Sitting of 15 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINES.
Dover Harbour (Works amp;c.) Bill [Lords]; As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
PETITIONS.
  BETTING AND GAMBLING.
  Petitions from St. Pancras, for legislalation; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petitions for extension to women; from Margate; and Penzance; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COAL (EXPORT DUTY).
  Returns presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th November; Mr. Fell] to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Trade Report, Annual Series, No. 3729 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD IN SPECTORS AND AUDITORS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd August; Mr. Cooper]; to he upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 350.]
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT 1905–6.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th October; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 351.]
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF WILTS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 9th August, 1901; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to lie upon the Table.
  INQUIRY INTO CHARITIES (COUNTY OF BERKS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th March, 1905; Mr. Griffith- Boscawen]; to lie upon the Table.
  RADIOTELEGRAPHIC CONVENTION.
  Copy ordered, "of the International Radiotelegraphic Convention, Additional Undertaking, Final Protocol, and Regulations, signed at Berlin on the 3rd day of November, 1906."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Receipts and Expenditure of Public Abattoirs.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant a Return showing the annual receipts and expenditure of the following public abattoirs, established during the ten years ending 1905, together with a statement showing the average number of cattle, sheep, pigs, and calves slaughtered therein, and the charge per head made for same, viz.: Birmingham, Bury, Barrow-in-Furness, Colne, Dartmouth, Goole, Great Harwood, Hexham, Ilkley, Lincoln, Llandudno, Market Harborough, Morpeth, Newton-in-Makerfield, Pwllheli, St. Anns-on-the-Sea.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Return desired could not be made without obtaining separate information from the town or urban district council of each of the places mentioned. I do not gather why these particular places should be selected or what public object the Return would serve. At present it does not seem necessary that it should be given.

  Irish Land Purchase—Advance to Mrs. Dickson
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land

  75
  Commission has yet sanctioned the advance of a sum of money to Mrs. Dickson to enable her to purchase a grazing farm described as a demesne on the Dickson estate, situate at Tawley, near Tulloghan, in the county of Leitrim, the sale of which to Mrs. Dickson was approved by the Land Judge's Court in 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that the proceedings originally contemplated for the sale of the estate in question, under Section 40 of the Act of 1896, have been abandoned, and, as the result of negotiations conducted by the solicitors having carriage of the sale, agreements for sale to almost all the tenants have now been entered into. Much difficulty has been experienced in arranging for allotments of turbary to the various tenants, with the result that the final amendment of the rental has been considerably delayed. These difficulties have now been practically disposed of, and it is expected that the rental will shortly be completed. When this has been done the Land Commission will be in a position to deal with Mrs. Dickson's applications for advances.

  Passengers on the Mail Trains from Queenstown.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the post office authorities have any objection to passengers travelling by the mail trains from Queenstown; and whether such restriction, if it exists, will in future be removed.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I sympathise with the wish of passengers at Queenstown to use the trains referred to, and I hope to be able to make an arrangement with the railway company which will enable them to do so.

  Telegraph Rates to India, Ceylon, Straits Settlements, and Australia.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what are the public and Press rates on telegrams to India, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, and Australia.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The ordinary and Press rates on telegrams to India, Ceylon, the Straits Settlements,
  76
  and Australia, by all routes, except via Turkey, are as follows:—

  Ordinary.

  Press.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  India

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Ceylon

  2

  1

  1

  0½

  Straits Settlements

  3

  6

  1

  4

  Australia

  3

  0

  1

  0

  The ordinary rates via Turkey, are as follows:—

  s.

  d.

  India

  1

  10

  Ceylon

  1

  11

  Straits Settlements

  3

  3

  Australia

  2

  9

  There is no Press rate by this route.

  Migration of the Population of Stornoway and Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, seeing that 121 persons have lodged their names with the Stornoway Landward Committee as willing to take advantage of the scheme of migration suggested by the Congested Districts Board, will the Board consider the expediency of migrating some of the people to new holdings at the earliest possible date, having regard to the fact that, although the island of Lewis is the most congested district in the Highlands, the board have spent but little in settling the cottar and fishing population in new holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Congested Districts Board have received no information as to the persons referred to; and pending the consideration by Parliament of legislative proposals which are now before it, the Board is not likely to propose any fresh schemes for migration and settlement.

  Visits of the Undersecretary for Scotland to the Western Hebrides.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state for how many days the Scottish Fishery Board cruiser was recently placed at the disposal of the Under-Secretary for Scotland, and the places which he visited during his cruise

  77
  in the Western Hebrides, accompanied by two young ladies, a member of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, and two officials of the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The number of days was five and a half. The places visited were Kilmuir, Stornoway, Scalpay, North Uist, Benbecula, South Uist, and Barra.

  Sale of the Listowel Estate, North. Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the agreements signed by the tenants on the Listowel Estate, North Kerry, have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and, if so, when; whether he can state if inspection has taken place on the estate, and, if so, when; and whether he can state when the sale will be sanctioned and the holdings vested in the tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements for purchase in respect of the estate in question have been lodged with them and they have had the holdings inspected. They have, however, deferred their ruling in the matter pending the decision of the Judicial Commissioner as to the legality of the addition of arrears of rent to the purchase money, upon which point a question of law has been stated in another case

  Purchase of the Blacker Douglas Estate, North Kerry.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if about 400 acres of untenanted land on the Blacker Douglas Estate, near Asdee, North Kerry, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners for the reinstatement of evicted tenants, and supplying holdings to labourers and cottars in the district; and, if so, what action have the Estates Commissioners taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mr. Blacker Douglas has offered for sale to them 843 acres of untenanted land in North Kerry, and they have ordered an inspection of the vendor's estate.

  Cavan Land Cases.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state when decisions will be given in the Sub-Commission land cases heard at Cavan on the 2nd June last; when were these cases inspected; and what was the cause of the delay in giving judgments.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that in the cases referred to judicial rents were fixed by orders dated 1st November, and the parties were then duly notified of the decisions. The delay in delivering the judgments was due to the intervention of the summer vacation, and to the fact that the Sub-Commission had other cases in hand for prior disposal.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants on the Morrogh Bernard Estate, County Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in securing the reinstatement of the evicted tenants on the Morrogh Bernard Estate, county Kerry; whether the inspector of the Estates Commissioners visited and reported on the estate, and what was the substance of such Report as to the question of reinstatement; whether the claims of Mr. Morty Buckley have been yet investigated and decided upon by the Commissioners; and whether there is any proposal before the Commissioners! to exclude the town-land of Faha, or any part of it, from the proposed sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that their inspector has visited the former holdings of five evicted tenants, including Mortimer Buckley, on the estate in question. The owner has expressed his willingness to sell to the evicted tenants at the inspector's estimated price in all the cases except one, which is still under consideration. The owner, however, does not wish to reinstate these persons until the whole estate has been inspected and dealt with. The Commissioners have recently made an order that the whole estate shall be inspected without delay and the proceedings expedited. Portions of Faha East, comprising the vendor's demesne, a smithy, and

  79
  labourers' cottages have been excluded from the estate proposed to be sold.

  Salaries and Wages at Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total amount due per week to the 1,490 officials at present employed at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, and the amount due, or paid, per week to the 12,291 workmen employed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) For the week ending 27th October last the amount paid to the 1,490 officials in the Ordnance factories, Royal Arsenal, was £3,833 1s. 4d., and the amount paid to the 12,291 workmen was £20,023 4s. 3d. I may point out that the 1,490 officials include the central office staff', which is for the Ordnance factories at Enfield and Waltham Abbey as well as those at the Royal Arsenal.

  Defences of London—Repayments of Loans.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that £100,172 of the cost of the London defences now abandoned was raised by loan, he will take steps to pay off and cancel the outstanding portion of this debt as no longer as representing a national asset.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.): The debt is being paid off by means of annuities charged upon Army Votes as provided in the Acts under which the money was borrowed.

  Retirement of Colonel Morgan—Profits of Field Force Canteen.
  COLONEL HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Colonel Morgan who was recently permitted to retire from the Army Service Corps is the same officer who was entrusted with the i management and financial control of the field force canteen in South Africa during the war; whether, in consequence of the ability displayed by him, the transactions of that undertaking resulted in substantial profits; whether the accounts of its trading have now been subjected to audit and made available for public inspection; and whether, seeing \ that profits realised by such undertakings I can only be legitimately applied for the
  80
  benefit of the soldiers for whom they exist, he will take steps to make known the amount of those profits and the manner of their disposal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Lieutenant - Colonel Morgan, who has recently retired from the Army Service Corps, was charged with the management of the Natal Field Force Canteens from their inception. When all the canteens in South Africa were merged into the field force canteens, Lieutenant-Colonel Morgan undertook the management of them until August 1901. He displayed conspicuous ability in the discharge of his duties as manager. In October, 1902, the assets and liabilities of the field force canteens were taken over by the South African Garrison Institutes. These institutes are administered locally by the General Officer Commanding - in Chief in South Africa, and audited by civil accountants appointed by him. In April, 1904, the General Officer Commanding - in - Chief reported that the balance credit of the canteens amounted to £103,528, adding that "this credit is wholly in stock and represents its nominal value, the realisation of which is very doubtful." Exclusive of this balance, £123,569 have been expended on behalf of non-commissioned officers and men, and £23,000 on behalf of officers' clubs and recreation grounds. As regards this latter sum the General Officer Commanding, having taken expert advice, considers that at least one-third of the profit was made by catering for officers.

  Pay of Army Officers
  COLONEL HERBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the evidence given before a Committee, presided over by Major-General Sir Coleridge Grove, showed a consensus of military opinion opposed to the regulations, now embodied in the Royal Warrant for pay and promotion, as militating against the adoption of the Army as a profession by men of ability and ambition; whether that Committee recommended that promotion to the rank of major-general be by selection to fill vacancies on a fixed establishment of general officers, and not, as at present, by selection to fill an appointment carrying with it promotion to the rank of major-general; whether he will lay

  81
  upon the Table the evidence taken before that Committee and its Report; and whether he proposes to introduce changes in the existing Royal Warrant in accordance with the recommendations contained in that Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The evidence given before this Committee showed a preponderance of military opinion in favour of abandoning the present system of promotion to the ranks of colonel and major-general. As regards the second part of the Question, the Answer is in the affirmative. I do not propose to lay the Report and evidence of this Committee upon the Table. It is my intention to adopt the recommendations of the Committee, and it is expected that a Royal Warrant to give effect to them will be published very soon.

  Army Meat Contracts.
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider his decision to supply the Army with home-killed meat instead of home-fed meat.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) No, Sir, as I have informed the House on many occasions I do not propose to alter the present arrangement.

  Army Contracts and British Productions,
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether contractors, who tender for the supply of any articles for the Army, are in any cases limited to articles of British manufacture or production; and, if so, on what grounds the agricultural industry is thereby placed in a less favourable position than other industries.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Restrictions of a preferential or protective character have been or are being removed from the War Department contracts in accordance with the Free Trade policy of the Government, and no discrimination has been made as regards agricultural industries.

  Work at Royal Arsenals.
  MR. BARNES: To ask the Secretary of State for War is he can undertake to allocate the work given to the Royal
  82
  Arsenal so that the fluctuations shall be less acute in future than they have been in the past.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Every endeavour will be made so to allocate the work as to avoid fluctuations in numbers employed in the Ordnance Factories, Royal Arsenal.

  Incorporation of Southampton.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that the unanimous resolution of the Southampton incorporation in favour of the dissolution of the incorporation and the formation of a new union comprising the parishes of Portswood and Shirley was passed on the 18th October, 1906, viz., after the letter of the Local Government Board of the 11th October had been received, stating that one of the inspectors of the Local Government Board had been instructed to hold a local inquiry on the subject; and whether he will say what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the fact about referred to. As stated in reply to the previous Question the Local Government Board propose that a local inquiry should be held as to whether an alteration of area should be made in this case. The Inquiry has been fixed for the 10th December.

  Chaplain for Hawarden Union Work house.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the refusal or neglect of the board of guardians of Hawarden Union to appoint a chaplain for their workhouse; whether such neglect is not a breach of the Poor Law Orders; and whether he proposes to take measures to provide the aged and infirm persons maintained in that workhouse with the ministrations of religion.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) My attention has been called to this subject, and I am in communication with the guardians with respect of it.

  Temporary Accountants at the Admiralty.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Secretary of the Treasury how many temporary accountants have been appointed to the Department of the Accountant-General of the Admiralty since 31st March last; by whom were they nominated; what is the average cost per clerk per annum; and what would be the average cost if they were replaced by established assistant clerks.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Twenty-six hired accountant clerks have been appointed since the 31st March last, eleven of them being vice second division clerks. Their average (commencing) rate of pay is 4s. 3d. a day nearly, or £66 10s. a year. The commencing salary of an assistant clerk is £55 per annum, but in their case there is the prospective liability for pension. The new entrants were selected by the Accountant-General, nine having previous service as boy clerk, nine being transferred from the works or store departments of the Admiralty, and eight being entered from outside on recommendations from their previous employers, etc.

  Land Tax.
  MR. SEARS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will give a statement of the agency, local and: Government, engaged in the assessment and collection of land tax, the amount received from this source for the last complete year, the cost of collection and the amount redeemed during the last twenty years; will he state the duties of Land Tax Commissioners; whether they employ clerks: if so, what their duties are and the money paid to them for their services; the object served by a Land Registry in Somerset House; and whether there is a similar registry for quit-rent in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The amount received from the land tax during the year 1905–6 was £722,960, and I am informed that the amount redeemed during the past twenty years was £91,817. It is not possible, however, to distinguish the cost of collection of this part of the revenue from the general cost of collecting the proceeds of the income-tax and the inhabited house duty. The remuneration paid to the clerks to the Commissioners of
  84
  Land Tax varies from a few shillings to about £100 a year. Up till 1892 these clerks were paid poundage, but the first section of the Taxes (Regulation of Remuneration) Act, 1891, fixed their salaries at a sum not less than the amount of poundage received by them in each case during the year beginning 6th April, 1890. There is no land registry at Somerset House, nor in Dublin, but there is a branch in the Inland Revenue Department which deals with redemption and other matters relating to land tax, and there is a quit-rent office in Dublin under the direction of the Commissioners of Woods, where rentals are kept containing particulars of the quit-rents payable to the Crown for lands in Ireland. For further information perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the twenty-eighth Annual Report of the Board of Inland Revenue. (Cd. 4,474 of 1885.)

  Prison Officers' Grievances.
  MR. E. H. LAMB: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department; whether he can now make any statement with reference to the petition of the prison officers in His Majesty's local prisons.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I am glad to be in a position to announce the grant of considerable benefits to the local prison staff'. After consultation with the Prison Commissioners, I found it impossible to accept the view that the duties of the local prison officers were as onerous and dangerous as those of the convict prison staff, or entitled them to the same remuneration; but I was able to recommend considerable improvements in their pay, which the Treasury have now sanctioned. The maximum pay of assistant warders, warders, and principal warders has been advanced to £70, £80, and £95 respectively: and the annual rates of increment of the warders, principal warders, and third class chief warders are increased from £1 to £1 10s., £2, and £3 respectively. Further, the lodging allowance in lieu of official quarters will no longer be limited to 5s. a week, but will vary according to the requirements of different localities up to a maximum of 6s. 6d. There will also be a considerable improvement in the pay of the engineers. I trust that these concessions, which will of course involve an increased charge in the Prison Vote, and will take effect from

  85
  the beginning of the next financial year, will give satisfaction to a hard-working class of officers whose duties have of late years become heavier and more exacting.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates, Southend Case
  MR. A. W. BLACK: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds the Southend-on-Sea police magistrates refused Mr. T. Chambers, of 19, Chase Road, Southend, a certificate of exemption, after he had stated that he conscientiously believed vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) It appears from a newspaper cutting which I have received from Mr. Chambers that he declined to give any reasons for his belief and maintained that a certificate ought to be granted on an applicant's declaring that he had a conscientious objection. The magistrates, I presume, were not satisfied as to the conscientious nature of his objection. The matter is one placed by statute within their discretion, and, as I said in answer to a Question yesterday, the only remedy for the anomalies which at present occur lies in an alteration of the law.

  Industrial and Reformatory Schools.
  MR. BELLOC: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to carry into effect the recommendation made by the Inter-departmental Committee in favour of increased grants for reformatory and industrial schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The proposals of the Committee are under my consideration. Treasury sanction would, of course, be necessary to give effect to them.

  Motor Buses at Petersham.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been called to com plaints made by the town council and inhabitants of the borough of Richmond (Surrey) of the annoyance and damage to property caused by the constant passage of heavy motor omnibuses along the Petersham Road and
  86
  other roads in the borough on Sundays; and whether he proposes to take any steps with a view to removing or mitigating this public nuisance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have received a representation from the town council of Richmond, but I fear that I have no power to comply with their application. I have no authority under any Act of Parliament to limit the number of omnibuses that pass down any street in pursuance of their ordinary trade. As the hon. Member is aware, the police are doing their utmost to deal with those motor omnibuses which cause a nuisance by noise or smoke.

  Post Office Engineers at Manchester.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that certain un-established officers, employed in the engineering department at Manchester, with service varying from two to sixteen years, have been requested to sign a form known as Postmaster No. 10, by which they relinquish all claims to appointment, promotion, compensation, or pension; and will he issue an instruction that no person already in the service be asked to sign this form.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am making inquiry as to the circumstances, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Primary Education in Great Britain and Ireland—Cost per Pupil
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland can state the entire average cost per pupil per year in the primary schools of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively during the last financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they cannot at present give the required figures for the financial year ending 31st March, 1906, but for the calendar year 1905 the entire average cost, defrayed from State and local sources, of each pupil in average attendance was about £3 3s. 9d. The Commissioners have no information as to the cost in England and Scotland.

  Profits of Field Force Canteen during South African War.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what profits, if any, were made by the field force canteen in South Africa during the late war, and the use to which the funds have been put.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Answer given to-day on this subject to the Member for South Monmouthshire.†

  Army Accounts—Double Payment of Mr. Noreen for Cattle.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Committee on Public Accounts has reported that Mr. J. Noreen had claimed and been paid £4,000 for 4,009 cattle, 1,721 of these having already been paid for; that the Army Council had decided not to proceed against Mr. Noreen, on the ground that he had practically no assets; and whether, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, he can see his way to take action against Mr. Noreen.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been drawn to the paragraph in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee alluded to by my hon. friend. The grounds on which the Army Council based their view are set forth in the correspondence printed upon pages 183 to 185 of the Appropriation Account for 1904-5, but, in view of the remarks of the Public Accounts Committee, I shall of course give further consideration to the case.

  Saving Resulting from the Abolition of Seven Days Extra Training of Volun teer Field Army Brigades
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what economy will be effected by the abolition of the extra seven days training in camp which has been hitherto undergone by the twenty-seven battalions of the late Volunteer Field Army Brigades.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The estimated saving which will result
  †See Col 80.
  88
  from putting the Field Army battalions on the same basis as the rest of the Volunteer infantry is about £58,000 per annum. The decision has not been made out of any desire to save money at the expense of the Volunteers, but because it is not considered desirable to discriminate any longer between Field Army Brigades and other Volunteer Brigades.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Motor Boats in the Solent.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if a Yarrow-Napier motor boat was recently sent out to the Solent without competent engineers on board, and, as a consequence, that a serious mishap took place; and, if so, will steps be taken to prevent similar mishaps arising from similar causes in the future.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): It is not a fact that a serious mishap has occurred on the Yarrow-Napier motor boat. As in the case of submarines, no engineer officer was on board, but a chief engine room artificer was included in the crew. All the ratings in the crew who handle the machinery have been specially trained by a representative of Messrs. Yarrow & Co.

    Torpedo Construction at Woolwich.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the action of the naval ordnance inspector at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, in allowing the contractors to take sketches of sections of the torpedoes, which are the secret and property of the nation, while the torpedo shop is idle; will he arrange for the work to be completed in the Arsenal without the intervention of the contractors and where the work is much needed.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Orders were placed this financial year with the Ordnance Factory and the trade, for torpedoes of a new pattern to an Admiralty specification, and in order to ensure uniformity of manufacture, which is considered essential, it was necessary that the contractors should be allowed

    89
    to visit the Government factory to obtain information as to certain details. The usual procedure as to the allocation of orders between the Arsenal and the trade was followed in this case.
    MR. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what the "usual procedure" is?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice of that Question.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY:: May I ask what guarantee is exacted from these private contractors as to secrecy?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The same guarantee as we have in all cases from private manufacturers.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not obvious that it would be better to confine these secrets to Government departments?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask for an Answer to my Question.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is an argumentative Question.
    MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Then I will put it down on the Paper.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): Is no action taken to prevent contractors' confiding these designs to foreign Governments?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I believe so.

    The Disturbances at Portsmouth.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any casualties were received into Haslar Hospital as the result of the rioting at Portsmouth on November 4th and 5th.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am informed that no casualties were received into Haslar Hospital as the result of rioting at Portsmouth on November 4th and 5th.

    Evening Quarters in the Royal Navy.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the system of evening quarters for muster and inspection of men every Sunday is carried out in the Royal Naval Barracks at Portsmouth; whether such inspections are carried out by the Royal Marines; and whether the Board will consider the abolition of all unnecessary duties on Sundays throughout the Navy.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Evening quarters are carried out at all naval establishments, and the Admiralty have no intention of making any alteration in this practice. The Royal Marines do not follow the routine of naval establishments. Unnecessary Sunday duties are not performed.
    MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "evening quarters" are merely a picturesque relic of the past?

    Administrations of Eastern Bengal.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has noticed the paragraph in the last Resolution of the Lieutenant Governor of Eastern Bengal on policy administration, stating that His Honour hopes that, for the next few years, as large a proportion as possible of Mohammedans will be recruited; and whether he will caution the Government of Eastern Bengal in regard to a policy which is liable to misinterpretation and mischief at the present time.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,): The Secretary of State's attention has been called to the paragraph referred to in the Resolution of the Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam, dated the 5th October, 1906. In view of the explanation which is given in the same paragraph, viz., that in a province in which two-thirds of the population is Mahomedan less than one-fifth of the recruits profess that religion, the policy of the Government of Eastern Bengal does not appear to him to be open to objection.

    The Partition of Bengal.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a letter of Mr. Abdul Rasul, a prominent Mahomedan, read at a meeting in Calcutta on 15th October, in which the partition of Bengal was described as a curse to the entire Mahomedan population of Bengal, also asserting that the Mahomedans forming the greatest portion of the population of Bengal will have to Pay the largest amount of taxes to keep up the dignity of an alien bureaucracy; whether his attention has been called to the fact that at Sirajganj a notice was served upon a well-known Mahomedan preacher to show cause why he should not be bound down from appealing to his co-religionists not to take part in the meetings organised to rejoice at the act of partition; and, if so, whether the (Secretary of State, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, is prepared to give consideration to the opinions expressed by adherents to both the Hindu and Mahomedan religions regarding the partition.
    MR. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that mass meetings of Mahomedans, Hindoos, and native Christians have been held in favour of the partition, and that the masses of the people are totally opposed to this agitation?
    MR. O'GRADY: Is it in order for an hon. Member to try and put a reply in a Minister's mouth?
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: The Secretary of State is not acquainted with cases to which my honourable friend refers; but he need not say that he is, always has been, and could not he other than, ready to give consideration equally to the opinions expressed by Hindoos and by Mahomedans.

    Slavery in Zanzibar-
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now announce any decision as to the abolition of the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar coast strip in accordance with the declared policy of the Secretary of State.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): Lord Elgin is of opinion that the time has come to abolish the legal status of slavery in the Zanzibar coast strip as well as on the islands, and is now in communication with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and with the local authorities upon the question of the most convenient measures to be adopted, both in respect of that policy and its consequences. Time will be required for the making of all necessary arrangements, but I should hope to be able before long to make definite and detailed statements to the House.

    Gambling in the Federated Malay States.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a memorial has been presented to Sir John Anderson, K.CM.G., His Majesty's High Commissioner of the Federated Malay States, by Chinese employers, physicians, teachers, merchants, tin miners, planters, traders, and shopkeepers resident in the Straits Settlement and Federated Malay States, praying that His Excellency may abrogate the licensed gambling now existing in the States under his jurisdiction, and that the only action taken by His Excellency was to shorten the hours during which licensed gambling is carried on; and whether, seeing that the effect of such action has been to increase the stakes, leaving the evil as bad as ever, and that in is only for the Chinese in the mining districts that licensed gambling is provided, the Malays and Tamils in the agricultural districts being prohibited by law from gambling, he will say what steps, if any, the Colonial Office intend taking to put an end to this evil sanctioned by law.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I have given within the last few days to several similar Questions † and to the Answer given to-day to the hon. Member for Sunderland. The Secretary of State is fully alive to the objections to this system, but he is satisfied that for the reasons which I have stated, it would be inadvisable to attempt its immediate total abolition.
    †See (4) Debates,clxiv.,114–1053
    MR. O'GRADY: Why was this con- cession granted to the Chinese?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I suppose because they applied for it.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if representations have been made to him in regard to the licensed gambling carried on in the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, and the great evil arising there from; and, if so, what action, if any, he intends to take with a view to its abolition.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The system of licensed gaming does not exist in the Straits Settlements. As regards the Federated Malay States I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 12th November to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, † and I may add that a Bill for the suppression of public gaming within proclaimed areas is now before the Councils of the various States.
    MR. O'GRADY: Is this a result of the compound system in this quarter of the world?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think that has anything to do with it.

