected in the case of Lord Fermoy and the tenants on the Kilcullane, Cahirguillamore, and other lands in the parishes of Herbertstown and Grange, county Limerick; is he aware that Lord

  755
  Fermoy subsequently withdrew his sanction to the sale unless the tenants paid a higher price, and on their refusal to do so served on them writs for rents to be tried in the superior courts, and, in the case of one tenant, Mr. Martin Hogan, served a process to be tried before the county court judge at the Bruff Quarter Sessions, which he subsequently withdrew before going into court; and will he consider the advisability of taking steps to save tenants from being harassed by lawsuits where the title is doubtful.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no proceedings in connection with the sale of Lord Fermoy's estate are pending before them, and they have no knowledge of the legal proceedings referred to in the Question. The Government have no power to restrain landlords from taking legal proceedings.

  Adara Evicted Tenants.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on 25th September last the Earl of Dunraven evicted from his holding in Ardshanbally Adara, a farmer named Thomas Drew, who held as tenant from year to year; is he aware that since his eviction, six weeks ago, Thomas Drew, with his delicate wife, have been obliged to live in an insanitary cabin; does he know that in order to the more effectually deprive Thomas Drew of any title to his holding a caretaker's agreement from the rent office, in the name of the Earl of Dunraven, was served on him which he refused to sign; can he say whether all the other evicted tenants on the Dunraven property have been reinstated; and will the Estates Commissioners send an inspector to see to the reinstatement of Thomas Drew.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of the facts alleged in the Question in reference to the case of Thomas Drew, from whom no communication has been received. The Commissioners have received eight applications for reinstatement on the estate mentioned. Six of the applicants have been reinstated by the Commissioners, one was outside the scope of the Act, and the remaining case has not yet been dealt with.

  Complaint against Mr. P. J. Kelly, J.P., of Loughrea.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 12th October Mr. P. J. Kelly, while adjudicating on the bench at the Loughrea Petty Sessions, publicly expressed approval of seditious statements made in court by a person charged with disorderly conduct at Gortymadden; if the Lord-Chancellor has expressed disapproval of Mr. Kelly's statement about grabbers, police, and British Government; and if Mr. Kelly has been called upon to withdraw the statement or resign his seat on the bench.
  MR. BRYCE: My attention had not been called to the fact alleged in the Question, and I have no information on the subject. I have, however, referred the Question to the Lord Chancellor, but, owing to the short notice given, there has not been time for the Lord Chancellor's observations to reach me.
  MR. LONSDALE: I will repeat the Question in a few days.

  Provision for the Irish Unemployed.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what will be the Irish share of the £200,000 which the President of the Local Government Board has announced will be voted for the unemployed.
  MR. BRYCE.If the hon. Member will refer to the Supplementary Estimates of the present session, Class VII., he will see that the provision of £200,000 for the purposes of the Unemployed Workmen Act is to be allocated by the Treasury between England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I understand that the allocation has not yet been made.

  River Floods in the North of Ireland.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has been informed that several of the principal rivers in the north of Ireland have overflowed their banks and that miles of low-lying country districts are under water; that in several parts of Derry, Fermanagh, and Monaghan, hundreds of acres of potatoes have been

  757
  totally destroyed, and that farmers are compelled to use boats to remove horses and cattle from dangerous positions; and whether he will advise the Commission on arterial drainage to visit the flooded districts so as to take an object lesson on the subject matter of their inquiry.
  MR. BRYCE: I had not received information to the effect mentioned in the Question. I have, however, referred the Question to the Secretary of the Commission on Arterial Drainage, and am informed that the Commission will sit in Belfast to-day and on the remaining days of this week, and the hon. Member's suggestion will be brought before the Commissioners for their consideration.
  *MR. DELANY: Is it not the fact that the state of things is much worse along the basin of the Barrow?
  MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to that.

  Irish Training Colleges.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if, since the settlement arrived at in 1890 in connection with the training colleges in Ireland, that settlement has been sot aside by the action of the Government in granting a sum of £50,000 for buildings for the Government College in Marl-borough Street, Dublin; whether he is aware that since 1890 three colleges have been established, one at Waterford, one at Belfast, and one at Limerick, with the assent of the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Commissioners of National Education, who considered them necessary in order to provide a sufficient supply of trained teachers; whether he is aware that under the present system these colleges at Belfast, Limerick, and Waterford have to pay interest on their loan and sinking fund out of their annual earning, thus reviving in their cases the grievances which were removed in the case of the colleges which were in existence in 1890; will he say if the Treasury have refused to redress these grievances on the ground that they have not been pressed to do so by the Irish Office; and whether, in view of the hardship which is being inflicted on the managers of these colleges, and the detri-
  758
  mental effect the present policy is having upon the education and training of hundreds of teachers, he will take steps to impress on the Treasury the urgent necessity of acceding to the request which has been made to them for a free home grant.
  MR. BRYCE: The Board of National Education did make representations in favour of what is called a "free home grant" to the Limerick College, but do not appear to have made any similar representations in respect of the colleges at Belfast and Waterford. These provincial colleges have all been opened since 1890, with the full knowledge on the part of the promoters that a building grant would not be given to them, and I am informed that the Irish Government and the Treasury have consistently refused subsequent applications on behalf of these colleges for a grant to clear off the loans taken up for building purposes. The grant of £50,000 for new buildings, in connection with the Marlborough Street Training College, was made by the late Government two years ago out of the Irish Development Grant. It cannot be admitted that the making of that grant re-opened the settlement arrived at in 1890. The intention of that settlement was then stated to he to place the three denominational training colleges in Dublin on an equality of treatment as to building grants, with that previously accorded to the undenominational training college at Marl-borough Street under the control of the Commissioners. The reasons for making the grant in 1904 were fully stated in this House by the right hon. Member for Dover, 16th March, 1904, † and His Majesty's present Government have had nothing whatever to do with that matter. The question of grants for these colleges has not been the subject of discussion between the present Irish Government and the Treasury since we came into office, inasmuch as there was no reason to think that the attitude of the Treasury, who in November, 1905, positively refused to entertain a similar proposal, would be at all modified. The managers of two of these colleges, however, appealed directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose reply—it cannot have been accurately conveyed to the hon. and
  † See (4)Debates, cxxxi., 1259, 1260, 1313.

  759
  learned Member—was not that which might be gathered from the Question, because while stating that, he could not properly take any action upon the matter, except upon the recommendation of the Chief Secretary, my right hon. friend added that he had looked into the history of the subject and did not think it likely that the previous decisions would be modified. There are so many questions connected with Irish Education in its various branches on which the Irish Government are constantly pressing the Treasury for further expenditure, some of which engage a public attention that extends over the whole of Ireland, that I am not prepared to give a prominent and exceptional place to the Question of further expenditure on any training college. The question of the training of teachers is no doubt one of great importance, but it must be dealt with as a whole; and, as I have said, there are other branches of education in Ireland, expenditure on which is a matter of more importance and greater urgency.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to publishing the correspondence as a Parliamentary Paper or allowing me to have a copy of it?
  MR. BKYCE.I will look into it to see if that can be done.

  Arklow Harbour.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE (Wexford, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the report on Arklow Harbour recently furnished to the Irish Government was made at the request of the Government or on the initiative of the Department of Agriculture.
  MR. BRYCE: The report in question was furnished at the request of the Irish Government and not on the initiative of the Department of Agriculture

  Courtown Harbour.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the fishermen at Courtown, county Wexford, have been unable to get to sea for some time past owing to the silting up of the harbour; if the dredger, promised on 22nd October last
  760
  by the Department of Agriculture, has been sent to Courtown; and whether, in view of the fact that for years past the fishermen at Courtown, and at other places on the south-east coast of Ireland, have been continually making representations to successive Governments with a view to the improvement of their harbours, he will seriously consider the question of giving them the same opportunities of earning their living as are given to fishermen in Scotland and in other parts of Ireland.
  MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture are aware that the larger boats at Courtown have recently been prevented from leaving the harbour, owing to the condition of the bar. A similar state of affairs existed at the end of the year 1904. The Department, in co-operation with the county council, then cleared the entrance by the use of a steam crane and grab working from the pier. On learning, on 22nd October, that the entrance to the harbour had again become choked, the Department took immediate steps to have the crane moved from Arklow to Courtown; and it is now being erected there. The greater number of harbours on the east coast are purely artificial, and are liable to become choked by accumulations of sand. The Department are now in possession of a sand pump dredger, which is available for use in harbours suitable to her capacities, and arrangements could be made for placing her at the disposal of such harbour authorities as are prepared to cooperate in providing for her expense.

  Irish Policy of the Government.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether a draft or outline of the Government proposals with regard to changes in the government of Ireland which are intended to be embodied in legislation next session has been submitted to the leader or leaders of the Nationalist Party; and whether he can state when the public will have an opportunity of considering the scheme.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): No statement regarding the Government's proposals for Irish legislation next session can at present be made. It would be altogether unusual to do so.

  761
  As to the persons who may or may not be consulted, I have nothing to say; but I shall be very glad to consult the hon. Member if he will allow me.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give mo an opportunity of consulting with him?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am always available.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., with Amendments.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 344.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 344.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 352.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. T. L. CORBETT, Member for North Down, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the decision of the Government to discharge a number of invalid soldiers, who are unable to earn their livelihood, from Netley Hospital, without giving the House of Commons an opportunity of considering what provision can be made for them;" and, the pleasure of the House being signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight this evening.

  LAND TENURE BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), further considered.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)rose to move the following Amendment to Clause 2—
  "In page 2, line 9, at end, to insert the words, 'Provided that in the case of Ireland, where the tenant has bought out under any of the Land Purchase Acts, no such charge shall be imposed on the Irish Development
  *MR. SPEAKER: As I understood it, the Bill does not apply to Ireland, and if that be so the hon. Member's Amendment is out of order.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY (Somersetshire, S.)said that the clause itself could not possibly refer to Ireland, and he would further say that it was the intention of the Government to strike out Clause 3, which was the only clause which did apply to Ireland.
  *MR. SPEAKERruled the Amendment out of order.
  MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)in moving to insert in Clause 2 after the word "agreement" the words "made after the damage has been suffered," said that his object was to put right what he thought was obviously a slight error in the drafting of the section, because it said in the first sub-section that "any agreement to the contrary shall be void" and subsequently that "the amount of compensation payable under this section shall in default of agreement." Clearly the meaning of the word "agreement" was an agreement by which landlord and tenant bargained beforehand that there should be no compensation. Landlord and tenant should be able to fix the amount by agreement made after the damage was done without the expense of arbitration.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 11, after the word 'agreement,' to insert the words 'made after the damage has been Buffered.' "—(Mr. Beale.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYintimated that the Government proposed to accept the Amendment together with a similar Amendment which he understood was going to be moved and which, in application, was identical with that of his hon. friend.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. PAULTONmoved to insert after the word "arbitration" the words "and the arbitrator shall have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game

  763
  has been taken into consideration." The object of the Amendment was to meet the case of damage by game having been taken into consideration in determining the rent, and to give the landlord some protection against being called on to pay twice over. He noticed that the Solicitor-General had placed an Amendment upon the Paper which for all he knew might entirely achieve the object he had in view. He felt bound, however, to move his own Amendment, because his right hon. and gallant friend the Member for Shropshire had agreed to accept it in lieu of an Amendment he himself had on the Paper. While he was quite willing, if hon. Gentlemen were satisfied with the proposal of the Solicitor-General, to withdraw in its favour, he rather preferred his own and shorter form of Amendment. It was not necessary to discuss the matter further, especially as his whole object was to save the time of the House upon a very small question, upon which they had virtually come to an agreement during the previous day's debate, viz., that the tenant should not receive compensation twice over where compensation had been given in determining the rent. If those in charge of the Bill and hon. Members opposite were willing he was quite ready to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the Solicitor-General. There might be in the complicated and legal phraseology points which required explanation, and for this reason also he would withdraw his own Amendment, if desired.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 11, after the word 'arbitration,' to insert the words, 'and the arbitrator shall have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration'—"(Mr. Paulton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid he quite agreed that something was required to make the clause clearer in its meaning, but he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, because the Solicitor-General had a similar Amendment on the Paper which he (Sir Edward Strachey) thought was preferable.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURhoped the hon. Gentleman would
  764
  not withdraw his Amendment. It was a better one than that of which notice had been given by the Solicitor-General. Perhaps the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would explain to the House why the Solicitor-General's Amendment was preferable to that of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The latter was shorter and more easily understood, and he could see no possible reason for its non-acceptance. It was much clearer and contained fewer words, whilst that of the learned Solicitor-General was long, cumbersome, and difficult to understand.
  *MR. WHITBREADhoped the Amendment moved by his hon. friend would not be dismissed quite so summarily by the Front Bench. On the previous afternoon they had been engaged in a lengthy discussion over an Amendment which, according to the general consensus of opinion in the House, aimed at the object they had in view. It was explained, however, from the Front Bench that it would not achieve the object desired. Unquestionably in the letting and taking of a farm, the probability of damage by game almost always entered into consideration. It was the general consensus of opinion in the House that, this being so, it was desirable to have some form of words inserted in the Bill giving power to the arbitrator, when considering a claim for damage by a tenant, to take notice of any such consideration, if embodied in the agreement and affecting the rent. Personally, he much preferred the Amendment before the House, because it almost exactly reproduced what he believed to be the sense of the House on the previous afternoon. If there were points which needed explanation, and rendered the Solicitor-General's Amendment preferable, it was all the more reason why they should not hastily discard the proposal under discussion.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODbelieved there was a general agreement that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland covered the ground better than that of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)said that as the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill had suggested that the

  765
  Amendment before the House should be withdrawn in favour of one standing in the name of the Solicitor-General, it behoved them to look at both in order to see in what respect they differed. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that—
  "The arbitrator should have regard to any existing arrangements between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration,"
  whereas that of the Solicitor - General stated that—
  "Where the landlord proves that under a contract of tenancy, made before the commencement of this Act, any compensation for damage by game is payable, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such agreement allowance to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall, in assessing the compensation under this section, make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may appear just."
  It seemed to him that there was a great difference between the two Amendments. Under the Solicitor-General's Amendment no arrangement between landlord and tenant would have any effect, whereas under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland it seemed to be open to the tenant and landlord to take into consideration, when making a letting, any possible damage that might be done by game. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would persist in his Amendment, which was perfectly clear and short, and the purport of which was more easily understood by the ordinary layman than the technical Amendment of the Solicitor-General.
  THE SOLICITOR - GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE, Linlithgowshire)thought he could explain why the Government preferred the Amendment of the Solicitor-General to that of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The real object was to insert a clause which would make specific provision for the value of the loss caused by game. What the Government were anxious to avoid was that the landlord should pay compensation twice over. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General guarded against that danger, so that if the arbitrator found in the lease some clause by which there had been an anticipation as to the damage done by game, he would take it into account. That would quite rightly throw upon the landlord the onus of showing from the lease that
  766
  he had already by anticipation made an allowance or compensation in respect of damage by game, and that, therefore, it would be grossly inequitable to ask him to pay over again. The two Amendments really came to the same thing; but in the view of the Government it was much better that the arbitrator should have his attention drawn to the point which they all had in view.
  *MR. COURTHOPEthought that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was wrong. It had been made abundantly clear, from the speeches delivered on the previous day, that very often allowance was made for the amount of damage done by game by a reduction of rent. In the southern counties farms were let by yearly agreements, which were usually made out in the same form for a whole estate. He hold in his hand a form of such agreement which was frequently adopted. He could assure the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland that, although no express mention was made of compensation for damage caused by game, considerable differences were made in the rent of different farms owing to the presence on some farms of large coverts for game. The Amendment of the Solicitor-General contained the word "expressly," which would cut out all the cases whore the reduction of rent by way of compensation was made by tacit understanding, as it was in many parts of the country; and in numerous cases of that kind the arbitrator would have nothing to look to in coming to his decision. Of course, in the future that would be provided for, but it could not be remedied in existing agreements. He hoped the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would reconsider the matter and see whether his own object would not be better served by accepting the shorter and clearer Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
  MR. J. WARDhoped the Government would refuse this Amendment and insist on the words to be proposed by the Solicitor-General. He did not think the two Amendments meant the same thing. He thought the word "arrangement" instead of "agreement" would allow the evasion of the understanding arrived at in the previous day's discussion. The compensation to be given to the tenant by the landlord

  767
  should be compulsory, and the Amendment of the Solicitor-General would secure that.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought that hon. Members must have been very agreeably surprised when they saw on the Order Paper the present Amendment. He was glad to hear that a concession of a most valuable character had been made to carry out the understanding arrived at, as he believed, on the previous day, that when an arbitrator came to deal with the question of what compensation was to be given he should be allowed to take into consideration any arrangement which the landlord and tenant had come to on that point. There was no suggestion on the previous day that the arrangement should be expressed in writing in a document under seal. A great many farms in England were let verbally, and it would be impossible in a large number of cases to comply with the stringent and objectionable terms which the Solicitor-General had incorporated in his Amendment. The House would be well advised if they accepted the straightforward and simple language of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSpointed out that in effect they were in Committee upon this Bill in consequence of the action of the Government, instead of dealing with the matter upon the Report stage in the ordinary way. The whole question under debate was that of existing contracts, and he took it that the Amendment before the House, unless it was modified by some other words, would put into the hands of arbitrators in the future a power to consider agreements of a private nature which it was the object of the Bill to prevent; in fact it would defeat the whole object of the Bill. In the case of new tenancies, how was it possible at the beginning of nineteen years to say anything about the amount of damage which would be done at any time during that period? The tenant, however, would submit to whatever game the landlord put upon the land, because he had already obtained as much reduction of rental in regard to such damage as he could possibly receive, and he took it that under this Act he would be able to obtain
  768
  a reduced rental in the case of larger heads of game being on the farm, and also to claim an arbitrator's decision and get a second allowance. That was what they on that side of the House objected to—that a tenant should be allowed to claim compensation twice over. He thought the Solicitor-General should see that this compensation was not paid twice over, and that a man who had already obtained a reduction of rent, because of game preservation, should not be able to claim a second allowance.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the speeches which had been delivered showed that there was an ambiguity in the proposed Amendment. Some of his hon. friends assumed that the word "existing" meant existing at the time of arbitration; he did not know whether that was the meaning given to it by the promoters of the Amendment or whether it was to be interpreted as meaning "existing" at the time of the passing of the Bill. In that case it would be possible for any tenant and landlord to come to an agreement with regard to the amount of game to he kept on a farm, and the tenant would not be able to claim compensation for damage except beyond that. There was a vital and enormous difference between the two proposals; indeed, there was the difference of the whole diameter of the globe between them, because in one case they preserved the right to make future contracts in regard to game and in the other they did not. If the first interpretation was the correct one, then there was a vital difference between the Amendment of the hon. Member and that of the Solicitor-General. He thought they ought to know the object with which the Amendment was moved.
  MR. PAULTONsaid he might be mistaken as to what his hon. friend opposite meant, but he had no other intention than that of dealing with contracts existing at the time of the passing of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that was his interpretation of the Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to be of the same opinion. Having settled that preliminary ambiguity, he ventured to put in an appeal for the Amendment now before the House and for this very plain and obvious reason. On the subject

  769
  of contracts already running the Solicitor-General's Amendment would forbid any arrangement between landlord and tenant being taken into account by the arbitrator unless an arrangement was in writing. He instanced the case of the taking of a lease where a tenant might have to pay £300 a year; but, in view of game being kept on the farm, it was lot by the landlord at £280 a year. This abatement of the rent agreed upon between landlord and tenant was never inserted in the lease; and he wanted to know whether a tenant relieved of £20 rent was to be compensated for damage by game, since the contract was not of the formal character suggested by the Solicitor-General. He hoped that the Amendment of the hon. Member would be agreed to.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, South Shields)said that the objections now being urged to the Bill were more extensive in form and substance than the objections seized upon by way of illustration the previous day, and sought to be met by his Amendment. He pointed out, however, that it had not been suggested in the case of existing contracts that an arbitrator should be at liberty in every case, without any proof of distinct agreement, to re-open the negotiations as to the rent. ["Yes."] Where a distinct agreement was made it would be practically nullifying the Bill, as far as existing contracts were concerned, if, in every case, the arbitrator was entitled or obliged to put the tenant through a cross-examination as to whether or not at the time when he made his bargain there was any game on the land. The extreme case of injustice where a distinct agreement had been made at the commencement of the tenancy in respect to compensation for damage done by game had been met by the Treasury Bench, and could easily be met again. It would practically repeal the provisions of this Bill if the arbitrator in every case had to put the questions suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to whether or not at the time the tenant made the bargain there was any game upon the land, because they would all admit that there was not a tenancy of which the rent was fixed without the knowledge that there was some game on the land. He did not deny that this Bill was in some measure an interference
  770
  with existing contracts, and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not put the Government in any dilemma when they suggested it, because the Act of 1900 was to some extent an interference with then existing contracts. If hon. Members would read Section 7 of that Act they would find that although under existing tenancies the tenant had no right to compensation for improvements, yet under that Act, notwithstanding agreements, he was to be entitled to compensation for all sorts of improvements which he might make. In this matter the Government was following Conservative precedent. He admitted that the Bill interfered with existing contracts to some extent, and it did so because in this case they were not dealing only with the interests of two classes. This Bill was not brought in in the interests of the farmer and the landlord alone, although hon. Gentlemen opposite had tried to treat it in that way. Any interference with existing contracts was made on grounds of public policy, it being considered that in the interest of the community the agricultural industry should proceed without being hampered by loss and detriment, such as had been alluded to, from game preservation. The Government had tried to meet the extreme case put by the other side, and now they were told that that case never existed. He wished he had been told that before he attempted the rather difficult task of drafting an Amendment to deal with it. Passing to the Amendment of the hon. Member, it was quite clear, as had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that the words proposed would apply not only to tenanices existing at the passing of the Act, but also to those existing at the time of the arbitration. Did the Amendment limit this to cases where express agreements had been made. On the other hand, it would reopen negotiations for Tent in the case of every existing tenancy. In England the majority of the tenancies existed from year to year and could be determined by notice in any year. Therefore, in the case of tenancies existing at the time of the passing of this Act, the arbitrator in granting compensation would have to take into account the fact that the rent

  771
  had been fixed without any regard to the damage done by game. The whole object of the Bill was to discourage the preservation of an undue amount of game upon the land, and if the Government were to accept the phrase "existing arrangements" difficulties would arise which would practically nullify the statute. With regard to long tenancies, he thought the difficulties could be overcome by the provisions of the Ground Game Act, which treated existing tenancies at the time of the passing of the Act as terminating at the time at which they could be determined. But he saw no reason why they should not, like other tenancies, come under the same general object of public policy and be subject to compensation for damage. Those were the general purposes he had in view. In framing his Amendment he had endeavoured to meet the extreme case put by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they must resist the tendency to apply that treatment to every kind of case, because that would have the effect of greatly diminishing the scope of the Bill.
  MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)pointed out that the Act of 1900 on which the hon. and learned Gentleman relied as a precedent gave no compensation "in respect of improvements made before the passing of this Act."
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid that that clause only applied to the restricted class of improvements made before the passing of the Act. but the Act applied to all classes made after.
  MR. COCHRANEsaid he heard the question argued by his hon. and learned friend behind him the other day, and although the Solicitor-General had then an opportunity of dealing with one of his own calibre he failed to bring forward the arguments with which he now endeavoured to overwhelm him. The Solicitor-General was enamoured of the Act of 1900, and said that it was a precedent worthy of imitation. He therefore asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would amend this Amendment to put it on the same lines as Section 7 of the Act of 1900. He
  772
  suggested that the Amendment should read as follows—
  "And the arbitrator shall have regard to any arrangements existing at the time of the passing of this Act between owner and occupier under which damage by game has been taken into consideration."
  He thought that would bring the Amendment into line with the precedent laid down by the Solicitor-General, and also with the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that where an arrangement existed between landlord and tenant on the question of the compensation to be paid for the game, that arrangement might come before the arbitrator who would give the weight that was due to it. Arrangements between the landlord and the tenant by which the rent was fixed according to the head of game on the land had been made time out of mind in almost every case of a farm being let. If there had been fraudulent arrangements, as the hon. and learned Gentleman might suggest, they would come before the arbitrator under the Bill, arid all that was asked was that the arbitrator should take these facts into consideration. If the arbitrator found that the arrangement entered into was a bona fide arrangement, it would be monstrous and absurd that it should not have some weight given to it. He begged to move.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'existing,' and insert after the word 'arrangement' the words 'existing at the time of the passing of the Act.'"—[Mr. Cochrane.)
  Agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. PAULTONsaid his sole object in moving the Amendment had been to save time and difficulty, and he thought it would have received support on all sides. He repudiated very strongly the utterly baseless suggestion which had been made from below the Gangway opposite as to his motive. He was in a position of some difficulty, as he wanted

  773
  to keep faith with the House, but he found that in putting forward the words of his Amendment he was mistaken in thinking that they would be generally acceptable. He would therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. EVERETTopposed the withdrawal of the Amendment, which he hoped would be carried. While wishing to do justice to the tenants they did not want to do any injustice to the landlords. Those who knew anything about land were perfectly well aware that a farm was let at a lower rent if a large head of game were kept on it. It would he very unfair to landowners if under this Bill in the case of a claim being made for damage done by game, there should not be set against that damage the fact that a lower rent was paid in consideration of the large head of game kept on the farm,
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerset-shire, Wellington)said the Solicitor-General really could not have been serious in his reply, from which he seemed to think that a conspiracy between landlords and tenants might be entered into to overrun the whole land with pheasants and partridges to the detriment of the food supply of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman must know as well as he did that if every pheasant and every partridge in the country were killed to-morrow there would be no appreciable increase in the amount of home-grown wheat. He wished to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his phrase in which he said the Government were dealing not with the interests of the tenants only, but with the interests of agriculture and the country as a whole. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he came to the clauses which really dealt with land tenure and agriculture, would adopt that principle, and look not at the tenant side only, but also at the maintenance and fertility of the land
  under the experienced care of those who had managed it for years.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid all these difficulties would be obviated if the Government would accept an Amendment that the Bill should not come into force until 1908. Farms had been let at a lower rent in consequence of the presence of game, but according to this Bill the tenant would be able to obtain compensation twice over. It would be possible now for the landlords to revise their leases.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The noble Lord is dealing with matters which have already been disposed of.
  MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucester, Tewesbury)could not understand why the Government should not accept the Amendment in its revised form. The Solicitor-General had stated that there were a large number of agreements in which an express sum was named as compensation for damage by game, and that was quite true. That, however, only proved that it was impossible to legislate in a satisfactory manner as regarded the tenure of land and the damage done by game for the whole country. It was well-known that in many cases a lower rent had been accepted than would have been the case if there had been no game on the farm. It had been said that the only thing the landlord would have to do in such cases would be to revise the agreements with his tenants, but that was just what they wanted to avoid. It was desirable to avoid the friction between landlord and tenant which would undoubtedly arise unless this Amendment were accepted in its amended form.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 92; Noes, 281. (Division List No.385.)

  AYES.

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

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Bertram, Julius

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Barrie H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Balcarres, Lord

  Beach. Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Butcher, Samuel Henry,

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Ridsdale, F A.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hervey, F.W. F. (B'ryS. Edm'ds)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hills, J. W.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry Staff'sh.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dalmeny, Lord

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Turnour, Viscount

  Fell, Arthur

  Napier, T. B.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Percy, Earl

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Paulton and Mr. Whitbread.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  NOES.

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

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferguson. R. C. Munro

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cameron, Robert

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Agnew, George William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Alden, Percy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cleland, J. W.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Clough, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Clynes, J. R.

  Gilhooly, James

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gill, A. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

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

  Ginrell, L.

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cowan. W. H.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Barker, John

  Cox, Harold

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crombie, John William

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crooks, William

  Gulland, John W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cross, Alexander

  Hammond, John

  Beale, W. P.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harwood George

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Bennett, E. N.

  Delany, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

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

  Billson, Alfred

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Higham, John Sharp

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Boland, John

  Duckworth, James

  Hogan, Michael

  Brace, William

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Branch, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hudson, Walter

  Brigg, John

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bright, J. A.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Elibank, Master of

  Jenkins, J.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Erskine, David C.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Fenwick, Charles

  Jowett, F. W.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  776

  777

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Snowden, P.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lambert, George

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Dowd, John

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Grady, J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  O'Malley, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Mara, James

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  O'Shee, James John

  Syllivan, Donal

  Lough, Thomas

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lundon, W.

  Partington, Oswald

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Paul, Herbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

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

  Thorne, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Perks, Robert William

  Tomkinson, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  MacVeagh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Crae, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Verney, F. W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Maddison, Frederick

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

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

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Marnham. F. J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Massie, J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wardle, George J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Menzies, Walter

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth')

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Morse, L. L.

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Murphy, John

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Murray, James

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Winfrey, R.

  Myer, Horatio

  Sears, J. E.

  Young, Samuel

  Nicholls, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

  Shackleton, David James

  Nolan, Joseph

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr

  Norman, Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Pease.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  *MR. EVERETTmoved to leave out the words "one week" and to insert "three days." He said it seemed to him undesirable to allow the crop, after it was cut so long a time as a whole week, to remain uncarted in order to be able to claim compensation for damage by game. Every day the crops remained the damage by game would increase, and surely three days notice would be ample.
  MR. WHITBREADseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  " In page 2, line 18, to leave out the words ' one week,' and insert the words ' three days.'" —(Mr. Everett.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYsaid this matter was carefully considered by the Committee upstairs, and they took the Scottish precedent of the 1877 Act which, it was allowed, had worked well.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 20, at end, insert '(3) Where the landlord proves that under a contract of tenancy made before the commencement of this Act, any compensation for damage by game is payable, or that in fixing the rent to be paid under such contract allowance in respect of such damage to an agreed amount was expressly made, the arbitrator shall, in assessing the compensation under this section, make such deduction from the compensation which would otherwise be payable as may appear just.'"— (Sir W. Robson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. COCHRANEsaid the Amendment did not seem to him to improve the clause very much, but probably it was better than nothing at all. He did not think it in any degree met which he understood to be the pledges given by hon. Gentlemen opposite in respect to this matter. It did not go so far as they had indicated they were willing to go, but it went some length, and therefore, he personally would not offer it any opposition. But he hoped the Solicitor-General would reconsider the matter, and see if he could not at a future stage meet the legitimate points which had been raised on both sides of the House.
  MR. EVERETTmoved to omit the words "to an agreed amount."
  COLONEL LOCKWOODseconded the Amendment. It was impossible to agree beforehand as to what the amount of damage would be. There might be a case where a farm when taken had a very large head of game upon it, and the landlord, having the shooting of it took that into consideration in fixing the rent. But afterwards a change might be made. The landlord might be invalided and not want any game at all. The conditions then would be altogether different, and it was impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to the amount of damage.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'to an agreed amount.'"—(Mr. Everett.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. ABEL SMITHsaid the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division was a practical man who looked at these matters from the farmer's point of view. [Cries of "No."] He came from a district where there was probably more game than in any other part of England, and therefore a proposal made by him deserved some consideration. This was a perfectly reasonable Amendment. Before taking a farm a tenant went round and made inquiries in regard to all the circumstances. The amount of damage likely to be done by game was taken into consideration. If during the tenancy any change took place in the head of game on the land the tenant already had his remedy, because he could recover damages from the landlord where unusual steps had been taken to increase the head of game. It seemed to him natural and indispensable that the Amendment to the Amendment should be accepted, and that the arbitrator should not to be restricted to taking into account a sum actually named in the agreement. The arbitrator should be allowed to take all the circumstances into consideration, and if he was satisfied that a reduction of rent was allowed in respect of the head of game on the holding, that should be kept in view in assessing the damage. He hoped the Government in this matter would have some regard to the arguments of those who realty knew something about the question.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid he should like to know the objection which the Government entertained to accepting this Amendment. It seemed to him to carry out precisely the pledges which the Government had given to the House on the previous day.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Government had given no pledge on the previous day. They were under no obligation in the matter, but they had done their best to meet the wishes of the House.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid he apologised to his hon. and learned friend. If he remembered correctly the Government, at any rate, did not repudiate this proposal as they certainly might have done. He

  781
  thought that this Amendment which the Solicitor-General had brought up was intended to carry out the object the hon. Member for the Wood-bridge Division had in view. It had seemed to him that on the first clause the Government were adverse to anything being put in writing; but now they wanted everything to be put in writing. The Government. Amendment still left the onus of proof on the landlord. They must conclude that the arbitrator was a sensible man, and unless the Solicitor-General could convince him that his Amendment carried out the understanding come to on the previous day he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division.
  *VISCOUNT TURNOURthought the Government would do well to accept it. He was surprised that-some hon. Gentleman had disagreed with the statement that the hon. Member for Woodbridge was a farmer and had a complete knowledge of agriculture. If anyone were to go into the Woodbridge Division and say that the hon. Member was not a genuine farmer he would meet with a very warm reception. He believed that if the Government did not accept this Amendment the Bill would not be of very great value, because he defied any farmer or ordinary person to understand the Amendment of the Solicitor-General.
  SIR F. BANBURYdisagreed with his noble friend that no one could understand the Amendment of the Solicitor-General. It was put down in order that the Government might be able to say that having listened to the arguments on the Opposition side of the House they had endeavoured to meet them in a very considerable degree. He contended that the Amendment of the Solicitor-General was so illusive that it would practically make no alteration at all in the Bill. What happened? A farm fell vacant. The landlord told his agent to look about for a good tenant. A man came along and. when the agent asked a rent of £300 a year, the man replied, "You cannot expect me to give that rent for a farm which has so much game on it.
  782
  I offer £260 a year." The agent went to the landlord, and said, "Here is a very good tenant anxious to take the farm, but he is not willing to pay a rent of £300 a year," and the landlord would say, "Oh, if he is a very good man, let him have the farm for £260 a year." He believed that there was a regular form of agreement, but nothing was put in it as to the game. [A LABOUR MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it was not the custom to do it. He sincerely hoped that the Amendment would be carried.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON (Norfolk, N.)said that when a farmer proposed to take a farm he inquired as to the amount of rates to be paid, as to the condition of the farm, and as to the head of game on it. There was no agreement about all those points any more than when a man bought a horse. When he wanted to buy a horse he looked to see whether the horse had broken knees. He knew that in some cases tenant farmers had been hardly treated, but speaking for his own part of the country and as a tenant farmer himself, he could say that tenant farmers were quite capable for making their own bargains.
  MR. WINFREY (Norfolk, S. W.)said that to accept this Amendment would be to whittle down the clause altogether. Difficulties would be sure to arise, and when a claim was made for compensation for damage done by game the land steward might come forward and say, "Oh, in fixing the rent I took the question of game into consideration." When a farm was let it was generally let to the highest bidder. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, No."] He knew as much about letting farms as hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he contended that in nine cases out of ten a farm was let to the highest bidder. If the Solicitor-General kept to his proposal those tenant farmers who had made bona fide arrangements in respect of game would be protected.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would ask the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down if he knew of any existing contract of tenancy in England in which allowance to "an agreed amount" for compensation for damage done by game was "expressly

  783
  made." What was the value which the Solicitor-General put on the words "an agreed amount was expressly made"? If they were struck out all that the hon. and learned Gentleman desired would remain in full force. He urged the Government to accept the Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought that the legislation upon which the Government was now engaged was almost the worst that could be conceived, because it introduced the maximum of variation of principle, and the minimum of benefit to either individuals or the community. If the Government were going to cut up contracts and destroy the basis of civilised society, if they were going to make sacrifices of this kind to the cry of the moment, let them do it for the benefit of someone, but they were introducing the maximum loss which would affect the social system as a whole and the minimum gain to any individual. That was what he called bad legislation. The Solicitor-General had never attempted a defence of this clause or of this Bill. All that he had done in the numerous and very able speeches which he had made was, in the first place, to allege that there was a precedent for this violation of contract in the Unionist legislation of six years ago, and in the second place that it was for the public interest that game preserving should be discouraged. He traversed both those statements. It was not necessary for him, however, to go into what had been done in the past. He did not mean to argue whether in substance what was being done by the hon. and learned Gentleman now was done by a previous Government; before he did so he should require from him some substantive definition of his own policy and a statement in what way it was going to benefit the community. He wished, however, to deal with his view that game-preserving was anti-social, and ought to be put a stop to. [MINISTERIAL cries of: That is not the question.] That was the question. The question was whether they were or were not to regard contracts as sacred. [An HON. MEMBER: For no fixed amount.] He did not think the hon. Member quite understood that there were contracts of various kinds, and dealing with this question
  784
  the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to give relief in some cases and not in others, and the proposal that they wished to quarrel with was the limiting proposal. In other words, they quarrelled with the words which limited the relief by excepting a certain class of contracts. Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to strike this blow at a certain class of contracts? He had distinctly told them that afternoon on another Amendment that he wished to discourage game preserving, but if he wished to do that he ought to bring in a different kind of Bill.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid he had not said that he desired to discourage game preserving and he did not desire to do so. He did point out, however, that it was an object of public policy that game preserving should not be excessive. Where it existed compensation should be given for the burden it placed upon persons engaged in producing food for the million.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURdid not know whether the House thought that he was engaged in misinterpreting the hon. and learned Member. At all events one of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman liked this Bill was that it was going to discourage the game preserver. But let the House take into account that that was not the object of the Bill. If it were it would have to prevent, not only the owner of the soil from excessive game preserving, but also the tenant to whom the game had been let both from excessive game preserving and from using the land let to him for the purpose of growing corn and roots for the purpose of rearing pheasants and partridges. The object expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman was not the object of the Bill and was not to be found in its framework. What object could there be in this violation of contract? If there was to be no allowing people to contract themselves out of compensation, then those evils would not be a diminishing quantity after the Government had passed the present Bill, because existing contracts would come to an end month by month and year by year, and the time would come when every tenancy would be held under the stringent conditions

  785
  of this Bill. So that so far as general considerations were concerned there was no great and permanent benefit to be gained by breaking these contracts. The tenants had entered into contracts under which the damage caused by game had been taken into consideration in fixing the rent. No doubt it had not been put down in figures, but the tenant took the farm with a full knowledge that the rent was justified by the conditions of the farm with game on it. Was a man who had received the contracted amount of compensation to receive compensation every year over again? If so, the Government were reduced to this unhappy conclusion, that simply in order to meet the case of a small class they were going to violate all the admitted principles which had governed legislation. That could not be right or wise, and it was opposed to all the traditions of the profession to which the Solicitor-General belonged. For the sake of a small and microscopic advantage the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to make a change which would go beyond the trifling and petty advantages which the Government proposed to gain if they adhered to this proposal. The Government had never argued their own case, but had contented themselves with quoting the precedent of six years ago. He submitted that when they were going to make a great departure from constitutional principles they ought to give some reasons for it.
  MR. GIBBS (Bristol, W.)said he had had some experience in letting farms, and he could unhesitatingly say that in the majority of cases a landlord let to the farmer who he thought was the best man. [Some LIBERAL MEMBERS: To the man who gives the most rent.] If landlords had pursued such a policy as hon. Members suggested I the state of agriculture in the country would be in a far worse position than it was at present. He felt certain that the majority of the Members of the House who knew anything about land would agree that all good landlords let their farms to the applicants who they considered would do the most good to the land. If the landlord let his farm in every case to the highest bidder the tenant in many
  786
  cases would take all he could out of the land and leave nothing to the man who came after him.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)said the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill and the Solicitor- General placed different constructions upon their proposal. The Solicitor -General said the object of the Bill was to deal with the national food supply, but the hon. Baronet said its object was to prevent excessive game preservation except when compensation was paid to the tenant. It was in the latter light they had considered it. Supposing a tenant had made an arrangement with his landlord under which he received £50 a year as the equivalent for the damage caused by game. There was no express written agreement, but he received £50 a year for ten years and then when he received notice for bad farming or gave notice he might claim compensation which would include the sum he had received.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had put with great clearness a case which exactly illustrated the necessity for this Amendment—a case in which there was a contract or an arrangement to compensate for the damage done by game and where the damage was estimated at a definite amount first of all, although it was neither arranged nor in the contract, nor made before the tenancy was arrived at. That was precisely the arrangement which might be valid under this Amendment. It must not be assumed that the Amendment did nothing. It certainly did exactly what was put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Not only might the arbitrator take it into account, he must take it into account. The Amendment dealt with two cases. It dealt with one which he imagined was somewhat rare, the case of an agreement in the contract to allow a definite amount for any damage done by game. Then it dealt with an alternative case which was precisely that put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, where before the contract was arrived at terms had been discussed and the landlord and tenant had in some way combined to deal with the question. When it was proved

  787
  to the arbitrator that the matter had been treated in a definite way he was bound to take it into account. But where there was no definite amount, where it was an ordinary case of each party taking into account all the conditions, the case would not come under the Amendment.
  *MR. HAROLD COXsuggested that possibly the desire of hon.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cox, Harold

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Alden, Percy

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

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

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Henry, Charles S

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Crombie, John William

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Crooks, William

  Higham. John Sharp

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cross, Alexander

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crossley, William J.

  Hodge, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogan, Michael

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Davies, M Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Holden, K. Hopkinson

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hooper. A. G.

  Barker, John

  Delany, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hudson, Walter

  Barnes, C. N.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Jackson, R. S.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jenkins, J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Duckworth, James

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Johnson. W. (Nuneaton

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

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bell, Richard

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Joyce, Michael

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Elibank, Master of

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Ellis, Rt. Hon John Edward

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Billson, Alfred

  Evans, Samuel T.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Boland, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Brace, William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Branch, James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lambert, George

  Brigg, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lamont, Norman

  Bright, J. A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Brooke, Stopford

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

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

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

  Gilhooly, James

  Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Gill, A. H

  Levy, Maurice

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ginnell, L.

  Lloyd-George. Rt. Hon. David

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lough, Thomas

  Hyles, William Pollard

  Glendinninig, R. G.

  Lundon, W.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lupton, Arnold

  Cameron, Robert

  Greenwood, G (Peterborough

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.

  Greenwood. Hamar (York)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

  Gulland, John M.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knigh

  Haldane, Rt Hon. Richard B.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hammond, John

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Crae, George

  Clough, William

  Harwood, George

  M'Killop, W.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Haworth, Arthur A

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Members opposite would be met by taking out the words proposed to be omitted and inserting the word "definite" in front of the previous word.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves, 305; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 386.)

  Marnham, F. J.

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

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Massie, J.

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Meagher, Michael

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Thorne, William

  Menzies, Walter

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro)

  Tomkinson, James

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mond, A.

  Rees, J. D.

  Ure, Alexander

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Richards, T. F. (Wolvorh'mptor.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Vivian, Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walton, Joseph( Barnsley)

  Morse, L. L.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  Murphy, John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wardle, George J.

  Murray, James

  Rowlands, J.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Myer, Horatio

  Runciman, Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N (Doncast'r)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Norman, Henry

  Sears, J. E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Seaverns, J. H.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitehead, Rowland

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wiles, Thomas

  O'Connor, John ( Kildare, N.)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  O'Dowd, John

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Williamson, A.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

  Snowden, P.

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

  O'Mara, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  O'Shaughnessy. P. J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  O'Shee, James John

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Paul, Herbert

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Winfrey, R.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Young, Samuel

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

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Summerbell, T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Pease.

  NOES.

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

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Agnew, George William

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Kimber, Sir Honry

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Liddell, Henry

  Beckett, Hon. Gorvase

  Erskine, David C.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Bertram, Julius

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Moysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Nield, Herbert

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Grant, Corrie

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Partington, Oswald

  790

  791

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Starkey, John R.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Renton, Major Leslie

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Everett and Colonel Lock-

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Turnour, Viscount

  wood.

  Original question again proposed.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYmoved an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to insert after "made" in line 4, the words "or where payments or allowances have been made by the landlord in respect of such damage." The case he wished to provide for was that in which, after the contract had been made, the landlord voluntarily gave compensation year by year to a tenant for damage by game. The matter was not raised at the time the contract was entered into, but because the landlord recognised that damage had been done, or was being done, by game he voluntarily made a rebate every year. When compensation was claimed by an outgoing tenant in such a case, as it might be, it would be hard upon the landlord if the arbitrator was not allowed to take it into consideration.
  MR. RAWLINSONseconded.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "In line 4, after the word 'made' to insert the words 'or where payments or allowances have been made by the landlord in respect of such damage.'"—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. URE, Linlithgowshire)said it was entirely unnecessary to introduce the words proposed. Any intelligent arbitrator would of course take into account any payments which the landlord had made in respect of damage by game.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that no doubt under ordinary circumstances the construction of the hon. and learned Gentle-
  792
  man was perfectly reasonable, but here it was expressly defined what the arbitrator had to take into account in dealing with the question. In a case where there was a long lease and the rent was originally fixed at a high sum, rebate might be made year by year, sometimes for damage by game and sometimes owing to bad times, and the arbitrator ought to have to find out the proportions. The Amendment of his right hon. friend could do no harm to the Amendment of the Solicitor-General.
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid all that the clause dealt with was compensation for damage by game, and any payment in respect thereof would undoubtedly be taken into account. If it were shown as to part of the damage that it had been treated as an equivalent claim compensation did not arise.
  MR. LYTTLETON (St. George's, Hanover Square)thought there was some doubt about the matter. He perfectly agreed with both the Solicitor-General for England and the Solicitor-General for Scotland that in any ordinary case a competent arbitrator would be bound to deduct any payments that had been made. But the crucial point was that special provision was made that this thing and that thing were to be taken into account, and it seemed more than doubtful whether it would not be held afterwards that in specific cases the arbitrator might make these deductions, but not in others.
  SIR W. ROBSOXcontended that it could not be said that they had expressed something which would imply the exclusion of other things.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked how simple laymen could understand what

  793
  the Government meant by this clause when two learned Members on one side said one thing and two learned Members on the other said something else. It surely ought to be possible for the Solicitor-General to set out this clause in such a manner that both landlord and tenant might be able to understand it, and so that justice might be done to both parties without having to call in gentlemen to indulge in whom was the most expensive form of luxury.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsuggested that the Government should redraft
  the main Amendment. If hon. and learned Members could not understand it the average tenant farmer would not be able to do so. This was only another instance of the trouble the Government had got themselves into by their ill-considered Amendments to a Bill introduced by other people.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 81; Noes 332. (Division List No. 387.)

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montgomery. H. G.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hazel. Dr. A. E.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morrell, Philip

  Cleland, J. W.

  Henderson, Arthur(Durham)

  Morse, L. L.

  Clough, William

  Henderson. J M(Aberdeen, W.)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Clynes. J. R.

  Henry. Charles S.

  Murphy, John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Murray. James

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

  Herbert, T. Arnold(Wycombe)

  Myer. Horatio

  Corbett, CH(Sussex, E. Grinst'd

  Higham, John Sharp

  Napier, T. B.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nicholls. George

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r)

  Cox, Harold

  Hodge, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Hogan, Michael

  Norman, Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Crombie, John William

  Hooper, A. G.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cross, Alexander

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Brien. Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Crossley, William J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, Ellis William(Eifion)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, M. Vaugban-(Cardigan)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Donnell. C. J. (Walworth)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Dowd, John

  Delany, William

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Kelly. James(Roscommon, N'

  Dewar, Arthur(Edinburgh, S.)

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Malley. William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Shee, James John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Parker, James(Halifax)

  Duckworth, James

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington. Oswald

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Paul, Herbert

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lambert, George

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Erskine, David C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Radford. G. H.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Raphael. Herbert H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Lupton, Arnold

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampt'n)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Ridsdale, K. A.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Mackarness. Frederic C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roberts. John H. (Denbighs.)

  Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Gill, A. H.

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Crae, George

  Rogers. F. E. Newman

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  M'Killop, W.

  Rose. Charles Day

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rowlands, J.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Grant, Corrie

  Mansfield. H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Marnham, F.J.

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Massie, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Gulland, John W.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Meagher, Michael

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Shackleton. David James

  Hammond, John

  Menzies, Walter

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Mond, A.

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Harwood, George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  796

  797

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Snowden, P.

  Ure, Alexander

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Verney, F. W.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Vivian, Henry

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

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

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

  Strachey. Sir Edward

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mill)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wardle, George J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Summerbell, T.

  Wason, Engene (Clackmannan)

  Winfrey, R.

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Young, Samuel

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Thomasson, Franklin

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Tomkinson, James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pease.

  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
  MR. BEALE (Ayrshire, S.)expressed his regret that he was prevented by accident from moving his previous Amendment. He hoped there would be an opportunity of putting the matter right in another place. The intention of the Amendment he desired to move now was to express and make perfectly definite the intention of the framers of this section in order to make it work smoothly and fairly. There was a danger that the tenant might grow his crops with a view to obtaining compensation, and he might neglect to get them in with proper care. It was essential that reasonable precautions should be taken to mitigate damage. The Amendment he now proposed was in the following terms—
  "Provided also that the arbitrator shall take into consideration the question whether the crop was a proper mode of cultivation and that no compensation shall be included for damage which the arbitrator shall deem to be due to the neglect or refusal of the tenant to take such precautions to mitigate or prevent the damage as he could reasonably have taken without himself incurring any special expense for the purpose, and having regard to any permission or facilities given or offered by the landlord."
  The last words of the Amendment were intended to safeguard the tenant against having to incur extra expense in order to prevent damage by game. It was not suggested that the arbitrator should be able to say to the tenant that a certain amount of damage could have been prevented if he had armed a sufficient number of boys with guns or pistols to shoot the game. The arbitrator was only
  798
  to take into consideration what the tenant could be expected to do without increasing his staff. Above all, he was to have regard to the fact that game frequently came from the ground belonging to another landlord. The landlord would go to his neighbour and say that he must keep the game from coming or give the tenant compensation. It had been pointed out that that would not give complete protection in pheasant counties, but it would enable them to come to some reasonable arrangement without friction. What he wanted was that the arbitrator should be able to take into account reasonable conduct all round.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODseconded the Amendment, remarking that it was an extremely fair one, and that probably, as it was moved by one of their own supporters, the Government might see fit to insert it. A tenant might, with the view of obtaining compensation for damage, abstain from taking certain precautions which he might fairly have boon expected to take. He might do so by leaving crops exposed to wind and wet, or he might, departing from the ordinary custom of the country as to the cropping, grow wheat in a field contiguous to a place whore it was known that game existed, a thing which he might have no right to do under his lease. It should be proved that the tenant had not neglected to take reasonable precautions against damage by game, provided that such precautions could be taken without expense to himself. He thought they were all agreed that that would be perfectly fair. A landlord, for instance,

  799
  might say to a tenant, "Your crops are open to the attacks of game from my cover. I will send down so many hundred yards of wire or netting, and I will send my men to do the fencing"—and that case was happening every other day— but if the tenant said he did not want the men that day, and left the wire or the netting lying about the hedgerows until it was practically useless, he would have neglected precautions to protect himself against damage by game which the landlord was ready to afford. Other precautions which the landlord was willing to give might be neglected by the tenant, and the landlord might be put in a very unfair position.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 20, after the word 'made,' to insert the words ' Provided also that the arbitrator shall take into consideration the question whether the crop was a proper mode of cultivation and that no compensation shall be included for damage which the arbitrator shall deem to be due to the neglect or refusal of the tenant to lake such precautions to mitigate or prevent the damage as he could reasonably have taken without himself incurring any special expense for the purpose, and having regard to any permission or facilities given or offered by the landlord.' "(Mr. Beale.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  SIR W. ROBSONsaid the Amendment was very vague. The argument in favour of it had been temperately and moderately stated, and it was one which might appeal to the reason of anyone, but when they came to look into the proposal they found that it was certainly one which would turn a simple controversy or inquiry between landlord and tenant into a very serious and substantial litigation. The inquiry which this Amendment would involve might possibly necessitate the employment of solicitors and counsel at the arbitrations and the payment of substantial fees. The question whether a tenant had followed the proper and ordinary mode of cultivation in the country was a difficult matter to decide, and it could only be decided after elaborate inquiry. The Government could not accept the Amendment. It should not be imagined that the landlord was entirely without protection. There was a very excellent principle of English law that no man should profit by his own wrong, and that principle was imported
  800
  into every Act of Parliament. Therefore, if a tenant left his crop to the inclement influences of wind and wet, and if, watching it day by day, he, instead of delighting in its progress and hailing the sunshine, looked to the period when he would have a valuable claim, he would find himself disappointed. He would not be entitled to gain advantage from his own wrong. The Amendment would open up a very doubtful field of investigation, and it might be an extremely serious matter if the words received a very strict and unfriendly construction. The Government, on the whole, were content to rest upon the principle that a man should not profit by his own wrong. The arbitrator could not allow a tenant to take advantage of his own wrong, and they must leave him to deal generally with these matters, which would undoubtedly affect in his mind the amount of compensation.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid there wore cases in which a farmer might lure game on to his farm, and it seemed to him that in such cases the arbitrator would have no such discretion as that to which the Solicitor-General had referred. There would be the tenancy, the game, and the damage. The game had caused the damage, and it would not be open to the arbitrator to take into consideration any of the causes due to the neglect of the tenant. The general rule of the law that a tenant or anybody else must not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong was one which in this case would not apply. It was not a wrongful act for a tenant to crop in any way he thought proper if the terms of his agreement permitted his doing so, nor would the arbitrator be able to take into consideration any such suggestion as to the tenant not having taken the precautions necessary to drive away the game.
  *MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the Amendment was all the more necessary on account of the fact that the tenant was under no obligation to give notice of damage to the croptill three weeks before it was reaped. He would like to ask the Solicitor-General if a man came to him on the 1st of August and said that his crop had been damaged by game in the spring, how would he satisfy himself as