    Opium for the Chinese in South Africa.
    MR. SMEATON: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that two pounds of opium allowed to each Chinese coolie under the recent Transvaal Ordinance is enormously in excess of the maximum consumption and leaves a large surplus in the possession of each coolie, and seeing that elsewhere in the British dominions, as, for instance, in Burma, the Chinese are known to drive a flourishing trade by selling their surplus supplies of the drug to young people whom they have successfully tempted into the opium habit with disastrous results, and in view of the danger of their introducing the opium curse among the Kaffirs, the British Government will, in the best interests of the Kaffir population, disallow the Ordinance, and prohibit the importation of opium altogether except for medicinal purposes.
    † See (4) Debates, clxiv., 114, 1053.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I would point out that it is not correct to say that two pounds of opium are allowed to each Chinese coolie under the recent Ordinance. The coolie is not allowed any opium at all under the Ordinance unless he can obtain a permit signed by an Inspector of the Foreign Labour Department on the prescription of the medical officer of the mining company. The amount of two pounds is a maximum, but this limit is, I understand, far in excess of the limit of private possession in India, and the Secretary of State is communicating with Lord Selborne with a view to ascertaining whether means cannot be adopted for restricting the amount to the Indian level.
    MR. SMEATON: Are the Government aware that the opium habit not only stimulates unnatural vice, but also largely demoralises both the will and the power of the victim, as has been proved in other parts of the British Empire, and——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! The hon. Member is making a speech.

    The New Hebrides.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether members of the Australian bar will be eligible for the legal appointments under the Anglo-French Agreement with the New Hebrides; and, if so, what opportunity will be afforded to present applications for such appointments.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Members of the Australian Bar will be eligible for such appointments, and any applications received from Australia will be duly considered by the Secretary of State with those of other suitable candidates.

    Explosives in Egyptian Ports.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any regulations are in force in Egypt as to the landing at Egyptian ports, storage and transport by rail, river, or canal, of explosives; and, if so, whether he will lay a copy of such regulations upon the Table of the House.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): I will ask for the information desired by the hon. Member.

    Explosives in the Suez Canal.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that up to the time of the foundering in the Suez Canal of the s.s. "Chatham," laden with dynamite, no regulations whatever existed for ensuring precautions in cases of ships passing through the canal carrying explosives; whether any regulations with that object have since been put in force; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of such regulations.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will postpone his Question for a week. I am making inquiry of the Board of Trade.

    Labour Recruiting for the Robinson Mines.
    MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in July last the Portuguese Government gave assurances to His Majesty's Government that the Governor-General of Mozambique had been instructed to extend to the recruiting body of the Robinson group of mines equal facilities for recruiting natives in Portuguese territory in; South Africa with those engaged by the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association; and, if so, what is the reason why, up to the present moment, no such facilities have been granted by the Governor-General: and whether he is aware that, relying upon the promise of the Portuguese Government, the Robinson group surrendered their right to 3,000 outstanding licences for Chinese labourers; and when he expects that the instructions given to the Governor-General will be carried out.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: An application for a licence to recruit natives for Mr. Holmes as representing the Robinson group was made to the Portuguese Government in July last and complied with. They were asked last month to extend to the Robinson group through Mr. Holmes, as their representative, the same facilities as are given to the Wit-
    96
    watersrand Native Labour Association, by giving him the right of applying for recruiters' licences for certain approved individuals. So far the Portuguese Government have not seen their way to complying with this request, as they consider it a breach of an arrangement made with the Witwatersrand Association, and I am again pressing the subject.
    MR. MACKARNESSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say when the Portuguese Government were likely to carry out the pledge.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: All I can say is that I am again pressing the Portuguese Government on the subject with a view of getting their consent. I cannot say how soon I am likely to be successful.

    Egyptian Breweries and Distilleries.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in Egypt it is necessary that licences should be obtained for the opening and working of breweries and distilleries, and, if so, for what period such are granted; whether arrangements are in force for the inspection and supervision of such breweries and distilleries, and for testing the quality and strength of the liquors produced; whether there is any law as to adulteration; and, if so, whether there is any objection to a copy of the same being produced for the information of the House, together with a statement as to the number of prosecutions, convictions, and repeated convictions of offending brewers and distillers under such law, showing their nationalities and the penalties inflicted in each case during the years between 1900 and 1906.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will endeavour to obtain the information desired by the hon. Member.

    The Congo.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has approached the powers responsible for the creation of the Congo State with a view to a conference as to the alleged barbarities inflicted on the natives.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: No such step has been taken since 8th August, 1903, when, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, a. circular on the subject was addressed by His Majesty's Government to the Powers Signatories of the Berlin Act. The present attitude of His Majesty's Government was defined in the debate in this House in July, † and by Lord Ripon in a speech last week.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the Government make an attempt to bring other Powers into line in condemnation of these atrocities?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If the hon. Member will read the speeches to which I have referred, he will see exactly how the matter stands.

    Retail Liquor Trade in Egypt.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will procure for the information of the House a copy of the licensing law relating to the retail sale of alcoholic liquors in Egypt, together with a statement as to any modifications that may have been made therein, as to the present number of licensed and unlicensed retailers, and details of prosecutions and convictions of licensed and unlicensed retailers, and of persons charged with drunkenness in connection with those establishments, in each of the years between 1900 and 1906; and whether the law, if any, relating to the adulteration of alcoholic liquors in Egypt applies to, and is enforced against, retailers as well as manufacturers.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will ask for as much of the information desired by the hon. Member as is obtainable.

    The Denshawi Executions.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the men sentenced to death at Denshawi were permitted to see their relations between their trial and the execution of the sentences, and, if not, why not; whether the son of Hassan Mahfooz, a bugler in the Egyptian Army, was standing, in his uniform, close to the place of execution, having come specially from Cairo in hopes of a last word with
    † Sec (4) Debates clx., 318 et seq.
    98
    his father; and whether he begged Captain Machell for permission to speak to his father and was refused.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on these points.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the bodies of those executed at Denshawi were not handed over to their relations, as is the custom in Egypt; whether the bodies of the men executed were buried in a manner abhorrent to the customs and precepts of their religion; and, if so, whether such proceedings are approved of by the British Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The only information on this subject in the possession of His Majesty's Government is contained in Egypt, No. 3 (1906), page 19, where it is stated that the bodies of those executed were escorted to the cemetery, where tombs had previously been prepared by their families.
    MR. DILLON: The complaint is that they were buried against the religious customs of their country.

    Costs of the Denshawi Trial.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ministry of Finance in Egypt opened a special credit of £12,000 to meet the expenses of the special court and the pay of the employees who were engaged in the Denshawi case: and, if so, whether a detailed and audited account of the expenditure of this sum will be communicated to the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject. The matter is one which solely concerns the Government of Egypt.

    Conduct of the Denshawi Trial.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the translation of the documents connected with the Denshawi case was conducted under the supervision of Judge Bond; and, if this statement be correct, whether he will see that a translation conducted under the supervision of some independent and impartial

    99
    person, and not under the supervision of one of the members of the special tribunal, whose action is to be considered by the House, is laid before Parliament.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not know whether the translation was supervised by Judge Bond. If it was so, I should regard it as a guarantee of accuracy, because I have every confidence in his independence and impartiality. But in any case, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the translation.

    Macedonia.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have stipulated for the introduction of further reforms in Macedonia as a condition to their consent to any increase in the Turkish Customs duties; whether they have stipulated that such reforms should be put into execution before agreeing to the increase; and, if so, whether such reforms have actually been put into operation.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first two of the hon. Member's Questions is in the affirmative; the Answer to the third Question is in the negative, the increase not yet having been decided upon.
    MR. LYNCHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the official mouth-piece of the Government, speaking at the Guildhall, said it had been stipulated, as a condition of this increase, that these reforms should be executed.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If the increase is agreed to, it will be on the understanding that certain reforms are carried out. That will be the condition of our consent to the increase.
    MR. ASHLEYasked whether they were to understand that this increase was to be allocated solely to Macedonian reforms.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: It is to be allocated to the expenses of the Egyptian Budget with the exception of 25 per cent., I think, which, under arrangement, goes to the extinction of debt.
    MR. LYNCHthought the right hon. Gentleman had not comprehended his Question. Was it the fact, as stated at the Guildhall, that these reforms should be enacted and satisfactorily begun before consent to the increase was given?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give notice of that Question.

    Tangier.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps, if any, are being taken to safeguard the lives and property of British subjects in Tangier and neighbourhood, in view of the continual unrest existing amongst the native population of that district.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am aware of the unrest amongst the native population, but I do not consider that any special measures are required by His Majesty's Government. The question is occupying the attention of the French and Spanish Governments, to whom it appertains to take such measures at Tangier as circumstances may require.
    MR. ASHLEY: Have the Powers made any progress with the formation of the new police force as authorised by the Algeciras Act?
    MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.

    The Egyptian Sudan.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 2nd October last an order was issued by the Information Bureau of the Sudan War Office prohibiting the admission of the Cairo newspaper Al Minbar into the Sudan; and whether the issuing of such an order, emanating from the military authorities, implies that the Egyptian Sudan, although reconquered in 1899, is still under martial law.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on the subject, but will make inquiries.

    Outrages on British Soldiers in Egypt.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

    101
    with reference to Lord Cromer's remarks on the subject in his memorandum on the Denshawi incident, dated 12tb July, 1906 (Egypt, No. 3, page 24), whether he will inform the House as to the steps, if any, which have been taken by the Egyptian Government with a view to amending, in the direction indicated by that memorandum, the Khedivial decree of 25th February, 1895, which establishes a special tribunal for the punishment of offences against soldiers or officers of the British Army; whether the reforms in question will include such alteration of Article 6 of the decree as will exclude from the scope of the special tribunal trial of offences committed by natives against officers or men of the Army of occupation when the latter are not engaged in the execution of their duty; and, in the event of this alteration not having already been made or contemplated, whether he will point out its desirability to Lord Cromer.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Lord Cromer has been examining the question since his return to Egypt, and it is still under consideration. Until a definite decision is arrived at I can make no statement on the subject, but the point raised by the hon. Member will be borne in mind.

    Consular Work at Constantinople.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consular work at Constantinople has increased so largely as to necessitate the presence of a consul general, a consul, two vice-consuls, and a bevy of clerks; and, if so, what are the reasons for such increase.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There has been no increase on the staff of His Majesty's Consulate-General at Constantinople during the last ten years.

    Work of the Constantinople Consular Committee.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will issue a Return showing the number of legal cases tried by the two Judges of a Consular Court at Constantinople during the last two years; and whether his official Reports show that two Judges are required.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: There were, until 1893, two Judges at Constantinople, and one in Egypt. Until 1897 there was only one Judge at Constantinople. The Judgeship in Egypt was then abolished, and two Judges were appointed to Constantinople as their headquarters, one or the other going on circuit regularly to Egypt, and to other places in the Ottoman Dominions from time to time. I see no advantage in calling for the Return asked for by the hon. Member. The necessity for having two Judges does not depend only on the amount of work to be done. The objection to having no Judge at Constantinople at certain times is obvious.

    Embassy Chapel at Constantinople.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the memorial church, erected at Constantinople by public subscription, to commemorate the conclusion of peace in 1856, is sufficient to accommodate the Anglican population in Constantinople; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of closing the embassy chapel and of relieving the taxpayers from the attendant expenses, especially as the ambassador and several members of his staff are Roman Catholics.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I will make inquiries as to the facts, but the question is not permanently affected by the religious opinions of any Member of the diplomatic staff who happens to be at Constantinople at a given date.

    Descendants of British Subjects in the Ottoman Empire.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that, under British law, the grandchildren of British subjects, wherever born, are British subjects, but that the suceeding generation, if born abroad, lose their nationality, there are any persons residing in the Ottoman Empire who, having lost their British nationality, have yet been granted British passports.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: It is not the fact, as assumed in the hon. Member's Question, that under British law the grandchildren of British subjects, wherever born, are in all cases themselves

    103
    British subjects. I am not aware of any case in which a person residing in the Ottoman Empire, and who has lost his British nationality, has been granted a passport as a British subject.
    MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he could give the right hon. Gentleman instances.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: If any such passport has been issued it has been by inadvertence.

    Post Office Telegraphs.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the recent Return relating to the Post Office telegraph service, showing that this service has been worked at a loss ever since 1872, that that loss has rapidly increased in the past few years, and now amounts to over £1,000,000 per annum; i and whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to consider by what means, if any, the taxpayer can be relieved of this burden.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am familiar with the Return to which my hon. friend refers, and I am aware that the annual expenditure in respect of telegraphs largely exceeds the annual receipts. The account, however, includes expenditure upon extension of the system and other capital charges (amounting, as shown by Appendix R to the Postmaster-Generals Report [Cd. 3114], in 1904–5 to over £758,000), as well as the cost of earning current revenue. I do not think that any advantage would result from the appointment of a Select Committee.

    Income-Tax.
    MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a Return showing the amount of income-tax paid to revenue in respect of income which escaped assessment or was insufficiently assessed and subsequently re-assessed in England, Scotland, and Wales for a period of ten years to April, 1906; and will he state the number of taxpayers concerned and in respect of how many years the back duty was recovered.
    MR. ASQUITH: I do not think that the information given by such a Return would be of sufficient general interest and value to justify the labour necessary for its compilation, which I am given to understand would be very considerable.

    Bedford Window Breaking Case
    MR. THORNE: 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 Huchinson, who were 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 the men.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): Yes, Sir. The offence was committed with great deliberation without reason or excuse, and was aggravated by misbehaviour in court. At the same time the sentences passed were too severe, and the learned Recorder, who tried the case carefully and endeavoured to bring out anything that could possibly be said in the men's favour tells me that, on reflection, he too is of that opinion. One of the men had previously served a month's imprisonment for a similar offence, but this was not known at the trial. In the circumstances I have decided to advise the reduction of the sentences to six months in the case of Hutchinson and three months in the case of Woods.

    Government Trade Statistics.
    COLONEL HERBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to Cd. 3196, Mines and Quarries, General Report and Statistics, Part III., in which the output of pig iron and the amount of iron ore in use in the county of Monmouth are not stated, but are included in a general total with the county of Glamorgan; and whether, having regard to the fact that the number of blast furnaces in the two counties is exactly identical, while the average in blast during the year is

    105
    but slightly inferior in the county of Monmouth, he will recognise the necessity for remedying this defect in compilation by issuing a supplementary Report with figures for the county of Monmouth, and will give instructions that in future the Returns of the two counties be stated separately.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The information which is tabulated in Tables 199 and 200 of the Annual General Return is supplied voluntarily by manufacturers and under a pledge of secrecy from the Home Office. To avoid disclosure of the output of any particular firm it is necessary to group counties to get her, as in some counties there is only one firm producing a particular kind of iron. The figures for Glamorgan and Monmouth before last year were grouped with Denbigh and Flint respectively; but in order to meet a wish expressed that the figures should be arranged so as to show the output for the South Wales and Monmouth coalfield separately the present grouping was adopted. It is too late now I am afraid to make any change in the statistics for 1905, but I will consider before the figures for the current year are issued whether, by obtaining permission to publish individual figures or otherwise, it will be possible to show the figures for the two counties separately.

    Homes for Inebriates.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the difficulty of rendering operative the provisions of the Inebriates Act, 1898, as regards the establishment of homes for inebriates; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take such action as will provide for the maintenance of such homes in the same manner as His Majesty's penitentiaries are now provided and maintained.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of the difficulty referred to by the hon. Member. At the present time there is ample accommodation in the Certified Inebriates Reformatories for the eases committed by the Courts, and arrangements have been made for the supply of further accommodation when it is required. Many of the reformatories are available for the use of any local authority
    106
    desirous of entering into an agreement for the reception of cases committed within its area.

    Prosecution of Salvationists at Widnes.
    MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the imprisonment of five members of the Salvation Army for defending the right of free speech at Widnes, Lancashire; whether he can take steps to secure their release; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct of the police on the right of meeting in the above town.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I understand that the action complained of was consequential to the arrangement arrived at between the local authority and labour representatives. On the information before me I see no reason for interference. All the prisoners with the exception of one man have been released on payment of the fines.
    MR. SEDDONput a further Question which was inaudible in the Press Gallery.
    MR. GLADSTONE: This Question was only put down yesterday, and obviously it is impossible to get all the facts at such short notice.

    Sunday Schools and Epidemics.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a local sanitary authority has power to order the closing of Sunday schools during the prevalence of infectious diseases as in the case of day schools; and, if not, will he take steps to bring Sunday schools under the control of the sanitary authority, as these schools remaining open during the time contagious diseases prevail tends to propagate ailments and render futile the closing of day schools.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS,): Sanitary authorities have no power under the general law to close Sunday schools during the prevalence of infectious disease. I will take note of the suggestion that this power should be conferred upon them; but I should hope that where the public

    107
    elementary schools in a district are temporarily closed on account of the prevalence of infectious disease the managers of the Sunday schools would see their way to close these schools also.

    Motor Traffic Regulations.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board, if he will state how many local authorities have made application for the regulation of motor traffic within their district; how many inquiries have been made by the Local Government Board; how many applications agreed to; and how many refused.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Since the Motor Car Act, 1903, was passed, 73 applications for the imposition of speed limits have been received by the Local Government Board from 55 local authorities. Twenty-four local inquiries have been held. Regulations have been issued in ten cases and promised in one other; 14 applications have been refused; 44 have been withdrawn or allowed to lapse by the local authority, and four are still under consideration.

    Unemployed at Hollesley Bay Farm Colony—Votes at Municipal Elections.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the ninety-two unemployed from the farm colonies were brought up in the charge of any official employed by the Working Colonies Committee; whether they were conducted to the polls to vote by such officials, or by anyone; and whether they, in fact, voted, and in which municipal boroughs.
    I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board by whom the Central (Unemployed) Body was appointed, and the names of the members forming that body; whether the Central Body appointed the Working Colonies Committee; and whether, seeing that the expenditure on railway fares in bringing from the farm colonies ninety-two unemployed to vote at the recent municipal elections was sanctioned by the Working Colonies Committee, and confirmed by the Central Body, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the working of both bodies, and have their
    108
    accounts looked into and audited, and such payments as the above struck out by the auditor if he finds them illegal, and surcharged to the members who were present and sanctioned the payment complained of.
    I beg further to ask the President of the Local Government Board who paid the living and other travelling expenses of the ninety-two unemployed who were sent up to London to vote at the recent municipal elections, and whose railway fares only were paid by the Central (Unemployed) Body; and whether he will cause a special inquiry to be made into the whole circumstances connected with this trip.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: At the same time may I ask the President of the Local Government Board who controls the expenditure of the voluntary contributions out of which the travelling expenses of fifty-two unemployed were recently paid on the occasion of their visit to London to vote at the municipal elections; and whether the contributors to the fund were consulted before it was used for political purposes.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Before these Questions are answered, may I ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has any reason to believe that before these electors voted they were entertained at a garden party, and whether he is aware that the candidates for whom they voted escaped by the skin of their teeth?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have been too busy lately to take notice of such al-fresco frivolities. The ninety-two men from the farm colonies were not brought up or conducted to the polls by any official of the Central (Unemployed) Body. I have no information as to whether in fact they voted, and if so, where, or as to who paid their living and other expenses beyond their railway fares. I presume that they stayed at their own homes. The funds in the Voluntary Contributions Account out of which their railway fares were paid are under the control of the Central Body. I am not aware that the contributors to these funds have been consulted as to the application of them; but I may say that I do not understand that any part of

    109
    the money was used for political purposes. The Central (Unemployed) Body for London consists of members selected by the County Council, the Common Council, and the Borough Councils, together with some members nominated by the Local Government Board or co-opted by the Central Body. They number some eighty persons, so that evidently I cannot give their names in answer to a Question. The accounts of the Central Body and their committees are subject to audit by the district auditor, who has full powers of disallowance and surcharge in respect of any expenditure he may find to be illegal. It does not seem to mo necessary to direct any inquiry in relation to this subject.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will these voluntary funds subscribed by contributors be used in future elections to send voters to the polls?
    Mr. BURNS: I think it can be safely left to the district auditor to see that both voluntary and other funds are used legally and properly.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Is it not the case that, apart from the working arrangements in these colonies, these men are allowed to return home at certain periods, and that this visit was in substitution of one of the periods?
    Mr. BURNS: It is true that a return on furlough by the men is absolutely necessary for the carrying out of the Act, and for the men resuming their industrial work, if work can be found. What happened in this case was that the period of their furlough was antedated.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Do these men who have unfortunately to go to these colonies forfeit their rights of citizenship?
    Mr. BURNS: No.
    Mr. T. L. CORBETT: Are we to understand that it is a mere coincidence that the railway fares were paid to London at a time when the elections happened to be going on?
    Mr. BURNS: It is more than a coincidence; it is a positive fact, and has been done on many previous occasions.

    St. Pancras Starvation Case.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at an inquest held by the St. Pancras coroner on or about 10th November the widow of the deceased stated that she, being destitute, had applied for admission to a workhouse, but had been refused by the authorities unless her husband came with her; and will he say whether it is the duty of Poor Law officers to relieve destitute married women on their own application just as much as single women, or men, married or single, who are destitute.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have seen a newspaper report of this inquest, and am in communication with the guardians as to the alleged refusal to admit the woman to the workhouse. I may state generally that in a case of sudden and urgent necessity it would be the duty of the relieving officer to relieve a destitute married woman on her own application.

    Telegraphic Arrangements in Central London.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that messages, intended to be telegraphic, sent from the post office attached to this House, and from other offices in or near the centre of London, to addresses in the E.C. and W.C. districts are never placed on the wire at all, but are conveyed as written by the senders in pneumatic tubes; whether such messages on arrival at the office of destination are copied on to a fresh piece of paper before being delivered to the addressee; and, if so, why this expenditure is incurred.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENEEAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The facts are substantially as stated. It is necessary, for accounting purposes, to retain the original, stamped, form of all telegrams, and consequently copies must be made for delivery.

    Promotion in the Liverpool Telegraph Office.
    MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask the Postmaster-General whether, having recently promoted to the position of overseer a man number 42 in the class of

    111
    telegraphists at Liverpool, and shortly afterwards promoted number 19, he can explain why the senior was not promoted in the first instance; and whether he will explain the apparent inconsistency of the system.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: There has been no inconsistency in the system under which promotion has been carried out at Liverpool. The officer first appointed was considered, at the time of his appointment, the most suitable for promotion, taking everything into account, and the officer similarly appointed was, at the time of the selection, considered the most suitable for promotion. Seniority is always taken into account in these promotion cases, but there are other important factors which must also be considered.

    Overtime in the Central Telegraph Office.
    MR. WILES: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether, having regard to the fact that the 2,180 male employees at the Central Telegraph Office worked 132,800 hours overtime during the months of June, July, and August last, he will consider the advisability of increasing the staff so that there may be less overtime and more men may be given employment.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The period referred to was during the height of the season pressure when a portion of the staff is on leave and a certain amount of overtime is unavoidable. I fully recognise the desirability of reducing the amount of overtime as far as possible.

    Sunderland Postal Clerks' Grievance.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: TO ask the Postmaster-General whether the postal clerks of Sunderland are fined for offences (many of them of a minor character); whether such offences are registered against them and they are again penalised by the arrestment of their increment; and, if so, whether it is his intention to make any change in regard to it with a view to making one punishment for the same offence suffice; and whether he is prepared to give the men an audience in regard to the matter.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Some minor offences are punished at Sunderland as
    112
    elsewhere by small fines. The annual increment of an officer can only be allowed if his conduct during the year has been approved; and in considering whether the necessary certificate of approved conduct can be given, his whole record during the year is reviewed. Isolated minor irregularities of the kind for which a fine is imposed would not affect an increment. Evidence has been given on this question before the Committee on Post Office Servants, and I do not think therefore that an interview on the subject at the present time would serve any useful purpose.

    Street Betting Bill and Telegraphy.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at a meeting held in the Holborn Town Hall on Monday, to denounce the Street Betting Bill, and to the fact that one of the speakers threatened that, within five minutes of the passing of the Bill, he would send a betting telegram from the Lobby of this House; and whether he will give instructions to prevent this threat being carried out.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not seen the report of the speech of the hon. Member to which the Question refers. I have no power to prevent the hon. Member in question from committing a breach of the law if it amuses him to do so. It would be, I should imagine, for another Department to deal with him.
    SIR E. CARSON: Do I understand that the Street Betting Bill will apply to telegrams?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That I cannot tell you. The Bill is not yet passed.
    SIR E. CARSON: I know that. Otherwise how would an offence be committed if the hon. Member does what is stated?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I did not say so. I said I have no power to prevent the hon. Member committing a breach of law if he desires to do so.
    SIR E. CARSON: But will it be a breach of law?
    MR. MACVEAGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman know who is the hon. Member referred to in the Question?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not read the report, and I cannot tell.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I can.
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on which side of the House the noble Lord sits?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member had hotter ask his colleague.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: AS a matter of fact does the Betting Bill apply to post offices?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Not yet.