  801
  to the truth of his statement? And how would he satisfy himself that the man's fields had boon cultivated according to good methods of husbandry? It was, therefore, all the more necessary to accept the Amendment. He understood that this Bill was intended to defend the good tenant from the bad landlord, and the good landlord from the bad tenant, but here was a distinct refusal on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman to protect the good landlord from the bad tenant.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the gist of the Solicitor-General's argument seemed to be that injustice might possibly follow an act done by a tenant, but that as it was difficult to devise a proper form of words to remedy that injustice, they should leave that injustice alone. He thought that that was rather hard lines, and that the Government should really try to select a proper form of words. He did not want to press the idea that there would be either malignant or fraudulent tenants; but still there would be considerable temptation to some men to try to take advantage of the Act of Parliament for their own benefit.
  MR. UREsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the clause now under consideration bore a strong family likeness to a clause in the Act. of 1877 which owed its form largely to the right hon. Gentleman himself. In Committee upstairs there was not a hint of a suggestion that such an instruction as was embodied in the Amendment should be introduced, and he thought it was entirely unnecessary. Were the House really going to say that an arbitrator, selected by intelligent landlords and tenants to settle a claim for damages, would have so little sense as not to be able to see when a man had wilfully courted damage, and that therefore he was not entitled to compensation? He might not have the maxim volenti non fit injuria always before him, but he would have the spirit of that maxim in his mind, and would not be likely to give the tenant damages for his own failure to take the precautions referred to in the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that it seemed to him, at first sight certainly, and with the law as it stood at present,
  802
  that the first part of this Amendment was more or less unnecessary. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved it to say that the first part of the Amendment was to prevent the farmer cultivating and growing an improper crop for the purpose of obtaining compensation. Under the law, as it stood at present, he thought both sides of the House would agree that that was an exceptional case, and not likely to occur. Under the law, however, as it was proposed to be altered by this Bill he was not sure it would be such an exceptional case. Looking at this clause and another to be subsequently discussed, and also to the amount of compensation which it was proposed to pay under the Bill for different classes of damage, he was bound to admit that it might be possible in very exceptional cases for an unscrupulous tenant to grow a crop for the purpose of compensation. Supposing, for instance, a tenant farmer whose land was very poor and unsuited for market gardening turned it into a market garden and wished to cultivate strawberries. He would have an object for doing so, though not a very proper one, viz., that he might obtain two classes of compensation—the first for damage done to his strawberries by game; and, secondly, when he loft his holding, for so-called improvements. The cultivation of strawberries might not be an improvement to the farm at all in the long run. He thought also there was a second point which had escaped the notice of the House. There was no reason why an unscrupulous farmer should not feed his land for the purpose of attracting partridges and pheasants upon it. Everyone would agree with him that if they put down amongst strawberries a certain amount of maize and corn considerable injury would be done by pheasants or partridges. The hon. Member for Cardiff laughed. Did he see anything very extraordinary—
  MR. GUEST: I think it is an intrinsic absurdity.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he could not carry on an argument across the floor of the House, but when he sat down perhaps the hon. Gentleman would tell the House where the intrinsic absurdity came in in the instance he had given. There was nothing absurd in a farmer

  803
  wishing to cultivate strawberries for the purpose he had referred to. Coming to the second part of the Amendment, namely—
  "That no compensation shall be included for damage which the arbitrator shall deem to be due to the neglect or refusal of the tenant to take such precautions to mitigate or prevent the damage as he could reasonably have taken without himself incurring any special expense for the purpose and having regard to any permission or facilities given or offered by the landlord,"
  he was bound to confess that he saw no hardship in the proposed Amendment to cither tenant or landlord. He thought one hon. Gentleman opposite had admitted that in many respects it was a reasonable Amendment: it was exceedingly necessary before compensation was paid that tenants should do their best to prevent damage being done to their crops. Even if the House and the Government refused to accept the first part of the Amendment, they should accept the second part. Under the Bill as it stood it gave an opening which, however, might only be taken advantage of in rare instances, to an unscrupulous farmer to grow a crop, say, of strawberries simply for the purpose of obtaining compensation of two classes and a crop which did not pay, but which would pay on the grounds he had mentioned.
  MR. BEALEdid not think he should serve any useful purpose in pressing his Amendment to a division. He was rather discouraged, however, from withdrawing his Amendment by what had been said by the learned Solicitor-General for England.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was not entitled to make a speech. He could withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BEALEsaid he wanted to make it clear that he asked leave to withdraw

  AYES.

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Cross, Alexander

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Coats, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)

  in consequence of what the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland had said.
  Leave to withdraw Amendment refused.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Glare, E.)said his whole attitude towards the Amendment had been changed by the speech of the noble Lord above the gangway and by his cogent, lucid, and closely reasoned argument. He did not think anyone could have thrown more light upon the subject. For instance, he did not believe that there was any man in this House into whose mind it would have entered that the tenant might ruin the land in order to grow a crop of strawberries. That put the matter in an entirely different light. He appealed to the noble Lord not to do what he understood he was about to do and leave his Party for some time. He could not blame the noble Lord or anyone for wanting to leave the Party. He would ask the noble Lord, however, to respond to the call of duty, to stand by the ship and not desert it at the present moment. He did not know what they would do in these complicated debates in which nice law points suddenly occurred if they were deprived of his services. One naturally liked to see the Party to which one was opposed reach the lowest possible level of power, but he did not think any one wanted to see the Party deprived of the noble Lord's services.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYthought that the statement of the Solicitor-General for Scotland fell to the ground, as there was no power to appoint an arbitrator.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 68; Noes, 307. (Division List No. 388.)

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark

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

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Starkey, John R.

  Beale and Colonel Lockwood.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  NOES.

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

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

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Harwood, George

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Agnew, George William

  Cowan, W. H.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Crombie, John William

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crossley, William J.

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Henry, Charles S.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

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

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Davies, David (Montgomery C.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Barker, John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Delany, William

  Hodge, John

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hooper, A. G.

  Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastbourne

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Horniman, Emslie John

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

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Duckworth, James

  Hudson, Walter

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bennett. E. N.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jenkins, J.

  Bertram, Julius

  Elibank, Master of

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Erskine, David C.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Billson, Alfred

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jowett, F. W.

  Boland, John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Joyce, Michael

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brace, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Branch, James

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Brigg, John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Bright, J. A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Brodie, H. C.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Brooke, Stopford

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lambert, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lamont, Norman

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Gill, A. H.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ginnell, L.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Cameron, Robert

  Gladston, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Glendinning, R. C.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Grant, Corrie

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Levy, Maurice

  Cawley, Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lough, Thomas

  Churchill, Winston Shencer

  Gulland, John W.

  Lundon, W.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lupton, Arnold

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Clough, William

  Hammond, John

  Lynch, H. B.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Wore'r)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  806

  807

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Paul, Herbert

  Sutherland, J. E.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Crae, George

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

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  M'Kean, John

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Killop, W.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Maddison, Frederick

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Tomkinson, James

  Mallet, Charles E.

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

  Torrance. Sir A. M.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Radford, G. H.

  Ure, Alexander

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Verney, F. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Vivian, Henry

  Massie, J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Meagher, Michael

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Menzies, Walter

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

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, W. Dudley (South'mpton)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wardle, George J.

  Mond, A.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Montgomery, K. G.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Robinson, S.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White. J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Morrell, Philip

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morse, L. L.

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Rowlands, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Murphy, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Murray, James

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Napier, T. B.

  Sears, J. E.

  Wiles, Thomas

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Shackleton, David James

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nicholls, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Snowden, P.

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Young, Samuel

  O'Dowd, John

  Steadman, W. C.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  O'Malley, William

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Pease.

  O'Shee, James John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 21, after the word 'kill,' to insert the word 'the.'"—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'the' be there inserted in the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ABEL SMITHmoved an Amendment to provide that the shooting tenant should be entitled to the same notice of a claim for damage as that to be given to the landlord. He thought it was an Amendment which the Government would have no difficulty in accepting. The hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill would observe that in the case of the
  808
  landlord where damage had been done and compensation had to be paid by him, he was entitled to have further notice, so that he might be able to ascertain whether a fair claim had been made and whether so much damage had been done as was alleged. And by the third section, where the right to kill game had been vested in a third person, the landlord was entitled to be indemnified by that third person. Under these circumstances it was only fair and just that the third person, the shooting tenant, should be entitled to the same notice that the landlord received. He begged to move.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURseconded the Amendment, which he imagined the

  809
  Government would have no difficulty in accepting as it was only just that the shooting tenant should have the same rights as the landlord under this section.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 24, at end, to add the words, 'Such other person shall be entitled to the same notice of intention to make a claim as the landlord is entitled to under this section, and the same limit of time within which a claim can be made shall apply.' "—(Mr. Abel Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYexpressed the opinion that it was worth while to accept this Amendment if only for the reason that in all probability when the shooting tenant received this notice he would more often than not step in and settle the claim, and in most cases settle it very generously.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton)said the acceptance of this Amendment would be to throw an obligation on the tenant to give notice to a third party whom he did not know. The better plan would be to let the whole thing be done together. The shooting was very often let to different people every year and the tenant had no means of finding out who the shooting tenant was. The landlord did know. Therefore, with great respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite he could not accept the Amendment. It would add complexity to the Act. They had already given power to the landlord to be indemnified by the person to whom he let the shooting. Surely under these circumstances they might leave this matter where it was.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)said he certainly was surprised at the attitude of the Government in this matter. Of one thing he was certain and that was that the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland would be in favour of this Amendment. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said it was very desirable that it should not be made more difficult for the tenant to get compensation, which
  810
  would be the case if he had to give an additional notice. But the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for Scotland had told the House how well the Scottish Act worked and that there the tenant had no difficulty. Section 7 of that Act provided that no action could be taken by a lessee against a lessor unless notice had been given by the lessee of his intention to take the same, and the third section of that Act defined the word "lessor" to mean the grantor of a lease of a farm for not less than two years, or any person holding under him. Under the law of Scotland notice had to be given by the tenant to the grantor or any person holding under him. But apart from the question of law, equity demanded that such notice should be given to the shooting tenant. Let them take the case of a field of potatoes next a cover. In a dry year pheasants would come out of the cover and do a deal of damage by scratching among and uncovering the potatoes. That would take place comparatively early in the autumn months. If the shooting tenant got notice of that at the time he could send his keepers round and prevent it by wiring off that part of the field or in some other manner. But if the farmer had to claim from the landlord and the landlord in turn from the shooting tenant all he could say was that if he were the shooting tenant he would turn round and say he had been very unfairly treated in not having had notice earlier. But the landlord might not have had notice at the time. He suggested that instead of adopting the circuitous methods so beloved by all Governments, the comparatively simple method of dealing with the matter by accepting this Amendment should be adopted.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: was surprised the Government could not accept this Amendment, and also at the arguments that had been urged against it. He failed to see that there would be any difficulty in the tenant's finding out who the shooting tenant was. It would be very unfair for the landlord to be able to come down on the shooting tenant in order to be indemnified for damage done by game, without giving the shooting tenant an opportunity of investigating the extent of the damage.
  MR. UREsaid that what would happen would be that the tenant would make a claim against the landlord, who, knowing he had a right of relief from the shooting tenant, would on receiving the claim instantly intimate the fact to the shooting tenant so as to enable him to defend the claim. The tenant did not need to give any intimation to anybody but the man who had let the land to him, leaving the landlord to obtain his own relief against the shooting tenant, which he was well enabled to do without any express provision to this effect. This clause had been well considered by the Government. It would be a little hard to insert the Amendment now suggested, because if by any mischance notice was not given by the tenant to the shooting tenant the former's claim against the landlord would be barred merely because he had made the technical mistake of not giving notice to the shooting tenant. It would be putting too heavy a burden on the tenant without any corresponding advantage to the landlord.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex F.

  Cross, Alexander

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fell, Arthur

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Pee

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

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

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

  Starkey. John R.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hills, J. W.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Lanark)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

  Turnour, Viscount

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

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

  Cave, George

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

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Abel Smith and Mr. Hicks

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Beach.

  NOES.

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

  Beale, W. P.

  Bright, J. A.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Brodie, H. C.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Agnew, George William

  Bennett. E. N.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Bertram, Julius

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Byles, William Pollard

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset

  Boland, John

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brace, William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Barnes, G. N.

  Branch, James

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Brigg, John

  Cleland, J. W.

  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid it would not be any advantage to the landlord, but he thought the shooting tenant would be put into a very hard position if notice was not given him. The claim should be made against the landlord, but if they were going to allow the landlord to make a counter - claim against the shooting tenant, they must give the hitter some opportunity of making a defence. If the shooting tenant received notice at the same time as the landlord he would be able to act. If, however, he did not receive a notice until he got it in the form of a claim from the landlord some time afterwards, it would be impossible for him to get any evidence in mitigation of the claim. It was absurd to suggest that the tenant did not know who the shooting tenant was. The only difficulty was writing an extra letter and buying an extra stamp.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 53; Noes, 275. Division List No. 389).

  Clough, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Malley, William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Shee, James John

  Collins, Sir Win. J. (S. Pancras)

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Paul, Herbert

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cowan, W. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Cox, Harold

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Laidlaw, Robert

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

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  Radford, G. H.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Delany, William

  Lambert, George

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Redmond. William (Clare)

  Duckworth, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Rees, J. D.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Roberts, John H. Denbighs.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robinson, S.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bghs.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Shackleton, David James

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

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

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  MacVeigh, Chas.(Donegal, E.)

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Killop, W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Snowden, P.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Maddison, Frederick

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Gilhooly, James

  Mansfield, H. Kendall (Lincoln)

  Steaclman, W. C.

  Gill. A. H.

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Marnham, F. J.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Grant, Corrie

  Massie, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Meagher, Michael

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Gulland, John W.

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Menzies, Walter

  Sullivan, Donal

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Summerbell, T.

  Hammond, John

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Mond, A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montgomery, H. G.

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

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Morrell, Philip

  Ure, Alexander

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Verney, F. W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murphy, John

  Vivian, Henry

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.

  Murray, James

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Henry, Charles S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholls, George

  Walters, John Tudor

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Hodge, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

  Hogan, Michael

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wardle, George J.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Nuttall, Harry

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hooper, A. G.

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Dowd, John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.]

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Whitehead, Rowland

  814

  815

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Young, Samuel

  Wiles, Thomas

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

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n)

  Winfrey, R.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

  Pease.

  ME. COCHRANEmoved an Amendment excluding Scotland from the operation of the Act. He said he did not object to Scottish farmers having the protection which was claimed for them under the Act. but his objection was that it removed a good deal of the protection which Scottish tenant farmers already enjoyed. The Act did not apply to Ireland, although he understood that a good case could be made out for applying it to that country. The law upon. this subject affecting Ireland was the same as in England, whereas in Scotland they had had an Act of Parliament for thirty years which had operated extremely well. The Solicitor-General had admitted that the Act of 1877 had worked admirably in Scotland, but it was now proposed by the Government to remove Scotland from the operation of that Act and place her under a totally different set of provisions. The Scottish law on the subject at the present time was clear and intelligible. It had been the subject of many decisions and had given universal satisfaction. Under the Scottish law there was this provision for arbitration. Each party might nominate an arbitrator, and before they set to work these two men nominated a third party in case they could not come to an agreement. The Government now proposed to remove this excellent arrangement and to substitute a rigid cast-iron system, under which the landlord and tenant had to agree upon one arbitrator, and in case of a dispute to appeal to the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, who could appoint some friend of his own, who would have to settle the amount of the damage by game. The tenant farmers of Scotland would not be one whit better off under this Bill than they were at the present moment—in fact he thought they would be distinctly worse off. At present the Scottish tenant farmer was entitled to damage from his landlord if the damage from game exceeded one shilling per acre. In cases where no agreement existed between
  816
  landlord and tenant the farmer could claim compensation for damage exceeding 40s. for the whole of his farm. The farmer would now have to go through two processes. The first was that he would have to prove that there had been damage to a greater extent than Is. per acre; and in the second place he would have to go to the arbitrator to have the amount of the damage settled. What would be the tenant's position? The damage might be in spots all over the farm where the barley or wheat had been blown down by the storm, for that was the time when the pheasants did the damage. The tenant would have to show that a certain acreage had been damaged to the extent of 1s. per acre. When he had made his claim before the arbitrator and shown the damage he would perhaps only be able to prove damage to five or ten acres, and the rest of the damage to his farm he would not be able to prove. By this Bill they were restricting the tenant's power of claiming damage, they were not facilitating the opportunities he had of getting compensation and the general scheme of the clause did not commend itself to the tenants of Scotland. If he could see anything in this Bill which would make it easier for the Scottish tenant farmer to get any advantage he should heartily support this measure, but he did not see anything in it that would be of any benefit to the tenant farmers of Scotland.
  Amendment proposed to the Bill—
  "In page 2, line 24, at the end, to insert the words, ' (4) This section shall not apply to Scotland.' "—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill. "
  And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  NETLEY HOSPITAL—DISCHARGE OF INVALID SOLDIERS.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)rose to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the decision of the Government to discharge a number of invalid soldiers, who could not earn their livelihood, from Netley Hospital, without giving the House of Commons an opportunity of considering what provision could be made for them. He did not intend to detain the House long, because he was going to leave the details of the case to be dealt with by the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone. He proposed to rest his Motion on several outstanding facts which he thought were quite sufficient justification for the Motion. There was nothing more remarkable in political life than the blunders made by very able men when they reached the Front Bench. There were certainly few abler men either in the House or outside than the Secretary for War. He was one of the ablest philosophers and statesmen and therefore he was the more surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, should have stumbled into what he could not help thinking was one of the greatest blunders of the day. What was the case that he had to submit to the House? There was a number of invalids in Netley Hospital—men who had served their King and their country, who had gone through the hardships and privations of war, who had gone through the dangers of the battlefied and the no less deadly dangers of treacherous climates. They had suffered these things for the Empire to which they and we belonged. He was quite aware that that of itself was quite sufficient to stir up the animus of certain Members of the House against these old soldiers —[Cries of, "Oh, oh!"]—he did not mean Members below the gangway, but certain Members on the other Side of the House. He did not see the hon. Members present to whom he was referring. The hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division was not one of them, for no one had served his country with more gallantry in South Africa during the war than he. Whatever might be the feelings among a few Members on the Liberal side in regard to the
  818
  men who had served their country in the way he had tried to describe, nothing but feelings of sympathy and goodwill would be held with regard to them by the majority in that House and in the country. He had spoken of what these men had suffered; what was to be their reward? To be cast out sick, penniless, friendless, to the cold comfort of the workhouse or the forlorn hope of casual charity! That was what the answer of the Secretary for War came to when he was pressed as to what was to be the real fate of these men. He was sorry to use language which might appear to be personal to the Secretary of State for War, for there was no man on that side of the House more respected and honoured by the Opposition than the right hon. Gentleman, but he was bound to say that no more inhuman, no more cruel proposal than that was ever submitted to the House of Commons. By whom was the proposal made? It was made by a Party which constantly posed as the friend of want and the friend of suffering. Sympathy was very often awkwardly expressed; it was very often misunderstood; it was never more awkwardly expressed or more misunderstood than in the case with which the House was dealing. It was a strange way of expressing sympathy with suffering and want to throw out these men who had served their country so well. What were the reasons given for the remarkable manner in which the Government proposed to treat these unfortunate men? He thought the first reason was the most cynical ever given to the House of Commons: it was that this proceeding would save £3,000 a year. The Liberal Government had just paid an official salary to the Lord President of the Council of £3,000, and that salary was created by the present Ministry to compensate a friend who did not require compensation. [An HON. MEMBER: Question.] It was very much to the point. They saved £3,000 a year by turning these unfortunate men into the streets, but they were prepared to grant £3,000 to a noble Lord in the House of Lords who did not require it at all.
  AN HON. MEMBER: What are they suffering from?
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he did not intend to deal with innuendoes that would bring discredit on the Army. He knew how to treat them. Although the £3,000 saving might pay the salary of the Lord President of the Council who did not require it, it would not also pay the £300 salary of his secretary who was proved in the debates on the Estimates to have a sinecure.
  ME. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is allowing himself very great latitude.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid his feelings had been so stirred by the case of these men that it was not unnatural that he should have been led a little astray from the point. What were the reasons given for the Government's decision? One was that it would save a paltry £3,000 a year; the other was that it would make room for more urgent cases for skilled surgical treatment. On the face of it he admitted that there was some reason in that argument if there was real need for the accommodation which these men occupied, and if only by their removal could surgical treatment be administered to urgent cases. That reason however was absolutely disposed of by a Question addressed to the War Secretary by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Livision, than whom nobody knew more about Netley Hospital. That hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked if the Secretary for War was not aware that there were hundreds of vacant beds in the hospital. Therefore the argument used by the Secretary for War that by turning out these unfortunate men he was making room for more urgent and more serious cases, absolutely fell to the ground. The Secretary of State's answer to the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division was that he did not know but would make inquiry as to whether there were hundreds of beds vacant in Netley Hospital. But he ought to know. And he ought to have ascertained before he determined to turn out these poor friendless men, whose only crime, so far as he knew, was that they had served their King and country. If there were hundreds of vacant beds in Netley Hospital why did not the Secretary of
  820
  State allot a separate ward for the treatment of these poor men? If that was impossible, why did he not make other provision for them? The right hon. Gentleman had stated in answer to a Question that if the House of Commons would make provision for these poor men he would be only too glad to supply it. His reply to that was that if the House of Commons were given the chance they would supply the necessary funds. The War Secretary had put hon. Members off with vague promises to wait until the Estimates came on again next year. In the meantime he was going to discharge any number of these unfortunate men from the hospital, and then it would be too late for the House of Commons to take the action that many hon. Members were determined to take. Let them not for the sake of a poor, moan, and pettifogging policy inflict this greivous wrong on men who had fought for their country through all the hardships which he had tried to describe. The Secretary for War had been making eloquent appeals to the country on Army reform. He had held up high ideals to the country, and he had spoken of a nation in arms and of a country rallying round the flag. It was surely a strange way of rousing patriotic enthusiasm and of fostering military ardour to treat these invalid soldiers in the harsh, heartless way which so far as his information went they had been treated. He ventured to say that he was justified in moving, as he did, "That this House do now adjourn."
  LOUD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)said that in rising to second the Motion he desired to say at the outset that though he regarded this as a very important question and worthy of the attention of the House, he did not think that it was in any sense a Party question. He trusted the House would believe him when he said that it was far from his desire to approach the subject in any such spirit as that. It was a matter of some importance from a public point of view, and of very great importance to those soldiers who were directly concerned, and he felt that it was a matter which the Government should be asked, especially from that side of the House, to treat in a sympathetic spirit because of its intrinsic justice.

  821
  The House would pardon him if he stated briefly what he understood to be the facts of the case. He might be wrong in some details, but if so the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could correct him. Netley Hospital, as many hon. Members were aware, was a very large building indeed. It extended over a considerable area of ground, and had been in existence for half a century. It was built at the time of the Crimean war, to afford accommodation not only for soldiers who were invalided in time of war, but in times of peace. The accommodation was, therefore, very large, and in process of years it so happened that a considerable number of patients who were in fact incurable were allowed to accumulate in the hospital. Whether that was right or wrong was not material to the question before the House. As a matter of fact, towards the end of 1905 there were a considerable number of patients suffering from diseases of an incurable character. Some of them wore seriously ill; others were scarcely ill at all in the ordinary sense, but had some sickness or injury which was incurable. The authorities of the day therefore decided that a certain number of them should be discharged from the hospital, and that was done in November, 1905. But there were left in the hospital some men who were in a bad state of health, suffering from paralysis and other diseases which incapacitated them altogether from taking part in the struggle for life. These men and their friends believed that they were in the hospital for a permanency. Some of them had been in the hospital for seven, eight, nine, and ton years, and no doubt they anticipated that for the rest of their lives, necessarily rather a gloomy fragment of existence, they would not be disturbed, but that they would remain there without any further hardships and misfortunes. But in point of fact, for some reason or other of which he knew nothing at all, in the autumn of this year the Government decided that these men must be discharged. And one of the Questions he had put to the Secretary of State was what amount of notice was given to them before they were discharged. It might have been that it was inadequate, but it was the fact that these men were wholly without resources. They had nowhere to go, and he was told that they had no right to a pension
  822
  because their services had not been sufficiently long. They were not eligible for Chelsea Hospital. He did not know exactly what the conditions were that required to be fulfilled before a man could be admitted into Chelsea Hospital. The right hon. Gentleman would no doubt inform the House whether there was any fund supplied by the public for men in this position. Unless there was such a fund, apart from private charity which the House should disregard altogether in considering this subject from a public-point of view, the only resource of these men was to accept the workhouse. In some cases the place of their settlement was a long distance off, it might be away over in the west of Ireland. He did not want to say anything disrespectful of the Irish, but he was informed that Irish workhouses were not more comfortable than similar institutions in England, and to take an unhapppy man who, whatever the history of his case might be, had been for years absolutely incapacitated in Netley Hospital and discharge him thence, leaving him no refuge except an Irish workhouse was very hard measure indeed. Those were the facts of the case, and the official answer put into the mouth of the Secretary of State was that there was no longer room for them in Netley without depriving others of the advantages of that institution. He was told, however, that the hospital had accommodation for 800 or 900 persons, and that except in war time it was an exceedingly rare thing for there to be more than 300 patients. Indeed, frequently, the number of patients fell to 100 and sometimes lower. It was quite clear, therefore, that there was no want of room for these men. Then it was said that to keep these men in the hospital would cost £3,000 a year. He could not say that that was a very powerful argument for dismissing them.
  MR. J. WARD: It is not worth talking about.
  LORD E. CECIL: The hon. and enthusiastic Member for Stoke thinks that,£3,000 is not worth talking about.
  MR. J. WARD: In this case.
  LORD E. CECILsaid he was not disposed to differ; but he was astounded at the estimate which, at the rate of 10s.

  823
  per week should be sufficient to provide for 120 men. Whether the number of men was large or small, this was really a part of the important question—What were the obligations of the country and of the House to men who had become incurably diseased or injured in military service? It was not an easy one to settle. He was told that there was a considerable amount of disease in their case. He was told that a large number of soldiers came into hospital with chest disease, consumption or tuberculosis, but by the rules of the War Office they were kept a comparatively short time and then dismissed uncured. In the early stages of the disease they could be cured, but if neglected the disease became incurable. If it was true that these men suffering from consumption were only allowed to remain a short time, and no provision was made by the Government for open-air treatment in a sanitorium, a serious defect existed in our method of administration. He was also told that a very serious state of things existed in the case of soldiers who were lunatics, and that the accommodation for them was of a very limited character. The result was that a large number were dismissed from the hospital before they were cured, and the only result was that they would have to go into an infirmary, because the House would realise that lunatics in the poorer class of life were not only lunatics but friendless. The consequence was that they had no resources, and no place to go to whatever except the workhouse. This was extremely hard treatment to be awarded to a servant of the State. That was the general case which he wished to submit to the Government and to the House. It was a serious matter from several points of view. Could the House conceive anything worse for the general reputation of the Army and the Empire, because after all, whatever their views were upon Imperial and military questions, they did not desire the Army to have a bad reputation. This was, however, a subject in which the general reputation of the Army in the eyes of the country was involved. They did not desire to see recruiting for the Army made unnecessarily difficult, for one of the inducements held out to recruits was free medical treatment. The State ought to take care that those whom they had employed were properly and humanely treated when they were in sickness, and there
  824
  was an obligation, not only on the State, but upon every Member of the House, to take care that those who served it were so treated in times of sickness.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. T. L. Corbett.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE, Haddington)said the noble Lord began by pleading with him not to treat this as a Party question, and had said truly that it ought not to be a Party question. He agreed that it should not be a Party question, but that it was one which should be determined more upon principles of humanity and economy than upon Party lines. The hon. Member for North Down who preceded the noble Lord began by paying him a compliment, and expressed his surprise that he should have made a blunder in adopting a new policy which was wholly unjustifiable. His modesty did not admit of his accepting the compliment which the hon. Member had paid him of having from high and mistaken motives adopted a new policy, because all that he had done in this matter was that he had been carrying out a line of policy which was carefully sifted by a Committee appointed by his predecessor in office, adopted by him, and acted on by him. He was prepared to defend it. When he succeeded to office he found that a batch of men had been discharged from Netley because medical skill could do no more for thorn, and they were blocking the way for others who were more necessitous. Two men were left. He was new to office and he kept those men in the hospital. They knew that they were going to be discharged, but he kept them on in the hope of being able to find a benevolent home for them. In September last, those two men were discharged from the hospital. Why was this action taken? An ordinary hospital was managed on the system that it existed for the purpose of curing poor people who could not afford medical assistance. If they were found to be incurable they were discharged, because a hospital was a place which existed for cure and not for the maintenance of those who could not be cured. The effect of retaining those patients who could not be cured was to block out those cases which needed urgent treatment. The same

  825
  system prevailed in the Admiralty hospitals and it ought to prevail in the War Office hospitals. Unless they took that course difficulty would inevitably arise in making provision for those cases that really called for the efforts of a cure. It was true that there were only between 300 and 400 patients at Netley, and that there were 900 beds. But the point was that, although the space was there, there was no establishment in time of peace to look after the sick. Netley was our great war hospital, and a large amount of space had to be provided to meet the claims of war. But in peace time only such a staff was provided as was needed for the average number of sick. At the present time the number was about 300, but in one week the number might go down to thirty or forty, and in another week the number might rise to 300. The staff, therefore, was calculated on the average number of sick, so that the peace accommodation at Netley was only about 300 or 400 places. The authorities had to exercise the utmost care as to who were taken in and retained. The principle was to take in whoever needed medical treatment and to keep him while such treatment could do him any good; and then they ought to pass him out when the case proved to be incurable, or when the man was healed, in order to make room for those who needed urgent medical treatment. That was the system worked out by the advisory board composed of men like Sir Frederick Treves and other eminent surgeons, and it had been carried on for a considerable time past. It was a system which had been pursued with some laxity when the late Government took the matter up and decided to treat the hospital on the principle he had described. It was asked "Why do you not make provision for the soldier who is poor and incurable?" His answer was to ask another question—"Why should some thing special be done for the soldier, why should he receive what the great bulk of the poorer classes in this country cannot receive; why do for the soldier what was not done for the sailor and the poorer members of the working classes?" Since the adjournment had been moved he had had the opportunity of consulting with the authorities, and they had given him these figures. Taking a group of military hospitals, if the incurables were not discharged,
  826
  what would happen? These figures were by way of illustration. Last year the number discharged was 3,687, of whom 700 were suffering from heart disease or tuberculosis. Everyone would like to keep those 700, but how could it be justified, seeing that the taxpayers included large numbers of the poorer classes for whom no such provision was made? If the Government were to accept the principle urged upon them tonight it would mean that, in respect of men suffering from heart disease and tuberculosis alone, 700 would be retained every year. Their average expectation of life might be taken at ten years. Those were cases of persons who were discharged not because their lives were in danger—if they were in danger they were treated—but because they were incurable. Therefore if they assumed the number of cases every year discharged was 700, and the mortality was 10 per cent. on a basis of ten years average the cost would amount to £324,000 a year. If other diseases were included, the cost would be not less than £500,000 a year. Saving money was not in question. He was asked to find £500,000 a year and to provide new buildings for the accommodation of those cases; and all this for the benefit, not of the community at large, or even for the Services, for the sailors had not these advantages, but for a privileged class— the incurables in the military hospitals, because the military hospitals could do them no further good. All that the military authorities could do for them was to give that pension to which they were entitled. The system of the military organisation of this country provided pensions for a certain class. If a soldier were totally incapacitated by wounds he got a pension of from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. a day. If he were sick in consequence of military service, but not totally incapacitated, he received from 6d. to 1s. 6d. a day. But if the sickness were not due to military service, but illness which, so to speak, had come to the soldier in his civilian capacity as it might come to any other member of the community, then the soldier only received a short time pension, like one of the men whose case had been raised by this Motion. Those who could be cured were cured, and those who could not, but who were eligible for Chelsea, received a Chelsea pension or

  827
  admission to Chelsea Hospital. This was no new arrangement, and to change the system would be to place a heavy addition on the Estimates and the building, both to benefit soldiers in a way that no other class of the community was benefited. It was quite true, as the hon. Member had said, that there were hundreds of vacant beds at Netley, but there were no attendants for them. Netley was now on the peace establishment, and beds without attendants were not beds that were worth much. It was said that these men had suffered for the Empire. They were ill as any civilians might be ill. Neither of the men had seen war service or had beep wounded, and, in his opinion, they were entitled to no more consideration than any other poor member of the community.
  MR. J. WARD: What about those whose disease is due to foreign service?
  MR. HALDANEsaid that such men would be eligible for Chelsea, but the illness of the men in question was not due to foreign service. The late Government very properly discharged all the incurables but two, whom he soft-heartedly had retained. His only reward was to be bombarded in the house with Questions. The provision for wounded men was at Chelsea and not at Netley, which was a hospital for curing the sick. He thought he had answered all the points put to him. He regretted very much that he could not make provision for everybody, but that was a regret that should apply to the community as a whole, and not to any special class. He thought they had done all that they ought to do in this case. He entirely agreed with the policy which had been adopted by the medical authorities, because he felt that if that policy were departed from, it would be the worse for those whom medical aid could cure, and who would thus be debarred from obtaining that aid.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid that as he knew these two men personally, having been in Netley hospital a good many times during the past two years and having thus become acquainted with them, he might perhaps be permitted to say what he knew of the matter. He would say first of all for the
  828
  relief of the mind of his right hon. friend that in only one particular was he wrong. He was under the impression that one of these men who had been dismissed had gone to the poor-house at Fermoy. That was where he was destined to go when he was dismissed, but fortunately some friends had intervened, and he was now in a nursing home at Southampton. The fact was that all this was the direct result of the decision of the late Secretary of State for War, and if the House was to censure anyone they ought to censure that right hon. Gentleman as much as the present holder of the office. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that if he were in his place, and therefore whatever blame was to be imputed could not be imputed to his right hon. friend for the policy initiated by his predecessor. Having said that, he did not for one moment agree to the doctrine of his right hon. friend that there was no harm in a system which would say that a man who had been for ten years in one of our military hospitals as an incurable invalid should, by the mere decision of a Board, be sent to the poor-house in Fermoy. He submitted to the House in no Party spirit, as the decision was that of the late Secretary of State, that that was wrong, and that no amount of talking about other members of the community having as much right to consideration as retired soldiers would make it right. If it was Tight to keep a man for ten years, a hopeless paralytic, it must be wrong with no change whatever in his condition or in the condition of the finances of the responsible persons to send him to a workhouse. It was as though a man had an employee fell and broke his log, and the leg would not set. It might be alleged that the man fell through his own fault and was partly to blame—he did not admit that in this case, but what was true in the one case might be true in the other, but it was probably not. The employer decided to put that man in one of his lodges and take care of him for ten years. If at the end of that period without any disaster to his finances he were to turn the man out into the street to go into the workhouse no one would be surprised if the inhabitants of the neighbourhood were much tempted to go and break his windows. That was what had happened at Netley Hospital through the order of his right hon. friend's predecessor. It was wrong, and the particular point

  829
  which his right hon. friend referred to, though hardly mentioning it, made the matter all the more disastrous to those who knew the circumstances of a soldier's life. Had we a right to send men to India at a time of life when they were most liable to suffer owing to the temptations and the dangers of a tropical climate, and then, years later, having taken all the best out of them for the purposes of the State, to throw them back on the labour market, or, as in this case, upon the workhouse? He was glad this Motion had been brought before the House. His right hon. friend had certainly cleared his reputation as a man of extraordinary kindness of heart. He pleaded that before dismissing this matter they should look facts squarely in the face. If they would only make up their minds not to enlist men unless they could treat them properly, there would be no more of these perpetually recurring cases of soldiers, who had served their country faithfully in peace and in war, going to the workhouse. He therefore appealed to the House to weigh carefully the next time it was suggested that the Army might be reduced, and not to meet the argument with the statement that it was unpatriotic.
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKERthought the hon. and gallant Member was rather wide of the question.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he was endeavouring to show that if the House of Commons was to see that men were properly treated, it was necessary for them to take measures to that end. But he had concluded his remarks, and he only wished to urge that it was better to attend to the necessities of these unfortunate men, even though it might be said in certain cases that they had a share in their own misfortunes, than to have an ever-increasing number of men who were not treated properly.
  *SIR SAMUEL SCOTTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had stated that when he first came into office i he found only two men in the Netley Hospital, and yet in an answer to his noble friend the Member for East Marylebone the other day he had stated that the saving to the country by removing the incurables was no loss than £3,000 a
  830
  year. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell the House that these two men cost the country £1,500 a year each? The right hon. Gentleman in speaking of Netley Hospital had hardly brought forward the point that that hospital was primarily a hospital where incurables were sent when they returned from service abroad, and was equipped for that purpose. He objected strongly to the policy of over-riding the discretion of the principal medical officer of Nedey Hospital. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government now intended absolutely to forbid the principal medical officer at Netley Hospital to exercise his former discretionary power of keeping a man in hospital if he thought such a course desirable.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they always allowed a certain discretion to the medical officer in individual cases, and a certain latitude as to the time, but they did not allow him to retain them in Netley Hospital if they were incurable
  *SIR SAMUEL SCOTTasked whether hon. Members really considered that the principal medical officer at Netley; Hospital would have kept those men there during the South African War if he had not thought there was every justification for the course and that it was only justice to keep them there. The right hon. Gentleman might yet reconsider what ought to be done to men who came home from abroad suffering from curable disease. He would add nothing to what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division. He only disagreed with the hon. and gallant Member in his latter remarks, which were out of order. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, having heard the appeal from both sides of the House, would be able to evolve some scheme for dealing with this matter, even if a large sum wore required for the purpose.
  MR. DELANYagreed with the noble Lord who seconded the Motion that this was not a Party question, but it was a question which particularly concerned Ireland and the ratepayers of that country. He did not at all accept the comparison the right hon. Gentleman had made between the soldier

  831
  patient and the civilian patient. Did the right hon. Gentleman assume that the State undertook no obligation to a soldier when it took him from the ordinary avocations of life for the profession of arms, to risk his liberty, health, and life? The right hon. Gentleman had shown clearly what obligations the State undertook in regard to a man or a body of men who were called upon to serve their country. He knew a man who had served his country in the Army who would have become the prospective occupier of a pauper's grave in Ireland but for private charity. He mentioned the other day that Irish workhouses were packed with old soldiers, and he called the attention of the Secretary for War to an old Crimean warrior who was now living in Ireland upon 1s. 6d. per week outdoor relief from the Tullamore Guardians, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was some difficulty in regard to money. There was always that difficulty. He also said that the State had its obligations to all aged people. That might be so, but the State had a triple obligation in regard to old soldiers for the reason he had already stated. In the Colonies they granted old age pensions.
  THE DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid he was afraid that old age pensions could not be discussed under this Motion.
  MR. DELANYsaid the Secretary for War had never tried to meet this difficulty. Why could he not put an Estimate down for this and challenge the Opposition to support him.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they already had £2,100,000 on the Estimates as pensions for these very cases.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTSthought the House would admit he had some right to join the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) in his disavowal of Party motives, because the part he took in regard to a cognate Question in the past could certainly not be said to have been taken from Party motives. He could not, however, exonerate the Secretary for War from participation in any Party treatment of this subject, because, whilst he agreed with much he had said about Netley Hospital, it seemed to him that
  832
  the amazing argument he had used, that this Government and the country and the House of Commons had no greater responsibility to those who had served their country in difficulty and danger than they had to those who had served themselves only, was an appeal to Party feeling such as he had rarely heard introduced into a subject of this kind. When it was left to an hon. Member from Ireland to establish the responsibility of the Government to the man who had served his country, it seemed to him that that hon. Member had a fuller conception of the responsibilities of Imperial citizenship than the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that a hospital should not be turned into a home for incurables. If a hospital was suited to cure disease and deal with surgical cases, it was unsuited to house incurable cases. By "unsuited" he meant that its whole equipment, its nursing and medical staff, were practically wasted on incurables. He could give the House a parallel instance from what happened in South Africa during the war. There, in the unreformed days, the great general hospitals at the base, and many near the front, were crowded with convalescents who needed no medical attendance and nursing, and who occupied beds which were sorely needed for sick and surgical cases. It was only when this point was urged upon the authorities and the suggestion was made from outside, that convalescent camps were established, which were better for the convalescents themselves, and freed the beds for the sick and surgical cases. He mentioned this as a parallel case, because although a convalescent was exactly the opposite to an incurable, yet both bore the same relation to the function of a hospital for the cure of disease and the treatment of surgical cases. Therefore he should be the last to complain of sending incurables away from such a hospital, from the point of view of the hospital itself. But what about the incurables? Where were they going to send them? He had shown that before the authorities could deal with convalescents they had to find places to put them in. How much more necessary was this in the case of incurables? These men had contracted disease whilst serving with the colours. It was not their fault that their disease

  833
  had become incurable. Where did they draw the line of responsibility? The men whom they treated in the hospital had become sick from the same cause as the others who had become incurable. How could they assume responsibility in the one case and divest themselves of it in the other? Was there either justice or humanity in allowing these men to shift for themselves or hurrying them into the workhouse with paupers when their only fault was that they had worn the King's uniform? ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he was quite ready to withdraw that and substitute for it— the very cause of whose incurable disease was that they had worn the King's uniform. Were they going to leave those men to eke out their lives on charity or leave them permanently in the workhouse? Such a policy would have a fatal effect upon the morale of the Army and upon the prospects of recruiting. It was the duty of the Minister to advise the House; and the guidance he had given to the House, if his words had been rightly understood, was that these men who had contracted their diseases in the service of their country were to be left to a pauper's fate; for the country was to do nothing to help them, and the Minister would not face the possible unpopularity with his Party of proposing in the Estimates some substantial relief. With regard to extra beds at Netley Hospital he would venture to make a practical suggestion. Very little medical attendance or nursing was necessary for incurables, and it would be possible so to arrange Netley Hospital that in time of peace the shelter it afforded could be devoted to the comfortable and merciful housing of those incurables, while some system was being worked out for their more permanent charge by the country. If it became widely known that this sort of fate awaited any man who entered the Army and served his country and happened to contract an incurable disease while serving it, the gravest harm would be done to the Army and it would constitute almost an outrage on humanity and patriotism alike.
  *MR. MADDISONsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had twitted the Minister for War by stating that an hon. Member from Ireland had a more just conception of
  834
  Imperial duty than himself. He entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman even in regard to that, but what he was concerned about was the statement of the hon. Gentleman that, whereas soldiers served their country, other citizens served themselves. He could not imagine a broader line of demarcation between the two conceptions of civic and military duty than that. The boiler-maker, weaver, or follower of any other "common" trade served his country just as much as any private, noncommissioned officer, or officer in the Army. If there was one proposition made by the Secretary for War more worthy of their support than another, it was his contention that, while making all humane and proper provision for our troops, they had no right beyond this to make distinctions, involving a large amount of money, between the man who happened to be employed in the Army and the man who happened to be employed in a weaving shed or elsewhere. They had heard a good deal about listening to clamour. He was glad the Secretary for War had not listened to the clamour of hon. Members opposite that night when a peremptory demand was made upon him to give a pledge on the spot that no alteration should be made at Netley Hospital until the House of Commons had discussed it. Where would the War Office be if a Minister gave way to such a demand? They read in The Times that if the Labour Members made a demand the Ministers gave way at once. Supposing the Labour Members had made this demand. [An HON. MEMBER: They would have given way.] The first Members of the House to protest against concession to clamour would be hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had tried clamour that night, but were, he thought, going to find it a dismal failure. He was glad that the Leader of the Opposition had consulted the dignity of the House in not being present to support a Motion which had no justification. Where was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City? [An HON. MEMBER: What price Wyndham?] The Minister for War had approached this matter in a most sympathetic spirit. A day or two ago and again to-day he had explained the whole position, and hon. Members opposite were not consulting the dignity of the House when they attempted to get

  835
  the right hon. Gentleman to give way on the spot in regard to a matter which he had had under his consideration. He maintained that workmen had never refused to be generous to the soldier, and especially to the sick soldier. What amused him was the wonderful concern shown about two soldiers at Netley by the Opposition to-day when he recalled how the hon. Member for Westminster stood surrounded by a number of icebergs uttering his noble plea for hospital accommodation when our soldiers were fighting at the front and were being struck down more by disease than by the bullets of the Boers. Yet a remnant of the Opposition were now endeavouring to make Party capital—[Cries of "No, no."]
  LORD R. CECIL: The hon. Member, in the extreme venom of his Party spirit —[Cries of "Order" and "Withdraw," and interruption.]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not think the noble Lord's expression is permissible.
  LORD R. CECILexpressed regret for having been carried away beyond the limits of order; but the speech of the hon. Member was of an extremely provocative character considering the way in which the question had been treated on that side of the House.
  *MR. MADDISONsaid that his criticism might be provocative, but he believed it to be true. Was the House to be asked to sanction the plea that a soldier who had perhaps lived a reckless life in India and had given way to the temptations of the cantonments, thereby contracting disease which made him incapable of further work, should, because he wore the King's uniform, for life be saddled upon the State? As a workman who had lived among his own class, he said that it would be a wrong to the community and that the Government had no right to sanction it. If a young engineer went out to India and contracted a disease through falling a victim to temptations, was any fair and good employer to be called upon to make himself responsible for that man for all his life? No, and he repudiated the doctrine that the State was called upon to assume a wide and indiscriminate obligation of this kind.
  *MR. H. H. MARKSsaid the debate had shown in a very marked manner what a striking change took place in the aspect and dimensions of a question between the time when it was brought before the House at the question hour, and the time when it became the subject of a Motion for adjournment. In answer to a Question on Tuesday last the Secretary of State for War stated that the retention of men in military hospitals after their discharge from the Army had been brought to the notice of the War Office last year, but that night they had heard from the same authority that the action he took in regard to that matter was action based on the example of his predecessor in office, and was taken in consequence of a decision arrived at by the late Government. It might be that the late Government had concurred in the view that Netley was not to be used for the reception of incurable cases, but there was a wide difference between that position and discharging men from the hospital after they had been admitted, because it was found that their maladies had not been cured. On the same occasion the right hon. Gentleman stated in answer to a Question that the retention of the men would only cause a charge on the Army Votes of about £3,000 a year, but to-night he figured that it would involve a charge of £300,000 a year. On Tuesday the right hon. Gentleman said that, apart from the cost, the retention of these cases absorbed the hospital accommodation which was required for other soldiers. That statement had been withdrawn to-night. [Cries of "No".] Well, it had been modified now in a very material degree, because the right hon. Gentleman had told the House that while there were 900 beds in Netley Hospital there were only between 300 and 100 patients. He admitted that the statement was qualified by the further information that although there were vacant beds there was no staff, and no means to provide a staff for them. For what was staff required? It was required for the medical care and treatment of the sick. But what was the class of men to whom this Motion for adjournment referred? The right hon. Gentleman said on Tuesday last that the men were not in condition of grave sickness; they were only incurable! The man who was only incurable had not so much need of medical

  837
  attendance. He needed exactly that which the right hon. Gentleman said he could not give him—the shelter of a home. Therefore, the question of the staff did not enter into the matter in any important degree. These men, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, might be retained at Netley by an expenditure of £3,000 a year. Surely, that was not an immense sum to ask the Government, the House, or the country to grant for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman had said, "I am already asking for £2,300,000;" but if such a sum as that was asked for, why not add £3,000 to it? That would settle the question immediately before them. The right hon. Gentleman had only been asked to say that he would suspend the discharge of these men from the Hospital till such time as the House of Commons would give authority to expend the sum of £3,000 necessary for their retention, say, until March next. And this he had refused to do. It was not denied that the men discharged would have to seek a refuge in the workhouse. The House did not realise the extent to which old soldiers were going into the workhouse. They were going there at the rate of 1,500 a year. The right hon. Gentleman recently stated that the number of old soldiers in the workhouse was not known at the War Office. He thought that that admission threw a peculiar light on the methods of the War Office. If the War Office had kept in touch with the old soldiers this Motion would have had more sympathetic treatment at their hands. In his statement to the House on Tuesday last, which differed in many important particulars from his statement to-night, the right hon. Gentleman had said he was doing all in his power to find homes for the soldiers discharged from Netley. It would be well if he would state with some definiteness what steps he was taking in that direction. It would relieve the minds of many who deeply deplored the harsh treatment meted out to the poor men on whose behalf the evening's debate had been raised.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that his justification for asking the indulgence of the House for a few moments was that when he was Under-Secretary for War he was brought into contact with very
  838
  similar problems to this, problems which were very difficult to solve. He might say that the actual facts of what a young soldier's life was, was then much present in the public mind, and the Government of that day had to resist immense pressure to commit the State to schemes of pensions which would have involved hundreds of thousands if not millions a year. But, though the Government incurred unpopularity for resisting those claims, they did not resist them all; for they recognised that they must depart from the rigour of the bargain, and that there was an obligation on the State to treat old soldiers with consideration. The speech of the hon. Member for Burnley was calculated to inflame the debate and to prevent the House from giving proper consideration to this case. The hon. Member for Burnley saw no distinction between the soldier in the Army and the soldier of industry. Everybody saw that distinction when we were at war in South Africa. Was it not plain that the man who was paid only 7s. a week, who was under rigid discipline, and who was under a seven years contract which might involve him in spending a large part of his youth abroad under dangerous climatic conditions, and in exposing himself in battle to death and mutilation—was it not plain that such a man was in a peculiar case? Mr. Ruskin in his "Roots of Honour," had put the case that when everything was said against a soldier which could be said, in regard to his drink habits, or impurity of life, yet, when the moment came, he was ready to die for his King and country.
  *MR. MADDISONsaid that he drew a distinction between a soldier on duty in war time and in peace.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that that distinction was rather a refinement. But the fact was that the soldier entered into a contract which involved all these hardships. Passing that by, however, they had to take the practical view that we needed recruits for our Army. We did not pay them a wage which compensated them for all the accidents which were incidental to their employment, and it was only fair that we should endeavour to make their life as happy as possible while they were in the Army, and show them at least that consideration which we

  839
  would show to a horse when sick. It was said that his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition was not there because he thought that this was a frivolous motion; but that was not the case, the right hon. Gentleman having asked him to express his regret that he was not present. Such cases as these were worthy of occupying the attention of the House for two hours, because they threw new light upon the large and difficult problem of how we were to treat the man who suffered while wearing the King's uniform. The Secretary of State for War had said that they had on the Estimates a considerable sum for Chelsea Hospital, but he also said that all these cases could not be relieved at Chelsea.
  MR. HALDANEsaid they might also be relieved by what was called a short time pension and in other ways.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid they got very hard cases at the War Office, but they were bound by the rules, as it seemed to him, to pay excessive compensation to one man, and they were debarred in the same way from helping a man whom they would wish to help. In his opinion it was more important that the man who was absolutely disabled and who was an old soldier should be relieved than the raw recruit who met with an accident in the riding school within three weeks of enlisting. When an old soldier permanently incapacitated was sent to a workhouse we gave the maximum of advertisement to an event which we did not wish known and did not wish to happen. That man became an object of public spmpathy, but how vain was sympathy bestowed on an old soldier sent to a workhouse. If such cases could be obviated by an expenditure of £300,000 he hoped the Secretary for War would reconsider this decision. Surely we had not said the last word of wisdom and mercy in this matter. There had been a steady advance during the last few years in the treatment of our soldiers; let not that advance be stayed for £300,000. They were all agreed that Netley Hospital should not be a home for incurables, but these men had been there a long time, and something like prescription arose. It was hard in such circumstances to say, "I made a mistake, and now I must correct it," He would not
  840
  press that point. He made it to meet the charge that the Party in opposition were responsible for this matter. He had said they were responsible for all rules as to pensions relating to men who were incapacitated whilst serving in the Army. They had made advances when in office with regard to men who were subject to exposure in tropical climates. He asked the right hon. Gentleman not to shut the door and say that, while Secretary for War, he would not reconsider this very small category of cases.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he would like as one who had listened to the whole of this discussion to give expression to the feelings which had been formed in his mind by it. Expressions had been made use of by the mover and seconder of the Motion to which very little attention had been paid by the subsequent speakers, but which he thought ought to be revived. It was suggested that the reason why this Motion was brought forward was that the Government and those behind them had no care for the Empire and particularly for those whose lives had been given in its defence. That was the definite proposition which was made, as Hansard would show.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I absolutely repudiate that there was any such proposition. I never used such words at all or conveyed any such impression.
  MR. J. WARDsaid that at any rate that was the impression left upon his mind, and that was followed by a speech from the hon. Member for Westminster, who, starting very carefully, finished up with an almost similar declaration, calling attention to the inhumanity and the breach of humane principles which were involved in the action of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. One would have imagined that the present Secretary of State for War was really the individual who had initiated this particular order.
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I never said that.
  MR. J. WARDsaid that might be so, but the inference was that the present administration were the guilty parties. There was no object in the Motion if the present administration were not guilty.