    Boston Pilot Commissioners.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the want of consideration and appreciation of the objects for which they were appointed, namely, the safety of life and property on board ships trading to the port, exhibited by the majority of the Boston Pilot Commissioners, and in view also of their proposal to diminish the earnings of the pilots for the sake of the profit accruing to dock and railway companies from the trading of two foreign steamers, the masters of which cannot obtain pilotage certificates, he will facilitate the obtaining of a Provisional Order to reconstitute the Boston Pilot Trust by adding seven pilots to the forty-throe Commissioners who at present constitute the trust, and among whom there are no pilots; and whether he will, seeing that the Boston pilots are poor men, forego either wholly or in part the official charges payable on an application for a Provisional Order.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): If an application is made to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 580 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, it will receive their careful consideration. The fee is a fixed charge required under Board of Trade Regula-
    114
    tions to cover the expense of settling the Order.

    Durham County Council and the Weights and Measures Act.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether an intimation of protest has been received from the Durham County Council against the new regulations about to be issued in regard to the testing and stamping of glass or earthenware measures, the fees to be charged for such stamping, the latter alone involving a loss of £500 per annum to Durham county; and, if so, whether he is prepared further to consider the matter before finally adopting such new regulations, in order that the above authority may have a further opportunity of laying their observations before him.
    MR. KEARLEY: Representations were received from the Durham County Council on the points mentioned by the hon. Member and were referred to the Departmental Committee which is considering the draft regulations. The Board of Trade have not yet received the Committee's Report, and are prepared to consider any further observations the council may wish to submit, if they will submit them without undue delay.

    Rex v. Fowler.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware that on the 3rd February last a communication was published setting out the allegations made by the prosecutors, Taylor and Hood, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, and also Mr. Fowler's version of the matter; and, if so, were any, and, if so, what, steps taken by the Treasury to verify Mr. Fowler's statement.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,): The Answer is in the negative.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the prosecutors, Taylor and Hood, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, wanted to make something out of their connection with the case, and refused to take the allowances made to them by the Treasury on the ground that they were too small; and whether Hood wrote to the Treasury on the subject.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the men were entitled as witnesses to four days allowance and only got two, but they applied for the extra and had since received payment.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury are aware that the statements on oath of Hood and Taylor in the case of Rex v. Fowler when applying for the summonses at Oxted Police Court on the 13th August, 1906, each contained similar inaccuracies; and, if so, whether the Treasury intend to institute proceedings against these men for conspiracy; and, if not, will he explain why.
    SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the inaccuracies were not such as to justify a charge of criminal conspiracy.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware, when preparing the case for the prosecution in Rex v. Fowler, that one Frank Attwood Huckle consulted the hon. Member for Reigate as to approaching the Treasury with a view to the Crown undertaking the prosecution: and whether Frank Attwood Huckle did not give evidence to this effect.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: The Answer is in the negative. The Treasury were not aware prior to the hearing that any such interview had taken place.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware when the prosecution was undertaken by the Crown in the case of Rex v. Fowler that the hon. Member for Reigate called on the accused Fowler on the 3rd February last, and was then furnished by the accused with a full statement of the facts which were subsequently given in evidence by Mr. Fowler and Colonel Brewster, at the Oxted petty sessions, in this case; and whether Mr. Fowler offered to place the whole of the correspondence connected with the ease at the disposal of the hon. Member for Reigate.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: No, Sir; they were not aware of any such interview.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will the facts which have since transpired in any way affect the decision of the Treasury to take no further proceedings?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: No, Sir.
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury made any inquiries into the bona fides of the persons they intended to call as witnesses in the case of Rex v. Fowler, or took any steps to ascertain whether their evidence could be relied on.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: Inquiries were made in regard to the character of the witnesses, and the Public Prosecutor informs me that there was no reason to doubt the bona fides of any of the witnesses who were called to give evidence at the hearing.

    Treasury Prosecutions.
    LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will give the express statutory authority, regulation, or order which enables the Treasury solicitor to employ persons other than solicitors to take evidence on behalf of the Treasury in respect of a prosecution undertaken by the Treasury.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I have already answered that Question more than once. There is certainly no order, minute, or regulation on the subject.
    MR. CLAUDEHAY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware that, when the Crown decided to call Frederick Skinner as a witness in the case of Rex v. Fowler, Frederick Skinner was convicted, on 20th July, 1903, at Oxted petty sessions, for assault on a woman, and that he was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: This person was never called.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware when the Crown decided to call Henry Wilkins as a witness in the

    117
    case of Rex v. Fowler, that Henry Wilkins had been convicted on the 13th July, 1903, at Oxted petty sessions, of vagrancy, and on 24th October, 1904, at the same place, of cruelty to animals.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I can only make the same answer—this person was not called. I think it quite unnecessary that these gratuitous reflections should be made.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is the practice, when the Treasury undertake the prosecution, to investigate statements made by the defendant at any time; and, if so, why were the statements of the accused Fowler, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, which were published on the 3rd February, 1906, not investigated by the Treasury.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: The statements referred to were not known to the Treasury until the hearing of the summonses. It is a matter of doubtful propriety to approach a defendant during the conduct of a prosecution against him.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Public Prosecutor was aware when William Richardson became one of the prosecutors on behalf of the Crown in the case of Rex v. Fowler, that he was convicted on 30th September, 1901, at Oxted petty sessions, of disorderly conduct, and was convicted on 12th January, 1903, at the same place, for disorderly conduct.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: This person was not a prosecutor but a witness. The Public Prosecutor informs me that he was not aware that Richardson had been convicted of disorderly conduct when he was called as a witness, but even if he had had that knowledge he would not have considered that the fact necessarily established the conclusion that the man was not to be believed.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Is it the practice of the Treasury to rely on witnesses of such character?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I have heard of persons quite credible as witnesses
    118
    having been convicted of disorderly conduct.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: This man had been convicted twice.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware before or during the trial of the case of Rex v. Fowler, that on the 11th February, 1906, the hon. Member for Reigate called on Mr. Fowler in regard to the case of Rex v. Fowler, and that Mr. Fowler stated his case to him and offered to verify his statements by the production of correspondence between Mr. Blundell Leigh, Colonel Brewster, and himself; and, if so, were any, and, if so, what steps taken to do so
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I have already answered this Question.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether Robert Taylor, on his oath in the case of Rex v. Fowler, stated he had been deaf for two years; and whether he was called by the Crown to prove overhearing a conversation, in the bar of the Greyhound public house, then crowded by twenty or more persons, by which it was thought to incriminate the accused Fowler.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I have nothing further to say on this Question, to which I have replied on a former occasion.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who is this immortal Fowler?
    MR. CAVE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, having regard to the fact that, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, the Treasury were unable, after the facts had been ascertained, to proceed further with the charge, he will direct that Mr. Fowler shall receive a sum to cover his costs, which are understood to amount to nearly a moiety of his annual salary and wages.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: There is no machinery by which this can be done.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will the Government introduce legislation to deal with such cases as this?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: If the noble Lord will bring in a Bill I will give it consideration.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will the Prime Minister give facilities for such a Bill?
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): Does the noble Lord expect me to promise facilities for a Bill I have never seen?
    MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether there is any precedent to justify the action of the Treasury in the case of Rex v. Fowler in employing a paid election agent to take evidence against his political opponents, in connection with a Treasury prosecution under the Corrupt Practices Acts, in the constituency in which he was the election agent, and in respect of an election in which he was the election agent for the candidate opposed to the candidate of whom the accused was a supporter.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I have already answered this Question on former occasions.

    Wadsworth v. Harland and Ingham.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the case of William Wadsworth, hay and straw dealer, Leeds (plaintiff), and Messrs. Harland and Ingham, solicitors, Leeds (defendants), tried before Mr. Justice Grantham and a special jury at Leeds on the 28th of July, 1905, the plaintiff suing defendants on the grounds of wrongful advice and professional negligence arising out of a previous action between the said William Wadsworth and John Traynor Harrison, excavating contractor, Leeds, tried before the same Judge, in which the learned Judge described the action of defendant as a fraud and ordered one of the witnesses out of the box, his Lordship further setting aside a deed of assignment of the 30th of April, 1903, as fraudulent; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made into this case.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: This is not a matter with which I can deal. I would suggest to the hon. Member that if the facts are laid before the Public Prosecutor
    120
    the matter will be investigated in the ordinary course.

    American Gooseberry Mildew.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the American gooseberry mildew, which has been such a scourge in America, and which is established in Ireland and parts of the Continent, has been discovered in England within the last few days amongst imported stock; and whether he will undertake that immediate steps shall be taken by legislation or other effectual means, to prevent the establishment of this disease in the fruit gardens of this country.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We were informed last month that the disease in question had been discovered in Worcestershire this summer, but we have no information as to its discovery in imported stocks in the last few days. The Board have no power to prohibit the importation or to order the destruction of diseased stocks, and it is not practicable to introduce legislation on the subject during the present session. A leaflet on the subject has been in circulation for some years and several thousand copies have been distributed during the present year. The Board are now in communication with the Customs with a view of obtaining the necessary information to enable them to warn importers against purchasing gooseberry bushes from countries where the disease is prevalent.

    Department of the Controller of Stamps.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Lords of the Treasury have recently received a petition from the clerical staff in the Department of the Controller of Stamps protesting against the promotion over their heads, to a principal clerkship, of a minor staff officer in the department of the secretaries, with considerably less service than the clerk in the Controller's Department, who was specially recommended by the Controller as the fittest man for the post; whether he is aware that the Controller of Stamps was for some years an assistant secretary, and

    121
    had, therefore, full knowledge of the characters and official qualifications of each of the two gentlemen concerned; whether seeing that such a translation as that complained of is directly opposed to the principle which has hitherto, with one special exception, always obtained in filling the principal clerkships and assistant controllerships by promotion from competent officers within the ranks of the Controller's Department, he will cause full inquiry to be made in regard to this transaction, and satisfy himself, as well on the merits as from all points of view, that the translation of the officer in question is likely to be an influence for good in the Department of the Controller of Stamps, and really beneficial to the public service; and whether, pending such inquiry, he will instruct the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to defer the translation of the gentleman in question.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): The Treasury have received the petition and have given due i consideration to its contents. The second division clerks are a body common to a large number of Government Departments, and liable to transfer from one department to another, as the public service may require. The Treasury are unable to admit that the members of that body who have been assigned for service in the Inland Revenue Department acquire an exclusive right of promotion to all the superior posts in the particular branch of that department in which they may happen to be placed. It is the duty of the Board of Inland Revenue to fill vacancies by selection of the men who are best qualified, and the Treasury have no reason to doubt the propriety of the selection they have made for the vacancy now in question.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: Why was the Controller's recommendation disregarded?
    MR. McKENNA: There has been no recommendation.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I will put another Question.

    Crown Lands Agents.
    SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when
    122
    the new agent for Crown Lands will commence his duties; what are the special qualifications that have been required not possessed by the present professional agents; what is the remuneration to be paid; and what is the name of the gentleman or firm it is proposed to appoint.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what change of policy has taken place that necessitates the dismissal of the agents of Crown Lands, seeing that they have held these appointments for upwards of fifty years; whether they have on all occasions given entire satisfaction: and whether the appointment has been promised to a Member of this House.
    MR. MCKEXNA: No appointment has been made and I am not in a position to add anything to the Answer given by my hon. friend the Member for South Somersetshire on the 8th instant.†

    Whitburn Beach.
    MR. SUMMERBELL: I bog to ask the hon. Member for East Bristol, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether his attention has been called to the condition of Whit burn Beach, near Sunderland, due to the continual deposit of refuse from the adjoining collieries, amounting in one day to forty-three railway truck loads and seventeen contractor's wagon loads, or a total quantity of about 500 tons; and, if so, what action, if any, he intends to take to put a stop to it.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The Commissioners are the lessors of the collieries, but the beach or foreshore in question is not their property, and they have therefore no power over the parties concerned in this matter.

    The Irish Agricultural Society.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction have subsidised, out of public funds, the Irish Agricultural Society, as pointed out in a resolution recently passed at the New Ross Urban District Council; and whether, in view of the effect of such action upon the general
    †See (4) Debates clxiv, 750, 751.

    123
    trader, he will take steps to have it discontinued.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to a Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for North Cork on 1st August last. † The relations between the Department of Agriculture and the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society are to be further considered at a meeting of the Council of Agriculture which has been fixed for the 27th and 28th of the present month.

    Listowel Estate, North Kerry.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the agreements signed by the tenants on the Listowel Estate, North Kerry, have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners, and, if so, when; whether he can state if inspection has taken place on the estate, and, if so, when; and whether he can state when the sale will be sanctioned and the holdings vested in the tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that agreements for purchase in respect of the estate in question have been lodged with them, and they have had the holdings inspected, They have, however, deferred their ruling in the matter pending the decision of the Judicial Commissioner as to the legality of the addition of arrears of rent to the purchase money, upon which point a I question of law has been stated in another case.

    Douglas Estate, North Kerry
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if about 100 acres of untenanted land on the Blacker Douglas Estate, near Asdee, North Kerry, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners for the reinstatement of evicted tenants and supplying holdings to labourers and cottars in the district; and, if so, what action have the Estates Commissioners taken in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mr. Blacker
    † See (4) Debates, elxii., 1053–4.
    124
    Douglas has offered for sale to them 843 acres of untenanted land in North Kerry, and they have ordered an inspection of the vendor's estate.

    Limerick Fishery Conservators.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that one of the present members of the Limerick Board of Fishery Conservators. named Mr. Glynn, acted as chairman at two meetings of fishermen held in last September, at which three candidates were nominated to represent the fishermen on the board; that at that meeting twenty-four licences, equal to forty-eight votes, were handed to the secretary to have them filled in as proxies, with instructions to send them to Mr. Glynn for signature by the men; that Glynn gave those licences to the opponents of the fishermen, and by this means got a seat on the board; that when a protest was made some only of the licences were returned, and then only when it was too late to use them for the purpose of the election; and whether, under those circumstances, a full and impartial inquiry will be held into the ease of this election.
    MR. BRYCE: The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction are making inquiries into the subject of the Question, but these will take some little time. As soon as the result of the inquiries reaches me, I will communicate it to the hon. Member.

    Price of Land in Ireland.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say how many years purchase a tenant paid for his holding who bought at 20 per centum reduction under the Land Purchase Act of 1896; and whether he can say how many years purchase a tenant pays for his holding who buys at 20 per centum reduction under the Act of 1903.
    MR. BRYCE: The Land Commission inform me that a tenant who bought, under the Acts of 1891 to 1896, at an annuity which represented a reduction of 20 per cent, on his previous rent (the annuity being 4 per cent.), purchased at the rate of twenty years purchase, as against 24·6 years purchase, under the

    125
    Act of 1903, where the annuity is 3¼ per cent. and the redaction on the rent is the same.
    MR. FLAVIN: It is really thirty-six years purchase.

    Irish Estates Commissioners.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the staff of the Estates Commissioners are seriously hampered by having to carry on their work in many of the smaller rooms of a private house, which were formerly used as bedrooms, and are very inconvenient as the offices of an important public Department; and whether he will take steps to have suitable offices erected for the staff of the Estates Commissioners on a scale such as is usual for public Departments of similar importance in London.
    MR. McKENNA: I understand that steps are being, taken to erect suitable offices for the staff of the Irish Land Commission and Estates Commissioners. Additional accommodation is meanwhile being provided, and will be available on or before 1st February, 1907.

    Dromore River Floods.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the flooding of the Dromore River, county Cavan, whether the Board of Works in Ireland, having rejected the drainage scheme prepared at their own cost by the inhabitants, can now state what scheme they are prepared to sanction; or, if not, what facilities will be given to the people to redress at their own cost the grievances of which they complain.
    MR. McKENNA: I am informed that the only way in which a new drainage district can be formed with power to a local drainage board to carry out and maintain works and recover the cost thereof from the persons benefited is under the Arterial Drainage Act of 1863. The Board of Works have no power to suggest schemes. It was one of the chief Purposes of the Act to transfer that duty to persons locally interested. It is open to the promoters to prepare a new scheme, but in view of the appointment of the
    126
    Vice-Regal Commission on Arterial Drainage it would appear to be desirable, in the interests of the promoters themselves, to await the issue of the Report of the Commissioners.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: Will the Board of Works send an engineer to report on the scheme?
    MR. McKENNA: The Board of Works have no power to spend money on such a purpose.

    Drumlish Letter Carrier.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to direct the mid-day rural letter carrier from Longford to Drumlish to remain two hours at the latter village to collect correspondence for the same day's out-going English mail, and thus save a day in corresponding to traders in Drumlish.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The circumstances since my last Answer was given to the hon. Member on the subject have not changed.

    Lord Selborne and the South African Elections
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the attention of His Majesty's Government has been directed to a letter of Lord Selborne, His Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa, addressed to the Mayor of Pretoria, and published with Lord Selborne's authority, in which the High Commissioner bespoke the influence of the mayor on behalf of Sir Percy Fitzgerald, the leader of the Chinese Indentured Labour Party and the President of the Chamber of Mines, Johannesburg, who was about to speak at Pretoria in the electoral campaign now proceeding in the Transvaal Colony; whether this action of Lord Selborne, as the representative of the Crown and an Imperial Officer in South Africa, is in consonance with constitutional practice, and whether he has been called on by the Government for an explanation of his conduct and what communications, if any, have passed between the Government and Lord Selborne on the subject; and whether, in view of Lord Selborne's interference on behalf of a leading Party

    127
    politician in the Transvaal, the Government propose to retain him in the position of High Commissioner.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my hon. friend the Undersecretary for the Colonies on Monday last.
    ME. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Selborne was a Member of the Cabinet which established the Chinese Ordinance, that he was sent out to start its operations, and that that was the subject of a public protest in this House in the form of a Motion for adjournment which I myself moved?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Poplar Union.
    LORD E. CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take any criminal proceedings against Madeley or McCarthy in connection with the irregularities disclosed in Mr. Davy's Report on the Poplar Union.
    SIR JOHN WALTONreplied that the evidence had not yet been printed, and there had therefore not been sufficient opportunity for considering it and arriving at any conclusion.
    LORD R. CECIL: When will the evidence be published?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: I should think in a few days. It is being printed.
    LORD R. CECIL: Has the matter not been considered in the case of Madeley?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: No. That case will be considered when the whole evidence is available.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will afford the House an early opportunity of discussing the Poplar Report.
    MR KEIR HARDIE: At the same time I will ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the interest excited by the Report of the Local
    128
    Government Board on the administration of the Poor Law in Poplar, and the deterrent effect which it is likely to have on other boards of guardians who are endeavouring to administer the Poor Law in a humane spirit, he will give this House an early opportunity of considering and pronouncing upon the same.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Report is not made by the Local Government Board, but to that Board by one of their officers, and I do not understand that it is proposed to call in question any action on the part of my right hon. friend the President in regard to the Report. Indeed. I am informed that at present no such action can be taken. In the circumstances, and looking to the demands on the time of the Government, I cannot see my way to comply with the request.
    MR. CROOKS: I know the right hon. Gentleman sympathises with our efforts, and I would ask him whether we cannot have some guidance as to how we are to treat people who are out of work and who need food. Surely that is not an unreasonable request, having regard to the general feeling in the whole of London, quite apart from any irregularities?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is a question of policy which hardly arises out of the Question.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the Prime Minister aware that in addition to the administration of workhouse affairs important points connected with the relief of the unemployed are involved, and in view of that could he not arrange for the Report's being considered?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If we had abundance of time and nothing else to do we might provide a day for the discussion of these questions of high policy, which really cannot be pushed into a corner and considered in such time as would be available during the present session.

    Procedure of the House.
    MR. BILLSONI beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the arrangement arrived

    129
    at on Tuesday morning between himself and the Leader of the Opposition for the progress of the Land Tenure Bill, he will consider the desirability of proposing some method of procedure by means of which all the stages of contentious public Bills may have suitable periods allotted for their discussion.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I agree with my hon. friend that it will be highly desirable to have some machinery by which the stages of Bills, and even portions of great Bills, might have suitable periods allotted to their discussion, and I will not lose sight of the matter; but I can make no proposal on the subject at present.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any announcement to make with regard to business?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid that to give his right hon. friend the, First Commissioner of Works, who had been seriously indisposed, another day's rest, the Plural Voting Bill would be further postponed, and the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill would be taken on Monday.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: When will the Workmen's Compensation Bill be taken?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot give any pledge at present, but reasonable notice will be given.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Fourth Report, with minutes of evidence, brought up and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 352.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. LEHMANN, Member for the Market Harborough Division of Leicestershire, 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 prevalence of gross immorality in the Chinese compounds in the Transvaal as disclosed in the recent Report of Mr.
  130
  Bucknill, and the evidence appended thereto, and the imperative necessity laid upon His Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to put a stop to this state of affairs by every possible method, and especially by the more rapid and systematic repatriation of the Chinese coolies;" and, the pleasure of the House being signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter past Eight this evening.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMEND MENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [23rd October] on Consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee).
  Which Amendment was£
  "In page 26, line 26, to leave out Clause 51."£(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words of the Clause to the word ' spaces,' in page 26, in line 26, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYadmitted that the concession made by the President of the Board of Trade was a valuable one, and that it did, to a considerable extent, remove some portion of the burden which would be thrown upon two of the interests of the shipping community. He desired to ask, however, if he would reconsider his proposal, because, although it did, to some extent, meet their wishes, yet the clause was most objectionable and most injurious to certain interests. The President of the Board of Trade had said there had been great changes in the Bill in the interests of seamen. It was the duty of all interested parties and all those who had to do with the seafaring population to bear a certain portion of the obligation. If the main interests concerned were to receive benefits under the Bill, he would be prepared very largely to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but the Bill as it stood had been termed a shipowner's Bill. He did not wish to use the phrase in any offensive way. The Bill removed several serious difficulties. It made the shipowning business more just and more equitable than it had been for many years. But

  131
  the shipowners had been called upon under the Bill to provide more water space and space for provisions and, of course, they had to establish also a scale of feeding for the men on the ship. All these extra obligations in nearly every instance, so far as good shipowners were concerned, would cost them nothing. If they took the scale of feeding in all large ships, though there might be some variation in the kind of food they would see that the new scale would not cost a farthing more than the old. Therefore, all the advantages seemed to be going to the shipowner, because he had got a great concession in the re-consideration of the load line, and in the requirement that all foreign ships loading and unloading at British ports should respect the British load line. To that extent the Bill would put British shipping upon a better footing in the future than had been the case in the past, and consequently there would be a more equitable and reasonable method of competition. But practically the whole advantage of the Bill was going to the shipowners, whilst the pilot and dock-owners would get no advantage whatever. It might be said the pilot did get some advantage, but he did not get any immediate advantage. He was obliged to the President of the Board of Trade for putting in a clause requiring that in the future, all men who hold certificates as pilots should be British born, but his clause did not apply to the foreign pilots who held certificates at the present time. Consequently, although in the future, therefore, a pilot might benefit to some extent, he would not benefit at the present time, and they would impose upon him serious loss if they allowed the clause to stand as it did at present. What was the case of the dockowners? This Bill would do a great injustice to dockowners, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give their case further consideration. Dockowners were not always private corporations; very often large public funds were invested, and sometimes a sacrifice of revenue meant a sacrifice by the public through their rates. Everyone knew that unless a dock was connected with a railway company and was a kind of receiving warehouse it was not a paying concern. This question of the dock-owners' interest ought to be thoroughly considered by the President of the Board
  132
  of Trade. This clause would give all shipowners the right to have their ships re-measured. Under the Bill, a shipowner could have his ship re-measured at one- fifth of the fees paid at the present time, and if they were to attempt to get a ship measured under the Board of Trade regulations they would stand no chance of getting any portion of the net tonnage reduced. The Board of Trade had laid down definite rules for each ship which was measured. The question of gross and net tonnage was beset with difficulties, of which he hoped the Board of Trade would find a solution; but there was no reason why, in this Bill, they should accentuate those difficulties. By this clause, which provided that owners might re-measure their ships, and stated that water ballast could be excluded, they were laying down a principle under which nearly every shipowner with a ship of 5,000 tons, and a net tonnage of 63 per cent. would come and ask to have his ship re-measured. He believed that under this clause the net tonnage of the ship might be reduced by at least 10 per cent. If the net tonnage of ships was reduced by anything like 10 per cent., or even by the 5 per cent. which had been suggested by the President of the Board of Trade, there would be a very serious loss to the revenue of the dockowners. He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade not to let this clause stand. It seemed to him that it did not affect the main objects of the Bill. The other clauses were excellent in their way, and this seemed quite a separate thing put in for some special reason or purpose— he believed, to serve the interests of the shipowners. The shipowners were getting a good deal in the Bill, and why there should be a clause that might have a tendency to reduce the remuneration of the pilots of England, and seriously injure the income of the dockowners, he could not understand.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERdemurred entirely and emphatically to the statement that this Bill as a whole was to the advantage of shipowners. It was not to the advantage of all shipowners, although it might be to the advantage of some. He wished to refer to the load-line question. In this matter he thought