  841
  [Cries of "No!"] Well, he was ready to take the alternative and to say that this Motion was really a vote of censure on the late administration. [Cries of "No!] Hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Benches would not take that alternative. But surely they condemned someone. At all events they would condemn the principle of the order. [Cries of "No!"] Well then, he could not understand the object of the Motion for the adjournment. it seemed, after all, that what they had been doing was simply, like a gang of schoolboys, having a game of marbles. He really thought that this was a serious business, and he thought that when questions were put to-day and during the speeches that a great wrong was being done to men who had served their country well. He understood that that was the proposition. [Cries of "Yes."] Well, who initiated it? If the statement of the Secretary of State for War was correct, and nobody on those Benches had attempted to deny it the recommendation was made by a Departmental Committee during the last administration and acted upon by the late Secretary of State for War. Therefore, if there was any condemnation hon. Gentlemen themselves would have to take it. That seemed to a plain man the natural inference to be drawn from all the statements that had been made. If the statement of the Secretary for War was incorrect, the whole position was changed, but nobody had denied its truth. It was admitted in the very conciliatory speech of the right hon. Member for Dover. The right hon. Gentleman had not had the opportunity of listening to the Secretary of State for War or he would have known at once that he and his friends were responsible for any breach of humane feeling and humane principles. The Opposition Benches were the roost to which the birds came home.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the hon. Member was unintentionally misrepresenting the speech he had made. But he thought he had made it in a proper spirit.
  MR. J. WARDsaid he was only a young Member of the House, but he had watched the debates from a more elevated position for many years and he had always understood that a Motion for the
  842
  adjournment of the House amounted to a censure on the administration for something they had done or for something they had omitted to do. In this case he understood the Secretary of State was wrong for having carried out the policy of his predecessor. In his opinion it scarcely became the members of the Opposition to press that point. He agreed that the soldiers were not fairly treated. But right hon. and hon. Gentleman would discover that those representing the working men in this House who advocated peace on principle, because they thought war was wrong, would be the first to stand up and defend the rights of the soldier. They agreed that the treatment of the soldiers was not right. They agreed that they ought to be treated much better than they were, if it was necessary, as it appeared to be to nations at large, that soldiers should be employed. But it was the late Government who had failed in their duty to treat them well, and if anyone was to stand at the bar it was the men on the Opposition Benches. This discussion had been useful. It had been useful for a purpose which its initiators had not intended. It had shown the House, whatever might be said of the Party opposite or those who sat upon the Labour Benches, that if any cruelty had been perpetrated, it had been perpetrated by the Gentleman who sat on the Opposition Benches.
  *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had endeavoured to justify the attack he had made on the Motion before the House by defending the Secretary of State for War, and his defence amounted to this, that the right hon. Gentleman was doing that which his predecessor initiated. They had always heard, however, not only from the Press, but from the mouths of Ministers in the House, that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been placed there to reverse the policy of the late Government. He, at any rate, could claim that in the last Parliament he was not a supporter of many of the schemes of the War Minister in that administration, and his attitude, therefore, was impartial. The House seemed to have lost sight of the history of Netley Hospital. From a Report

  843
  made upon the institution in 1858, it appeared that, in the view of its founders, it was one of its main objects to shelter soldiers suffering from incurable illness contracted in the service of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if they did anything for the cases in respect of which this Motion was made they would be establishing a system which ten years hence would cost the country over £300,000 a year. It was not right, however, that because of their own weakness or by the stress of the work which the nation asked of the soldiers the State should not bear the cost of providing decent and easier conditions for them during their incurable illness, or that they should foist upon some poor parish from which the soldiers came the whole burden which the State ought to bear. Nor would the argument of the right hon. Gentleman be accepted by the country that the soldier had no more right to consideration than a civilian if he suffered from the terrible diseases which were more likely to come to him than to a civilian, or because of long sojourn in India. The right hon. Member for Dover had shattered the miserable arguments of the hon. Member for Burnley, who had tried to compare the soldier to a man who earned wages with a full chance of getting the best possible personal profit out of his earnings. It was absolute nonsense to compare the two cases. He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman thought this country would be at war for the next year or two, and he had ample time to evolve a scheme, which, without interfering with the necessary arrangements for war time, would obviate the necessity of these men being sent to the workhouse or thrown upon private charity as a recompense for having been soldiers of the Crown. He was satisfied that this debate would arouse a great feeling through-
  844
  out the country, and would shew those who, on whichever side they sat, were sincere in their desire to make the career of a soldier not only happy and comfortable with the colours, but one which assured him care and relief when an invalid, that they represented the wishes of the great mass of the people.
  MR. CAUSTON (Southward W.)said he would not like this debate to leave any hon. Member with the idea that the soldier who served his country was altogether neglected and badly treated. From some of the observations addressed to the House one would think that soldiers who had served their country in foreign parts, and who had been wounded, or who had suffered from bad climates in which they had served were left to suffer in neglect. Nothing of the sort. Every soldier who had so suffered was entitled to a pension. Pensions were also granted to those who were disabled in the service but not through service. There wore 550 life pensioners in Chelsea Hospital, and these men had either war or long service, or were afflicted with old age. But pensioners must be men of first-rate character, and only that day the Board had admitted an old soldier eighty years of age on a first application. Two millions were paid annually in the way of pensions through Chelsea Hospital. Nobody would desire that those who served their country in whatever capacity should be found in the workhouse as a result of their service. The extra cost to the country, however, of continuing the Netley policy would be nearer £500,000 a year than £3,000.
  MR. FORSTERsaid that he had acted as one of the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and he was

  845
  glad on every occasion to pay a high tribute to the efficiency and value of the work done by that institution. The intervention of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had done something to bring the debate back to the level it attained in the speech of the noble Lord who seconded this Motion. The hon. Member for Stoke had endeavoured to make it a Party question, while the Opposition had made it clear that that was the thing that they wished to avoid. The case involved in the present discussion was one with which Chelsea Hospital could not deal. There had been case after case of this kind presented, and although the Commissioners had neither power nor funds to deal with the cases officially they were yet able by individual efforts, by canvassing among friends and philanthropic institutions, to do a great deal in the way of amelioration. But there was something wrong with a system which threw adrift men who suffered from an incurable disease or a shattered constitution, which ground them under the heel of a merciless and pitiless economy. Would not the right hon. Gentleman be well advised to devote some part of the savings to be gained from the reductions in the Army Estimates next year to providing a system by which men who were incurable might find some home other than the workhouse? Was it economy not to deal with these cases? Our military system depended upon voluntary enlistment, and there was nothing that deterred men from enlisting so much as bad and harsh treatment of old soldiers, and very often it was the best old soldiers who were treated the worst. Was it likely that the best men would enlist when they had in the cases under discussion living
  846
  —perhaps it would be more correct to say dying—examples of the manner in which diseased old soldiers were treated? He hoped the debate which had taken place would have some weight, because after all it rested with the House to alter the system. When the question came up for revision, he hoped something would be done to remove this blot from our system.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)said that one result of this debate would be to warn the young men of Ireland of the treatment they might expect in their old age, if they were foolish enough to enlist. There was a case in the north of Ireland where some men were prosecuted and sent to prison because they had issued and posted certain placards calling upon the young men of Ireland not to join the British Army. There would be no need to go outside the law in future to give warning. All that would be required would be to get a full and true report of this debate, and to circulate it widely throughout the length and breadth of the land. That would undoubtedly show to all whom it might concern the fate that was likely to overtake many of those who in the heyday of their youth unhesitatingly joined the colours and entered the Army—the fate of finding in the end, when their youth and vitality had passed away, and when age and helplessness came upon them, that they were thrown on one side by the State, and left to end their days in the most miserable way in the pauper wards of the workhouse. He was somewhat surprised at the attacks made by speakers on the Opposition side of the House on the Secretary of State for War. One would imagine from those speeches

  847
  that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the system which prevailed, and that what was complained of had taken place since he assumed office. Those who remembered the time when the War Office was presided over by Mr. Brodrick, would remember that the Irish Members brought before him case after case of unfortunate aged and suffering soldiers who were forced into the workhouse in the end of their days. The system which prevailed was a bad system. It was nothing to Irishmen what system was adopted except in so far as it affected their young men, but it was a notorious fact to everybody who had studied the conditions abroad that the treatment meted out to the common soldier in the British Army was exceedingly bad, and, he would say, a disgrace to those concerned. As compared with the treatment given to the common soldiers, the men behind the guns, by the American nation and other countries, there was very little consideration given to them in this country, but there was plenty of consideration given to the general officers, the pets of society. The present Minister for War had inherited the system of his predecessors, and those who had ruled at the War Office for the last twenty years knew that the system was bad. The Secretary of State was not the man to be insensible to the sufferings of any man, but the right hon. Gentleman had said it was a case of money—a matter of some £3,000. The House of Commons did not think of a few thousands when it showered tens of thousands of pounds upon Lord Kitchener and Lord Roberts. [Cries of "Oh!"]. He was endeavouring to put before the House his point of view moderately and without giving offence.
  848
  Hon. Members who were going to support this Motion for the adjournment professed to be solicitous about the welfare of the poor aged soldiers who were turned out of Netley, and they attacked the present Administration as if the last Administration was not responsible at all; but what did they do or say when it was a question of voting £100,000 to Lord Roberts, and £50,000 to Lord Kitchener? They did not say a single word. He was not saying that, from the last Administration's point of view, the generals were not deserving of reward, but he contended that they had no right to lavish the money of the taxpayers on generals, and leave in existence the system under which these poor soldiers received the treatment now complained of. He remembered that when these large sums were voted to the generals he raised his voice on behalf of the wives and families of the poor Reservists who were in hunger in the towns and villages of Ireland, and he received a pretty good remonstrance from the hon. Member for North Down and his friends, who were then very numerous, and, therefore, could make much more noise than at the present time. He held in his hand the Report of the Viceregal Committee on Poor Law Reform, and he found at page 57 the statement that in the month of January this year there were admitted into the various workhouses of Ireland no less than 1,040 old soldiers. If they were going to get soldiers to fight their battles, let them not, in God's name, flood the workhouses in Ireland, and put this disgraceful burden upon the already overburdened ratepayers and taxpayers of that unfortunate country. He hoped that this debate would be discussed at every cross-roads in Ireland.
  Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

  AYES.

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

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cross, Alexander

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doughty, Sir George

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone W.)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fell, Arthur

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Starkey, John R.

  Baring. Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol West)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

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

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Beaumont, Hn. H. (Eastbourne)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Turnour, Viscount

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Ed'md

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive.

  Hills, J. W.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Bull, Sir William James

  Houston, Robert Paterson

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Jowett, F. W.

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

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich.)

  Younger, George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Cave, George

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston. Manor)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  T. L. Corbett and Lord

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Robert Cecil.

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  NOES.

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

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ac land, Francis Dyke

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Agnew, George William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Alden, Percy

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Astbury, John Meir

  Clough, William

  Gill, A. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gulland, John W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Beale, W. P.

  Crossley, William J.

  Haldane, Rt, Hon. Richard B

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hammond, John

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

  Davies, David (Montgomery, Co

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harwood, George

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

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bennett, E. N.

  Delany, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Berridge, H. T. D.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bertram, Julius

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Bethell, J.H. (Essex, Romford)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Billson, Alfred

  Duckworth, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brace, William

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Branch, James

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Brigg, John.

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Hogan, Michael

  Brodie, H. C.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Brooke, Stopford

  Elibank, Master of

  Hooper, A. G.

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Erskine, David C.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  The House divided:—Ayes, 61; Noes 259. (Division List No. 390.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hudson, Walter

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Morrell, Philip

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Morse, L. L.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Snowden, P.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Murphy, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Murray, James

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Nicholls, George

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Sullivan, Donal

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Summerbell, T.

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  O'Malley, William

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Lambert, George

  O'Mara, James

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thompson, J. W. H (Somerset E)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis.

  O'Shee, James John

  Tomkinson, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Paul, Herbert

  Ure, Alexander

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Verney, F. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Vivian, Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lundon, W.

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

  Wallace, Robert

  Lupton, Arnold

  Radford, G. H.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Ward, W. Dudley-Southampton

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wardle, George J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  MacVeigh, Chas, (Donegal, E.)

  Rees, J. D.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  M'Crae, George

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Kean, John

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

  Watt, H. Anderson

  M'Killop, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whitbread, Howard

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robinson, S.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry )

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Massie, J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Williamson, A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Rowlands, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Menzies, Walter

  Runciman, Walter

  Younger, George

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Pease.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Shackleton, David James

  LAND TENURE BILL.
  Postponed proceeding on Amendment proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended, resumed.
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned"—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.
  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 ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Bill, reported, without Amendment.
PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: of inhabitants, rate-payers in the parishes of Kislingbury; Weedon; Mountsorrel; Charwelton; Narborough; and Blakesley-with- Woodend; Buckland; Great and Little Chesterford; Ugley; Roydon; Rickling; and Quendon; of trustees of Church of England schools in Great Bowden.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment: of inhabitants of Duston; of parents or guardians of children attending the Church school in the parish of Charwelton; and St. Margaret's School, Manchester.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POPLAR UNION.
  Report to the President of the Local Government Board on the Poplar Union, by J. S. Davy, C.B., Chief General Inspector of the Board. Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE DISTURBANCES AT THE NAVAL BARRACKS.
  EARL CAWDOR: My Lords, I wish to put to the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he is prepared to make to your Lordships any statement with regard to the disturbances that are stated to have
  654
  taken place in the Naval Barracks at Portsmouth.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, my noble friend has asked me a very natural Question, the disturbances referred to having caused considerable anxiety to everybody. I am glad to say that since Monday there has been no recurrence of any trouble, and that the barracks now are perfectly quiet. The stokers have been certainly a very well-behaved class of recent years, and the men who have apparently been the cause of the disturbance are young men of not more than six months' service, who have been going through their preliminary training, and, therefore, are no yet imbued with the traditions of the Service. Directly these disturbances occurred a Court of Inquiry was ordered, of which Admiral Cross was placed at the head. That Court is now sitting, and I have to-day received a telegram stating that the Inquiry, which must necessarily be conducted in the most careful manner, will probably be concluded on Saturday. On the Report of the Inquiry further action will be taken, but pending the receipt of that Report the Admiralty consider that it would not be wise to go into detail as to the causes which led to the outbreak. Of course, after the Court of Inquiry has reported we shall be very ready to give any information possible.

  THE SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  *THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, many Members of your Lordship's House have been commanded to a Chapter of the Garter and banquet at Windsor on Tuesday next on the occasion of the visit of the King and Queen of Norway. That will necessarily take away from the House several of those who desire to take part in the debates on the Education Bill In these circumstances I believe I should be consulting the wishes of the House if at its rising on Monday next I moved that the House adjourn till Wednesday.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I presume there is no intention of taking

  655
  a fourth, day next week and sitting on Friday?
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: Oh, no; the sacredness of Friday I desire to preserve during the remainder of this session.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 5:—
  LORD ASHBOURNEproposed to amend the first subsection of the clause, so that it should read—
  "Where the owners of the school-house are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4, or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded, they may appeal to the Board of Education," etc.
  He said it had been implied from the Government Benches that the changes made in Clause 4, especially the one making it mandatory on the local authority to grant the extended facilities, had tendered Clause 5, providing for appeals to the Board of Education, unnecessary. He did not agree with that view. The need to the owners of an appeal under subsection (1), and to the parents of an appeal under subsection (4), of Clause 5, had not been affected by the alterations in Clause 4. and he considered it would be a very serious thing for their Lordships at that stage to be asked to assent to a proposal for a substantial variation of that clause. They could not say exactly what might be the final shape of the Bill as it would leave their Lordships' House, but, taking the Bill as it stood with the changes that had been introduced, he felt that an appeal was needed, and that it would not be wise, prudent, or reasonable to divest those aggrieved, the owners in the one case and the parents in the other, of their right of appeal. There were many probable points of difference in regard, for instance, to the way the extended facilities were granted by the local authority, which would still render necessary the appeal to the Board of Education. He was quite willing to trust the local authority; he believed that
  656
  in the majority of cases the local authority could be trusted. But in this world everybody was not an angel, and it was only fair that there should be some opportunity of revising and reconsidering mistakes which had possibly been honestly arrived at. This was an appellate section, intended to give an appeal to those who were dissatisfied and felt aggrieved, and he would very much regret if it were seriously interfered with and the right of appeal substantially taken away.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 4, to leave out from the word ' where ' to the first 'the' in line 8, and after the word ' schoolhouse ' to insert the words ' are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4 or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded, they.' "—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord has brought this matter forward, because it undoubtedly is necessary to understand clearly how we stand with reference to the relations of Clauses 4 and 5 after the alterations which have been made by your Lordships in the former. As we introduced the Bill, an option was left to the local authority as to whether it should grant these extra facilities. If it declined, there was an appeal to the Board of Education, who might then do one of two things. They might proceed to issue an order which would ultimately, no doubt, have to be enforced by a Court of law; or, if they did not choose to do that, they might make special arrangements by which the schools should be carried on in a different manner as a State-aided schools. That was an appeal, and an appeal on a refusal. It appears to me that the noble and learned Lord, if he will forgive my saying so, has mixed up two things. He has mixed up points of dispute which may arise in the course of the arrangements with the refusal of the local authority to give facilities at all. I think 'this undoubtedly the fact that the points which may arise during the progress of the arrangements are covered and dealt with by the Amendments which were inserted at the instance of the noble Viscount Lord Ridley yesterday, giving an appeal in cases where any difference of opinion arose.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That Amendment the noble Earl refused to accept, and it was not pressed.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: At any rate an Amendment to that effect was inserted at an earlier stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is true.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Lord did not press his last Amendment. If your Lordships will refer to Clause 2, you will see that, as the clause now runs, the arrangements are not a question for the Board of Education at all, but for the Commission, and that all points of dispute which arise during the progress of the arrangements come before the Commission. These are the, words—
  "If the local education authority fail to make an arrangement by agreement with the owners of the schoolhouse, the arrangement shall be made by the Commission appointed under this Act, and the provisions of this Act with reference, to schemes shall apply to any arrangement made by the Commission.
  This makes it unmeaning to have a concurrent appeal to the Board of Education during the progress of the arrangements. That, I think, will be clear to noble Lords.
  I pass from the differences which may arise during the progress of the arrangement to the refusal of the authority to make any arrangement, but that is what is dealt with under Clause 5 as it stands. When the local authority refuses to make any arrangement we are surely recalled to the word "shall" which was inserted at the instance of noble Lords opposite, "Shall" makes it mandatory, peremptory, for the Board of Education immediately to proceed to see that the local education authority does not persist in. its refusal, and to take legal steps in the matter. Surely "shall" is not compatible with the alternative of appeal, i If the noble Lord inserts his words, or if this clause remains as it stands, you are in effect saying to the local authority, "You shall do so and so, but if you do not, you will not be obliged to, because the Board of Education may take steps to institute a different a kind of school." It appears to me
  658
  that what the noble and learned Lord will do if he inserts his Amendment is in effect to restore the word "may" in place of the word "shall." It appear there is no answer to that. Consequently, as far as regards subsection (1), to which the Amendments of the noble and learned Lord apply, it involves a positive contradiction in terms, the word "shall" having been inserted, to leave this alternative possibility to be dealt with at the instance of the Board of Education. As regards the latter sub-sections, I think perhaps it would be wiser not to say anything upon them until they are reached.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think it is quite clear that this section will require re-drafting, whether exactly in the terms suggested by my noble and learned friend beside me or not is another matter. The noble Earl called our attention to the wording of Clause 2 of the Bill. Let me remind the Committee what that clause contains. Under that clause the local education authority is compelled to continue a school if it complies with two conditions. The school must be structurally fit, and it must be one required for the educational purposes of the locality; in other words, it must not be a superfluous school. There is no appeal in Clause 2 on either of those points. It is quite true that the clause does provide for the case of inability of the local education authority to come to terms with regard to the arrangements under which a school is to be taken over; there is an appeal to the Commission. But, upon the other point, the question of fact whether the two conditions are or are not complied with, Clause 2 does not provide an appeal, and in our opinion such an appeal should be provided. Then with regard to Clause 4. The noble Earl, I think, was under a misapprehension when he told the Committee that an Amendment had been inserted in the Bill for the purpose of providing an appeal on facts under Clause 4. I think my noble friend Lord Ridley had an Amendment framed for that purpose on the Paper, but I cannot find it in the print of the clauses as we have them before us. Therefore, there also, it seems to me, an appeal on the facts should be propided. Again, in Clause 4 I cannot find

  659
  any provision for an appeal upon the kind of points which were raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Ashbourne— I mean points concerning the manner in which the facilities were or were not afforded.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That comes under the heading of sub-section (4), Clause 5.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: That is only for parents. I want it for the owners as well.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not deal with that subject because I had no wish to discuss the question of State-aided schools at this stage.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I agree with the noble Earl that we had better not discuss the question of State-aided schools, now; but, putting that on one side, I do think that the question of the appeal provided under these different sections is one which requires the attention of the Committee.
  LORD DAVEYthought the noble Marquess had not quite appreciated the effect of Clause 5. It was confined exclusively to the case in which the local education authority was dissatisfied with the arrangements offered by the owners of the schoolhouse and the school was one in respect of which extended facilities under Clause 4 were desired. When their Lordships struck out "may" and inserted "shall" in Clause 4 they completely altered the whole scheme of the clause, and, in his humble opinion, made nonsense of it. Clause 4, as originally framed, provided that the local authority might take a particular school where certain conditions were complied with, and Clause 5 enacted that, if the local authority declined to take that course, an appeal would lie to the Board of Education, who might do one of two things. Clauses 4 and 5 as they stood were certainly inconsistent. If the clause was mandatory the only question would be whether the local authority had taken the course prescribed or not. The substitution of "shall" for "may" in Clause 4 had made nonsense of Clause 5.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought, with the greatest deference to the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, that there was ground for an appeal to the Board of Education, notwithstanding their Amendment of Clause 4. There ought to be some means of settling whether the local education authority was right or not in the conclusion they came to—that was to say, whether they had satisfied the conditions. The view he took was that the appeal under Clause 5 had reference to a state of things before the existing voluntary school became a transferred voluntary school. In point of fact, it had reference, when the Government drafted their Bill, to an appeal from Clause 2 and not from Clause 4. The drafting of the Bill was a truly wonderful performance; but, so-far as he had been able to make out, that was the meaning of the appeal under Clause 5. It was an appeal from owners who were dissatisfied with the decisions under Clause 2 and who intended their school to become an extended facilities school. He thought that, notwithstanding the alterations that had been made in Clause 2, they still wanted the appeal provided in Clause 5. In his opinion Clause 5 should be mandatory too. If the Board of Education were satisfied that the facts were as the appellants alleged it should be mandatory upon them to reverse the decision; and, when the proper time came, he would ask their Lordships to strike out "may" and insert "shall" just as they did in Clause 4.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, we have, I think, to some degree passed away from the point raised by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. That Amendment was taken, exception to by me on the ground that, after having made it peremptory that the school should be taken over, it in the following clause left a discretion to a third party as to whether the school should be taken over or not. When you say a school shall be taken over it is not open to you to say it shall only be taken over in certain instances, and, therefore, as regards the latter part of the clause, on which we heard nothing from the noble Marquess who last sat down——
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not speak on that because it would have confused what I said.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: So far as that part of the clause is concerned, it does seem seem to me impossible for it to stand part of the Bill in its present form. The school has to be taken over, but before it can be taken over certain conditions have to be satisfied, and it is upon those that the noble Marquess desires that an appeal should be lodged. His appeal, I take it, is only intended to run in the case of no arrangement being arrived at. That appeal, of course, exists in a form in our Clause 5 as it stands. What would have happened under our clause was this: the. local authority refuses to take over a particular school on the ground that certain conditions have not been properly fulfilled; the Board thinks they have been fulfilled, and either makes an order or allows a school to become State-aided. What the noble Marquess wants to do, I take it, is to leave the first sixteen lines—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should ask to strike out "may" in line 9. There is a consequential Amendment down in the name of the noble Viscount on the cross benches, Lord Llandaff.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Leaving that for a moment, we are considering the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, and I think it would be well to clear up the point as to what the noble and learned Lord proposes to do with his Amendment, whether he desires to strike out the words he proposes to strike out and to insert the words he proposes to insert.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLE1GH: Might I ask the noble and learned Lord to let us know how his Amendment will run?
  LORD ASHBOURNE: It would read—
  "Where the owners of the schoolhouse are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4 or as to the mode in which extended facilities are offered, they may appeal to the Board of Education, and that Board may"—
  and then the clause proceeds as in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid this would extend the action of Clause 5 and make it apply to any school.
  LORD ASHBOURNEreplied that the governing words were in Clause 4. He proposed to strike out the words in question in deference to the suggestion made yesterday by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, that the altered conditions following upon the changes that had been made necessitated some change in the drafting. He took that view, and had applied himself to the governing idea of Clause 5 that there should be an appeal to the Board of Education given to anyone who was dissatisfied with what had been done under Clause 4.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved to substitute the word "shall" for "may," so as to make it mandatory on the Board of Education, if they found the facts as alleged by the appellants, to make an arrangement.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out the word ' may,' and insert the word ' shall.' "—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I understand that the noble Marquess considers this to be consequential on the insertion of the word "shall" in the preceding clauses.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is the same order of ideas, but it is no t consequential in the Parliamentary sense.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought their Lordships had not a clear idea of what they were being asked to pledge themselves to. He felt inclined rather to wash his hands of the clause, but he would point out that a great deal of its natural force had gone in consequence of the Amendments that had been made in Clause 4. They were keeping alive unnecessarily matter which might perfectly well drop. The only part of Clause 5 which he thought really essential was sub-section (4). He wished to put in a word of caveat. Some noble