  133
  the foreigners should have been brought up to the British standard.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order! order! This clause does not deal with the load-line. The House has already decided that point.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERthought he was perfectly in order in saying that this Bill was not to the advantage of all shipowners. It was in the interests of some, but not in the interests of all. Naturally they each of them looked at this question from their own individual point of view. The Bill was a long one, and contained a good many clauses which were not at all light and interesting reading. Speaking for himself, he entirely overlooked the real meaning of Clause 51 until his attention was drawn to it by his friends the pilots, who approached him in a reasonable way, and he very much sympathised with their view, that their earnings ought not to be reduced. So far he was in accord with the hon. Member for Grimsby and the lion. Member for Aston, who had stated the case of the pilots so clearly that he could not usefully add a word to what he said. The Bill was for the benefit of certain shipowners, one of whom he saw in the House. Clause 51 operated unfairly between ship and ship, and would not give any advantage to shipowners engaged in regular trade and whose vessels carried mixed cargoes. Such vessels could be filled in fairly good times with more or less heavy cargo in the bottom and light cargo at the top. That was the position of the shipowner engaged in regular trade. But there was a certain class of shipowner engaged in such trades as the coal trade, which was the only export trade at this moment that showed any real increase. This clause in its operation would be to the advantage of certain shipowners whose vessels were constructed in a particular way to carry coal out and bring grain home. That class of vessel, and that alone, would benefit by this clause. They would not rind that steamship owners generally were in favour of the clause or that they looked upon it as being to the advantage of those engaged in the general shipping trade. On the other hand, he did not think he was predicting too much when he suggested that
  134
  shipbuilders would expect some ship building orders for vessels specially designed to meet the requirements of this clause. The shipowners in the general trade were going to be subjected to the unfair competition of vessels constructed to meet this clause. The whole question of tonnage measurement was a very complex one, and he thought he was in order in pointing out that there had been a Committee which considered this question generally, presided over by his hon. friend the Member for Dulwich. It would be out of order to refer in detail to the work of that Committee, but such a clause as that now proposed formed no part whatever of its recommendations. Let him explain how this alteration in the system of tonnage measurement would work. He thought he was right in maintaining that the shipowners and shipbuilders were perfectly justified in taking the law as it stood and in trying to find out how, within the four corners of that law, they could build a ship whose dues paying tonnage would be as small as possible. What was the position of a vessel whose principal business it was to carry coal or any other heavy cargo such as pig iron? Of course they could not fill a ship with pig iron or coal or wheat in the same way as they could fill it with mixed cargo, because she would sink; therefore vessels only intended to carry coal were so constructed that the actual cargo space should not be larger than could be utilised. In some ships an unnecessarily large space was therefore set apart for the engine room, and for other parts for which there was no use, in order that the vessel might escape dues. There were many other ways in which a large amount of space was allowed to be deducted in order to reduce the net tonnage of the ship. Colliers already had their tonnage unreasonably reduced under various pretexts, and it was now proposed to give them more space for so-called water ballast, which, in many cases, would never be used as such. These spaces, which it was proposed under Clause 51 to deduct from the tonnage, were absolutely necessary for purposes of flotation. Whether a vessel was constructed to carry coal or grain, she must have a certain amount of empty space to give her the necessary buoyancy to keep her safely afloat. Those spaces it was

  135
  now proposed to deduct, and he thought that was unreasonable. Looking at it perhaps from a rather selfish point of view, shipowners in the general cargo trade did not want to see certain of their competitors paying less money for their dock accommodation than they ought to do, because it came home be them that it others paid too little they would have to pay more. It was absolutely not the fact to say that shipowners in general were in favour of this clause of the Bill. Most of his shipbuilding friends were in favour of it for the reason he had stated. It was unfair that the owners of certain vessels should be benefited to the disadvantage of everybody else, and to the destruction of the revenue of the dock-owners. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that he did not regard this Bill even in other respects as much of an advantage to British shipowners. It contained several objectionable provisions. He objected strongly to Clause 51, because it was unfair between ship and ship, and unfair in regard to dock companies and pilots, and he did not think that it ought to become law.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,)said the hon. Gentleman opposite had reminded the House once more of what his objections were to the clause as it stood at the present moment in the Bill. The Bill proposed to increase the deductions for tonnage in three ways. It proposed to allow a deduction for the increased accommodation of the crew, for the storage of provisions and water, and in respect of the space used exclusively for water ballast. Since Clause 51 was drafted the dock owners and the pilots had placed their case before the President of the Board of Trade, and his right hon. friend had been very much influenced by the strength of the case they made out. He might point out that they never set forth their objections at all until the Bill had gone through Committee. It was not stated there that these deductions constituted a grievance to the dock owners and pilots, and when they did come and represent their case, it was impossible not to feel the injustice that might arise to them, and the Government had considered the whole position. First of all, let him say in regard to crew space deduc-
  136
  tion that it would be perfectly impossible under the Act as at present——
  MR. BONAR LAW: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this clause affects crew space at all. Is he sure that it does?
  MR. KEARLEY: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete the observations I was about to make. was about to argue that the principal Act at the present moment laid it down that any increased space for crew made voluntarily by a shipowner, even though in excess of the statutory requirements, is entitled to deduction.
  MR. BONAR LAW: This clause has nothing to do with crew space. It is already conceded.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that was his point. It was already conceded. What was absolutely new was the deduction for storage of provisions and water, When the deputation of dock owners and pilots came, his right hon. friend put to them the point: "What is your greatest grievance? What is the grievance that hits you hardest?" They said that the grievance that would hit them hardest would be the deduction in respect of space used for storage of provisions and water; and that was the concession the Government were prepared to make. In regard to the deduction of space for water ballast, that would be an encouragement to shipowners to keep their eye on the necessity for safety, and the Government wanted to encourage ship owners, by giving them the benefit of this deduction, to provide an adequate amount of water-ballast space, and he thought they would have to ask those Gentlemen who had criticised the clause adversely to accept the decision of the Government. There were Amendments down in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, two of which the Government proposed to accept, the effect being that they would forego the deduction as to space for provisions and water, and adhere to the remainder. That would be a substantial concession to the dock owners and pilots. In fact it would practically mean the full removal of the grievance expressed by the

  137
  deputation, and at the same time it would leave something substantial to the shipowners, and he thought the compromise they were prepared to make was one which the House ought to accept.
  MR. BRACEsaid he was not in agreement with the Secretary to the Board of Trade when he said that what the President of that Department had offered fairly met the case of the dock authorities and the pilots; but he was open to confess that it went a substantial way to meet what they had boon arguing for, and, rather than continue the discussion, he was disposed to ask his hon. friend who had proposed this Amendment to withdraw it upon the undertaking given by the President of the Board of Trade that the concession of space used for the storage of provisions and water would be taken out of Clause 51. They would have an opportunity of discussing later the question of water ballast, and also the whole question of ship measurements, and therefore he contented himself with asking his hon. friend if he could see his way to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking given by the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. JOYCEsaid he might be allowed to state what was the opinion of the pilots and how they were prepared to accept what had been called the reasonable compromise of the President of the Board of Trade. He could not say that he felt altogether satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman had promised, but there was an old saying "Half a loaf is better than no bread." The President of the Board of Trade had met them in a very straightforward manner, and had stated to the House when the Bill was under consideration last, what he was prepared to do. As a direct representative of the pilots he was i prepared to say that they would accept the compromise offered by the President of the Board of Trade, and this Amendment might now be withdrawn. When the question of water ballast came up he hoped they would have an opportunity of saying something more. As to the question of crew space he did not think there was a pilot or a harbour authority in the United Kingdom—and he happened to be a representative of both—that would object to any deductions for the comfort
  138
  and convenience of the crew of a ship. He would ask the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this clause to withdraw the Amendment.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid a good deal had been said as to the benefits to be got from the Bill, and he was glad to say that even at this late hour the shipowners had been considered to some extent, and that the Bill did equalise, as far as foreign ships were concerned, the conditions when they sailed from this country. But the benefits were not all on one side. Under this Bill shipowners in future would have to provide a food scale for their men much over and above that which formerly had been supplied and one which would largely increase the cost of. sailing vessels. He was not going to dwell upon that. He did not at all agree that Clause 51 was an unfair one, but it was a matter of compromise. It seemed to be the wish of a great many Members that the space occupied by provisions and water should not be deducted in future. As a matter of compromise, and solely as a matter of compromise, and not as a matter of justice at all, he dared say the shipowners of this country would accept the proposition. With regard to water ballast, he thought hon. Members did not fully understand what had hitherto been the position. Water ballast had hitherto been carried nearly altogether in the bottom of the ship, and so far it had not been measured in the matter of tonnage; but lately it had been found that it was not always safe to have water ballast in that portion of the ship. Having it at the bottom of the ship made it labour some and it contributed to unseaworthiness. Designs had been made and ships built providing for water ballast being carried in the sides of the ship or even on the decks. So far as the deduction of tonnage was concerned it was quite immaterial whether water ballast was carried in the bottom, or the sides, or the top of the ship. This clause provided that the water ballast should be deducted in ascertaining the net tonnage of the vessel. The clause itself did not give any benefit to shipbuilders or shipowners, but it would materially add to the safety of the vessels if shipbuilders were allowed to build ships with space for water ballast

  139
  otherwise than at the bottom of the ship. The proposal made in Clause 51 with regard to water ballast was a perfectly fait one to all concerned; it did no damage whatever either to pilots or to dockowners. He hoped the clause, as now proposed by the President of the Board of Trade, would be unanimously accepted.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid he did not wish to intervene at any length in the debate if there was a disposition to accept the clause as a settlement of the matter. The hon. Member for Grimsby had used strong phrases on behalf of the claims of the dock authorities; but he had not given the House any definite statement in support of his strong language. The hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool differentiated between one class of ships and another, where he should have taken a general view. He confessed that he could not follow him altogether; but he understood that he said that in the coal and the grain trade, vessels could not fill their holds with such cargo. He respectfully controverted that, for such vessels had to be able to load light grain as well as heavy, and in the case of some coals, notably Northumberland large steam coals, many vessels could not load their deadweight owing to their lightness. Such coals occupied fifty feet of the vessel's capacity to the ton weight. With the increase in the size of vessels the dock and harbour authorities had secured an enormous increase in dues, without having had to increase their accommodation in proportion. A vessel of 1,000 tons nett register, the earlier typical size, was 250 feet in length. The more modern vessel of 2,000 tons nett register was only some 330 feet in length; the quay space now required was thus only about 30 per cent. more, whilst the revenue from the tonnage had doubled. The increase in the depth of these larger vessels had been very small, and altogether the demand upon decently equipped docks or harbours had been small compared with their increased revenue. Further, the spaces provided for provisions and water were not revenue earning spaces, and should therefore not be taxed. The concession offered by the President of the Board of Trade was generous, but was at the expense of the shipowners. He thought it should be
  140
  accepted and the House allowed to proceed to business.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid that although he would have preferred that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had agreed to further reduction, he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman as he had offered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil) moved to omit the words "spaces used for the storage of provisions and water and" so as to confines the deductions to the spaces used for water ballast.
  Amendment proposed£
  "In page 26, lines 26 and 27, to leave out the words ' spaces used for the storage of provisions and water and.'"—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand Dart of the Bill."
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that before this Amendment on which the House was practically agreed passed he should like to make one or two observations in regard to what had been euphemistically called a compromise with the shipowners. He did not know if this was a compromise in favour of the shipowners, but if so, it reminded him of the store of the negro who, having been asked "What is a lottery?" said, "You take a ticket; he take the money; you get nothing." It was absurd to speak of this as being a concession to the shipowner. He understood that the House was willing that the space for provisions and water should not be deducted. So far as he was concerned, he left the responsibility of accepting this Amendment to the House. He took a broad view of the matter, because the question of water ballast did not affect him in any way whatever. If his hon. friend opposite could build steamers which were safer by carrying water ballast, and which would

  141
  pay less dues than other ships, he thought it would be a very dog in the manger policy to oppose him. He maintained that the Amendment before the House was really no concession to the shipowners at present, although it might be in the future.
  MR. CHARLES WILSONsaid he was afraid, much as he wished not to, that he would have to vote against this Amendment, because the whole object of the Bill was to improve the condition of the mercantile marine, and the condition of the men on these ships. Here was a case in which it would be greatly to the advantage of all the shipowners that they should be encouraged to carry their provisions and water in well-ventilated deck-houses—on the top of the ship— instead of down below in the after-peak or fore-peak, which were, as a rule, inconveniently situated and generally badly ventilated. If they allowed the shipowner to carry provisions for the crew and deduct the tonnage it would only amount to a very few tons on each ship—about three tons measurement would meet the average cases. If the Government thought that the owners of passenger ships were anxious to make an extreme use of these spaces to carry provisions for passengers, then he would leave the words in: but in the case of cargo ships which did not carry any passengers at all, they should be encouraged to put deck-houses on the top of the ship, and on the sides if they liked, in order to carry the provisions and water in a satisfactory manner.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 26, line 30, to leave out from the word 'words,' to end of line 32."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  "In page 26, line 35, to leave out the word 'that.'"—(Mr. D.A. Thomas.)
  "In page 26, line 35, after the word 'sub-section,' to insert the words 'one of that section.'"—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  "In page 28, line 28, to leave out the words 'he is engaged,' and insert the words ' the seaman has signed the agreement.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 28, line 34, to leave out the words 'be made,' and insert the words 'begin at the
  142
  expiration of one month from the date of the agreement with the crew and shall be paid.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 28, line 35, to leave out from the word ' of ' to end of clause, and insert the words 'every subsequent month after the first month, and shall be paid only in respect of wages earned before the date of payment.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. L. HASLAM*MR. L. HASLAM (Monmouth-Boroughs) moved an Amendment to Clause 57 (master to give facilities to seamen for remitting wages), the effect of which was to provide that where the balance of wages due to a seaman was more than,£10, and the seaman expressed to the master his desire to have facilities afforded to him for remitting, after the ship had left port, all or any part of the balance to a savings bank or near relative in whose favour an allotment note might be made, the master should give to the seaman all reasonable facilities for the purpose as regarded so much of the balance as was in excess of £10, but should be under no obligation to give the facilities while the ship was in port, if the sum would become payable before the ship left port, or otherwise than on condition that the seaman went to sea in the ship. He thought this proposal would be very valuable. It would be the first time in the history of legislation for merchant seamen that they would have some legal right to a portion of their wages. It was the thin edge of the wedge, and before long means might be found by which the seaman should have more control over his wages than at present. It was said that seamen were not to be trusted with their money, but he believed that if the seamen were trusted more and had more rights over their wages they would behave better and would prove more worthy to be trusted. A great deal of the desertion that took place at various ports was due to the fact that the master did not allow the men to have sufficient money, and then they got into the hands of crimps. He hoped that seamen would take full advantage of this clause, so that when they were discharged at the end of a voyage, there would not be a large sum of money paid them in cash which they might be liable to lose by falling into bad company.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 28, line 38, to leave out from the word 'seaman' to end of line 41, and to insert the words 'expresses to the master of the ship his desire to have facilities afforded to him for remitting, at any time after the ship has left port, all or any part of the balance to a savings bank, or to a near relative in whose favour an allotment note may be made, the master shall give to the seamen all reasonable facilities for so doing so far as regards so much of the balance as is in excess of ten pounds, but shall be under no obligation to give those facilities while the ship is in port if the sum will become payable before the ship leaves port, or otherwise than conditionally on the seamen going to sea in the ship'"—(Mr. L. Haslam.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORdid not desire to express dissent from this Amendment; indeed, he congratulated the hon. Member upon the extremely successful manner in which he had welded into one so many Amendments which had been put down. But the opportunities of remitting when at sea and when the vessel was not in port could not be otherwise than limited, unless Marconi's wireless system of telegraphy was used. That however, was really a drafting criticism, and he had not a word to say against the spirit of the Amendment.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONunderstood that what was aimed at by the Amendment was that only paper money should be used and transmitted to relatives of the seaman. The seaman would be given an order upon the owners which would be posted to the relatives and honoured after the vessel had put to sea. The hon. Member did not want the seaman to draw money in port, but he had to protect the interest of the shipowner by seeing that the money was not paid until after the vessel had gone to sea. A great hardship was very often inflicted on seamen in consequence of their being unable to draw part of the wages due to them for the purpose of sending home. He had known men with sixty or seventy pounds due to them as wages who had not been able to draw a penny because all money had to be drawn at the captain's office. The
  144
  master frequently said he could not pay, but if they wanted any clothes he could send them to a tailor who would give them what they required, and the master frequently received 35 per cent. of the money so paid. What his hon. friend wanted was the money to be placed in a bank at home so that it could be drawn upon by the man if he wanted it.
  LORD BALCARRESsaid in view of the statement of his hon. friend that he had no objection to this addition, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that it was undesirable to leave any opportunity of conflict open. He would therefore ask him whether it might not be desirable to put in after the word "expresses" the words "in writing," so that there should be a definite record of the transaction when the application was made. If the insertion of those words did nothing else it would make a record of the transaction which would prevent subsequent conflicts, and that being so they were, in his humble judgment, desirable.
  LORD R. CECILasked what was the Government's opinion of this drafting, "after the ship has left port." The Government must recollect that although to people interested in shipping it might be simple, and no doubt was simple, this clause might finally have to be construed by a Court. Therefore, it behaved the House to see that what they meant to express was clearly stated. He did not see how one could remit at a time after the ship had left the port, though he quite understood the object of the words, which was that money should not be remitted until after the ship had left port. He wished to know if the Government were in accord with the hon. Member in this matter, or whether they did not think it would be wiser to add words which would make the meaning clearer.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,)said he was not quite sure that these were the best words for the object in view, but that object was perfectly clear, and what it meant was

  145
  that money should not be remitted to a sailor's home at a time when the ship was in port and thus give the man an inducement not to sail. These words were introduced as a safeguard against that, and to ensure that the money should be sent home after the ship had left port. There was no doubt that a man might be strongly tempted if he knew that there was money at home for him. However, he would consider whether the words were the best that could be devised to carry out the object they had in view, and if they were not, he would, if necessary, have an Amendment introduced into the Bill in another place.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid the right hon. Gentleman had not said a word in answer to the noble Lord as to the application being made in writing. It was essential that there should be no conflict after these applications were made as to what had taken place, and, therefore, it would appear desirable that these applications should be made in writing. It was a very simple matter, and when the right hon. Gentleman was considering the words of the Amendment he would suggest that he should also incorporate the words of the noble Lord.
  MR. CAIRNSpointed out that the seaman might omit to make the application in writing and thus put the master in the position of being able to refuse the seaman's request. They should not impose anything of a technical character upon the seaman, the neglect of which would injure his interest. The payment of these sums would follow lines already well understood between captain and crew. They would probably take the form of the usual order upon the owners to pay a given sum to the order of the seaman so many days after the vessel had left the foreign port.
  SIR GILBERT PARKEEasked for some reason why the words of the noble Lord should not be inserted, for he saw no reason why they should not.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not think they ought to call upon a sailor in a matter of this kind to act in the same way as an ordinary business
  146
  man would do. They could not expect that. The ordinary way in which these matters were conducted was for a sailor to say "I want to send home some money. There is £15 owing to me for wages, let me have some to send home."
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid he had no quarrel with the object of the hon. Member, which he thought was a good one, but he would like to point out that with allotment tickets at present the sailor had to sign them. He only asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, on further consideration, he did not think it better to have a written request.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Proposed words inserted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 29, line 23, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or which was in course of construction on the first day of July, 1906.'"— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERthought the right hon. Gentleman must have made some mistake. Did he not, in fact, mean 1907?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid as the Amendment was originally drafted it was intended to apply to all ships constructed at the date of the passing of the Act. It was then pointed out to him that there were a number of ships which had been designed but not constructed; then the Government inserted this date as being the date when notice was given, and now any ship constructed would be constructed after due notice had been given.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid that an ordinary tramp steamer laid down in July this year would be finished by January 1907. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman wished this to apply to ships under construction he should insert the date January 1907.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have no objection to that.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words 'July, 1906,' and to insert the words 'January, 1907.'"—(Sir R. Ropner.)
  Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 29, line 24, to leave out the word 'two,' and insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON MR. HAVELOCK WILSON moved to leave out lines 28, 29, and 30. He could not understand why the President of the Board of Trade should desire in this Bill to give the lascars less accommodation than was given to European people. For many years in this House they had a great controversy, and the right hon. Gentleman himself took no mean part in it, about the lascar having the same accommodation as white men on British ships. Now, when they had a Merchant Shipping Bill it was proposed to give the lascar 72 cubic feet, whilst the white man was to have 120. That was a direct encouragement, he thought, to shipowners to prefer lascars to white men, and it was to the disadvantage of British seamen. He was a member of the Mercantile Marine Committee, before which they had some medical evidence, and the medical men were all of opinion that the lascar seaman really ought to have as much accommodation as a European, because, being a weak man, he required more ventilation. He put to the right hon. Gentleman in the early part of this year some Questions with regard to the deaths that occurred amongst lascars on board merchant ships, and it was surprising to find that so many died from consumption and diseases of the chest, largely due, in his opinion, to the fact that they had not sufficient accommodation. The distinction made between lascars and white men in this respect, he could only believe was due to the fact that some of the large shipping companies that carried lascar seamen wanted to have an advantage in this matter. They wanted
  148
  to have the privilege of carrying lascars and treating them worse, than they would treat a white crew. Seventy-two cubic feet was a very small space, but he could quite understand that in tropical climates it would be quite sufficient for lascars, because there very few people slept below decks in very hot weather. In cold climates, however, the men must live under cover, and it was a disgrace to herd them together in the manner they were herded together on board some of the large ships that carried lascar seamen. For that reason he desired to delete that part of the clause, and he had a further Amendment to move afterwards. He did not want to be unfair in any way to the lascar seamen, but he did think that they ought to be provided with ample and proper accommodation, and he thought those shipowners who carried lascar seamen ought to be reasonable enough to see that the lascars had ample and proper accommodation.
  MR. SPEAKERthought the best way of dealing with the matter, if he might recommend it to the hon. Gentleman, would be to leave out lines 28, 29 and 30 and to move to insert the words he reposed in order to raise the whole question.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he would adopt the course suggested by Mr. Speaker. Hisproposal was that lascar seamen, whilst serving on board British ships, in latitudes beyond 35 degrees north and 35 degrees south, should be provided with the same amount of space in forecastles appropriated for their use as provided for Europeans, but when serving within tropical climates, that was, within the above-named latitudes, 72 cubic feet should be deemed sufficient space for each lascar seaman. There were very good grounds for proposing a clause of this kind, as he had already said that in tropical climates it did not matter very much if it was 72 cubic feet, because the men could sleep on deck and no hardship was inflicted, but in cold latitudes it was absolutely necessary that they should sleep under cover. There was a time, not many years ago, when the law prohibited the employment of lascars in latitudes higher than 35 degrees north or 35 degrees south, but by some

  149
  means or other that had been altered. Under this Amendment, if the lascars came into cold climates they would have the same accommodation as the white men, and in tropical climates he would be quite satisfied if they had 72 cubic feet each.
  MR. BRACEformally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 29, to leave out lines 28, 29 and 30, and insert the words, 'lascar seamen whilst serving on board British ships in latitudes beyond thirty-five degrees north and thirty-five degrees south, shall be provided with the same amount of space in forecastles appropriated for their use as provided for Europeans, but when serving within tropical climates, that is, within the above-named latitudes, seventy-two cubic feet shall be deemed sufficient space for each Lascar seaman.'"—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. KEAKLEYsaid the effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be that in tropical climates the present cubical space allowed would suffice, but in cold climates the extended crew space provided by the Bill would apply to lascars. The hon. Gentleman argued that in tropical climates no objection could be raised to 72 cubic feet, but that it was a different matter altogether in cold climates. He was bound to say that that seemed to him to be rather a singular argument. He would have thought, if anything, the provision should have been extended in the reverse way, because if there was any need for increased accommodation, one would have thought it was more pressing in tropical climates than in colder climates. He would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the lascars were in fact under the protection of the Indian Government, who were perfectly well aware what was being done for the British seamen by this Bill in the matter of space accommodation, etc.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Would the hon. Gentleman mind my correcting him on this point? It has been decided in the Courts that all seamen em-
  150
  ployed on vessels under the Imperial law are subject to the Imperial law, and have nothing to do with the Indian Government.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that was not the point. The point decided by the Courts was that the lascar was entitled to seventy-two feet. The Courts did not lay down that any future Bill should have application to lascars.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid the point was that the shipowners contended that the lascar seaman was subject to the Indian law. He contended that as they were on British registered ships they were subject to the Imperial law. The Court decided in his favour.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the Court decided that in the absence of any express definition to the contrary, a lascar came within the definition of seaman, and consequently he was entitled to seventy-two feet. Notwithstanding that, his point was that the lascar in practice was under the protection of the Indian Government. If the Indian Government thought it necessary to amend their law to give the lascar the full benefit of this Act they could do so. His Majesty's Government were in communication with the Indian Government with regard to this Bill, and their opinion was that the Indian Government should have the opportunity of legislating on the subject. His Majesty's Government thought it would be better to leave it in that way. They were communicating with the Indian Government on this particular point, and had already had some correspondence with regard to the Bill itself. He hoped, therefore, his hon. friend would not press this Amendment.
  MR. BRACEhoped the hon. Member would press this Amendment to a division. Representing a constituency which brought him in close touch with sailors, he could inform the House that there was a general opinion prevailing now that British shipowners were disposed to give preferential treatment to lascars. This Bill was making a provision which would be a direct inducement for the employment of lascars at the expense of British sailors. They did not