  663
  Lords seemed to have in their minds that by giving this appeal to the Board of Education the Board would be entitled to give some facilities which were not the legal right of the managers and owners of the school. He desired to point out that the Board would not have power to give anything more than those legal rights.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFmoved to omit the words—
  "And, if they think fit, after considering the circumstances of the case, and the wishes of the parents of children attending the school as to the continuance of the school with extended facilities."
  He said the Amendment now became purely consequential, and he would not trouble the Committee with any arguments upon it.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word ' school ' to the word ' by ' in line 15.' "—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HENEAGEmoved to omit the words—
  "But if under any special circumstances of the case the Board think it expedient, they may, instead of making such an arrangement make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school."
  He explained that he moved this Amendment with the object of obtaining information about the proposed State-aided schools. This was never explained in the House of Commons, the clause having been closured. He understood State-aided schools to be an alternative; which the Board of Education might set up instead of schools under Clause 4. He could not help thinking that there would be a very strong inducement to establish these schools, because, unless he was mistaken, they would be neither fish nor flesh nor anything else, but a little of everything. They would be elementary schools in one sense, but
  664
  they would not in another. They were to receive grants, but were not to receive rates; and, therefore, there was an inducement to the Board of Education to set up these schools instead of giving the facilities under Clause 4. He was, however, not at all certain on the point, as the clause had never been explained, and he therefore invited the noble Earl the Lord President to give the Committee some information on the matter.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 18, to leave out from the word 'afforded ' to the word ' provided,' in line 21."—(Lord Heneage.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think I might perhaps postpone for the moment saying anything about State-aided schools as such, but I shall be quite willing subsequently to give the information asked for. I am compelled to support this Amendment in the interests of common sense and decent drafting. It is perfectly obvious that, owing to the changes which have been made, it is necessary in this connection for these words to come out.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he had not been able to follow clearly the effect of the changes made by Lord Ashbourne's Amendment in the earlier part of the clause. But what he understood to be the effect of the present Amendment was practically the disappearance entirely from the Bill of State-aided schools in any form.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Not from the Bill. Sub-section (4) still leaves them. We have not reached that yet.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Do I understand rightly that the effect of the Amendment will be the disappearance of the second of the two alternatives offered to the Court of Appeal to whom this matter goes?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, that is so.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved to omit paragraph (b) of subsection (1)—
  "An arrangement made by order for the use of a schoolhouse under this provision shall not have effect for more than five years."
  He could not understand the object of this sub-section inasmuch as, under Clause 4, any arrangement made and any permission given could be withdrawn at anytime.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 25, to leave out from the word ' suitable ' to the end of line 28."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is obvious, of course, that this sub-section loses a considerable part of its importance by the alteration of "may" into "shall," because, if these schools are always to be taken over, it probably is not of very great importance how long each special arrangement lasts. We inserted this sub-section because we did not think it was right that, as these arrangements were always made against, so to speak, an objecting local authority, they should have effect for a term of more than five years.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that while the clause had passed out of the hands of noble Lords on the Ministerial side of the House he did not think it ought to be assumed that the striking out of this sub-section was unimportant. If these words were struck out the local authority would be under a perpetual obligation to keep up these schools, even though the conditions completely altered and the population changed.
  LORD CLIFFORD or CHUDLEIGHcalled the noble Lord's attention to subsection (2) of Clause 4, under which a permission given under that section might at any time be withdrawn.
  LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEYmentioned that in his own experience cases had arisen in which the School Board for London had accepted a great many transfers of voluntary schools which were structurally unsatisfactory and which, through changed conditions, were subsequently not required as elementary schools; but there was no power to
  666
  retransfer them to the owners. If the words which Lord Clifford proposed to strike out were deleted the local education authority would be saddled with schools indefinitely, and would be under the obligation to keep them in repair. He would also point out that this Amendment, therefore, threw an additional charge on the rates.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHcould not see why the noble Lord attached so much importance to sub-section (b) of this clause seeing that sub-section (2) of Clause 4 provided that—
  "A permission given under this section may be at any time withdrawn by the local education authority, if, after causing a ballot to be taken and holding a public local inquiry with reference to the matter, they think that the conditions on the strength of which the permission was given no longer obtain."
  Surely if the permission was given on the strength of the building being structurally suited, and those conditions changed and the building was no longer structurally suited, they might then hold a public inquiry and withdraw the permission.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that several things might happen, and the conditions might so change as to remove any justification for maintaining the school under Clause 4, although the building might be structurally sound. His point was that there should be no obligation placed on the local authority to take over a school for an indefinite time and be saddled with it when they desired to get rid of it.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved to add the words—
  "But shall be renewable, or fresh arrangements for the same purpose may be made in a similar manner."
  If His Majesty's Government would accept these words he would not detain their Lordships by giving his reasons for moving their insertion. He thought the reasons would be obvious.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 28, after the word ' years ' to insert the words ' but shall be renewable, or

  667
  fresh arrangements for the same purpose may be made in a similar manner.' "—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Is the noble Earl certain that the words are necessary after the changes which have been made?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcould not say, but he was quite certain that they were necessary as the Bill originally stood. The arrangements were to last five years, but what was to happen at the end of that period the Bill did not say. In other cases where there was an arrangement of this sort the Bill did provide what was to happen. For instance, in Clause 1 there were these words—
  "And may as occasion requires renew any such arrangement or make fresh arrangements for the purpose in a similar manner."
  Then, again, in Clause 9 the noble Earl would find a provision to the effect that—
  "On the expiry of any such provision the Board of Education shall have the same powers for renewing the provision or making a fresh provision for the like purpose."
  As an arrangement had been made in these two cases it might lead to the argument, if no such words were inserted in the present clause, that Parliament had intended that at the end of five years nothing was to be done. Hs hoped the Committee would agree to the insertion of the words proposed.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It certainly struck me that the object with which the noble Earl moved his Amendment had already been met by the alterations made in Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Earl tell me what they were?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: As the Bill was introduced an arrangement could only last for five years. At the end of five years the original conditions—the ballot and the inquiry—had to be repeated. It was only in the first arrangement that the particular kind of appeal, with its choice of State-aided school under Clause 5, came into operation; it would not have come into operation at the second attempt. But now, as I understand, the school always
  668
  has to be taken over if the conditions are fulfilled. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary for the noble Earl to insert his words. It seems to me now that if you can only show that you have a majority of the children the school automatically goes on.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Then I ask, what is the use of retaining subsection (b), which says that the arrangement is only to go on for five years? You cannot have it both ways.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not want to have it both ways.
  LORD STANMOREsaid that whether the noble Earl's Amendment was strictly necessary or not, it certainly made the clause much clearer, and therefore, if the noble Earl went to a division, he would vote with him.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no desire to divide against the noble Earl if he wishes to insert the words. My point was that they are superfluous.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFmoved the omission of sub-section (3) which ran—
  "An appeal under this section shall not be entertained unless it is made before the first day of January, 1908."
  He thought the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would admit that this sub-section was now unsuitable. The clause now gave an appeal against malfeasance on the part of the local education authority in the course of the extended facilities. Therefore, it was obvious that the appeal must go beyond the first day of January, 1908.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Viscount is quite right. In remodelling the clause this is one of the limbs which have to come off.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he did not profess to follow the effect of the somewhat complicated verbal changes that had been made in the earlier part of this clause, but, though they were told the sub-section was now useless, he would like to know what

  669
  it meant originally. It was an extremely technical and difficult matter to understand the Government's original intention. The arrangement between an education authority and the owners of a school was to be made for five years, and then followed the provision that an appeal should be made not later than 1st January, 1908. It seemed to him that those who got the extended facilities would simply be at the mercy of an unfriendly local authority at the end of five years.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It requires a powerful imagination to picture how the clause would look in its original form, but I can answer the right rev. Prelate by saying that his interpretation of what would have happened is no doubt the correct one. As originally intended, the scheme of the Government was to leave this matter to the option of the local authority altogether, but it was brought to our minds and impressed upon us that it would be reasonable to introduce the kind of appeal which we gave under Clause 5 in consideration of the state of feeling which exists about these matters at this moment. All these questions have been made matters of very cute controversy, and it seemed to us that in the limited time before 1st January, 1908, the fires of that controversy might not altogether have been extinguished, and that hardship might have resulted to those who desired these facilities if an option was left entirely to the local authority. But five years hence—I trust in a much shorter space of time—we are in hopes that this unfortunate condition of things will no longer exist, and we did not think it right to interfere with the complete option of the local authority so far as the continuance of the school after that period.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he now understood that it was in contemplation by the Government, as Clause 4 originally stood, that after five years it would be in the absolute power of the local authority to bring the arrangement to an end without reason assigned, and that against such a decision there could be no appeal. If that was the original intention of the clause their Lordships had certainly been quite right to make the change. He was
  670
  quite sure the true position was not understood in the country. When they were told that Clause 4 safeguarded denominational schools, when they were told that special facilities could so readily be obtained, they were not told that all this might come to an end at the will of the local authority in five years. This was a point of supreme importance. He was thankful that he had elicited the explanation, and was sure it would be a revelation to the Committee and the country.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved to leave out sub-section (4) which ran—
  "The parents of at least twenty children attending a transferred voluntary school, if aggrieved by the mode in which extended facilities are afforded by a local education authority may appeal to the Board of Education, and that Board, if satisfied, after considering the circumstances of the case, that there are reasonable grounds for the appeal, may make an order allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school, and providing so far as necessary for the cancelling of any arrangement made with respect to the transfer or use of the school-house and for any other matter for which pro -vision is required in connection with the order.
  He said that he personally, and many of those who thought with him, objected to this sub-section, but they could quite see that it might be amended and put into a form which would be less objectionable. The whole question of State-aided schools was one upon which they did not look with any great favour, and for that reason he moved the omission of the sub-section.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 5, line 35, 'to leave out Sub-section (4)."—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: This is the remaining sub-section which deals with the possibility of starting State-aided schools. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Ashbourne, introduced and carried an Amendment to sub-section (1) of this clause providing that where the owners of the schoolhouse are dissatisfied with the action of the local education authority under Section 4, or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded

  671
  they may appeal to the Board of Education. That would enable the Board of Education to enforce an order upon them. As this clause stands it allows the parents of twenty children who are aggrieved by the mode in which facilities are afforded to do something else, not to appeal for an order from the Board of Education, but they may appeal to have the school turned into a State-aided school.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: The words are "may appeal;" nothing else.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think if the noble and learned Lord will read on he will see that the appeal applies only to the turning of the school into a State-aided school.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: If it is found that the complaint is reasonable and the case has been made out, instead of saying that matters are to be put right you say, "We will turn you into a State-aided school."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The question which we have to consider is really whether it is desirable, as your Lordships have altered the Bill, for the State-aided school to remain. My noble friend opposite, Lord Heneage, asked what the State-aided school was. A short biography of it is given in the next subsection. It is a school instituted by the order of the Board of Education, it receives no rates but is able to receive grants in spite of its not being an elementary school in some respects, and it would not be under the management of the local authority. The position of the school would be, in effect, very much the position of a voluntary school before the Act of 1902—subject to this: my right hon. friend Mr. Birrell in another place, when asked if he would allow a school of this kind to come under what is known as one man management, said—
  "No; arrangements would be made for its management somewhat on the lines of what is known as the Kenyon-Slaney Clause in the Act of 1902."
  It becomes a question of course, whether, after what has been done in respect to the Bill, there is any substantial reason for retaining the State-aided school at all. I think if your Lordships were to
  672
  see the clause as amended in print it would be regarded as a somewhat remarkable conclusion, whereas the owners might at any time apply to have the local authority forced into conducting the school in a particular way, the parents should have this singular appeal to turn the school into a special kind of school.
  The friends of noble Lords opposite have made rather merry, I believe, over the State-aided schools. We were told that we are multiplying an indefinite number of varieties of schools, and getting further and further with every Amendment from a national system. I am absolutely prepared to defend the existence of these State-aided schools in our Bill as introduced, but I think it becomes a serious question for the Committee to consider whether, in the shape in which the Bill now stands after your Lordships' alterations, it is advisable to retain the section at all.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXpleaded on behalf of many denominational schools in the villages where the teachers had given the religious instruction with complete satisfaction. Unless something was done with sub-section (b) of Clause 4, unless some security was taken that Clause 4 would be really available, these schools would be turned into undenominational schools, and the teachers would not be able to give the teaching they had hitherto given. He urged, therefore, that this clause ought to be allowed to remain until it was seen in what final shape the Bill emerged, and until an opportunity was given on Report of reconsidering sub-section(b) of Clause 4.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid this clause was certainly one of the most remarkable in the Bill. If a local authority unduly limited the extended facilities an appeal might be made to the Board of Education, but the Board of Education on the appeal had no right to say that the facilities ought to be given, and might shunt the school off on half-pay by making it a State-aided school. That was a most extraordinary perversion of justice. Another difficulty was that, as far as he could see, these State-aided schools would have no manager. They

  673
  would not be provided schools, nor would they be deemed to be provided schools. Consequently the local education authority would have no power to appoint managers. On the other hand, the noble Earl proposed in the schedule of the Bill to repeal the section of the Act of 19O2 which enabled foundation managers to be appointed, together with managers representing the local authorities. Consequently the existing managers would no longer have any locus standi, and he was at a loss to see how any managers at all could be obtained.
  LORD HENEAGEsaid there was not only the question of managers, but the question of teachers. He would like to know who was going to appoint the teachers in these State-aided schools. The local authority had no power to appoint them because they had no power whatever over the schools, and the managers would have no power because there would be no managers.
  LORD AVEBURYspoke of the importance of retaining the State-aided schools. The principal consideration before their Lordships was the question of religious teaching, but, at the same time, although economy might not be so important, it was a matter they could not afford altogether to ignore, particularly at a time when the rates were increasing so rapidly. He know cases in his own neighbourhood where voluntary schools had been formed, not with any view of theological teaching, but in order to avoid in some parishes the expensive arrangements necessary for the formation of school boards. In many cases those schools had worked with entire satisfaction, and he trusted on that account, and also in the interest of variety in education, that some State-aided schools might be preserved.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYthought the provisions in regard to the appeal wore grotesque. Instead of giving to the owners of the school, or the parents who appealed to the Board of Education the satisfaction they required, these provisions gave them something for which they did not ask—a State-aided school. That would be but a poor consolation to the parents or owners.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he could not support the retention of State-aided schools on the ground put forward by Lord Avebury. After all, this Bill did not recognise either intellectual variety or the desire to avoid the machinery of the school board as a ground for parting off a school into this category; it recognised merely the ground that the school was one of a strictly denominational character. The object of the clause was to provide a safety valve and some means of relief to those persons who were very tenacious as to the character of their schools. It was a sort of solatium, an opportunity to people who were not happy under this national system to escape out of it. He instanced a school in Wapping where the clergy in charge, not satisfied with the Act of 1902, withdrew their school from any Parliamentary aid because they would not admit even a modified control by the ratepayers. That school was now a certified efficient school, the whole of its cost falling on the managers. The sub-section afforded a refuge, a sort of Zoar, for those who desired to withdraw from their citizenship, to stand apart from the nation, to live their own lives, and he thought that from that point of view it might be well to retain it in the, Bill. He believed the underlying motive in the minds of noble Lords who wished to strike out the subsection was that without this refuge for people who felt that the local authority were not treating them as they had expected there would be a stronger argument for exacting better terms from the State under the local authority.
  LORD COURTNEYsaid that, apart from the question of expediency, in the circumstances in which they were now placed it was impossible to retain this subsection. Let them just consider how they stood. They had given to the owners of the school a right to appeal to the Board of Education against what they conceived to be the improper action of the local authority, and in that case the Board of Education had no alternative but to force the local education authority. to give the extended facilities. There was no discretion whatever. But here they had the parents of the children appealing to the same authority, it might be on the same state of matters, and the Board of

  675
  Education was to have an alternative plan of action. The two appeals might be made simultaneously; the Board of Education was bound to speak in one way in the case of one appeal, but it would have the option of speaking in either of two ways in the case of the other. Therefore the sub-section could not be retained.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid it might be but a poor consolation to the owners of the school or to the parents of the children attending it that as the result of their appeal to the Board of Education against the action of the local authority they should get nothing but State aid and be deprived of all assistance from the rates. But surely it was better than nothing at all. Even supposing those schools got nothing but State aid they would be in no worse position than they had been before the Act of 1902. It might be said that the subscriptions they received before the Act of 1902 had now ceased and that they would have nothing to hope for from private resources. But he did not think that difficulty would have to be faced in many cases, and certainly not in all. Recent events had shown that it was extremely difficult for the Board of Education to deal with unreasonable local authorities, and precisely the same conditions might arise under the Bill as amended. The sub-section would be a safety valve against unfair dealing by a recalcitrant local authority, and he hoped their Lordships would not reject it.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid that to many of them it appeared that what was described by the noble Viscount as a safety valve was really little better than a trap. He thought anyone who had listened to the clear observations of the noble Viscount would feel that it would be to the interest of the local authority to be extremely nasty to the school in order to drive if off the rates, and, when the school so treated went to the Board of Education for redress, the Board was provided with a convenient way of shelving what would admittedly be a great difficulty in its path. He was not suggesting what might have been in the minds of the Government when the clause was placed
  676
  in the Bill, but he thought they were in a very great danger in the future of being driven out into the arid plain in which they were before the Act of 1902, and of finding such schools treated as inferior schools. In reply to the observations of Lord Stanley of Alderley, he would remind the Committee that Roman Catholics had no wish to stand out of the national life or to avoid the duties of citizenship, but they were determined in regard to this Bill to demand their just rights.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYwas very anxious to support the view taken by Lord St. Aldwyn. He for one had never understood that the security for denominational schools of a marked type against a hostile authority was only to last five years, and he held that this announcement created a new situation. But he was anxious on quite other grounds to maintain a place in our educational system for State-aided schools. He was certain that the time, if it had not yet come, was speedily coming when the idea of uniformity would give way to the idea of elasticity and variety in our educational system, and he should be exceedingly sorry if they were to lose what seemed to be an opportunity of obtaining a new type of elementary school. Such schools, he believed, were capable of development on most wholesome lines. In Scotland some 11 per cent, of the most efficient and most belauded elementary schools were State-aided schools, and Scotland in educational matters was far ahead of England. He hoped their Lordships would not shut the door on wholesome variety in our educational system. Of course, they must guard against such schools being inferior, and he was ready to acquiesce in the stiffest possible tests the education authority liked to lay down. He should be prepared to propose in a new clause the conditions under which the State-aided schools might take an honourable and an effective place in our system.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, for the reasons which the most rev. Primate has just given to the Committee, I should be sorry to see this Bill amended in such a way as to shut

  677
  the door entirely in the face of the creation of these State-aided schools. The principle seems to me to be defensible, but I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I say that the manner in which it is applied in the Bill as it stands seems to me to be little short of outrageous. We have had no answers to the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Llandaff and by the noble and learned Lord beside me. They showed the extraordinary manner in which this provision as to State-aided schools will operate. You will have the case of a school which has surmounted all the obstacles set up in its way under Clauses 2 and 4 of this Bill; you will have a school which has exhausted its rights of appeal and exhausted them successfully, which has satisfied the Court of Appeal that its case is a perfectly sound one. but which, nevertheless, has to be put off, not with the satisfaction of its demands, but with this little Zoar, as it has been described, of a State-aided school. That seems to me absolutely and entirely unjust. The terms seem to me to be terms which it would be impossible to impose upon reluctant parties, and I hope if this sub-section is to remain in the Bill your Lordships will amend it in such a way as to deprive it of some at all events of its injustice. There are Amendments upon the Paper which would have that effect.
  If your Lordships will look at the Amendments which stand in the names of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh and of Lord Llandaff, you will see that if they were added to, the clause their effect would be that the Board of Education when it had disposed of the appeal would, if it was satisfied, issue an order showing in what manner the extended facilities might be carried out.
  I do not see any objection to adding, in the form of an option, words which would allow of an offer being made to the owners of the school the acceptance of which would put them in the position of being able, if they pleased, to content themselves with the position of a State-aided school. If these two mitigating conditions were made in the subsection, my objection to it would be largely diminished; but the clause as it stands seems to me one of the most in-
  678
  iquitous suggestions it has ever been my fate to consider.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry the noble Marquess has complained that no reply had been made to the noble Lords who had spoken. I was merely waiting in order to make one reply to all the points raised. The noble Viscount on the Cross-Benches was horrified at the fact that this appeal under sub-section (4) merely related to the possibility of the school becoming a State-aided school, and that it did not involve the possibility of a mandate being issued to carry on the school in a particular way. The noble Viscount, I think, must see that that was part of our policy as a whole. The general structure of these clauses is perfectly well known to noble Lords. They know that we did avoid putting an original obligation on the local authority even to start these four-fifths schools.
  The noble Lord opposite, Lord Heneage, asked me a question about the managers. If the noble Lord will look at line 14 on page 6, he will see that the Board of Education may impose on State-aided schools—
  "Such other conditions as they prescribe as conditions for the payment of the grant."
  One of those conditions would naturally be the appointment of a properly-constituted body of managers; the arrangements would naturally be made in the Code, a particular chapter of which, if the Bill passed in this form, would be devoted to a description of what should be done in the case of State-aided schools. We do not propose to put these particular provisions in the Bill.
  The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said this was a very small kind of concession to give, and that it really hardly amounted to an appeal at all. As my noble friend behind me (Lord Stanley of Alderley) said quite truly, it is intended as a solatium under terms of particular difficulty. When the noble Marquess who spoke last alluded with horror to the circumstances under which this particular concession might take place— namely, that schools would have fulfilled all the conditions required by the clause and all the rest of it—he was contemplating exactly the case which the

  679
  noble Viscount contemplated might happen even under the Bill as amended by the noble Lord opposite.
  The noble Duke and some other noble Lords opposite seemed to think that these State-aided schools were something in the nature of a Greek gift—that something unpleasant lay behind it. That would apply equally to the Bill of the Government and to the Bill of noble Lords opposite as I am obliged now to call it. The noble Duke seemed to think that they would be a temptation to local authorities to behave badly, but for myself I believe that with most local authorities the desire to keep control over the school will be a stronger operating motive than the desire to save the rates on that particular school. I do not believe that local authorities, as a rule, would desire to drive the schools out of their jurisdiction. I think they value their hold over them far too much to be influenced greatly by the few hundreds of pounds which might be saved to the rates.
  The most rev. Primate adumbrated the possibility of a very considerable system of State-aided schools throughout the country, and I understood that he by no means desired to confine it to the schools contemplated by the Government which for one reason or another could not obtain these facilities. I think it is necessary in considering this matter to proceed very cautiously. It is quite true that a small number of State-aided schools might very reasonably be carried on and that a high standard might be attained in them without suffering any intolerable strain. But once you attempt to multiply them to any considerable extent you will be confronted with, I am afraid, very considerable clanger. If you contemplate a return to any extent to the system which prevailed before 1902, you must beware that you do not find yourselves in conditions which, in the opinion of noble Lords opposite, made the Act of 1902 necessary. It is an undoubted fact that in the case of a good many voluntary schools before 1902 the Board of Education, in order to avoid inflicting a real hardship upon them and closing a good many, had to adopt a somewhat lower standard of general efficiency than they insisted on in the case of board schools.
  680
  I agree with the most rev. Primate that it is quite possible, if these schools are limited in number in the manner we co n-template, to insist on a high scale of efficiency, but if they become numerous I doubt whether that could be done. It must also be remembered that these schools will have to depend to a certain extent on private subscriptions, and it is obvious that the more you multiply them the less that money is likely to go round, because I do not think the amount of money available is at all likely to increase in proportion to the number of schools, and consequently you would run the risk of a number of them becoming starved. As to the question immediately before the Committee, whether or not the clause should be retained. I have a very open mind on the subject. If noble Lords opposite desire to leave it I shall raise no objection.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he could not but regard these State-aided schools as a very considerable danger, and he should hold himself perfectly free to bring the matter up again. A considerable amount of the danger, had, he thought, been removed by an Amendment previously introduced, and other Amendments to be moved later might still further reduce it. In the circumstances he would ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ASHBOURNEmoved an Amendment with the object of enabling the Board of Education to make an order "how the said extended facilities should be carried out" as an alternative to allowing the school to continue as a State-aided school. At present, in the event of the Board of Education deciding on appeal that the complaint was well founded, they had only power to say, "We will translate you into a State-aided school." To remedy that he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name, which he hoped their Lordships would accept as reasonable.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 40, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'how the said extended facilities should be carried out, or.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord that his Amendment is a reasonable one. We differ from it; but it is only another step in the process of making these things mandatory and bringing them in the last resort before a Court of law.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that all he asked was that the Board of Education, in the exorcise of its judicial discretion, might be empowered to say how the remedy was to be effected. Surely that was not mandatory. As the clause at present stood they could only make an order for a State-aided school.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEYsaid in this case also noble Lords seemed to suppose that the Board of Education would be able to order the local authority to do that which they had no legal right to do. That was not the case. If there wore no teachers of one denomination in the school, were the Board of Education to order the local authority to appoint those teachers? And supposing the teachers refused to give the religious teaching, were the Board of Education to be asked to make an order to substitute other teachers? What it came to was this, that they were driving a coach and six through all the protections in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid the Board would have power to order that the local authority should do that which they were required to do by law. The appellants would have to make out that the local authority were not doing that which they were by law required to do.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The point is not the fact of the affording of the extended facilities; it is the mode in which the extended facilities are afforded. It is conceivable that a disagreeable teacher may be appointed, or the children may be put into a dark room. The remedy could not be enforced by a Court of law.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYsaid that in all such cases the Court would give a reasonable interpretation of that which was enacted. To take the example given by the noble Earl, if it were laid down by.statute that certain facilities should be
  682
  given and the local authority thought proper to put the children in a dark room where they could not read, the Court could take action in such a matter. If facilities wore to be given they must be given in a reasonable and appropriate manner, and the Court could apply the remedy. The noble Lord opposite appeared to have forgotten that before compulsion could be brought to bear on the local authority the appellant must make out his case that they were not doing that which by law they were bound to do, namely, to give such facilities as were appropriate to the occasion.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssupported the Amendment. He said the Lord President of the Council had illustrated the profound difference between the point of view of the Government and the point of view of noble Lords opposite and of the man in the street who loved justice. They had the authority of noble and learned Lords opposite that there was no precedent in the statute law of this country for an appeal of the kind proposed in the Bill. The clause illustrated the contemptuous colouration of justice which the Government countenanced.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFmoved an Amendment to provide that the Board of Education might make an order "if the owners of the schoolhouse consent." It appeared to him that this was essential to the justice of the case. He thought it possible that on Report it would be found most convenient to have one clause giving the owners of the school, if they thought fit, power to ask that the school should be turned into a State-aided school. That would meet the views of noble Lords who had spoken. At any rate, his Amendment stipulated that no school should be made a State-aided school without the consent of the owners.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 5, line 40, after the world 'may' to insert the words ' if the owners of the schoolhouse consent. '"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the circumstances under which this appeal was originally placed in the Bill, as the noble Viscount is aware, were simply