  151
  object to the employment of lascars as such, but if lascars were to be employed, then they must give their own people a fair chance, and the only fair opportunity they could have in equal competition was that the lascars should be employed under exactly the same conditions as British seamen. He was persuaded that if this clause as it stood at present was accepted without such words being added as those proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, they would have British seamen placed at a disadvantage.
  MR. REESdid not think that the proposal they were discussing could be regarded as preferential treatment for the lascars. Wherever the lascar was employed there was no doubt that he was a most-valuable auxiliary, and what in the name of common sense did they want to force upon that unhappy man more cubic contents of air than he wanted. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] He hoped hon. Members opposite would bear with him a little, because he happened to know something about the lascars. He repeated that wherever the lascar was employed he was a most valuable auxiliary, and it was absolutely absurd to press upon him regulations which were only suited to people of a totally different temperament and colour. It was perfectly well known to any hon. Member acquainted with the East that the amount of cubic air-space which was considered necessary for a European was regarded as an abominable draught by a lascar or other residents in the East. If a lascar was not to be the judge of the amount of air that was good for him then the hon. Member who had just been interrupting him was not the best judge of what government was best for Ireland. It was absurd for hon. Members who were not acquainted with the life of Orientals and their habits to say that they ought in this way to educate them up to the European standard. Surely the conditions under which they lived and moved and had their being were such as should be fairly taken into account in dealing with this or any other matter. He was not pleading for any preferential treatment for the lascar, but he thought the hon. Member for Glamorganshire
  152
  had put this question on a rather false footing in treating it in the way he had done. As the hon. Member opposite championed the cause of the British sailor, perhaps he might be allowed for the moment to speak for the lascar.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONasked if the hon. Member said that lascars did not want this accommodation?
  MR. REESsaid he did say that. Nor was it a fair thing that any British industry should be forced to provide unnecessary space for lascars, or any other foreigners. He felt sure that those hon. Members who were pressing this matter would subsequently regret their action. As the hon. Member opposite had made himself the spokesman for the British sailor, he was taking the part of the lascar who did his work alongside the British sailor, and did it very well. When hon. Members had had more experience of lascars they would agree with him, he was sure, that it was not for them to say what breathing space the lascar required. He hoped, therefore, that this Amendment would not be pressed. If it were a case of British sailor or lascar, he would vote for the British sailor, but that was not the case. The lascar was needed, where the British sailor could not work, and the extended shipping trade we enjoyed in consequence of our having lascars also to draw upon, enlarged the field of employment of the British sailor.
  MR. JOHN WARDthought the house would agree with him when he said that the speech of the hon. Member opposite was a defence of alien labour in preference to British labour. They all knew the attitude he adopted in regard to another subject which would be debated later on; therefore the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs ought not to be taken as an unprejudiced witness in this business because he had always, whenever any discussions had taken place in this House, supported the alien as against his own countrymen. They should not take his remarks too seriously. He knew perfectly well that at the present time our mercantile marine was finding employment for a great many foreigners and the number

  153
  was increasing every day. It had become to those who took an interest in these things a very serious question if they desired to keep the Britisher predominant upon British ships. He thought by this Bill they were giving a very serious advantage to foreigners in competition with British sailors. Lascars could be housed on board ship with about half the space required for Europeans, and naturally, if this clause was passed, shipowners would employ the men who took up the least space on board the ships; consequently the British seamen would stand no chance in competition with these aliens. Then it should not be forgotten that the lascar would work for considerably less money than a British sailor, and that was a very serious thing to begin with. The employment of lascars hampered the British seamen not only on the economic ground as affecting his wages, but also with regard to the accommodation to be provided. The lascar was given a double advantage; there could not possibly be two opinions about this. He thought the proposition that shipowners should be compelled to supply the same amount of space for one man as another on board ship, whether he was a Britisher or a lascar, was a simple, sensible proposition, and any other proposal than that suggested by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough as a solution would place our own countrymen at a serious disadvantage in maintaining their supremacy and position in our mercantile marine.
  MR. CHARLES WILSONpointed out to the hon. Member for Stoke that ships, as a rule, took three lascars to one Englishman, and if they placed the limit at 72 feet they had to provide a space of 216 cubic feet for three lascars as against 123 feet for one Englishman. Although he sympathised with what had been said in regard to lascars he thought they must consider the interests of the big mail companies in this matter. It would be exceedingly difficult on those liners to give the amount of space which was now asked for.
  MR. BECKETTconfessed that he had listened attentively to the argument of the
  154
  hon. Gentleman opposite, and he must say that so far he was quite unconvinced. One hon. Member had told them that the lascar had a rooted objection to fresh air. He could not agree that that was the case, seeing that they had been told by an hon. Member below the gangway that the lascar on the first opportunity, after getting into tropical climates, usually slept on deck. That did not look as though he had any rooted objection to fresh air. If the hon. Member opposite had told them that the lascar had a rooted objection to fresh water, perhaps he should have understood him. He remained wholly unconvinced by what he had heard, and he could not help thinking that there was a great deal to be said for the idea held by the hon. Member below the gangway that everything should be done to encourage British seamen. So far as the debate had gone, he was rather inclined to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Middlesborough, as it stood, appeared to be entirely unworkable. It demanded 75 feet for lascars when in the tropics and 120 when in the northerly latitudes. In the case of a vessel coming from India to Liverpool, part of the voyage would be in tropical climates and part in temperate. Would the accommodation be constructed on the telescopic principle, so as to enlarge and contract during the voyage? If the hon. Member's object was to prevent lascars being taken at all, would it not be better for him to state it frankly? The clause had been further urged as contributing to the comfort of lascars. If that were the plea, how could they reconcile the smaller cubic space in the tropics where it was hot and uncomfortable with the 120 feet in the northerly latitudes where it was much cooler? The clause, he considered, was quite impracticable in application. Personally, it did not affect him at all, as he was not engaged in the trades where lascars wore employed. It was all the more desirable, therefore, that he should extend full and reasonable consideration to the rights of those who were concerned in the trade.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid it gave him great

  155
  pleasure to support His Majesty's Government on this occasion. He would point out to hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that lascars were British subjects and not aliens, and, therefore, the question they were now discussing was not whether foreigners or British seamen should be employed, but whether British subjects should be given an equal chance. That was a very simple thing, and he thought the House must remember that in dealing with a great Empire it must treat all the subjects of the Empire fairly and in the same degree. [An HON. MEMBER: And give equal space.] There was no use giving extra space to people who did not want it. He spoke with a little diffidence but, so far as he knew, these lascars were mainly employed on mail steamers, and the question arose whether or not it would be possible to give them additional space, and secondly, whether it was really necessary for the health of the lascars that this additional space should be given. An hon. Gentleman opposite, who had had great experience in India and other hot climates, had told them that lascars, as a matter of fact, did not like fresh air. He did not know whether that was so or not, but he had not heard any argument to show that the space allotted to the lascars had resulted in any epidemic or injured the health of the lascars. The first thing to prove was that the health of the lascars had been injured, but, so far as he had gathered the argument of hon. Members below the gangway, it had been that unless the same space was given to the lascars as was given to British sailors, the tendency of employers would be to employ lascars and not English sailors. He ventured to think that was at the bottom of the whole question. It was because hon. Gentleman wanted to make it impossible for the owners of mail steamers to employ lascars that they had raised this question about crew space. It was not out of consideration for the lascars, but out of consideration for somebody else. Under these circumstances it seemed to him that a reasonable attitude had been taken up by His Majesty's Government [Cries of "Oh."] It must not be forgotten that they had now a great Empire, and that our subjects in different parts of the Empire had different ideas and
  156
  wants, and that they were not built on the same line. They could not lay down a hard and fast line, and say that they must legislate for Englishmen in the same way as for our subjects in India. It seemed to him that the Government had taken the right course They said, "The lascar is fairly treated, and we have no reason to suppose that, qua lascar, he is unfairly treated. Therefore we do not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman." It seemed to him that that was a fair and reasonable attitude to take up and he congratulated His Majesty's Government upon having adopted it.
  MR. JENKINSsaid there was one side of this question which had not been considered so seriously as it ought to have been. He referred to the sanitary aspect. One hon. Member had treated this question in a way which, in his opinion, was not creditable to him when he made a comparison between two classes of individuals—Britishers and lascars. He and his friends admitted that lascars were Britishers in every sense. It had been his lot to go into the forecastle of a ship where lascars were. He had gone at midnight and when a vessel had been in collision. He had had to go to the fore part of the ship through the forecastle, and the smells arising from that place were anything but satisfactory. In his opinion the condition of things was most disgraceful. Lascars were not the only persons on board a British ship. There were Englishmen there as quartermasters, engineers, captains and mates, and other officers. Having regard to the possibility of disease breaking out on board ship, caused by the stifling atmosphere in the confined spaces of the forecastle, it behaved the Government to see that the lives of the people were protected, even though the lascars themselves did not, as they were told, require this space. He repeated that to him it was deplorable, and if evidence was required he would remind the House that not very long ago the hon. Member for Middlesbrough submitted very pertinent questions to the President of the Board of Trade on the subject. He had before him the reply as to the number of Asiatic seamen reported to have

  157
  died during the year 1905. The figures were, from bronchitis, five; pleurisy, two; pneumonia, thirty-two; phthisis, thirty-two. [An HON. MEMBER: Out of how many?) Out of about 2,000. Some Members of the House were perhaps medical experts, and he would ask what was the advice they gave in regard to the treatment of these diseases in this country. Plenty of open space and plenty of fresh air was what they recommended. It was a matter of impossibility to expect that lascars could be a healthy body of men when they were confined to places which were no more sanitary than some of the compounds in South Africa.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the comments that had fallen from the hon. Member for Chatham suggested a matter upon which more information was required. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough had not yet informed the House what he meant to cover by this Amendment. He presumed that what he really meant by the Amendment was that no vessel leaving the shores of this country should give less accommodation than 120 cubic feet per man for lascar crews, and that when the ship got to another latitude an alteration in the arrangements might be made and the space reduced to 72 cubic feet per man.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: May I explain to the hon. Gentleman that at the present time there are ships running on the coast of India which only give the lascar 36 cubic feet, whereas other ships have to give 72 cubic feet.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he did not think that met his point. Here was an Amendment which proposed an iron rule for all ships carrying lascar crews, and it said that a vessel in a certain latitude, about 35 degrees north, must give 120 cubic feet, but when the ship entered another latitude she might immediately alter the arrangements and for some mysterious reason reduce that space. He did not think that proposals should be put before the House unless they were intelligible and capable of being carried out. He submitted that it was not possible for shipowners to arrange their vessels in such a way
  158
  as to give the telescopic accommodation suggested by the Amendment. On the general question of lascars discussed in the course of the debate that day he should like to go to an authority, who was quite unimpeachable in the part of the house in which the hon. Member sat. A Commission or Committee was appointed by the Board of Trade in 1903 to report on certain conditions affecting the mercantile marine, and of that Committee the hon. Member for Middlesborough was a member, and he signed the Report. The Committee had before them numerous lascars whom they closely questioned as to their food and accommodation. He had looked through the evidence and he found that all the lascars confessed themselves, by some mysterious unanimity—he did not know how it was produced—to be perfectly satisfied both with the food and with the accommodation. He presumed it was all wrong, and that they were really most discontented people, and that the hon. Member really represented them in this House. It was evident that he himself had been imposed upon, because he signed the Report which gave quite a different complexion to the matter.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Does the hon. Gentleman say that I signed a Report recommending that lascars should have less accommodation than white men?
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he would read the exact words. He had not the least intention of misrepresenting anybody. The Report of the Committee said—
  "Lascars and other Asiatics who are British subjects stand on a different footing from foreigners. … We have been able to obtain the evidence of a shipping agent of Bombay and of several lascars employed in British ships. We think that in addition to their claim as British subjects, they have also some claim to employment, because British vessels have displaced the native trading vessels. Lascars are in most cases hereditary sailors, and have special qualifications for work as firemen in hot climates. They are temperate, and those who came before us made a most favourable impression upon us. The evidence shows that they make most amenable and contented crews. In consequence, their employment as firemen has grown almost universal in the tropics, and they are also largely employed in vessels trading between ports within the tropics and the United Kingdom."

  159
  The hon. Gentleman did not insist upon a paragraph being put in the Report calling attention to the unsatisfactory condition in regard to cubic space, and the alteration he now suggested.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: The Report recognises that the space should be altered to 1 20 cubic feet. Read it all, and then you will see what was recommended.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthought that had nothing to do with the case in point. The Report further said—
  "They are so contented and so anxious to retain their situations in British ships that it is not easy to be sure whether that service entails any hardship on them. We believe, however, that there is no reason to think that many of them do, in any appreciable degree, suffer when employed in the colder climates to the north of the Suez Canal, or even in the Atlantic trade."
  He thought that that Report showed that the present treatment and accommodation given in the ships was satisfactory to the Asiatics, and he did not think that the House should interfere with the arrangement which had been made with the Indian Government. That remark applied as well to food as to accommodation. They must take into consideration the whole of the conditions. Of course, that was extremely difficult to do, especially when dealing with seamen who were employed on our ships, and on the ships of other countries, which insisted on white labour only being employed. When it was suggested by a Commission in America that the shipowners should withdraw their Asiatic crews, the American Government was told that the shipowners would lay their boats up.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid that like his hon. friend he rose to support the Government on this matter. He would, however, point out the difference of view between the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment and everyone who had spoken in support of it. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil put it. entirely on the ground that he wished lascars to be well treated, whereas another hon. Gentleman at once altered the whole point of view and stated that they were not badly treated. His hon. friend said that when the lascars declared that they
  160
  did not want additional accommodation, he would make them take it whether they wanted it or not. They all desired that the lascars should be well treated in a fair and equal way. The difficulty might be got rid of if he pointed out that the lascars under this clause would have exactly the same accommodation as was now given to seamen of every nationality. They would be no worse in future than British seamen were now. Therefore, they would be under no hardship. There was no great hardship in putting the restrictions contained in the clause upon them. He supported this Bill, chiefly because it protected the shipping trade against unfair competition. It was perfectly fair for the Labour Party to say that if the shipowner was to be protected they wanted the men to be protected. He was entirely in sympathy with that, and he would do anything that he possibly could which would increase the number of British seamen on our ships. But he would point out that there was no trade in the world which it was more difficult to protect than the shipping trade. America, which was the most highly protected country in the world, had absolutely failed to protect its shipping, and the reason was obvious. If restrictions were imposed which would fall financially against the interests of the shipowners the conditions of the seamen and others employed on board ship would not be improved; because if the conditions of the seamen were not improved other men would be employed instead of British seamen. He was certain that nobody would contend for a moment that it would not be disastrous to British shipowners and British seamen if they did anything which would give an advantage, say, to the German liners.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that on all steamship lines subsidised by the German Government lascars are not allowed?
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid he was aware of the fact that on the German liners lascars were not employed; but that did not affect the argument. Would the hon. Gentleman wish to say that the

  161
  lascars should be prevented from being employed on British ships?
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Not in tropical climates.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the hon. Gentleman wanted to make a distinction between British ships employed in tropical waters alone and those engaged in trading between the United Kingdom and tropical countries. If a ship was only employed in trading in the tropics it was true that only one class of accommodation would be necessary for the crew; but if a ship was employed in another trade between the tropics and the United Kingdom there must be accommodation for British seamen as well as for lascars. From every point of view he thought it would be extremely undesirable to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. CREANsaid he rose to support the Amendment. He could not understand why the President of the Board of Trade should refuse to accept it. Did he make any distinction between foreigners and Englishmen who were engaged in factories in England? It might be said that the competition between foreigners and Britishers in the mercantile marine was different from the competition between English i workmen in factories and foreigners; but he contended that as foreign goods were sent in here, duty free. British workmen had to compete against foreigners on severer terms in our factories than in the mercantile marine. He did not see why any distinction should be made in this measure between a Chinaman or any other Eastern man and a man resident in the United Kingdom. If the regulation for the cubic feet space for a white man mentioned in the regulations was insisted upon, it simply sanctioned the exclusion of white men and assisted the employers to engage on board ship foreigners at the cheapest rate. Hon. Members above the gangway were in the habit of quoting Blue-books, but generally only; those portions of them which suited their purposes. They never quoted the evidence of expert minds. He would quote the evidence of an expert who had no personal object in view in giving
  162
  his evidence. Dr. Collingridge, medical officer for London, gave evidence before the Commission of 1902. A question was asked him in regard to the accommodation on board ship for seamen—
  "Do you think that lascars can do with less accommodation as regards space than British seamen, or do you think that they should have the same accommodation—I mean as a sanitary matter?"
  The answer was—
  "As a purely sanitary matter, and not merely as a humanitarian matter, I think they should have more space."
  When asked why, Dr. Collingridge said that it was a well-known fact that although lascars in themselves were clean, there was an unpleasant smell given off from their bodies. There was no question as to that fact, and therefore there was no reason whatever why they should have less space. That was the evidence of an expert which should receive consideration from this House. He was not a shipowner and was only talking from a sanitary point of view. He stated that the lascars from a sanitary point of view not only required as much accommodation as British sailors but double, in consquence of the exhalations from their bodies He asked the President of the Board to accept the Amendment.
  As an Irishman representing a sea-board constituency which supplied a great number of recruits to the mercantile marine and the Navy, he would not be doing his duty if he did not see that British sailors were treated fairly as compared with the lascars or any other men who worked on board ship. He did not see any reason for excluding Irishmen from British ships. This clause if it remained unamended would practically exclude Irishmen from British ships. If an employer found he could apportion more space to cargo and less to hands, he would do so and exclude the men who took up too much space. What would be said in this country if manufacturers were allowed to import foreign labour and pack them into cubicles in their factories? What would happen if they tried to impose the same conditions on the people in the British Islands as they did on board ship? He did not think the President of the Board of Trade would try an experiment like that, and

  163
  he was quite wrong if he thought he could afford to make different conditions for labour from the East when he was not applying the same rules to factories where they employed labour from all parts of the world. When they employed a man in this country they did not ask whether he was an Asiatic or an Englishman, but he had to work under the same conditions as the others who were working in that particular trade. He was sorry that the President of the Board of Trade was making this a Party question, and his conscience would not permit him to act with him. He hoped, therefore, that he would let the House decide for itself, and that he would give his Party absolute freedom in the matter.
  MR. GODFREY BARINGsaid Section 1 of Clause 58 provides 128 cubic feet of air space for a European, but an exception was made in sub-section 3 in the case of a lascar who was kept to an air space of 72 cubic feet. But if a British shipowner engaged an Asiatic such as a Chinaman or a Japanese, he was liable to have to provide him with the full air space of 120 feet. But if he was a lascar he had only to provide the smaller space of 72 cubic feet. Therefore they were in this extraordinary position that if men had the misfortune to be lascars they were to have 72 cubic feet, whilst the Chinaman or a Japanese must have the full air space provided for him. That appeared to him to require, some explanation, because it would appear that air space was somewhat dear in the British Empire.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERunderstood that it was the case that they required at least two lascars to do the work of one white sailor. If that was the case and the Amendment of his hon. friend was passed, it would practically prohibit shipowners from employing lascars at all, because it would be impossible to provide the amount of space required. He was quite sympathetic with the idea of giving the lascar any amount of air space which was necessary, and he should be strongly moved to vote in favour of such an Amendment. He should, however, like the Amendment to be put upon a proper basis. It was not moved because it pre-
  164
  sumed to deal with hygiene and the comfort and health of the lascar, but it was really aimed at the prohibition of the employment of lascars in British ships. If an Amendment dealing alone with hygiene and health had been brought forward, he would have given it his most serious and earnest support, but this Amendment had not that object; it was an insidious attempt practically to prohibit lascars from being employed on British ships. He felt that it was exceedingly unfortunate that the Amendment was not put upon a broader basis, because it would have got more support if it had not been so much directed at an object different from that which might appear on first reading.
  MR. MADDISONsaid if the hon. Member for Gravesend had been in the House during the last few minutes he would have heard the opinion quoted of the Medical Officer of Health for London upon this very point. They had been talking for some time about what was good for the lascar and one hon. Member had assured the House that lascars did not require fresh air and did not want this, that and the other.
  MR. REES: I said they did not want so much air.
  MR. MADDISONsaid Eastern people lived their own life in their own way, and he thought it was extremely foolish to interfere with them. Of course, that only applied when they were in their own country, where different climatic conditions prevailed, but when the lascar came into northern latitudes, the conditions were different. Then he thought the question ought to be approached not merely from an Eastern but from a Northern point of view. He supported the Amendment as one who was totally opposed to the exclusion of foreigners from British ships. He had had the privilege of differing from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough upon this point before, but he saw no reason at all why a foreigner should not be allowed to sail in a British ship just as they allowed him to work in a British factory. Some Members of the Opposition had argued that foreigners ought to be kept out of the

  165
  British mercantile marine just because they were foreigners, but he could not support a proposition of that kind. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough had said that these la scars had to sail through cold climates and they should not have less, nor more, but the same cubic space as the British seaman had. Surely a man ought not to be penalised because he happened to be a citizen of the British Empire and to have worse conditions than a Dutchman or a Spaniard; neither should British seamen undergo, as Dr. Collingwood showed they did undergo, a serious and grave danger from overcrowding on ships of lascars who thus became a menace to the health of British seamen. They had heard some talk about la scars not wanting air space. Was there a Member present not familiar with the same thing? When they were endeavouring to get rid of a slum, who had not heard of the healthy old woman, eighty years of age, who had been living in the slum all her life, and had enjoyed good health, and therefore it was said they ought not to disurb her at all? Every sanitary reformer had encountered the same sort of argument as they were now listening to in the case of the lascar. The hon. Member for Dulwich had pointed out that this Amendment had been supported by hon. Members opposite from the point of view of exclusion rather than the point of view of health, and that he supported this Bill because it gave a certain amount of protection to the shipping industry which he would like to see extended to other industries. He thought there were some serious blots in this Bill from that side of it, and he would ask the President of the Board of Trade to seriously consider this Amendment. He had not the slightest sympathy with the proposal to punish a foreigner if he overloaded his ship at a foreign port when coming to a British port, just as if a foreigner ought not to have the liberty to sink if he thought fit. He had not the slightest sympathy with that, and if a foreigner liked to overload his ship that was his business and not ours. Having taken that strong view in the interests of shipowners on one side, surely they ought to put the seamen on British ships in northern latitudes on
  166
  the same level. He wanted to protest against the notion that when they made good conditions of labour on board ship they handicapped the British shipowner, because the whole history of industry showed that that nation did the best in trade which gave the best conditions for the men in its employ, and there was no more sound argument than that.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the argument was that for particular trades the lascars were necessarily better fitted than British seamen, and of course, if they were prohibited that would seriously affect British shipping.
  MR. MADDISONsaid it all came to one point, namely, the charge that increasing space for lascars was handicapping the British shipowner. That was the argument, and if the hon. Member did not mean that he had no case against the Amendment. He denied altogether that the giving of reasonable conditions handicapped British shipping, because it was only by giving the best conditions and securing the safety of life on our ships that they could hope to get or retain the supremacy of the world in regard to shipping. Although he candidly admitted that speeches had been made which made him go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment with some little reluctance, he repudiated all such notions as those which would exclude; foreigners from our service, and he wanted the shipowners to have perfect liberty to engage foreigners. He thought however, that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough was only asking by this Amendment for equality of treatment between the workmen on a ship, and by supporting him he did not commit himself in the least degree to the policy of the exclusion of foreigners.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not follow his hon. friend the Member for Burnley into a discussion of the question whether the foreigner ought to be allowed to commit suicide by overloading his ship if he liked, but he would like the House to realise exactly what the effect of this Amendment would be. He did not think the hon. Member for Middlesbrough

  167
  concealed from the House what he intended, and he certainly did not conceal his intention from the Committee. He admitted that if they demanded an increase of accommodation for lascars on British ships it meant practically that they would prohibit the employment of lascars on all ships leaving British waters for the East. He wanted to confine them to the East, and he would like the House to consider twice before it inflicted this tremendous disability upon British shipping, more especially in view of the keen competition to which shipping was subjected at the present moment.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman was doing him an injustice. He had always contended that the Britisher was subject to as much competition as anybody else, but his point was that it was unfair to bring the lascar in to knock the Britisher out of employment with low wages and special treatment in regard to accommodation.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid his hon. friend was now dealing with another issue. Practically they had got to employ two lascars for every British sailor. That was what the Committee found, and they had in the Appendices to the Report several cases where they did employ. practically, two lascars for every Englishman. If they had 120 feet for a British sailor it would mean 240 feet for every two lascars as far as British shipping was concerned, and under that state of things British ships could not employ lascars at all. The object of this Amendment was to exclude lascars from employment in British ships altogether. The hon. Member's Amendment meant that they could employ lascars in Oriental waters with 72 feet of air space accommodation, but that was exactly where the lascars wanted 120 feet. In the Red Sea. for instance, where they wanted as much air as they possibly could get, the lascar, under this Amendment, was to have 72 feet, but when he came to our temperate climate, where they generally wanted to huddle together for warmth, they insisted upon their getting 120 feet. That was what he should call compulsory bronchitis. Let them see how it would work. It was a proposal which was ludicrous in itself. He could
  168
  understand an Amendment saying "you shall not employ lascars in British ships," but to ask the House of Commons to carry this Amendment seemed to him to be really trifling with the common sense of the House. It meant that the lascar was to be absolutely free in the East, but the moment he came to Suez every lascar belonging to the crew was to be discharged, and a British crew taken on. Now. where were they going to get a fresh crew? If they wanted to kill British shipping altogether he thought this was the best way they could do it. They were at the present moment subject to the keenest competition, and the Germans were making a very special effort in regard to the shipping industry, and he was not sure that they were not subsidised. At any rate he knew that they were making a colossal effort, and if the lascar was excluded from British ships the House would be making a most handsome present to German shipping. If that was what the House of Commons wanted to do this was the opportunity, and no better opportunity had ever been afforded for that purpose. He should like to ask the hon. Member if the lascars had ever asked for this extra accommodation. On the contrary, he knew that they had protested against it for very good reasons, because they knew that if such an Amendment as this were carried it would exclude them from service on British ships, where they were much better off than they would be at home.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he did not always argue like that.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that at any rate he was now talking with a full sense of his responsibility. This was a very serious problem, because if we began to meddle unduly with our finest industry it would be a very sad day for this country. He asserted that the lascars were better paid, and had better accommodation than they could get in their own homes. What was more, they petitioned the House against such a proposal some time ago, and he had another petition from them in which they stated that they would not like to exchange the sweet

  169
  fresh air which came into their forecastle for the air in any town or city. They said that on board ship there were no drains, sewers, graveyards, pigstyes, and no carpets filled with dust, and, what was more, they claimed that they were their own municipal officers. They also said in their petition that the vessels in which they sailed were like palaces, and their quarters were far superior to what they could hope to obtain for themselves on land, because they had a living room, a bedroom, and a kitchen, all rolled into one. But hon. Members came to the House and said "give them 120 feet of air space." Not a single lascar had asked for it. Why were the lascars to be confined to the Indian Ocean? They had as much right here as we had in India, and a very much better right too. We had practically destroyed the industry of the lascars, who used to have the coasting trade of India, which was now done by British ships Was it fair that a House in which they were not represented should allow 40,000 of these people to starve, as might be the result of this Amendment?
  MR. BARNESsaid in spite of the positive and emphatic speech of the President of the Board of Trade he went with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in favour of this Amendment, which, in his opinion, was eminently reasonable. He regarded the Amendment from the point of view of getting for the lascar the same advantages from the hygienic point of view as were enjoyed by Britishers. His view was that if he was brought into these latitudes he should have the same amount of air space as English seamen had. That was a fair proposition which involved the necessity of those who rejected it showing good cause against it. One hon. Member seemed to claim that the Almighty had entered into some kind of arrangement whereby lascars required less air than Britishers. He did not agree. It was also said that the lascars did not want this and had not asked for it, but if hon. Members looked back upon the industrial history of this country they would find that that class of argument had been used with regard to all the Factory Acts of the last fifty years. All those Acts, which had benefited not only the factory operatives, but, by making them more
  170
  efficient, had benefited the whole community, were all petitioned against in the same way as this proposal had been. The hon. Member for Dulwich no doubt thought his argument was convincing, but he (Mr. Barnes) took the. opposite view. He thought if shipowners brought men into this country in association with English seamen the conditions he imposed upon them should be such as to conduce not only to their health but to the health of all those brought in contact with them. That, he thought, was a convincing argument in favour of this Amendment. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to leave this matter in the hands of hon. Members, in which case he believed the decision of the House would be in favour of the Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the hon. Member for Burnley was quite unable to make a speech on this topic without an attack on Members of the Opposition whom he accused of desiring the exclusion of foreigners from British ships. There had been no such argument put forward. The proposition that everything legitimate should be done to encourage the employment of British seamen on British ships was a wholly different thing. But The hon. Member for Dulwich had admirably disposed of the protectionist argument by his lucid exposition of the fundamental principles on which free trade rested. The hygienic argument rested on an allegation of Dr. Collingridge, who did not like the smell of the lascars, and on a statement that in 1905 some seventy lascars died of diseases of the respiratory organs. But it was stated in evidence before the Mercancile Marine Committee that from 40,000 to 60,000 lascars were employed in our shipping, and that the death rate among them was lower than among European seamen engaged in the mercantile marine. It was said they must protect the weak. He was always receiving new instruction in the principles of democracy from this interesting Parliament. Here were large numbers of able-bodied working men, on whom certain Members would confer the franchise in India, saying in the strongest way they could that they did not desire what was asked for them, and that it would be contrary to

  171
  their habits and would greatly handicap them in earning their livelihood; but all this was to be set aside because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough knew better what was good for them. He should support the Government in the view that any grandmotherly interference with the shipping trade of this country was a thing not to be encouraged unless there was really some substantial reason behind it.
  MR. SEDDONsaid alarm had been created in his mind by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. If his memory served him aright, the right hon. Gentleman was a melancholy example of the proverb that "evil communications corrupt good manners." His speeches, he believed, were in a very different tone when he sat on the Opposition side of the House. During the course of his speech on the present occasion, however, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that it would curtail the employment of lascars, and then he went on to picture—what he would not like to see personally—the decline and fall of the shipping trade of Great Britain, if anything were done to give the lascar equal accommodation with the British seaman. Were they to understand that the supremacy of British shipping rested upon the injustice inflicted upon the lascar, and that the commercial enterprise of gentlemen who so ably represented the shipping industry counted for nothing? Were they to understand that the shipping trade must be kept up and maintain its supremacy irrespective of the claims either of decency or of health? He could put no other construction upon the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. What became of those eloquent speeches the right hon. Gentleman had delivered relative to cheap labour in another quarter of the Empire? When it was a question of introducing cheap labour to save an industry in a new part of the Empire the right hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent with indignation against the mere thought of allowing capitalists to use cheap labour for their own profit against those persons who had suffered, and some of whose friends had died, for
  172
  the interest of the Empire. Were they to take it as a new doctrine of Liberalism that the end justified the means? The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow had given an instance of the sort of evidence that had been brought forward, and upon which the right hon. Gentleman rested his case. Hon. Members below the gangway on that side knew what means were used by interested persons against those whom they employed to get them to do their bidding. They knew from historical records and from what happened to-day that when men wanted to get Parliamentary evidence pressure was employed, and that pressure had very often a powerful effect in getting those people to do things which they would conscientiously object to do if their bread and butter were not jeopardised. He appealed to the President of the Board of Trade in the interests of his own good name—in the interests of his former self, as well as in the interests of the health of the sailors of this country—that he should leave this an open question, and allow hon. Members to vote as they thought fit. It had not yet been seriously disputed that lack of accommodation tended to disease among Britishers, lascars, and indeed any members of the human race. The claim that lascars should have the same cubic space as Britishers was not only one in the interests of the lascars themselves, but in the interests of the British public as well. He had yet to learn that lascars when in our ports were quarantined during their sojourn here. In Liverpool lascars were allowed to roam freely in the crowded streets. He was not saying that they should not do so, but he was trying to point out that if they were going to permit these men. by the lack of cubic space on board ship to jeopardise their own health, and then mix freely with the British public, it was creating another evil. The hon. Member for East Marylebone had stated that his reading of the medical evidence was based upon the assumption that the medical officer of health naturally had a dislike to the smell——
  LORD R. CECIL: What I said was that that was the only reason he gave.
  MR. SEDDONsaid he drew another inference from the reason given. He thought the doctor had more interest in health and hygiene than resentment against lascars; and, as he read the evidence, the doctor asked for more cubic space primarily in the interest of human health, and he incidentally called attention to the smell that came from the lascar. On these grounds he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman for the sake of his former reputation—for which many of them had a great regard—to leave this an open question, so that those who felt that the lascar was a human being, and had an equal right to as much space as any other man, could vote according to their consciences, and then he thought the Amendment would stand a good chance of being carried.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he certainly would have voted for this Amendment if it had provided that lascar seamen should have the same amount of space as was appropriated to the use of Europeans. But as the Amendment was drawn he ventured to say it had a purely nonsensical character, inasmuch as it did not require that the same amount of space should be given to the lascars in the tropics. On many occasions when he had crossed the tropics he had observed that, owing to the limited amount of deck space, where there was a large number of third class passengers, lascars had to go below. If it were necessary in the interest of health that Europeans should have 120 cubic feet, he could not for the life of him see why a lascar should only have seventy-two feet. If the hon. Gentleman would alter his Amendment by omitting the restrictions relating to the tropics, and say that every man should have the same amount of space, he would be prepared to support the Amendment, but in its present form he should certainly not vote for or against it. The remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley that he considered the proposals of the President of the Board came dangerously near to protection, seemed to him to be carrying the arguments in regard to protection to a ridiculous length. If British ships came to these ports and the British shipowner had to
  174
  conform to certain regulations, surely it was only equitable that a foreigner coming to our ports should have to do likewise.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid it was impossible for him to accede to his hon. friend's request, because if they were to put in the Bill that the lascars under all circumstances were to have 120 feet of space, it would deny the lascars employment in tropical climates, and that was a thing he did not want to do.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNERhoped the President of the Board of Trade would not take to heart too much what the hon. Gentleman for the Newton Division had said, but that on the contrary he would maintain the traditions of his office. He would like to compliment the right hon. Gentleman on his speech which showed such an imperialistic spirit. There was no doubt whatever that the Amendment was simply intended to make it impossible for shipowners hereafter to employ lascars in the trade in which they were now being employed. On this point he would like to say a few words. Some hon. Members perhaps might think he was personally interested in this matter, but he would like to say that these lascars were only employed by liners, and that he was not interested in any liners, and had not a farthing of interest in the question, as a shipowner; but he knew as a fact that if it were made impossible hereafter to employ these lascars, the result would be that German ships would take the place of British ships. It could not possibly be the intention of any hon. Member to limit the employment of British traders, but that would be the result unquestionably if this Amendment were carried, and, therefore, in the interests of British seamen, he pleaded that no Amendment of this sort should be passed. He hoped that what had been said would convince the House that the Amendment was not one which would benefit even British sailors. He could quite understand that, situated as the hon. Member was, he would like to do them

  175
  good, but the proposal would really damage the people the hon. Member represented and in the long run injure the interests of the British sailor.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 248; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 411.)

  AYES.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Cox, Harold

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Crombie, John William

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Ashley, W. W.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

  Lambert, George

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Lamont, Norman

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Balcarres, Lord

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Barker, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

  Barlow, John Emmott (Somerset)

  Duckworth, James

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govn)

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Beale, W. P.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

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

  Beauchamp, E.

  Erskine, David C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lupton, Arnold

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Everett, R. Lacey

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

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Fell, Arthur

  Maclean, Donald

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  M'Crae, George

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Billson, Alfred

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire)

  Findlay, Alexander

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Marnham, F. J.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Massie, J.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Menzies, Walter

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Branch, James

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Brigg, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mond, A.

  Bright, J. A.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Brooke, Stopford

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Myer, Horatio

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Napier, T. B.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Newnes, R. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gulland, John W.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cairns, Robert

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Cameron, Robert

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harwood, George

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Haslam, Lewis (Momnouth)

  Partington, Oswald

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Heaton, John Henniker

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

  Cave, George

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Radford, G. H.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hills, J. W.

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

  Clough, William

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Rees, J. D.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Renton, Major Leslie

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

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Sutherland, J. E.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Thomas. Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tomkinson, James

  Williamson, A.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Toulmin, George

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Sears, J. E.

  Valentia, Viscount

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

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

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Winfrey, R.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wallace, Robert

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walters, John Tudor

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

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Whitbread, Howard

  NOES.

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

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hogan, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford,)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Hudson, Walter

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Jenkins, J.

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

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Richardson, A.

  Bell, Richard

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rowlands, J.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Joyce, Michael

  Rutherford, V. H (Brentford)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Kelley, George D.

  Seddon, J.

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

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Shackleton, David James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Lundon, W.

  Snowden, P.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Crooks, William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Cross, Alexander

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Summerbell, T.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  M'Killop, W.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Maddison, Frederick

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Meagher, Michael

  Vivian, Henry

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Murphy, John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Nicholls, George

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wardle, George J.

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gill, A. H.

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

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Glover, Thomas

  O'Dowd, John

  Young, Samuel

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Hall, Frederick

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Havelock Wilson and Mr. Brace.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Shee, James John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  SIR ROBERT ROPNERrose to move an Amendment to provide that Clause 58 should not come into force till the first day of July, 1908.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper later on which he hoped would meet the hon. Member's wish. It was that the Act
  178
  should not come into operation till 1st June, 1907.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNER: Do you accept my Amendment?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEreplied in the negative.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON MR. HAVELOCK WILSON moved to add to Clause 59 a provision that—
  "Where a seaman who has been lawfully engaged and has received under his agreement an advance note after negotiating his advance note, wilfully or through misconduct fails to join his ship or deserts therefrom before the note becomes payable, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment for not exceeding twenty-one days, but nothing in this section shall take away or limit any remedy by action or by summary procedure before justices which any person would otherwise have in respect of the negotiation of the advance note or which an owner or master would otherwise have for breach of contract."
  He thought this was a very necessary addition to the clause, and he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would accept it. The shipowners and the members of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union were in agreement that there was a class of men in our seaport towns who were "dry-land sailors." They very seldom went to sea except to escape the police. Occasionally they might take a vogage, but usually they hung about the Mercantile Marine Office trying to rob the men who had just been discharged from their ships. Those men engaged sometimes on a ship for a voyage, got an advance note, cashed it, and then did not turn up when the ship was about to sail. That was a very serious injury to honest, respectable men, and he thought that it was in the interest of both shipowners and seamen that there should be a clause of the kind which he proposed to compel a man who entered into an agreement to fulfil that agreement. The class of men he wanted to get at were the fellows who deliberately made a practice of entering into an agreement, obtaining an advance note, and then not turning up. He believed that between £200,000 and £300,000 was lost every year in the seaports in the United Kingdom by people who had cashed advance notes to that class of men. But the most serious thing resulting from these men not fulfilling their contracts was that when a ship was about to sail, the captain had to take on board what were called "pier head jumpers." On a Departmental Committee which sat on this matter, the shipowners and he were in agreement. He believed that if the
  180
  President of the Board of Trade would accept his Amendment it would be a means of checking these "turnpike sailors," and the sooner they got rid of them the better it would be for the mercantile marine. Shipowners sometimes spoke about sailors getting drunk and not joining their ship. It was the "turnpike sailor" who was responsible for that. Of course a man might miss his vessel by misfortune, or by failing to catch a train, but he had the opportunity of explaining that before the magistrate, and he was sure that no magistrate would convict a man if he could give a reasonable excuse for failing to join his ship. This matter had been discussed by the Sailors' and Firemen's Union, which had approved of the clause, and he hoped that his hon. friend would have no hesitation in accepting it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I accept.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 29, line 41, at end, to add the words ' Where a seaman who has been lawfully engaged and has received under his agreement an advance note, after negotiating his advance note wilfully or through misconduct fails to join his ship or deserts therefrom before the note becomes payable, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for not exceeding twenty-one days, but nothing in this section shall take away or limit any remedy by action or by summary procedure before justices which any person would otherwise have in the respect of the negotiation of the advance note, or which an owner or master would otherwise have for breach of contract."—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 31, line 10, to leave out the words ' of owners' liability.'" (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 31, line 11, after the word ' Acts,' to insert the words ' of the liability of owners of ships, docks, or canals, and of harbour authorities, and conservancy authorities.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  "In page 33, line 4, after the word ' kingdom,' to insert the words from any port out of the United Kingdom '."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 33, line 34, at end, to insert the words ' (2) The Board of Trade shall annually lay before both Houses of Parliament a special Report stating the cases in which they have exercised their powers under this section during the preceding year, and the grounds upon which they have acted in each case."'— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON: Does not this clause give a very large dispensing power to the Board of Trade?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: This Amendment is proposed in pursuance of a pledge given in Committee upstairs.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he had an Amendment to propose to follow that of the President of the Board of Trade, just adopted. He maintained that the powers thereby given to the President of the Board of Trade and his colleagues were altogether too wide, and he proposed to add the proviso—
  "No exemption from specified requirements contained in or prescribed in pursuance of the Merchant Shipping Acts, shall dispense with the observance of any such requirements unless sanction of Parliament has been obtained by Order in Council, and such Order to lie upon the Table of the House of Commons at least thirty days."'
  He could well believe that they might have a President of the Board of Trade who was not quite as sympathetic as the right hon. Gentleman, and who might take it into his head to suspend some section of the Merchant Shipping Act for the benefit of his friends. He was not satisfied as to the alterations which had been made by a Departmental Committee in the load line. The public did not know who constituted that Committee; but he was informed that by the alteration made in the load line the shipowners were able to carry about 2,000,000 tons more cargo than before. [Cries of "No, no."] He did not know how many ships we had. but he knew that in consequence of this change of free board many vessels were able to carry between 400 and 500 tons more of cargo than before. He wished to ensure that what happened in regard to the load line should not happen in this case through entrusting the Department with the right to make
  182
  any departure from the Act without the consent of the House of Commons. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman would argue that there must be some elasticity and that they could not wait till the House of Commons changed the law. But his proposition was that before they altered the law the House of Commons ought to know something about it. He did not wish to say anything against the Board of Trade in regard to this dispensing power, but he thought the House of Commons ought to know something about it before it was exercised. By the provisions of the Bill the Board of Trade claimed power to exempt any ship from the whole of the clauses of the Merchant Shipping Acts, including the clauses which dealt with matters concerning life and limb. He did not think it was a wise thing to entrust such a power to a Department, and he said this with all due deference to the Permanent Secretary, the Under Secretaries, and the other valuable officials of the Board of Trade. It was one of the best Departments we had, but he was not prepared as a Member of that House to consent to any Department having the right to suspend an Act of Parliament or dispense with an Act of Parliament without the matter first being brought under the notice of the House. He therefore proposed in his Amendment that if they sought such powers they should be embodied in an Order in Council which should lie upon the Table of the House for at least thirty days. He did not think that was unreasonable, and he thought his shipowning friends ought to support it. They might at some time get a Labour President of the Board of Trade, with some very extravagant views, and if he were to suspend the Act without coming to the House of Commons the shipowners would come down in a body and want to know how it was that the House of Commons had no knowledge of what had happened. Their attention would then be called to the fact that the President would be acting under this dispensing power.
  MR. SUMMERBELLseconded, and said he sympathised with the view of the hon. Member in regard to what had happened in respect to the load line, and thought that if they were going to have

  183
  a repetition of such action the House ought to exercise some authority. He had himself been appealed to for information as to how the alteration of the load line came about, but he had been unable to tell people how it happened because he did not know at the time. If there was a possibility of a similar occurrence in regard to the Merchant Shipping Acts he thought they ought to lay down regulations to prevent it.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 33, line 34, at end, to add, 'No exemption from specified requirements contained in or prescribed in pursuance of the Merchant Shipping Acts, shall dispense with the observance of any such requirements unless sanction of Parliament has been obtained by Order in Council, and such Order to lie upon the Table of the House of Commons at least thirty days'.'"—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the question of the load line had nothing whatever to do with the dispensing power of the Board of Trade in regard to the Merchant Shipping Acts, but what was done was under the load line section which gave power to revise. He could not help thinking his hon. friends had not read the section before making up their minds to press the Amendment. It seemed to be imagined that a general power was given to the Board of Trade to dispense with the powers and provisions of an Act of Parliament. That was not the case. The clause merely provided that in a particular case where special circumstances rendered it necessary the Board should be enabled to dispense with some of the provisions of the Act on condition that something else was done as effective as or more effective than literal compliance with the Act, That condition, he thought, furnished an ample guarantee. When the dispensing power was exercised a full report would be laid on the Table of the House, and the House could challenge the conduct of the Board, but it would be unreasonable to ask the Board to wait forty or fifty days before exercising their dispensing power in each case.
  MR. C. DUNCANsaid it seemed to him that the Presi-
  184
  dent of the Board of Trade had in no way met the Amendment or the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. The hon. Member asked for an Order in Council which should lie on the Table for thirty days. Did the President of the Board of Trade wish them to assume that any great change was going to be made in the shipping industry in regard to which there would be any hardship in imposing such a condition? If one looked at the words of the section carefully it appeared that the Board of Trade might exempt "any" ship, and he agreed with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that there was some danger, because "any" ship meant "every" ship. Therefore he thought that the limitation that the hon. Member suggested was an eminently reasonable one, because the exception might some day become the rule, and inasmuch as there was some slight suspicion as to the nature of the exemptions or alterations to be made, it seemed to him that nothing could be lost by this reasonable Amendment which would simply enable any alteration to be challenged by the House. It was provided that the Board of Trade might make an alteration if it was satisfied, but what about the House of Commons? Surely the House of Commons ought to be satisfied before alterations were made.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthought that the last speaker had exaggerated the scope of the clause. Any action taken by the Board of Trade under this clause which amounted to their dispensing with the general provisions of the Acts, would be clearly contradictory to the general provisions of the clause, and he was sure that no such action would be taken. He should like, while generally supporting this dispensing power, to give an emphatic denial in regard to the alleged increase of tonnage in the mercantile marine owing to the changes that had been made in the freeboard rules. These statements were made very carelessly. The hon. Member said that the mercantile marine tonnage would be increased by one-fifth, or 2,000,000 tons, under these rules.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid he meant that during the course of the year 2,000,000 tons more cargo would

  185
  be carried in consequence of the alterations.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthought that 2,000,000 tons was an over-estimate of the increase in the mercantile marine net tonnage; 300,000 tons would be the outside figure.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid that if he regarded the powers to be vested in the Board of Trade from the same point of view as that from which they were regarded by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, he would have joined him in supporting this Amendment. He thought that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman that the load line did not come under this provision, the clause might be accepted. He had himself put an Amendment down in Committee to meet an exceptional case, but he withdrew it upon the explanation of the President of the Board of Trade that the present clause gave the Board of Trade discretionary powers to deal with the matter.
  MR. CLYNESasked if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what the purpose was of this dispensing power. Was it to be used in the case of any ship, because that meant every ship?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that if in a particular ease the master could not get at the moment every article required by the schedule, and he came to the Board of Trade and said "we can not give you this, but we can give this which is much better," it was obvious that they could not wait for forty days while the Order in Council was considered by the House. It was for that reason these powers were required.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid it was to the advantage of everybody that the Board of Trade should have power to meet such a case as that which the right hon. Gentleman had just indicated. He pointed out that a sufficient safeguard was to be found in the fact that if an exception was made somebody would be bound to hear of it, and the adjournment of the House could be moved, and if the exception was not in accordance with the general ideas of i the House the matter would be put right.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR ROBERT ROPNER SIR ROBERT ROPNER moved to leave out from Clause 71, "may if they think fit," and to insert "shall." He thought the House would at once see that it was eminently desirable that this should be agreed to in order to avoid passing legislation that had not been fully considered. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had been desirous of meeting the views of the shipowners and the sailors, but in the future there might be Presidents of the Board of Trade who wore not so anxious as the right hon. Gentleman to assist them. He thought it desirable, therefore, to say that the Board of Trade, under this Bill, should be required to have advisory committees if it was thought to be in anybody's interest to have them.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 33, line 35 to leave out the words 'may if they think fit,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Sir Robert Ropner.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could not possibly accept the Amendment. It would amount to setting up a statutory committee without any responsibility to Parliament, but with power to override the Board of Trade. That would be a very serious innovation.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 36, line 6, to leave out the word 'January,' and insert the word 'June.'"—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'January ' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONasked the reason for the change.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the meaning was simple. When the Bill was brought in it was supposed that it would have been passed by August. It was obvious now that it could not be passed before January.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Proposed word there inserted.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON, in moving an Amendment to the schedule setting forth the scale of provisions, to provide that the salt beef should be issued exclusive of bone, said that if hon. Members could see some of the meat put on board some of the ships they would be in favour of the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 37, column 5, after the word 'beef,' to insert the words '(weight exclusive of bone).'"—(Mr. Havelock Wilson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the schedule had been drawn up on the assumption that the meat would contain a small proportion of bone.
  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.

  ADJOURNMENT—CHINESE IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. LEHMANN, in pursuance of leave, rose to move the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. CLOUGH: On a point of order, Sir. Is it competent at this time for anyone to move to exclude all strangers?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, If any hon. Member espies strangers I must put the question that strangers must withdraw.
  MR. BYLES: I espy strangers.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That strangers be ordered to withdraw."
  The House divided:—Ayes. 25; Noes, 326, (Division List No. 412)

  AYES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ashley, W. W.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Rees, J. D.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

  Clough, William

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirra)

  Crean, Eugene

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Byles and Sir Howard Vincent.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

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

  NOES.