  683
  these. If a certain number of parents were aggrieved at the manner in which the facilities were afforded they could have the school handed over as a State-aided school. No doubt it may seem rather a strong measure to alter the character of the school in this way without the consent of the owners; but the noble Viscount must consider the reverse instance, where the owners might conceivably be indifferent to the manner in which the facilities were afforded, and the parents therefore would be left with their grievance.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that after the addition which had just been made the parents would not be left with their grievance, as they would have the advantage of the jurisdiction of the Board of Education.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Moved, "That Clause 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  EARL CAWDORreferred to the statement made by the Lord President in reply to the most rev. Primate in regard to sub-section (b) of the clause as it originally stood. If there was one thing that was paraded up and down the country by supporters of the Government in reference to denominational teaching it was the four-fifths provision under Clause 4. The country was told that under that provision Catholic schools would be safeguarded, and that every distinctly denominational school would continue its teaching, preserve its religious atmosphere, maintain its teachers, and go on as now. Such statements were freely made and no doubt soothed the anxiety of many minds with the belief that the rights of those schools would be secured. They now knew from the statement made that night what security was offered by the Government. In five years that security would be gone and the schools would be absolutely at the mercy of the local authorities. This was a strange awakening when they remembered the protestations of the Government. He called attention to this, and hoped it would be noted by the Committee and the country at large.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYreminded the Lord President
  684
  of a technical point that arose upon the apparent contradiction between the grants to State-aided schools which were not public elementary schools, and the provision in the Act of 1870 that grants should only be made to public elementary schools.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the most rev. Primate is quite right in saying that I promised to deal with this matter when we reached this clause, and I only hope he did not think I passed it by too curtly on that occasion. It really is only a technical point. It is true that the clause in the Act of 1870 states that in order to obtain a grant a school must fulfil conditions which would not be fulfilled by these new schools, but, if the most rev. Primate will look at the last line but one of the clause, he will see that the Board of Education can treat these schools as public elementary schools for certain purposes, and for "any other purpose which may be prescribed." That is held to include the payment to them of a grant. It may seem surprising to the most rev. Primate, but that is the case. It is held that that can sufficiently entitle them to receive a grant. If the most rev. Primate is anxious to see the words altered, the same result could be achieved in another way. Instead of saying "notwithstanding anything in this Act," you could say "notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act;" but, as a matter of fact, I am informed that the other is sufficient.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHENasked if no reply was to be made to his noble friend Earl Cawdor. Did the Government propose to accept in silence and without any explanation the statement in which his noble friend, following the most rev. Primate, had shown that the security for Clause 4 schools had only been intended to last five years? Was the country to understand that this was the permanent security offered? Perhaps the Leader of House would have something to say on the point? Might he ask some reconsideration of the question by the Government, and that the security of Clause 4 schools should not be limited to the security of a five-years lease.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I cannot, of course, resist the appeal of

  685
  the noble Viscount opposite. I do not know that anything that was said by the noble Earl calls for any special explanation or reply, but in answer to the noble Viscount I say that undoubtedly His Majesty's Government will, as he asks us to do, carefully consider the whole question raised. I do desire, however, to point this out, that the indignation of noble Lords seems to me a little singular, as this fact has been staring them in the face ever since the Bill was printed. I said nothing to-day to spring this announcement on the Committee, and if noble Lords will look at sub-section (3) they will see it stated that an appeal under this section could not be entertained unless made before the 1st day of January, 1908. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious that it could only be made on the first application.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid he heard with satisfaction the undertaking given that the Government would reconsider the matter. On the Second Reading he stated his opinion that the facilities under Clause 4 would prove illusory, and the more they examined them the more he felt he was justified in making that statement. It was now proved that the concessions were not concessions at all, and that no reliance could be placed in the promises held out by Members of His Majesty's Government and accepted by the country. He asserted with confidence that the concessions in Clause 4 were made entirely for the Jews and the Roman Catholics, and were made, he thought, at the instigation of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. He therefore thought they were entitled to ask the noble Marquess not to leave the Committee in the dark as to the intention of the Government in regard to these facilities.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what fell from my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. My noble friend said that this question would be carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, and so it shall be.
  EARL CAWDORsaid it was not a question of what His Majesty's Government on reconsideration might do, but what their intention had been all along. The
  686
  point was that the Government had held out all along the promise that the rights of the Clause 4 schools would be safe-guarded. From one end of the country to the other that had been declared, and only that night had they heard that the security was to last for five years only. It was the false issue put before the country and only cleared up now that he complained of.
  On Question, Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFmoved to omit the words—
  "But nothing in this section shall be construed so as to apply the provisions of this Act allowing an appeal to the Board of Education in cases where a local education authority refuse to make an arrangement as respects the use of the school-house of an existing voluntary school."
  He explained that he moved this Amendment in order that the building of future schools should not be hampered. According to the view of His Majesty's Government, not only were existing schools to lose their security after five years, but future schools were to have no security at all. They were to be absolutely at the disposal of the local education authority, and the appeal which was originally limited to 1st January, 1908, for existing schools was not to arise at all in the case of future voluntary schools. These schools were to depend entirely on the local authority with no appeal from their decision. Inasmuch as the Committee had struck out sub-section (3) of the previous clause, it seemed to him to follow that they should strike out these words, which took away appeal from all future schools.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 6, line 27, to leave out from the word ' school ' to the end of the clause." —(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this question of new schools is one which has no doubt excited a considerable amount of feeling, and it is obvious, I think, that noble Lords cannot be expected entirely, holding the views they do, to agree with the method in which we deal with them. It is no doubt perfectly

  687
  true that we do not place any compulsion upon local authorities to take over these new schools. Of course, we do nothing whatever to prevent local authorities doing so, and we believe that, where there is a real demand, in very nearly all cases they will do so. They would be specially likely to do so in the particular cases in which the noble Viscount is interested, namely, those of the four-fifths schools, and I think it stands to reason that that must be so. Noble Lords will see that where a school is erected and obtaining a due proportion of children, if the local authority takes it over as a four-fifths school they escape the payment of rent, and, in other words, save the interest on the money which they would have to expend in building a school for themselves. That, of course, would not apply to schools coming under Clause 3.
  Where, owing to the starting of large new works in a district, a great colony of labourers settles down, it is very likely that the Roman Catholic Church would desire to see a school there. If they built a school and the school was needed, and it was carried on, it appears to me there is every prospect, for the reason I have stated, that it would be taken over as a four-fifths school. But we do insist, and here we differ from the Amendments of the noble Lord and the right rev. Prelate, that the school must be a going concern before it is taken over. That would be a test in the first place of the absolute bona fides of the denomination, and would also show that the children were available for filling the school. We are not disposed to interfere with the discretion of the local authorities in this particular, or to place any compulsion upon them to take over new schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that the noble Viscount on the cross benches had moved to omit the words "but nothing" to the end of the clause, but had not indicated that he intended to move any words in their place. He presumed that the present Amendment was preliminary to the next two Amendments on the Paper, standing in the names respectively of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh and the Bishop of Oxford.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I suggest that it would be advisable that the noble Lord and right rev. Prelate should make their observations on their Amendments at the present stage. They all refer to one subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYcontinuing, said the observation of the noble Earl that he could not agree to the proposal unless the school was what he called a going concern was a very plausible one. But nothing they were seeking to enact would make it necessary that public money should be expended unless the school turned out to be a fully efficient public elementary school and fully entitled to the grant. He therefore did not see that there was any great substance in the-noble Earl's objection. As to which form of words, those to be proposed by his noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh or those standing in the name of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, was the best that was another matter. Personally he was inclined to prefer the form of the Bishop of Oxford's Amendment. Both Amendments approximately sought to do the same thing and only differed in small details.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,in accordance with the suggestion of the Lord President of the Council, then submitted his Amendment as follows—
  "In page 6, line 27, to leave out from the word 'school' to the end of the clause and to insert: (2) The local education authority shall not refuse to take over and conduct as a public elementary school provided by them, any elementary school which the Board of Education may have certified as necessary on. the application of the owners of the school-house, and of the parents of not less than fifty children in an urban district, or of not less than thirty children in a rural district for whom the school is intended, and for whom no sufficient provision exists, having regard to the religious belief of the said parents. (3) The Board of Education shall determine as to the necessity of any proposed elementary school on the application of the persons proposing to provide the schoolhouse, and of the parents as aforesaid, and may provisionally certify any proposed school as necessary on-such conditions as they think fit to prescribe, and every such school shall be deemed to have been certified as necessary when, and as long as the prescribed conditions are complied with. (4) The Board of Education shall, before they certify or provisionally certify as necessary any school under this Motion give not less than three months notice to the local education authority concerned of their intention to determine the matter and shall hold a public

  689
  local enquiry with reference thereto, if so desired by the local education authority, on the parents making application as aforesaid. (5) The children of parents, on whose application any school has been certified as necessary under this section, shall at all times have the prior right of admission to the school, and other scholars shall be admitted only so long as there are sufficient school places available for the children of such parents.''—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
  [The foregoing Amendment was substituted for that moved by Viscount Llandaff.]
  He said it had been a matter of some wonder to him why the Bill contained no provision for future schools. After the discussion that evening it was quite clear that the intention of the Government was that existing schools should have a lease of life of five years, and then be left absolutely at the mercy of the local authority. That being so, it was natural that all new schools should be similarly left. But that was by no means what noble Lords on his side of the House would regard as meeting the justice of the case. They held that the local authority should not refuse to take over any elementary school which the Board of Education might have certified as necessary on the application of the owners of the schoolhouse, and of the parents of not loss than fifty children in an urban district, or of not less than thirty children in a rural district. He emphasized the need of distinction of this kind, for in rural districts schools were of necessity very much smaller. There were many schools at present maintained by local authorities which did not number more than thirty children. The words in his Amendment—
  "And for whom no sufficient provision exists, having regard to the religious belief of the said parents,"
  were taken from the Scottish Act. Upon the existence of a provision such as he asked for depended whether or not the school would be built. To put such a burden as that proposed in the clause upon the owners was perfectly unreasonable. He hoped the justice of his Amendment would secure its adoption by their Lordships.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid he had on the Paper an Amendment which aimed at the same object as the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, though his proposal took the form
  690
  of a separate clause. The aim of both Amendments was to provide some procedure by which those who were anxious to provide fourth-clause, or extended facilities, schools should be able to make that provision on a sufficient assurance that the school would be taken over by the local authority. In other words,! those who wished to provide such a school should not be put to the extravagant and unreasonable trouble of making the school a going concern before they knew whether or not the one object they had in view in supplying the school was to be secured. One of the great harms done by the Bill was that it tended to discourage public spirit and public generosity in the matter of primary education. The way in which it dealt with schools provided for a particular purpose by generous patrons was not an encouragement to similar benefactions in the future. He did not despair of schools being provided in the future, notwithstanding the hard fate which was befalling those provided in the past. On his way to these debates he had stopped to open a voluntary school just built at a cost of £4,000, and during the course of the debates in their Lordships' House they had decided at Oxford to incur an expense of over £2,000 on a training college. That was the kind of spirit which he believed, in spite of all the discouragement which had been inflicted upon them, would continue in the future, for in England generosity aim public spirit were of hardy growth. He had heard it said that people would rebuild their houses on the slopes of a volcano very soon after an eruption had taken place, and he hoped that, in the same way, they might go on doing their best for voluntary schools even after the sweeping treatment of them which had been threatened in the Bill proposed by His Majesty's Government. He preferred his own clause to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, because its purpose was set out more simply and clearly, and because it disengaged itself from Clause 6 as it stood. He believed that if the Amendment were carried the provision of voluntary schools would not be arrested by the Bill.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid he most earnestly desired to see as many efficient schools as possible established, provided only they were really

  691
  required and would not prove an unnecessary burden on the ratepayers. But as he understood the object of the Amendment, it was not so much to facilitate the establishment of really good schools which were required, as to override the powers of the local education authority in this matter. He thought it was most unwise policy to go on piling up Amendments the underlying motive of which was mistrust of the local authorities. Surely the primary duty of the local education authority was to see to the efficiency of education within its area and to take care that the administration was as economical as possible consistent with efficiency. These Amendments restricted the power of the local authority and tended to make the whole system of education far more expensive to the public. He ventured to think they ought to keep this in view, and remember that the local authority was the proper body to determine whether or not in the interests of the public and of the children in its area a new school was required. Subject to that paramount consideration he was always in favour of the establishment of a new and efficient school. He felt, how-over, that it was of the greatest possible importance that they should cease pursuing a policy of mistrust of the local authorities. He believed that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 there was no reason for that mistrust.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid the question of new schools was one of the most important that they could have before them. They could not conceal from themselves the fact that the population was growing in every part of the country. He thought the various denominations should be encouraged to build and properly equip their own schools, and then hand them over to the
  proper authorities. Surely it was common sense that they should be enabled first to make arrangements with the local authority and then build their schools.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH,THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH, in supporting the Amendment, denied that they were mistrusting the local authority, if by that was meant the authority on the spot where the school would be built. What they mistrusted was the centralised power in the county, which was often negligent of the interests of small localities.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid it seemed to him that their Lordships were utterly disregarding the question of privilege. Here again they were distinctly proposing to put a charge on the rates by compelling the local authority to accept schools which were needed not for the general requirements of the district but only to meet the desires of a denominational group. It would be the duty of the Speaker of the House of Commons to call attention to this Amendment as imposing a charge upon the rates.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHintimated that he would withdraw the sub-section he proposed to insert in favour of the new clause standing in the name of the Bishop of Oxford.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 6."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  On Question, whether the clause stand part of the Bill, their Lordships divided: —Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 120.

  CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Davey, L.

  Nunburnholme. L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L

  Northampton, M.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kin-

  Overtoun, L.

  cardine.)

  Pirrie, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Craven, E.

  Glanawe, L.

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Haversham, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Headley, L. S.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Weardale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Plymouth, E.

  Belper, L.

  Powis, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Radnor, E.

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

  Grafton, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Braye, L.

  Leeds, D.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Marlborough, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Westmeath, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  De Freyne, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Bridport, V.

  De Mauley, L.

  Bath, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller]

  De Ros, L.

  Bute, M.

  Cross, V.

  Digby, L.

  Camden, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Hertford, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Halifax, V.

  Emly, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hill, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-

  Faber, L.

  more.)

  Forester, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Herries, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Kenyon, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Manners, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Masham, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Mowbray, L

  De La Warr, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Rathmore, L.

  Devon, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Seaton, L.

  and Queensberry.)

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Shute, L. (F. Barrington.)

  Feversham, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Gainsborough, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Guildford, E.

  Abinger, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Londesborough, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Morton, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  *THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDthen moved, Clause 6 having been deleted, the insertion of the new clause standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause:—(1) If any persons consider that a new public elementary school with facilities for religious instruction of some special character not permitted under Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, is required in any district, they may give public notice of their intention to provide a school house for the proposed school. (2) When such notice has been given the Hoard of Education shall determine whether the proposed school is required, and in so doing, shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the wishes of the parents as to the religious education of their children, and shall take into consideration any appeal made to them against the proposal by the local education authority, or any ten ratepayers in the district in which the school is claimed to be required, and shall hold a public
  694
  inquiry under Section 73 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, with reference to the proposal if requested to do so by the appellants. (3) If the Board of Education determine that the proposed school is required, an arrangement under Section 2 of this Act shall be made in respect of the school house as soon as it is ready for occupation as though it were the school house of an exisiting voluntary school, and the provisions of this Act with respect to facilities (including extended facilities) shall apply to the school."—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)
  Clause 7:—
  *LORD AMPTHILL,*LORD AMPTHILL, in moving the omission of Clause 7, said that, as their Lordships had altered Clause 1 by inserting a provision to the effect that religious instruction was to form an essential and integral part of public

  695
  elementary education, it was an inevitable and logical consequence that attendance during the hours of that religious instruction should be as compulsory as in the hours of secular instruction. He had given notice of his Motion for the omission of the clause in pursuance of a general scheme of Amendments which had not found acceptance with the Committee, and that was the reason he had not proposed any other clause in substitution. It was true that he voted against the Amendment of Clause 1; he did so, however, not because he in any way disapproved of the provision—on the contrary, it had his most cordial and hearty support—but because he considered it inappropriate in a clause which dealt with public control in the matter of finance. The omission of Clause 7 was inevitable in view of the alteration which had been made in the Bill. For his own part, he could see no reason whatever why attendance during the hours of religious instruction should not be compulsory, so long as the child was not compelled to listen to any instruction at variance with the persuasion or religious belief of its parents. The reasons which justified the State in undertaking the secular instruction of the young and compelling their attendance at school, so that the children might be brought up as good citizens, held good so far as religious, education generally was concerned, the only condition being that the religious instruction should be in accordance with the faith and creed of the parents. He therefore begged to move, leaving it to other noble Lords to propose safeguards for the conscience of parents, which he admitted to be necessary, and which he would himself have suggested has his Amendments proceeded on different lines.
  Amendment moved—
  "To leave out Clause 7." [Lord Ampthill.)
  *LORD REAYhoped the Government would not insist on retaining Clause 7. In another place there was a smaller majority for this clause than for any other, and several members of the Government voted against it. It would be within the recollection of noble Lords that the Board of Education under the late Government introduced a by-law very much to the same effect as this clause, though that by-law was merely
  696
  permissive, the local authorities having the right to enforce it or not as they pleased. On the 31st July, 1903, † feeling bound to object to it, he addressed a Question to the noble Marquess, who was then at the head of the Board of Education, asking what had been the reasons for its introduction. The objections which made it imperative for him to oppose that by-law compelled him on the present occasion to declare himself against this proposed legislative enactment. The clause involved the reversal of the principle of the Act of 1870, which placed religious instruction in the regular programme of the school and made it an integral part of the time-table. Children could be withdrawn under the conscience clause from this instruction, but not from the school, and he might say incidentally that in London the withdrawals from religious instruction in the council schools were almost nil. He felt confident that the great majority of the teachers—who were seldom mentioned in these debates, although they were a very important factor—would object to any measure which discouraged parents from sending their children to school at the time the school began. Educationally, for the discipline of the school, it was most objectionable to create a situation in which there would be one set of children attending at nine o'clock, and another dropping in between nine and nine forty-five. Facilities should be granted to parents who wished to withdraw their children from religious instruction, but no encouragement ought to be given to them to keep the children away from school, not on account of religious scruples, but in order to earn something or otherwise make them late for school. Punctual attendance was an essential element in the good government of a school; it could not be too strongly insisted upon. By this clause the commencement of the school was virtually made to coincide with the commencement of secular instruction, whereas the religious instruction given at the beginning of the school meeting imparted to the school its tone. The clause would entirely alter the character of the school as contemplated by the Act of 1870. In that year, when an Amendment similar to this clause was proposed, it was objected to by Mr. Forster
  † See (4) Debates, exxvi., 1054.

  697
  and rejected by the House of Commons. The present Bill would be much more popular in the country if this clause were omitted. The object of the Bill was to provide a national system of education. A national system without religious instruction on the basis of a common Christianity was, he believed, not possible in this country. For these reasons he hoped the Lord President of the Council would, as was done in another place, give full liberty to the supporters of the Government to vote on this clause in accordance with their convictions.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSdesired to endorse the appeal made by the noble Lord whose experience as Chairman of the London School Board gave his utterance on those matters great weight. He could confirm what had boon said by what happened under the school Board at Portsmouth while he was vicar of Portsea. The inspector of schools, finding that a great number of the children of the board schools were attending at different times up to 9.50, when the registers were marked, being kept back by their parents for no reason whatever except to run errands and for similar purposes, advised the school board to make a by-law or regulation requiring the registers to be marked at 9.15 instead of 9.50. Immediately, a very large number of children came in regularly at 9.15 and hardly any were withdrawn from the religious instruction. He was bound to say that that religious instruction was frequently very good, given by excellent teachers, and no conscientious objection was taken to it by the parents. That was, he thought, a testimony in favour of the appeal of the noble Lord, showing that, wholly irrespective of extended facilities or facilities for denominational instruction, it was absolutely inexpedient, on broad grounds, for the registers to be marked after the religious instruction had been given. And what kind of parents was it who were likely to withdraw their children from religious instruction by sending them late to school? It was just those parents whose children most needed that instruction. The careful parent would send his child at the proper time, but the children of careless or apathetic parents, or of parents with great bodily and physical needs who desired to make a little money advantage out of their labour,
  698
  would be deprived of the religious in" struction of whatever kind it might be They had to think of those children) of the children of the careless as well as of those of the careful, and decide on broad lines what were the best regulations for ensuring some sort of good religious and moral teaching for the children of all classes. He could not imagine anything more likely to bring religious instruction into disrepute than the system embodied in Clause 7. Its supporters denied that there was any idea of giving a badge of inferiority. He accepted the intention, but it could not be taken as an intelligible argument to the man in the street. If there were two kinds of education, one of which the child must attend while the other he need not, there must attach to the latter a badge of inferiority; it was absolutely inevitable and could not be explained away. If it was said to be difficult to give religious instruction, and at the same time secular instruction to those children who were withdrawn, he would say solvitur ambulando; it was done in many schools at the present time, and no educationist of real experience would say it was a difficult task. For these reasons he hoped their Lordships would be able to induce the Government to withdraw the clause, or, failing in that, would vote against it.
  HAUL RUSSELLsaid the speech of the right rev. Prelate convinced him that the removal of this clause from the Bill was intended to be a surreptitious made of making religious instruction compulsory. The right rev. Prelate wanted to have no distinction between the two kinds of instruction, that which the children must attend and that which they need not. But there was an essential difference between the two; one was secular, which the State considered it had a right to impose upon its subjects, while the other was religious, which for some time they had considered, or at any rate said, they had no right to impose on the subjects of the State. The right rev. Prelate feared there would be a badge of inferiority placed on one kind of instruction as compared with the other if the children were not compelled to attend when religious instruction was given. He did not know that that was so, but if it was true, would not the same badge of inferiority be applied if a child went to school and,

  699
  when the majority of children were receiving religious instruction, was withdrawn and given separate instruction in a separate classroom by a separate teacher? If such a child were compelled to attend school it was perfectly certain that he would be pointed at by the rest of the school, and called an atheist, an infidel, an unbeliever, or any other name of the sort which suggested itself to his companions. The right rev. Prelate had stated that when the new by-law was introduced at Portsmouth very few children were withdrawn from religious instruction. He (Earl Russell) did not wonder at it; it was precisely the result that he would have anticipated. It put upon these children and their parents a strain they did not like to undertake. Persecution in religious matters was only a matter of degree. It was now a long time since one set of people thought they had a right to send to the stake, to imprison, or to maltreat in any definite way those whose religious opinions did not agree with their own and those of the majority. But it was only a question of degree, and not a question of kind. If a child or a parent was exposed to animadversion or contempt in any way because the child was withdrawn from religious instruction, that was pro tanto an instance of religious persecution. The clause as it stood declared that—
  "The parent of a child attending a public elementary school shall not be under any obligation to cause the child to attend at the school house, except during the times allotted in the time table exclusively to secular instruction."
  What right had the State to insist upon the child's attending anything but the secular instruction? Supposing there was in a school one Roman Catholic or Jewish or Unitarian child, or a child of secular parents—or even two or three such children—how was it possible for them to be withdrawn from the ordinary life of the school without their being pointed at and their position made very unpleasant? Under the clause as it-stood such children need not present themselves at the school-house while the instruction was being given, and they would not be there to be pointed at. But if the clause were withdrawn and attendance insisted on, it would be as though their Lordships said, "We think it right that everybody should attend
  700
  church, but we recognise that there are some people whose consciences do not allow them to attend; we will therefore insist that during church hours they shall stand at the church door." The cases were exactly parallel. The right rev. Prelate—and, from his point of view, with perfect truth—had said that it was their duty to do what they thought best for these children. That was precisely the principle by which religious pressure and religious persecution had been justified in all ages. It had always been the intention of those who attempted to force their views on religious subjects upon other people to do what was best for those other people, but we had long since come to the conclusion that in these matters people had a right to do what they thought best for themselves. He hoped the Government would retain the clause, for without it there was no religious liberty for children or parents.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTERsaid they all felt that children did not care to be made conspicuous, but what would be the position of the unhappy children who, if this clause were retained, would be compelled to attend school at an earlier hour than others for the purpose of undergoing religious instruction? If it was such an awkward thing to go against the popular current in the one case, why was it not equally awkward in the other, when the child's companions would be running errands or indulging themselves in play? If the noble Earl worked it out he would see that his argument cut both ways. As bishops of the Church of England it was their duty in a very special sense to look after the interests, not only of their own children, but of the children of England as a whole. If such a clause as this became law, they would be doing their best to leave a large proportion of the children of England to grow up something not far removed from little heathens. He fully agreed with Lord Reay as to the importance of all the children attending school at the same hour. In the opinion of all experienced people, not the least important part of the influence of the elementary school system was that it silently and surely impressed upon the children habits of regularity and punctuality, but this clause would undermine that influence to a perilous and mischievous degree. He agreed with Lord Reay also as to the importance of