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

  Bennett, E. N.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Bertram, Julius

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cameron, Robert

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Billson, Alfred

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Cave, George

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Astbuty, John Meir

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsay)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Balcarres, Lord

  Brace, William

  Cleland, J. W.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Barker, John

  Branch, James

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

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brigg, John

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

  Barry, K. (Cork, S.)

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brodie, H. C.

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Brooke, Stopford

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Bell, Richard

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

  Cory, Clifford-John

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Bryce, J. A.(Inverness Burghs)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Bull, Sir William James

  Cox, Harold

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crombie, John William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Malley, William

  Cross, Alexander

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Shee, James John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulhain)

  Joyce, Michael

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Delany, William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Kelley, George D.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Keswick, William

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Dillon, John

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Dolan, Charles Joseph

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

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

  Duckworth, James

  Lambert, George

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lament, Norman

  Radford, G. H.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Randles, Sir John Seurrah

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lehmann, B. C.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Erskine, David C.

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

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

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fall, Arthur

  Lough, Thomas

  Kendall, Athelstan

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, W.

  Richardson, A.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Findlay, Alexander

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

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Maclean, Donald

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd)

  Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Kean, John

  Runciman, Walter

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  M'Killop, W.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Gill, A. H.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

  Ginnell, L.

  Markham, Arthur Gasil

  Sears, J. E.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Seddon, J.

  Glover, Thomas

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Massie, J.

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Masterman, C. F. G.

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

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Meagher, Michael

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Menzies, Walter

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Meysey,-Thompson, E. C.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Hall, Frederick

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthr Tydvil)

  Mond, A.

  Snowden, P.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Steadman, W. C.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Murphy, John

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Myer, Horatio

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Summerbell, T.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholls, George

  Sutherland, J. E.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hills, J. W.

  Norman, Sir Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Tillett, Louis John

  190

  191

  Tomkinson, James

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Toulmin, George

  Watt, H. Anderson

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whitbread, Howard

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Valentia, Viscount

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

  Verney, F. W.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Vivian, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Walters, John Tudor

  White, Patrick (Heath, North)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Wadsworth, J.

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Young, Samuel

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Wardle, George J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Joseph Leese and Mr. Rowlands.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Williamson, A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Motion made, and Question "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Whiteley)—put, and agreed to.

  MR. LEHMANNsaid that in moving the Adjournment of the House he wished at the outset to say that it was not without much careful and painful thought that he had brought himself to the point of proposing this Motion. He could not disguise from himself or the House at large that the matter upon which he was about to speak was a disagreeable, nay a detestable and a horrible one But that very fact and the fact that the credit of the nation at large, and the good name of the nation among civilised nations, were involved, constituted a justification for bringing forward the matter and asking the House to pass judgment upon it His task was not a pleasant one, but he had at least one compensation, which was this: If he spoke as he hoped to speak. with due moderation and restraint, and without any Party recrimination, he believed he would be able to carry with him on this Motion the general sense of the House as a whole and not merely the sense of a particular section We were in the presence of a great moral disaster a disaster which overthrew and obliterated the barriers and dividing lines by which men generally set themselves apart; a disaster which reduced men to the primary elements of their humanity. Such being the case he would have mason to bitterly reproach himself if he stooped to mere Party acrimony. He would avoid it as he would avoid poison. It would be his duty to refer, in broad outline to the earlier history of the matter, and in quotations from debates to include passages from speeches made by his right hon. friend the ex-Colonial Secretary. At the outset he wished to say he enjoyed the privilege of the right hon. Gentleman's friendship when they were both undergraduates at Cambridge, and, though their paths had lain apart
  192
  since that time, he knew him well enough to say—if he might say it without presumption—that if his right hon. friend could have foreseen what subsequently happened, if he had not convinced himself that the safeguards proposed were amply sufficient, he would have cut off his right hand rather than have consented to the Ordinance. What he said of the right hon. Gentleman applied with equal force to every Member of this House. That there was in the Chinese compounds a probability of immorality of the nature to which he would have to refer was not merely hinted at, but was discussed when the Ordinance came before this House and when it was discussed in another place. The discussion in another place occurred on February 11th and 12th, 1904, on which occasion the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of the matter as ''a poison of a terrible kind." and desired an assurance that it would not be introduced into the Transvaal with the Chinese labourers whom it was proposed to import. The Bishop of Rochester spoke in a similar strain, and Lord Stanmore and other noble Lords were not behind the Prelates he had mentioned. The matter came before the House of Commons in the debate on the Address on February 10th in the same year, and no that occasion the ex-Colonial Secretary said—
  "I quite recognise that hon. Members have a right to say that the burden rests on us of showing that the remedy proposed to meet a great economic difficulty—the introduction of Chinese labour—can be introduced into that country without moral taint, and without presenting the aspect or the reality of slavery. It is a perfectly legitimate demand, and I trust that the House will allow me to meet it shortly and I hope, conclusively. I entirely agree that the provisions for the reception and accommodation of the wives and families of these people should be clearly made. I undertake that they shall be made. We were advised in

  193
  this matter by men most experienced in the whole Empire on the subject of Chinese labour. We were advised that the coolies would not go without their women-folk. Manifestly it would be most wrong that they should go without their women-folk. I undertake that if they wish to bring their wives and families they shall be allowed to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: 'All of them?'] All of them. I did not give specific answer to a Question on this point the other day because the form of the question was: Would they all be accompanied by their wives and families if they wished it? Obviously it might be desirable for the labourers to go out in one ship, and their wives and families in another. I undertake on behalf of the Government, that all the coolies who desire to bring their wives and families shall have the opportunity to do so. If more is desired, then I undertake to fully consider and give effect to any reasonable demand made in connection with the matter."
  Provision was made in the Ordinance, and regulations were made in the Transvaal, and it was earnestly and sincerely hoped that those regulations and the provisions which were made would have the effect of inducing a large number of the Chinese coolies who were to be imported into South Africa to go, accompanied or followed by their wives and families. It was hoped, of course, in that way to get rid of the danger of there being committed in the compounds crimes of a horrible nature against which the conscience of Christianity revolted. The regulations, which were honestly and sincerely made, were absolutely ineffective. Only an infinitesimal number of Chinese women went to South Africa At the present time he believed there were only two or three there The Ordinance was agreed to, and the Chinese coolies began to arrive in South Africa and to start work there. After a time rumours of crimes in the compounds began to circulate. Letters arrived in this country calling attention to a horrible state of things in the compounds, and amongst others who received such letters was his hon. friend the Member for South Berkshire, who had been honourably distinguished for the part he had played in this matter. The question came to a head on August 4th this year, when his hon. friend laid before the House the facts that had come to his knowledge. One of the letters his hon. friend received was from a Mr. Leopold Luyt, B.A., of the Cape University and a solicitor of Cape Colony, and a passage in the letter in question stated that in
  194
  most of the compounds, and especially in the Simmer and Jack, there were at least six Chinamen who were used by the Coolies for the purpose of immorality at a charge of 2s. per coolie, and that this was tolerated and allowed by the mine manager and the Government. This was what his hon. friend said, as reported by Hansard:
  "The record of murders and outrages committed by the coolies was appalling, and by the herding together of 50,000 Chinese of the lowest class, without women, a horrible moral cancer had been introduced into our new colony, and the population and settlers in the Transvaal were becoming habituated to practices that had always been held in deepest detestation by our race. He earnestly pressed upon the Government that instead of waiting they should make every effort to hasten the repatriation of the Chinese, and, as far as possible, to obtain withdrawal of licences. Instead of allowing 5,000 more Chinese to come in and add to the gravity of the situation, they should extend the admirable policy which they had begun, and persuade certain mine-owners to withdraw the licences and begin at once a gradual system of repatriation of this class who could not be allowed to remain in South Africa without contaminating the public life and purity of the colony."
  In the course of the debate the present Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who, of course, spoke on behalf of the Government, the Prime Minister sitting beside him at the time, said—
  "As to the question of immorality, he thought it must be quite clear that the fact of so large a population living under conditions of enforced and unnatural celibacy must raise very disquieting reflections in the mind of anyone who contemplated the situation. The hon. Gentleman had rightly stated that the law in the Transvaal imposed severe punishments on whites and blacks under certain conditions, and he himself had not heard that that law had not been put in operation against the Chinese. It certainly should be put in operation; and if it should be found that it was at present neglected, instructions would be given to secure that the law should be made operative. But the hon. Member for Berkshire proceeded to speak of an even worse aspect of the Chinese labour question. He made statements as to the unnatural vice that prevailed in the mines. The hon. Gentleman said it was rampant and obvious. All he could say was that he had never seen any document or Paper—and a good many came before him—from South Africa which made reference to such a state of vice in the mines as that to which the hon. Member for Berkshire called attention. It was only quite recently that the hon. Member and several persons from South Africa had brought the matter to the knowledge of his noble friend Lord Elgin. He must remind the hon. Member that when he asked him to place the statement on record in writing he

  195
  declined, and consequently the Colonial Office was not able to give that attention to the charges which no doubt they deserved. Having regard to the later evidence as to the condition of things which the hon. Gentleman had brought forward, it was necessary that immediate inquiry should be made. He understood, indeed, that his hon. friend had had several consultations with his noble friend the Secretary of Stare for the Colonies, and that Lord Elgin had assured him that inquiries would be immediately addressed to Lord Selborne on the subject. He would suppose that, in these circumstances, the Colonial Office would be in possession of information on the subject before the House reassembled. He had frequently stated to the House the policy of the Government in regard to Chinese labour, and in the absence of new facts they were not inclined to change that policy. But, if such a state of things were disclosed as was indicated by the statements which had been brought before them by the hon. Member, and if the charges he had made could be maintained, then he thought it would be clear that the general position of the Government in regard to Chinese labour, even during the transition period with which they were dealing, would have to be entirely revised."
  In consequence of the pledge thus given Mr. Bucknill was appointed to inquire into the conditions of immorality said to be prevalent in the compounds in the Transvaal. The Report and evidence were in the hands of the Government. They were now told that the Report and the evidence were confidential, and that; they must be so treated. In the circumstances he should not dream of asking the Government to publish the Report or the evidence, but he must remind the House of what had taken place. The hon. Member for the Newbury division of Berkshire had been allowed to see the Report and the evidence. [An HON. MEMBER: By whom?] By the Colonial Secretary, Lord Elgin. My hon. friend was allowed to spend three days in taking notes of that Report and that evidence at the Colonial Office. His hon. friend was told that he might not communicate any part of the Report or evidence to the Press, but that he might inform his friends of their purport. That permission was only subsequently withdrawn.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): From whom does my hon. friend suggest that that permission emanated?
  MR. LEHMANNsaid the permission emanated from the private secretary of Lord Elgin. He went further than that. Not in consequence of anything his hon. friend had said or done—how he knew not—statements as to the Report had appeared in the public Press. They had been published in several newspapers. He might mention Reynolds's Newspaper, Star, Daily News, Tribune and Daily Chronicle. He would refer also to what took place in the debate on August 4th. The Under-Secretary promised then that the allegations which had been made publicly should be inquired into; and therefore it was right to expect that some communication should be made to the House—not at once, but after a proper interval—as to the nature of the inquiry and the steps to be taken by the Government. But no information of any kind had been granted to the House. The Under-Secretary stated yesterday, in Answer to a Question, that he could make no statement in general terms on the subject, the Report being a confidential one. It was this condition of things that imposed on him the task that he had undertaken that night. He desired to ask the Government questions with regard to certain points. Were the Government in possession of evidence showing (1) that systematic unnatural vice existed in the Chinese compounds in the Transvaal; (2) that there were a considerable number of coolies who hired themselves out for the purpose of this vice; (3) that many of these coolies were dressed and wore their hair in a special fashion intended to show that they might be used for this purpose; (4) that the majority of the coolies in South Africa were recruited from North China where this vice was prevalent; (5) that the prevalence of this vice among the coolies in the compounds had long been known to the official inspectors of the mines, and that they had found it impossible to cope with it adequately; (6) that desertion and other more serious crimes had arisen from this condition of affairs; and further, was it a fact that in consequence of information laid before the legal authorities in the Transvaal a circular letter was issued early this year from the Attorney-General's Department to the mining authorities, calling their attention to the necessity of taking

  197
  early measures to deal with this matter? If the Government had in their possession such evidence, what did they propose to do in the matter? Mere administrative action and methods of police must be insufficient in such a condition of things. The punishment and repatriation of guilty individuals might extirpate the vice for the moment; but others would be ready to take the place of those sent away. Inspection and punishment had been tried by the Transvaal authorities; but the crime was just as rampant now as ever before. The only method on which reliance could be placed to produce any diminution of these crimes was to begin as soon as possible the systematic repatriation of the Chinese coolies. What was the state of affairs at the present moment? The first batch of contracts did not expire until next May. But, if these allegations were true, he asked that repatriation should be begun earlier. We could not afford to wait six months before dealing with this state of things. It was, of course, physically impossible to repatriate 53,000 men en bloc. He wished it were not. But a beginning could be made, and could be continued until we had cleared the soil of South Africa of the taint that had been set upon it. It was his earnest desire that our good name should be cleared and that the Government would enable hon. Members to assure themselves and the country that the system which had fostered and bred these horrible crimes would be brought to an end before long.
  MR. A. E. W. MASONsaid he wished to second the Motion in a very few words. The rumours in regard to the Report of Mr. Bucknill had been growing and taking more substantial shape every day. Those rumours had been sufficiently indicated by the hon. Member for the Market Harborough Division and he should not repeat them. It was enough that they should have been spoken once. If the rumours as to the contents of Mr. Bucknill's Report were untrue, he was sure that it would be a great relief to everyone in the House to know it. If they were true, it would be an equal relief to know what steps were to be taken to remedy the existing state of things. No one who cherished the Imperial ideal of a brotherhood of
  198
  nations linked by common kinship, common language, common sentiment, and, above all, by a common code of honour, could regard without alarm the tarnishing of that ideal by the conditions which were said to exist in the compounds of South Africa. He was aware that it would be a foolish and a futile task to attempt to graft on native Oriental races the manners of the West: but this was not a case of that kind. The Chinese were not born natives of South Africa. They were brought there from afar into a white man's country, or at all events, into a country inhabited according to a white man's code—and they were brought—he used the phrase in no offensive sense—for the purposes of gain. But there were conditions under which, according to a white man's code, gain must not be made; and there was reason to fear that those conditions were now existent in the compounds. He would follow the hon. Member who preceded him in saying that there was no desire to impute blame to anyone in this matter. For himself he had no doubt that every one connected with the mines had done his best to eradicate the evil. Personally, he had believed that this question of Chinese labour was one which we could not reserve from the colony to which we were going immediately to give responsible self-government. The Constitution had been granted, and the electoral campaign had already been begun; but the actual moment of self-government had not yet come, and we were still responsible. Therefore he urged that whatever considerations were held in other respects, the disgrace of allowing this system to continue would, therefore, fall upon us. If, owing to the compound system, it was impossible to prevent absolutely the continuance of this evil, then more drastic methods must be enforced. If repatriation was to be the price, he thought all would agree that that price would be cheaply paid.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Lehmann.)
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that the Government had no reason to complain that the hon. Gentlemen who had just

  199
  addressed the House should have raised this subject at this time, or of the terms in which they had expressed themselves. It was a subject equally unpleasant and difficult to discuss and the position of the Government in the matter enabled them very fully to share in the mood and temper of the mover and seconder of the Motion, who had expressed themselves in terms free from anything offensive and completely removed from anything partisan. The House would remember that at the end of the summer the hon. Member for the Newbury division of Berkshire placed evidence before the Secretary of State which required immediate investigation. He himself said that the Government would address Lord Selborne on the subject. They did so, and Lord Selborne assembled a Committee, which investigated the particular allegations which the hon. Member for Newbury had made, upon the authority of a Dr. Luyt. That Committee was presided over by a Mr. Bucknill, a lawyer well respected in the colony and a son of Mr. Justice Bucknill. The Committee investigated the subject with patience. It examined twenty-six witnesses orally and accumulated a mass of documents, including the testimony of fifteen medical officers. Basing himself upon this mass of evidence Mr. Bucknill presented his Report. The Cabinet had decided not to publish the Report or the evidence upon which it was based. There was reason in that decision. He thought it was a matter open to judgment whether the Report, although not an edifying or savoury document, might not have been published, but the evidence on which the Report was based was clearly unprintable, besides being essentially of a confidential character. No one could have expected to arrive at any clear knowledge of the facts unless it had been understood that the evidence tendered was, in the main, of a confidential character. He ventured to say that the inquiry was one which, if conducted in this country would have been conducted with closed doors. The hon. Member for the Newbury division of Berkshire, who had rendered public service in regard to this matter, claimed to examine the Report and the evidence. He was the last man in the House to bring any
  200
  charge of breach of faith or of calculated indiscretion against the hon. Gentleman. Everyone knew that the hon. Gentleman's motives were genuine and good-hearted. At the same time he did think that the use which the hon. Gentleman had permitted himself to make of documents marked "strictly confidential" was open to some measure of criticism, if not of complaint.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid he was sure that he saw no document marked "strictly confidential." In the course of an examination of the documents, conducted for several days under the eye of the private secretary of Lord Elgin, he asked, ''Is there any objection to my giving this, if I am asked?" The answer was, "I do not think Lord Elgin would like that." He then said he supposed there would be no objection to his telling what he had seen and what he was writing down to friends on the Ministerial side of the House who were interested, and the answer was. ''There would be no objection on Lord Elgin's part to that."
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that he made no charge against the hon. Gentleman's good faith, but from the result he thought they had some reason to complain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] He would tell hon. Members why. It was because his hon. friend wrote down certain particularly effective, distasteful, and disagreeable extracts from the evidence and those extracts had been widely circulated in the House. He protested to the House of Commons that although it was, of course, possible to read the whole of the evidence and to review the Report based upon that, he did not think it was possible to form a fair judgment on the matter if it was discussed on certain selected passages of a particular complexion. One part of the evidence could not separately be considered in this or any other case, and a judgment could not be formed unless the evidence as a whole was fairly considered. In this case the evidence of the witnesses was most markedly conflicting.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked if the hon. Gentleman would say on what authority

  201
  he said that he only gave selected passages? He had given the whole of the extracts from the evidence.
  MR. MARKHAMinquired whether it was not an old and established rule of this House that no Minister or Undersecretary was entitled to refer to any document without laying it upon the Table of the House.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid that no quotation had been made from any document.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he would refer Mr. Deputy Speaker to Mr. Erskine May's book to the effect that no speaker was entitled to refer to any passage in any Report which was not laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid the passage in question referred to quotations. He had recently looked at it.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he did not wish to press any hostile argument against the hon. Member for the Newbury division of Berkshire, but nobody was entitled or in a position to form an opinion upon Mr. Bucknill's Report unless he had read the whole of it and the evidence upon which it was founded. For reasons which the House thought satisfactory a moment before it was not possible to place that Report and the evidence in the hands of hon. Members. As these could not be put into the possession of hon. Gentlemen, he submitted that they should take the opinion of the whole matter formed by persons of repute who had had fuller opportunities of investigating and judging. It would be quite impossible to carry on the business of the country satisfactorily unless the Government retained the power of making confidential inquiry on many matters of importance. And a confidential inquiry meant that the confidence should be respected after the inquiry, and not merely while it was taking place. But he could tell the House what the Report amounted to m the opinion of the Government—in the opinion of the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary. The hon. Member
  202
  for Berkshire placed them in possession of the evidence of a doctor, Dr. Luyt, a person not perhaps altogether worthy of the highest confidence. He said that the malpractices which had been referred to were open and scandalous, and that the consequence of them had been the demoralisation of the white population and contamination of the native population, who were learning to look lightly upon this class of offence; that there was a prevalence of a disease of a peculiar character to which he need not specifically refer among the Chinese coolies. The gravamen of the charge was that it was alleged that this open scandal was tolerated and recognised by the police with the knowledge of the Government. It was with this in his mind that he used the phrase attributed to him perfectly correctly in the course of the debate. If there was this public scandal brought about by the machinery created by the Labour Ordinance and shamelessly supported by the machinery of the Government, he certainly agreed it would have been the duty of the Government entirely to revise their position with regard to Chinese labour. These particular allegations were inquired into by Mr. Bucknill, and in view of his Report and the evidence on which it was based he was perfectly able to state that these allegations were not in substance proved. These offences were not a matter of open public scandal. Prom its very nature the offence hid itself in secrecy, and one of the greatest difficulties with which they were confronted at the present time was the secrecy with which these crimes were veiled. It was not true that there was a prevalence of a specific disease of a peculiar nature among the Chinese coolies. There had been hardly a case, and there had been overwhelming evidence the other way in regard to that particular form of disease to which reference had been made.
  MR. MASTERMAN: How many cases?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid there might have been five or six cases which had been brought to the knowledge of Mr. Bucknill as the result of the evidence

  203
  of fifteen medical officers who gave evidence. It certainly was not true that these practices were openly tolerated by the Government, by the police, or by the mine managers, and it was still less true that the native population of South Africa had been contaminated by novel forms of vice, because it was indisputable that those particular forms of vice had long prevailed among the native tribes in South Africa in particular districts and even to a greater extent than it prevailed among the Chinese coolies. Let him proceed to say what in general was true by Mr. Bucknill's Report, or, in other words what they must consider proved. It was clear, he thought, to any one reading the Report and the evidence that this particular offence of sodomy prevailed in most if not all compounds. He was not going to deal unfairly with the House. He had never attempted to prevent the case against Chinese labour being stated with its full force; indeed, he had sometimes endeavoured to add point to the figures and arguments raised, but it was undoubtedly true that there was a percentage, though as to that percentage witnesses of high position differed among themselves, of this form of vice in many if not all the compounds of the Witwatersrand, and that there were in those compounds persons who lent themselves to these practices either from habit or for money who were, in fact, proved to be catamites. He was sorry to inflict upon the House details of this kind of evidence on this point, but the evidence on it was very conflicting. Some of the expert witnesses said that they could detect a person affected by this form of vice. Others, on the other hand, declared that they could not do so, and the indications would in any case be of a very minute kind, perhaps only of a character to be understood by those who dealt in such matters and not by others who had no sympathy or agreement with them. He had stated frankly the main substance of the impression left on his mind and the mind of the Government by the Report, but he would like to say this—was not something like this to have been expected all along? Had they not on his side of the House, the Liberal and the Labour parties, for two or three years been
  204
  inveighing against Chinese labour? Though they had not used these arguments they had been at the back of their minds. At the beginning of the session his right hon. friend the Prime Minister made reference to these matters in terms which would leave no doubt in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to what had been one of the great fundamental objections urged by the Government against the system of Chinese indentured labour which was introduced against their will and against their protests before their authority began. He saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, in his place. He felt that the right hon. Gentleman had got to speak in the debate, for the responsibility was largely and primarily with him to justify what had taken place. Those evils had long been foreseen by the opponents of Chinese labour, and had led them to make general attacks upon it, and when he saw Bishops and Archbishops hurrying into the field at this juncture to call upon the Government to take action he felt bonnd to ask, Why this belated intervention? Was it not clear that the aggregation of 52,000 men, drawn from these quarters of the world, in an alien country, under extraordinarily restricted conditions, with but two or three women of their own race with them, and without any children or family ties of any kind, was bound to produce moral evil of a peculiar character?
  SIR H. COTTON: Why did you allow 16,000 more in?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the House knew perfectly well the Answer to that. What had the Government to do? One remedy-was clear and simple. This vice must be vigilantly and rigorously repressed whereever it could be detected. All who were guilty, or who wore even suspected, would be, he did not say punished, because people could not be punished on suspicion—would be repatriated at once wholesale, however many there might be, under the plenary authority vested in the High Commissioner. He knew there were many hon. Gentlemen with whom he had the honour to art and work in politics who were inclined to think that Lord