  701
  the school's beginning with the recognition of our duty towards God as the very basis of our whole educational system. He was one of those who honestly believed in the value of our common Christianity. It was easy to say sharp and smart things to the detriment of that common Christianity, but its value could not be gauged by what was heard on controversial platforms. Attaching, as he did, supreme importance to that common Christianity, he hoped, before this Bill passed or met any other fate, the Government would remove two causes which worked to its detriment. The common Christianity taught under the name of Cowper-Templeism was too vague, and many Churchmen would have their anxieties allayed if they were assured that it was possible for managers of transferred schools to stipulate for a careful syllabus as part of the arrangement for the transfer, as suggested by the Lord President of the Council on a previous occasion, or for it to be regulated more definitely by the standard of the Apostles' Creed. He urged the vital importance of doing all that could possibly be done to represent the common Christianity to the people of the country in its most favourable and trustworthy shape. Then, believing most earnestly in our common Christianity and the amount of unity there substantially was between Christians, recognising with gratitude that, although what should be the one body, was terribly rent and torn, the one spirit was in many ways continually triumphing over the rents in the one body, he urged the Government not to discredit that common Christianity by presenting it to Churchmen, Roman Catholics, and a considerable section of the country at large, as an inequitably favoured form of religion. He could not approach a question of this sort as a mere denominationalist. He accepted denominationalism as a definite way of working under present conditions and for certain ends, but he could never speak on the subject as a mere denominationalist. If the Church of England approached the question merely regarding her own children and her own schools she would be stamped with the stamp of a mere sect. The difference between the sect spirit and the Church or Catholic spirit was to
  702
  his mind represented by St. Paul's words—
  "Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."
  He would say in this connection, "Look not every true Church on her own things and her own people, but every true Church also on the things of others, on the children of the State, and of the country as a whole." He appealed to the Government to look at the matter from the point of view he had put forward. Those who clung to undenominational religious instruction most earnestly hoped that the Government would relieve that particular form of teaching from the odium which must rest upon it if it appeared before the country in the invidious light of an unjustly favoured and endowed child of the State, other views, representing earnest convictions, being treated inequitably in order that the supremacy of that particular type of Christian teaching might be maintained.
  *LORD HENEAGEdesired to recall the attention of the Committee to the question immediately before it, namely, whether or not children should be obliged to attend school during the hours of religious instruction. If children were withdrawn there was a danger lest; they should be led to believe that the religious instruction was of secondary importance, a result much to be deprecated. But there were other strong reasons why children should be compelled to attend. If the option were allowed he did not believe they would attend. A mother would be inclined to keep a daughter at home to look after the younger children and help with the housework, while boys would play games on the way and probably prevent other boys from attending. The whole discipline of the school would be upset, and it would be impossible for even the very best teachers to restore that discipline during the remaining hours of the school day. It was absolutely necessary for the discipline of the school and for the sake of the children themselves that attendance should be compulsory at the beginning of the school, and that the register should be marked within the first quarter of an hour. He was aware that he was walking on somewhat delicate ground there,

  703
  because under the late Government the registers were allowed to be marked at a later hour. He believed, however, that that was an exceedingly bad innovation, and that none would be more grateful than the teachers themselves if they went back to the old system of marking the registers immediately on the opening of school. However, under the clause it would be allowable for the children to attend at any time before the secular instruction commenced. In winter those children could not be kept outside in the rain or snow until the religious instruction was over, and it would be utterly impossible for any teaching to go on if children were dribbling in as they chose during the first half-hour. He hoped, therefore, the Government would see the necessity, not only in the interests of the children themselves, but in the interests of the teachers and of the discipline of the school, to allow the clause to be omitted.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYthought that, in view of the speeches of Lord Reay and Earl Russell, to neither of whom had the Government replied, the cry of the Leader of the House and of the Lord President of the Council must be "Save us from our friends." For the Anson by-law, to which reference had been made, he was prepared to take full responsibility. Considerable difficulty had arisen in regard to the education of children during the period set apart for religious instruction, and after careful consideration the Board of Education decided that it should be possible for local education authorities, at the request in writing of the parent, to allow the child to be withdrawn from the school during the giving of religious instruction, provided they were assured that religious instruction would be given to the child in another part of the district. He therefore repudiated the suggestion that under that by-law children were withdrawn and given no religious instruction whatever. As a matter of fact, in the case of 232 local authorities every child was required to attend the schoolhouse during the time of religious instruction, being allowed, under the Conscience Clause, if desired, to receive instruction in other subjects during that time; while in ninety-four cases the Anson by-law was put into
  704
  operation, the authorities being assured that if children were withdrawn by their parents, they would be receiving religious instruction elsewhere.
  In the course of these debates he had been determined not to speak on any Amendment unless convinced, not only that the Amendment was one he was justified in asking their Lordships to accept, but one which, if carried, would receive the support of the people of the country as a whole. Several Amendments had been passed, some important, many very important, but he believed there was none of greater importance than the one now under discussion. It simply proposed that attendance should be compulsory during the time of religious instruction. He could not imagine any proposal which would appeal more to the people of the country. In Clause 1 a provision had been inserted by which religious instruction of some sort or kind was to be given in all schools. He had read with considerable amusement the quotations from his speech in which he declared that there ought to be given to the children religious education of some sort, he did not care what. He did not withdraw that statement in the least. He was no bigot. He was a staunch supporter of denominational schools, and his friends in the north of England, if they were present, would admit that he had given practical demonstration of that in the district in which he lived. Personally he would like to see denominational education in every school throughout the country. But that was not possible, and if they could not have denominational education he desired that they should have religious education of some sort or kind. While he preferred denominational instruction to Cowper- Temple instruction, if he could not have the former he was in favour of having the latter, but let it be in compulsory school attendance hours. The supporters of denominational education were no bigots or narrow-minded partisans; they did not lay down one class of religion to be taught in all schools; all they contended for was that every child should have an opportunity, if its parents desired it, of having some religious teaching compulsorily given, and he believed that that was

  705
  the feeling of the vast majority of the people of the country. To put religious instruction out of school hours would be to put it on the same level as extra lessons in music or dancing.
  He did not think the Government could say much in defence of the clause. In the House of Commons this "leave it to you" Government adopted the "go as you please" principle in regard to it, and in a House of 550 the clause obtained a majority of only sixteen. He was glad that that division was taken, because the division lists showed in black and white who were in favour of allowing the children to be brought up, as far as the schools were concerned, as atheists, and those who desired them to be taught under a system of religious education. The arguments in favour of the omission of the clause were overwhelming. He could not see what good it could do a child not to be brought up in the fear of God. If it went to the country that the Government were in favour of such a proposition the people would admit at once that it was absolutely injurious not only to the child but to all classes of the community. To allow religion to cease to be a fundamental part of education would eventually mean the ruin of the system as a whole. He could not conceive how it was possible to argue that if compulsory attendance was good for secular education it was not equally good for religious education. Such a distinction must inevitably discredit religious instruction in the eyes of the people of the country. It meant that while a child was bound to be taught the multiplication table, it need not be taught the Lord's Prayer. Rounders, cricket, and even rifle-shooting, might now be engaged in dining the hours of compulsory attendance, and he was glad to see it, but was it right that such subjects should be placed in a position superior to that of the Lord's Prayer? Much as the people of the country approved of physical exercises they did not wish them to be superior to religious education, and if their opinion were asked to-morrow he believed they would agree that the omission of this clause was absolutely necessary.
  THE EARL OF CKEWE: I had hoped that when we approached the
  706
  consideration of this interesting clause I should for a time have some relief from purely Party controversy. This clause, as your Lordships know, was left an open question in the other House, because there were and are large and legitimate differences of opinion in regard to it. Those differences affected the Cabinet itself; they even invaded the circle of families, there being one case in which father and son, though on the same side of politics, voted in different lobbies on this question. Consequently I hoped that I might escape on this occasion the Party cut and thrust with which we have been so familiar, and which—though I have been treated with great consideration—after a series of nights may pall upon any man. But I am entirely undeceived by the speech of the noble Marquess who has just spoken. He has made a speech of a thoroughly partisan character. I would put this to the noble Marquess. Is it, from his point of view, altogether prudent to advertise, in the way he has been doing during the last few weeks, that his Party stands in need of capital? I do not at all dispute the fact, but I am doubtful whether from his own point of view it is advisable to advertise it so freely. We have had more examples than one of what I mean. The other day it was a question of the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland. The noble Marquess announced his intention of going down to the country and denouncing us as being utterly indifferent to the cause of temperance. We look forward whenever licensing comes before this House to addressing the noble Marquess as "the noble Lord with the blue ribbon"—not in the sense in which the term used to be applied to Lord North by the House of Commons, or might be applied to the noble Marquess himself, but in allusion to that humbler declaration which indicates the devotion of its wearer to the cause of total abstinence. On Clause 1 of this Bill the noble Marquess announced his intention of taking another tour, this time to convict us of utter indifference to the cause of religion. Now he comes forward and says he is anxious to know whether it is really true that His Majesty's Government are in favour of children being brought up as atheists. If I might offer a little friendly advice to the

  707
  noble Marquess, I would suggest that, when he takes these excursions into the country and into the realms of imagination, as a pure matter of stage management his efforts ought to bear a little more air of spontaneity.
  I come now to the clause, and I think I can show your Lordships that the noble Marquess has not been quite accurate in his description of one or two incidents in its previous history. It is important to remember that in this matter, in the famous phrase of Sir Robert Peel, there are three courses open for you to take. You may pass the clause as it stands, allowing all parents to keep their children away during the time of religious instruction; or you may do what is done at present, allow a system of local option; or you may adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord and insist on all children even-where attending at the schoolhouse. Since the Act of 1870, the position has been this. Clause 74 of the Act of 1870 said that every school board might make by-laws (1) requiring parents of all children of such age not less than five or more than thirteen to attend school, (2) determining the time during which children were so to attend school, provided that no such by-law should prevent the withdrawal of any child from any religious observance or instruction in religious objects; and the by-law which was practically universally adopted up to the year 1903 stated that the time during which any child should attend the school should be the whole time for which the school selected was open for the instruction of children of similar age. Therefore your Lordships will see that nominally, at any rate, attendance at the schoolhouse was compulsory during the time when religious teaching was being given. But as a matter of fact it is well known to your Lordships, and especially to the noble Marquess opposite, that scarcely any, if any, prosecutions of parents for not sending their children to school during the time of religious instruction were ever instituted. I do not think anybody has been able to produce an instance where a parent was prosecuted for not sending his child to school during that time. In the year 1903 was issued what the noble Marquess has
  708
  alluded to as the Anson by-law. The Anson by-law runs as follows—
  "The time during which every child shall attend school shall be the whole time for which the school selected shall be open for the instruction of children of similar age, provided that where a parent has notified to the managers in writing his intention to withdraw his child from instruction in religious subjects such time shall be the whole time for which the school selected shall be open for secular instruction only."
  There can be no question that the intention in the minds of the noble Marquess and Sir William Anson was that children should be withdrawn during the religious hour in order to obtain religious instruction elsewhere. The fact that a certain number of parents desired their children to attend services in Church instead of attending at the school was, unless I am mistaken, the origin of that by-law. But I think the noble Marquess rather overstated the case when he said it ensured that children were attending religious instruction elsewhere. All that need be done, and I am not sure that even that is done in some cases, is for the parent to write one letter to the managers saying that he wishes his child to be withdrawn from instruction in religious subjects. Although it is understood to be with a view to obtaining religious instruction elsewhere, no system of inspection is employed to see that the child does attend anywhere else, and there is no compulsion on him so to attend.
  THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY: The question was left to the local education authorities to allow children to be withdrawn at the request of parents, they being assured that the children would receive religious instruction elsewhere. They had to satisfy themselves.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Even though the managers thought it necessary at any given moment to ask a parent whether he wished to withdraw his child in order that he might receive instruction elsewhere, there is no system by which it could be shown that the child really does attend and receive instruction. As a matter of fact, I have not the least doubt that a considerable number of children withdrawn under this by-law do not attend elsewhere. It is

  709
  important to remember what by-laws are. They are not hints or orders issued from the Board of Education. They are simply issued to put in a convenient form what are understood to be the wishes of various local authorities, and there can be no question that if the Board of Education chose to agree and approve the action of a local authority there would be nothing to prevent a local authority submitting a by-law couched in the terms of Clause 7 which your Lordships are now engaged in debating.
  The effect of this Amendment, unless you do something more, is simply to maintain the status quo with the Anson by-law in full swing. If that by-law is maintained and the option given to local authorities you will be imparting very different values in different districts to the facilities provided under the Bill. If one local authority make attendance compulsory, the facilities are obviously worth a great deal more in that district than in another district where the children are not compelled to attend at the schoolhouse. That is one difficulty which appears to me to be inherent in leaving matters as they are. As your Lordships are aware, a considerable amount of discussion has raged round the point whether or not these facilities ought to be given in school hours. You can either put them into the hours of compulsory attendance, or leave it as we have done in the Bill, but if you leave it a doubtful matter I am afraid you will place yourselves in a position of some difficulty. Under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, attendance during religious instruction does not count towards the Government grant. It would, of course, be a marked change if that provision were altered.
  Several speeches of great interest have been delivered in the course of the debate, suggesting that the Government have the intention of inflicting something like a badge of inferiority upon religious teaching. We cannot remain silent under such a charge as that. It is not a question of a badge of inferiority; it is a question of the broad idea of liberty as applied to these matters. Earl Russell made a speech, very eloquent, as all his speeches are, but of a character not exceedingly popular in this House, in which there
  710
  was one observation in regard to the speech of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans for which in my judgment he had a certain amount of warrant; it was this. The right rev. Prelate—-and I have no doubt others sitting near him—do to a certain extent change their ground in speaking of this matter. We have all through heard much said, and very forcibly, about the rights of the parents to have their children taught what they please. But if you are going to press these parental rights, you are not in a position to say when you come to religious teaching, that where a parent is indifferent it is the duty of a certain number of good men to take the whole matter out of his hands, and teach his children for him. You cannot have it both ways. To that extent, although I am not by any means in entire agreement with the noble Earl on this question, I confess there seems to be much force in what he says.
  Doubtful as I confess I am about this clause—because I do not pretend to have a strong opinion on it either way—there is one matter which does bias me in its favour, and that is its effect in making the conscience clause really operative. We have had a conscience clause for many years, but nobody can say that it has been very effective. It has been used extraordinarily seldom, partly because parents are in many cases curiously indifferent as to the particular kind of religious instruction which their children receive. I wish they were less indifferent. I am not what is called a strong denominationalist, but I confess I welcome a direct interest taken by parents in these matters, and it is I think singular to find with what curious apathy parents often regard the special character of the religious instruction given in the schools which their children attend. But there is another reason for the small use which has been made of the conscience clause— a reason which has often been impressed upon your Lordships, and forcibly stated elsewhere. There is no doubt that it is difficult for children to avail themselves of the conscience clause under present circumstances. You ask children to place themselves in an impossible position by standing out in favour of unpopular views among others of their own age

  711
  and class. None of us who remember our own school days can forget how very difficult it was in any matter to battle against the stream of public opinion in the school. Consequently I have not the least doubt that there are many children whose parents, if they felt that they had a free choice in the matter, would desire them to be withdrawn from the special religious instruction, but who are allowed to attend it in order that they may be saved the chagrin and pain of having to declare themselves different from their fellows. These things do happen. There is the oft-quoted story— I do not vouch for its truth—of the foolish clergyman who, when children were being withdrawn, said, "Let the little heathens go into another room." I do not pay much attention to stories of that kind; I should be very glad to place that clergyman, so far as illustration is concerned, on the retired list, accompanied, however, by the atheistic teacher who flourishes his unbelief in the faces of the children. I dare say they both exist, but they are certainly neither of them types. But these things do happen, and I believe that this liberty to stay away would afford something like a real protection for children who are unable to protect themselves.
  I may mention that from a point of view which is not exactly mine, I should have thought there might be a good many noble Lords and some right rev. Prelates in favour of the clause as it stands. We have been told that we are forcing a State religion on the schools and upon the children in the shape of teaching subject to the Cowper-Temple clause. I should have thought the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Halifax) and others would have felt some satisfaction in the fact that under this clause no child need go and receive Cowper-Temple teaching. Whether those who agree with the noble Viscount are impressed by that argument I cannot say, but probably we shall hear. We had an eloquent speech from the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Chester, at whose intervention in the debate I was delighted, the more so in that I live under his pastoral charge; but he takes another view. He does not object to Cowper-Temple teaching; he is very glad that
  712
  children should be obliged to be in the school while it is carried on; but there must be others, judging from what we have heard, who look upon that teaching as actively mischievous—not merely in- sufficient, but actually wrong. I cannot understand why they do not support this system by which the children can stay away from the school and attend church. I should have thought there were a considerable number of cases in which it would be desired that children should obtain special religious teaching in the church. I should have thought that might happen in the case of small numbers of Roman Catholics, for instance, because although we know how many Roman Catholic schools there are, and how they have been erected by the munificence of the rich and the noble self-denial of the poor, there must be some Roman Catholic children who are not within reach of a Catholic school, and I should have thought it would have been a distinct advantage for them to be withdrawn during the hour of religious instruction so that they might obtain elsewhere instruction according to the principles of their own religion. The possibility of avoiding the pernicious teaching called by the name of the late Lord Mount Temple can only be secured by some measure which makes it possible for children to stay away from school during religious instruction, because so far as the adoption of the Anson by-law is concerned, you are at the mercy of the local authority.
  On the other hand, there is an argument which weighs very strongly with me, and very nearly counterbalances the arguments on the other side, and that is the argument of child labour. It is no doubt a very grave matter if you are forced to admit that children may run wild in the streets, or be put to tasks, either through the greed of selfish parents or in order to earn a few pence for themselves, at the hour when they might be attending school. That drives me very close to the line along which noble Lords opposite, and many on this side, are drawn up. But I do not think the proper way of preventing child labour is to put children into school to avoid it. If that evil exists it ought to be attacked directly at the source; the people who

  713
  employ children ought to be severely punished, and extreme vigilance ought to be exercised in detecting particular cases. I do not like the idea of looking upon religious instruction merely as a sort of city of Zoar, as an escape from possible employment in the streets. Consequently I shall vote for the clause as it stands. I do not ask any noble Lord who differs from me on this side of the House, to whose regular support I am so much indebted, to follow me. This, we frankly and fully admit, is an open question; we are not the least ashamed of the fact; it was an open question in the other House, and we mean to leave it open in this.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONthought that, although there seemed to be an idea in some quarters that the bishops were taking an undue share in these debates, it would be admitted that the bishop of 3,500,000 of people was entitled to say a word on the question now before the Committee. The Lord President of the Council, whose fairness he desired to acknowledge, had made the best of a bad case, but it was very possible for noble Lords to underrate the extreme pressure of life in the slums. The difference that a shilling or even sixpence made in the weekly balance-sheet of some of these poor people was enormous; therefore, the opportunity afforded by the clause to make a few pence or farthings by the labour of their children was, even to well-meaning mothers, a great temptation. His second point was that the most injury would be done just to the children of the worst parents. Members of the Church were fighting in the slums to establish religion; by this clause their work would be undermined. The great majority of the people in the slums loved their children and did their best for them; by far the great majority desired that religious instruction should be given to their children; it was just the minority who would be favoured by the clause it was now sought to eliminate. The third point was the impression that would be made upon the child's mind. Even simple Bible teaching would contain the injunction "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness," but if the children were taught to regard religious instruction as a
  714
  thing they might or might not attend as they pleased, the impression left on their minds would rather be, "Seek ye last the Kingdom of God," and the idea would be that religion was the one thing that did not much matter. Since Clause 1 had been amended it followed almost as a matter of course that this clause should be omitted. Having declared that some portion of every day was to be devoted to religious instruction, it was almost an inconsistency that Clause 7 should remain. A further point, and a most important one, was that the clause was driving people who did not want it into Cowper-Temple religion. Were they not in danger of forgetting that Roman Catholics or Churchmen could, under the conscience clause, withdraw their children from religious instrction? If they said that Cowper-Temple instruction was offensive to their consciences they could already take the children into the Church; this clause was not essential for that purpose. An Amendment had already been made to meet that case, because, at any rate to a certain extent, it was ensured that in the transferred schools every morning definite religious instruction might be given, so that those parish priests who might have felt a grievance before would not feel it now. It was true that no parent had been prosecuted for not sending his child to school during the time set apart for religious instruction, but it was one thing to have a by-law which the people knew nothing about and quite another thing to have stamped on the face of a Bill about which the whole country was talking that the children need not be sent. It would be known in every slum in London, where probably nobody ever heard of the Anson by-law. Then it was said that the conscience clause was ineffective. The only point in the noble Earl's speech which he thought rather unfair was the dragging in of the wretched clergymen and the little heathens. That kind of thing did not represent the parish priest in London.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I did not say it did.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONdid not believe the conscience clause was

  715
  anything like so ineffective as was sometimes made out. It was true that few availed themselves of it, but there was really no difficulty, and no stigma whatever attached to the child who might be withdrawn. The parents were being played both ways in this matter. The elimination of this clause was required on account of a small minority, not the majority, of parents. Some years ago, when something was said in their Lordships' House about the cruelty of the parents of East London to their children, the people of the East End felt the stigma, because they knew that the great majority of them were not cruel to their children. And so in this case, he believed, that in striking out this clause they would have the support of the great majority of the poor parents of London.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl opposite, speaking with that sincerity which always characterises his remarks, has told us that he feels considerable doubt as to this clause. Indeed he stated the case so judicially that up to the very last moment it was not easy to say upon which side of the fence he intended to come down. But we on this side of the House feel no doubt whatever on the matter. We are entirely opposed to the idea of putting anything like compulsion on the parents in respect of religious instruction. But this clause is not one which puts compulsion upon the parents; it is a clause which offers a distinct inducement to parents to withhold their children from this form of instruction. As the Bishop of London said truly, this is not a question of a departmental by-law; it is something writ large on the face of an Act of Parliament, and I think that whatever we write on the face of this Act of Parliament should be something very different from what is contained in Clause 7. So far as the children are concerned, this clause puts a premium upon unpunctuality and idleness. Further, it is calculated to do a great deal to undermine discipline in public elementary schools. Looking at it from the point of view of the parents, it seems to most of us that the clause offers a
  716
  distinct inducement to selfish or greedy or perhaps miserably poor parents to withhold their children from school. Some of us may have no idea of the pressure to which these poor people are subject, or of the temptation it may be to them to keep their children away from school during the time of religious instruction in order that they may add a trifle to the scanty earnings of the family. Looking at it from the point of view of religious instruction, the clause puts that instruction in a position of distinct inferiority. As has been said, it suggests the idea that religious instruction may stand in a less honourable and less dignified position than instruction of other kinds. One word with regard to what fell from the noble Lord, Earl Russell. He dwelt eloquently upon the invidious position in which children might find themselves who attended the school during the time of religious instruction, but were given instruction of another kind. I would suggest to him that even if those children are withdrawn altogether from school during the time of religious instruction, they will still be treated differently from other children in the school, and if there is anything in the argument it will surely apply to the children who are exceptionally treated whether they stay at home or whether they go to school and are given secular instruction while the other children are receiving religious instruction. We have laid it down in the first clause that a portion of school hours in every school is to be set apart for religious instruction. It seems to me to follow logically upon that that during that time the children should be at school. If their parents desire that they should not receive religious instruction, the children can be withdrawn, or if it is desired that they should receive religious instruction elsewhere than at school, arrangements can be made with that object. Holding these views, I shall vote unhesitatingly against the clause, and I trust that in lieu of it there may be proposed to us the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, which seems to me to give effect adequately to the views which I have endeavoured to express.
  On Question, "That Clause 7 stand part of the Bill," their Lordships
  divided:—Contents. 31; Not-Contents, 143.

  CONTENTS.

  Crowe, K. (L. President.)

  Castletown, L.

  Hempthill, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Northampton, M.

  Coleridge, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and

  Rendel, L.

  Beauchamp, E. [Teller.]

  Kincardine.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Craven, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Kimberley. E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Russell, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Headley, L.

  Welby, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Ripon. M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Vane, E. (V. Londonderry.)

  Barnard, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Belhaven and Stenton, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Westmeath, E.

  Belper, L.

  Devonshire, L.

  Blythswood, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Borthwick, L.

  Leeds, D.

  Bridport, V.

  Brassey, L

  Newcastle, D.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Brave, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Colville, of Culross, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Cross, V.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Falkland, V.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Bath, M.

  Goschen, V.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Camden, M.

  Hill, V.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donough-

  Colchester, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  more.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.

  Salisbury, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  De Freyne, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Llandaff, V.

  De Mauley, L.

  Digby, L.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Emly, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Estcourt, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Faber, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Forester, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Haversham, L.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Clarendon, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Heneage, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Hindlip, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Hothfield, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  and Queensberry.)

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Eldon, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Feversham, E.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  St. David's L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Graham E. (D. Montrose.)

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Leigh, K.

  Guilford, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Manners, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Masham, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Morton, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Mowbray, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Alington, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Onslow, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Reay, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Powis, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ashbourne L.

  Seaton, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Waleran, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L

  House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Five Minutes past Eleven o'clock, to Mon- day next, a quarter-past Four o'clock.