  205
  Selborne was not a sufficiently zealous opponent of Chinese labour. He could assure them that there need be no doubt about the zeal with which Lord Selborne would endeavour to stamp out this vice. He knew no man who would bring personally such force to bear as the noble Lord. He would go further. The revelations of Mr. Bucknill's report disclosed a sufficiently unhealthy, unwholesome, and unnatural condition of affairs to seal the fate of Chinese labour. Whatever they might think of a system of labour under which the Chinese came with their wives and families, and lived under decent conditions of freedom with a proper opportunity of rising in the world by their skill and exertions, and dwelling if they chose afterwards in the country which those exertions had enriched, it was quite clear that the system they had known must absolutely, totally, utterly come to a close. That result would follow if the Government policy already declared, to Parliament was stringently enforced. The last shipload of Chinese had gone to South Africa. On the 30th of this month the whole machinery of recruitment in China would be broken up, never, while the present Government retained any share in the direction of affairs, to be erected again. The old Ordinance would be repealed within a period which would shortly be apparent when the Letters Patent were published, and no new one with similar conditions was likely to be assented to by the House of Commons. He was aware that that did not satisfy some hon. Gentlemen. He was under no illusion as to that. A further demand had been made upon the Government, and he did not complain. He thought no one on these benches would complain or would be surprised that such a request should be made. That request was that they should begin at once to repatriate the Chinese coolies in South Africa, not only those whom they had reason to suspect of this vice, but generally to reduce the whole population of Chinese coolies in South Africa. He must ask the House to take a wide view of the question. Within a few weeks there would be in the Transvaal an election of a Parliament of a thoroughly representative and democratic character.
  206
  There was no quarter of the world where Liberal principles were more on their trial, or where they had a chance of being more speedily vindicated. His Majesty's Government came into power with two objects in their South African policy—first, to bring about a better understanding and effective cooperation between the two great white races who lived in South Africa; and, secondly, to procure the repatriation of the Chinese from South Africa by the will of a South African Assembly. They had only been in office ten months, during which, although they had had many and unexpected difficulties, they had much to be thankful for and to be satisfied with. Was it not encouraging to read of General Botha writing to the high Commissioner to assure him of his willingness, and the willingness of those whom he represented, to co-operate in the repression of disorder in the north-west of Cape Colony, and to hear of 4,000 working men in Johannesburg gathering together to pass a resolution to co-operate in the repatriation of the Chinese? The House and His Majesty's Government had a great deal of power so far as the Chinese coolies who had not come in were concerned, a power operating smoothly through the Foreign Office and the Admiralty; but so far as the Chinese in South Africa were concerned that power was not absolute. They had to carry with them in what they did in that respect the opinion of the South African population. He said with full confidence that the opinion of that population, stimulated and encouraged as it had been by the sympathy which was growing between the Liberal and Radical forces of this country and of South Africa and in the great labour community of Johannesburg, was steadily bringing back the population into full sympathy with the views, and opinions held in that House. What would be the issue, presented within a very few weeks, at the general election in the Transvaal? First, effective co-operation of Boer and Briton for the good of a common country; secondly, that the Transvaal should be a British colony and not a mining compound; and thirdly, that Chinese labour should come to an end. Let them be careful what they did, and not, on a motion for adjournment, make a declaration at the eleventh hour that

  207
  would change all the political conditions which were governing the politics of the colony and run the risk of substituting the issue of Imperial interference and the suspicion of an accusation that they had branded the people of South Africa with the taint of conniving at detestable offences. Would it be possible to put into the hands of those who were pro-Chinese a more effective political campaigning weapon? Let hon. Gentlemen have confidence in the Government and the Prime Minister. They must know perfectly well that not this—not any Ministry —that no Liberal Government would shield unnatural offenders. They might be perfectly sure that the Government would take all practical steps to stamp out the evil and to remove the cause from which it sprang. They would incur a grave responsibility if in an impulse of repugnance and anger they interrupted the steady development of a policy, which was not only uniting Boer and British, but which in a comparatively short space of time would have the effect of utterly eradicating Chinese labour from South Africa upon the authority of a South African Parliament.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid the speech just delivered in most unfortunate contrast to the speeches of the mover and seconder would not divert him from expressing to those hon. Gentlemen his sense of the moderation and good taste with which they had performed what he was certain was to them a disagreeable task. He wished he could have said as much of the speeches of the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for the Newbury Division of Berkshire. The hon. Member would, he was sure, on reflection, regret that he had gone to the Colonial Office and obtained extracts from the copy of a document the Prime Minister had declared was private and confidential.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid it was more than a week after that the private nature of the document was declared by the Government.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid of course he accepted what the hon. Member said; but even if the announcement had not been
  208
  made in the House did the hon. Gentleman think it was right to take extracts from a document upon which charges were going to be made against the late Government, and to show those extracts to Members of his own Party? He knew the hon. Member's zeal, and he credited him with the best motives, but on reflection, he thought he would see that it had placed the Opposition in a false position and made it impossible for them to deal properly with this matter.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid he was sure his right hon. friend did not want to do him an injustice. At the time he showed the document to his friends he had not the slightest idea that the Government would not on a subsequent occasion publish it. He was never asked by hon. Gentlemen on the other side and never thought they were going to ask him for it. For all he knew when he read the Report the Government were still debating whether they would lay it on the Table.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid the hon. Gentleman misunderstood his point. Permission was asked to show the document, not to the Press, or to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, but to the hon. Member's own friends.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid the right hon. Gentleman persistently but, he was sure, unintentionally, misrepresented him. He had stated that he asked Lord Elgin whether he might show the extracts to the Press, and his secretary intimated that he could not. Then he said, "I suppose you will not object to my showing it to people on our own side who are interested in the matter?" and that was not objected to.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid what he was complaining of was not that the hon. Gentleman copied and took extracts from a confidential document, but that as they were to be the subject of a gross censure upon him and others, calling for an explanation, he was surprised that it had not occurred to a fair-minded man that those against whom an indictment was to be brought should have

  209
  been apprised of the existence of the document. He was sure Lord Elgin or his secretary, as upright and honourable men, would not have countenanced such action as that. There must have been some mistake. He would pass from that and come quickly, not to the speech of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, but to the speeches of the mover and seconder. He thought they were entitled to ask for some observation from him upon this matter, and he was glad to give it. He had admitted from the first that this experiment must be tested by social and moral as well as by economic standards. He would never have proposed that coolie labour should be established on an organised system of prostitution. Instead of that, alone among all the experiments of coolie indentured labour, a free offer was made to the Chinese to take out their wives and children at the employers' expense. He had never concealed his unfeigned regret that that offer had not been taken advantage of: and when it was discovered that the Chinese were not going to avail themselves of that opportunity he quite conceded that it was right that he should again consider the question upon the moral ground. What were the opportunities of making that investigation? What were the official facts before him as to that matter? It was an obscure and a difficult matter. The most authoritative information available on the subject was the Report of the Royal Commission on Chinese Labour in British Columbia. That Commission was hostile to the experiment, but it found that the moral condition of a great celibate camp of 16,000 Chinamen was unimpeachable The Royal Commission in the course of their Report said that the Chinese had many noble virtues and characteristics. There were customs which from a moral point of view they condemned as much as we did. They compared favourably with others in their observance of law and order, and there was little doubt that to the frugality of their habits was to be attributed the comparative absence of habits of sensuality. That was the opinion of the Royal Commission, and the Bishop of British Columbia, writing on the same subject, said that the
  210
  Chinese led quiet, sober, and moral lives, and that there was not a particle of evidence of their importing new and detestable vices. With such testimony from people hostile to the whole experiment he would have despised himself if he had without evidence attributed to the Chinese this horrible and monstrous system of vice. It was perfectly true that during the eighteen months that he remained in office after the Chinese had been admitted to the Transvaal there were rumours in this House of immorality in the compounds. But he frequently challenged—indeed, he asked for any shred of evidence that might be produced on the subject. He thought he could say with absolute certainty that not a fragment of evidence ever reached him with regard to this subject during the eighteen months he was at the Colonial Office after the experiment was begun. The right hon. Member for Morpeth and Mr. Worsley Taylor visited the compounds. He quite agreed that if this vice had existed it would not have protruded itself in their sight, but he did say that if these allegations had been made it was impossible that they should not have heard of them. But although the right hon. Member for Morpeth, who was always hostile to Chinese labour, wrote an elaborate paper on his investigations, not a word escaped him as to the prevalence of this vice. He might, therefore, take it that during the period he was in office not a shred of evidence was produced as to the existence of such practices. He did not wish to make any Party point out of it, but he thought if there had been any evidence the present Government, like the late Government, would have taken prompt and vigorous steps. They came into office in November of last year, and during the general election there were insinuations made by their own followers as to these practices, and thereby they gained considerable profit to their own side in the election. Notwithstanding the suspicions of their own followers, in February last the Under-Secretary was put up by the Government to say that the whole matter of Chinese labour should be left to the unfettered decision of the responsible Government of the Transvaal. Gould they have believed such practices

  211
  existed? It was quite true that the next day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to the indignation of his followers, threw over the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and said that the responsible Government of the Transvaal should decide the question of Chinese labour subject to the veto of the Imperial Government. But there again, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke it was perfectly clear that the point of immorality was not before him, and that no evidence after the Government had been three months in power had come before them. Yet during the three months that the Government had been in office 16,000 more Chinese had been introduced into the Colony. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Your fault."] He was not blaming the Government for it; but he should be the first to blame them if they had allowed 16,000 more Chinese to be introduced believing they were going to form part of the people who practised such forms of vice. He would be the last man to say the Government desired to countenance such practices. The Under-Secretary, in so pointedly calling upon him to speak, as if he were afraid to speak, must have measured his courage by some miserably low standard. He said that even in August of this year the Government could not have had a shred of evidence of the existence of these practices.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I said so in the House.
  ME. LYTTELTONsaid, if that were so, it meant that the Chinese had been in the compounds in South Africa from June, 1904, to August, 1906, without there being a shred of evidence upon the subject. Plain language had been used in this matter, and a good many hard things had been said of him, but he did not think he had said anything hard against those who had attacked Mm. This he would say, that there was no great forbearance shown on the question of Chinese in South Africa. It was made an electioneering cry, and he expected it would be from the first, but it made no difference. Notwith-
  212
  standing the tremendous searchlight that was turned upon that experience in order to discover anything unworthy or discreditable about it, for twenty-six months, according to the admission of the Under-Secretary, not a particle of evidence was brought forward as to the practices complained of. He spoke with great difficulty and embarrassment on the subject, because, although very hard blows had been struck at him, he had not been permitted to see this document, which had been exhibited to the hon. Member for the Newbury Division of Berkshire, who had copied from it those unsavoury extracts that had been showered over the whole Radical Press. Questions had been put which suggested that there had been open and notorious vice. He absolutely declined, without tenfold stronger evidence, to believe that the British inspectors, who visited the compounds every forty-eight hours, could by ignoring have countenanced such a state of things. It would be a monstrous thing after the exertions that Lord Selborne had made, after the reforms he had carried out for the inspection of these mines and for the facilities for complaints to be made, that the English gentleman he had appointed to supervise these things should have allowed such open and notorious vice to have passed by unnoticed. In regard to the arguments in favour of the superiority of native labour over Chinese labour, he had told the House that the utmost exertions had not been able to bring the death rate of the natives below 40 per 1,000. The death rate of the Chinese was scarcely half that amount; it had been as low as 12, and had never been higher than 25 per 1,000. On the score of humanity there was a great deal to be said for Chinese labour. He would not argue that. The Undersecretary had pointed out that the prevalence of the vices in question was greater among natives than among the Chinese. To substitute blacks for Chinese in the mines would more than double the mortality, and there would, it was admitted by the Under-Secretary. be a greater prevalence of vice. [Cries of "No."] The Under-Secretary said that vice was more prevalent among natives than among Chinese.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I said more prevalent among the natives of certain parts.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he had not seen the Report or the evidence. The only points which he had gathered were those which he had gathered from the Under-Secretary's speech. The points which the hon. Gentleman had made did not lead him to place a very high value on the evidence to which the Member for Berkshire had had access. Manifestly, if the Government suspected mischief they were bound to make the most vigilant inquiry and take the most scrupulous precautions; yet during the ten months they had been in power their vigilance had resulted in nothing at all, or, at all events, in no trustworthy evidence. He would urge them to pursue every method they possibly could for the eradication of this evil. He could assure them they would have the most hearty co-operation of all those on the Opposition benches; but they must forgive him if he said that at the present moment, in the circumstances in which this Report had been published, it was impossible for anybody who had not had the opportunity of seeing it to comment upon it. He i therefore left the matter where it stood. He could only repeat with the utmost earnestness in his power that, if the Government or any honest body of Englishmen thought there was truth in these allegations, they would have the most hearty support of the Opposition in any efforts they might make to eradicate the evil.
  MR. MASTERMANsaid if there was one thing made certain by the debate it was that it was perfectly impossible to retain the confidential nature of the Report. They had a perfect right to complain of the; way in which some of this Report had reached some Members of the House. He recognised that in some way some deplorable blunder had been made. lie thought that the Government would even now find that the easiest course was to publish the Report. He recognised the difficulty in which the Government had been placed, but personally he was not satisfied with the declaration of the Under-Secretary for
  214
  the Colonies; and he had no other course to take but to urge that the Government should even now, though it was at the eleventh hour, begin the repatriation of the Chinese.
  MR. MACKARNESSasked the House to bear with him in dealing with the personal matter touched upon by his right hon. friend opposite, who had not realised the circumstances in which he came to see the Report. He was the spokesman of those who on 4th August made the charges out of which the inquiry arose, and when the inquiry was completed he asked at once a question in the House as to when the Report would be laid on the Table, so little justification was there for the charge that he wished to conceal the Report from the other side. When he asked whether he could see the Report himself, if the Government had not decided to lay it on the Table, he received a letter from Lord Elgin saying in effect, "Come to the Colonial Office when you like; you will find a room there, and the Report ready for you to see." The only possible suggestion of a confidential perusal was that the letter was marked "private." but he had had a correspondence on the subject of this unnatural vice with the Colonial Office for months, and as the whole correspondence was marked "private" he attached no great importance to that. When he got to the Colonial Office he found that Lord Elgin was unable to see him, but his secretary was there when he was taking lengthy extracts. To make certain of his proper treatment of the Report he made inquiries of the secretary, who said Lord Elgin would not like him to give it at present to the Press, because the Government had not decided what to do with it, but there would be no objection to his talking about it to his friends on that side of the House.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid that when he made his statement he was not aware that Lord Elgin's secretary had made that remark to the hon. Gentleman. If he had been aware of it he should not have attempted to throw the slightest reflection upon the hon. Gentleman.
  SIR E. CARSONasked if the hon. Gentleman could say

  215
  who gave the information to the Radical Press.
  MR. MACKARNESSsaid he certainly did not. He did not desire to use the information for Party purposes, and so far as he knew he had intimated to all his friends that it was for their use only inside the House. He would respect the seal of secrecy now imposed by the Government, but he adhered to every word he said on 4th August, the gravamen of which was that in nearly all the Chinese compounds there was systematic male prostitution on a considerable scale. The policy of the Government still consisted in handing on this Chinese labour question to the Colonial Government, and that was not the course for a British Government or for any civilised Government, to pursue. We had fought the war and taken the Transvaal upon the plea of introducing into South Africa a better system of administration, a higher standard and loftier ideals than existed before, and that great and solemn obligation, whether of a Liberal or Tory Government, should not be postponed for months. The Under-Secretary with all his cleverness did not realise the feeling on the moral aspect of this question in the country, and it was not the policy they had a right to expect from the present Government.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANwas sure the House would accept the statement of his hon. friend, not that he was required to exonerate himself from any special blame, but they knew how anxious and ardent he was in this matter, and there was a possibility that he might have been led into an error of judgment. If any error was committed it was not by his hon. friend, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman and others opposite would dismiss from their minds any idea that an attempt was made to make Party capital out of the Report by allowing it to be seen by some persons and not by others. He imagined—he was
  216
  left to imagination, but he felt almost sure—that it was because of the great interest his hon. friend had taken in the matter, and not with a view to his action in the House or elsewhere, that he was allowed to see it. As to the confidential nature of the Report and evidence, it was the case, as his hon. friend had said, that the evidence was of a most nauseous character and could not be published, and that being so, the issue of the Report, which by some degrees was less objectionable, would have left the impression of whitewashing and an opposite effect to that intended. The Government adhered to their opinion that this was from the first, and from the necessities of the case, a confidential inquiry; and they were anxious to keep faith with all those who gave evidence and with Mr. Bucknill himself. The Government were not going to be deterred from maintaining the confidential character of the documents by the fact that some newspaper by some hidden means had obtained a copy of the document, whence and how he could not say. That did not remove from them the responsibility of maintaining the confidential nature of the document, and they were going to do so. He thought that some apology, however, was due to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he was not admitted to the secrecy of the matter, in consideration of his former position and his immense interest in the subject. The omission was regrettable, and was due to some inadvertence. But when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking he felt sorry for him, because the right hon. Gentleman was the unfortunate Minister to whom it fell to introduce the Chinese under certain conditions into South Africa, and he now saw one of the results of his policy. From the first it had been predicted that sooner or later these vicious practices were likely to arise. The right hon. Gentleman entered into a long explanation of why he was not

  217
  alarmed. If he did not entertain these fears, why did he take so much pains to tell the House that the wives and children of the coolies were to go with them? Why should the right hon. Gentleman have made such a point of sending an adequate supply of wives and children?
  MR. LYTTELTON: All I said was that if the coolies desired to do so they could take their wives and children at the expense of the employers.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But why should they take their wives and children? [OPPOSITION cries of "Why not?"] All knew that the reason was the dangers that were certain to arise where the ordinary social conditions were so completely inverted. The right hon. Gentleman asked why the present Government did not at once take steps to cure this great moral disease. They had no proof of it whatever. It was not until this summer that they received these strong declarations of the state of things prevailing in the compounds. The inquiry of Mr. Bucknill proved that the reports received had been considerably exaggerated. There was no flagrant and notorious and unblushing amount of crime such as had been hinted at. There was crime, but it was necessarily of a secret character. The police and other officials could not be blamed for indifference, because witness after witness said that, although they knew the evil existed it was a most impossible to detect it; but it was known to exist. The Government were determined to apply greater and special rigour to the investigation and discovery of it and to repatriate detected criminals. Lord Selborne would address himself to this task. Although he had often had occasion to differ from what Lord Selborne said, yet he was quite sure in this matter Lord Selborne would spare no pains whatever to stamp out this evil. What had the present Government achieved in this matter of Chinese
  218
  labour? They had stopped the issue of fresh licences, they had facilitated repatriation, and they had announced that shortly after power in this matter was conferred by the new Constitution upon the people of the Transvaal the Chinese Labour Ordnance would be annulled. They had reason to believe they were working slowly but surely to the end they had in view—the putting of an end altogether to this system of labour. They would more surely attain their end by these constitutional means than by any violent action. The Government might be trusted not to turn back now they had put their hand to the plough. They would go on in the future as they had in the past with such measures as they thought best calculated to attain the purpose in view. If repatriation of noxious persons failed, they would be bound to seek some other method, but in the meantime he believed that by that reasonable and proper process they would so reduce the vice that they would be able in a few months to hand over the matter to the Transvaal community with the evil so cut down that there would not be much difficulty in dealing with it.
  MR. MARKHAMthought the House found itself in an undesirable position. Hon. Members below the gangway were quoting a confidential document which even the ex-Colonial Secretary and many Members on both sides had not seen. Since he had been in this House he had seen the Chinese labour question in many stages. He was the first Liberal Member to raise the question in the House. Six years ago the late Sir William Harcourt, in a debate on the Transvaal and its finances, referred to an article he had written in the Nineteenth Century, seven years ago in which he had admitted that the only real method to prevent terrible mortality in the mines was to introduce labour from outside South Africa. But he said emphatically to-night that if

  219
  the allegations that had been bandied about in this debate were founded on fact then he would be the first person in this House to stand up and say that the Chinese should leave South Africa. If this vice were as rampant as had been said then the duty of His Majesty's Government was clear. Although the present Government came into office on the cry of Chinese slavery it had to be remembered that there were more Chinese in the Transvaal now than when the Government took office. If it were slavery in the opinion of the Government it was their duty not to allow any more Chinese to come into the country. So it was with the question of immorality It was said that Ministers well knew that this state of affairs would continue in the Transvaal, and what were the heroic steps that His Majesty's Government were going to take? Nothing except to give orders to the police, which, to his knowledge, were given by Lord Selborne months ago. There were to-day in the Transvaal a large community of white people without their wives. Were all these people moral? And what about the 140,000 Kaffirs? The Under-Secretary for the Colonies well knew that immorality prevailed among the Kaffirs of a character which was repugnant to hon. Members.
  Mr. MACKARNESSrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid no doubt the hon. Gentleman would like to have the Question put because he was one who had seen all the evidence in the case while others who had taken an equal interest in the subject were forbidden to see the documents. He was entitled as a Member of the House to see the Report which had been published at the public expense, and which hon. Members below the gangway on the Government
  220
  side had seen, but which even the ex-Colonial Secretary had not been permitted to peruse. That was not fair play in politics—it was not playing the game. While this state of affairs continued His Majesty's Government would not improve their position in South Africa or maintain the confidence of the people of South Africa. If this information could appear in certain Radical papers why could it not be laid on the Table of the House or in the. library of the House?
  Dr. RUTHERFORDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. MARKHAMwas proceeding to refer to the question of recruiting labour from northern territories,
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT MENT (No. 2) 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."
  Debate arising.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 4th August last.
  Adjourned at one minute after Eleven o'clock.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION BILL—PETITIONS AGAINST.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have a number of petitions to present against the Education Bill. One set of petitions is from parents, inhabitants, and ratepayers, with 53,684 signatures—the number of petitions being 251—asking your Lordships to amend the Education Bill. Another petition, which is now on your Lordships' Table, has a peculiar importance. This is not a petition from ordinary ratepayers or from the public at large, but it is a petition from the actual trustees of church schools, men who are at this moment in the responsible position of trustees, and who desire to be allowed to continue to discharge that trust. The petition is, I think, almost unique in its character. It comes from
  2
  2,516 schools, and is signed by 7,023 trustees. What they ask is that your Lordships will not consent to any legislation which violates the principle of religious liberty, and forbids the petitioners from discharging their responsibilities as trustees.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; 1. Of inhabitants, ratepayers, or parents of children attending schools in parishes of Broughton; Colton; Tidenham; Newnham-on-Severn; Sandhurst; Oxenton; Wonaston; High Ham; Northleach; Little Sodbury; Corfe; Bodmin; Colton; Charlcombe; Thurgoland; Little Peatling; Jevington; Great Bookham; Penistone (St. John the Baptist); Marylebone (Christ Church); Kemerton; Bourton-on-the-Hill (two); Monmouth (St. Mary's); Monmouth (St. Thomas); Monmouth; Eastbourne (Holy Trinity); Thorne (two); Blatherwycke; Caistor; Woodchester (two); Rendham; Wirksworth; Rodmaston; Compton; Woodeaton; Oldbury-on-Severn; Gloucester (Christ Church); Stanton;

  3
  Standish; Arthingworth; Gloucester (Christ Church); Alderton; Oldbury-on-Severn; Pauntley; Oxenhall; King Sterndale; Standish; Nidd; Panteg (St. Matthew's); Lopen; Hucknall Huth-waite; Edge; Twigworth and Longford; Cirencester; Buckland; Moreton; Twy ford; Hempsted; St. Mary Cray, Panteg; Huddersfield (St. Peters); Kirby Cane; Gloucester (St. Marks); Moreton-in-Marsh; Aston-cum-Aughton; Llanfrechfra, etc.; Wakefield (St. John's); Minchinhampton; Herbrandston; Kes-singland: Stoke-on-Trent; Buckland (St. Mary); Ferndale and Mardy; Warkton; Cleeve; Burnley (St. -Margaret's); Caldi-cot; Belvedere; North Curry; Hunslet; Nottingham; Nottingham (St. John the Baptist); Eaton Square (St. Peter's); Llanfrynach; Cranham (two); Colne (St. Aldwyn); Southrop; Shipbourne, Gloucester (St. Paul's); Sutton Boning ton; Beckingham; Kirk Langley; East Mailing (two); Stroud; Wyck Risington (two); Taynton; Southborne; Charlton-on-Otmoor (two); Snargate; Orwell (two); Shotley; Bourton-on-the-Water; St. Paul's (London); Foreseote; Newent; Cheltenham (St. Luke's); Orcheston (St. Mary); Much Hadham; Llanwonno; Stowting; Dulverton; Swarkestone; Stanton-by-Bridge; Broughton - in - Fur-ness; Codsall; Brockworth; Lower Heyford; Bednall; Gloucester (St. Luke's); Chipping Sodbury (three); Winthorpe; Narcross; Chalford; Little Lausden; Stonehouse; Trevethin; Llan-bradach; Cuckfield; Yazor (two); Mansel Lacey (two); Bedminster (St. Luke's); Winkfield; Thureaston; Beverston; Rod-borough; Mixbury; Hartwell and Stone; Croscombe; Huntley (two); Aberdovey; Newbury (St. John's); Wentworth; Wells; Darwen (Holy Trinity); Cardiff; Wotton-under-Edge; Canterbury (St. Mildred's); Wellow; Salford (St. Barnabas); Kentbury; Guilsborough; Buxton; Newark (Christ Church); Bawtry; Whorley; Nailsworth; Stow-on-the-Wold; Langlebury; Sevenhampton; Bishops Cleeve; Preston Capes; Long-hope (two); Llanvafley; Frampton (two); Hagbourne East (two); Hagbourne West (two); Meysey Hampton; Kendal; Manchester (Victoria Park); Fitzhead; Ebrington; Stoke Bruerne; Tuldgeley; Shirenewton; Lancaster (St. Agnes); Holdenby; Harleston; Fivehead; Leinthall Earles; Litchurch; Newnham; Harrogate; Paddington; Enderby; Ash-
  4
  well Thorpe; Wreningham; Stony Stanton; Cheltenham (St. Stephen's); Weston-in-Gordano; South Darley; Llansaint; Kilsby; Penrhos; Broad-hempston; Woodfeigh; Norton Canon; Upper Slaughter; Llandough; Ipswich (St. Margaret's); Southwell (St. Mary's); Lydd (St. Mary, Wisbech); Kenfig Hill; Radcliffe (St. Thomas); Bournemouth (St. Michael's); Upton, St. Leonard's; Carlton-on-Trent; Hull, St. Mary's; Llanmartin; Welton-le-Wold; Geldes-ton; Newport (St. John's); Trellech, &c.; Barby; Llangynwd: Leaden Roding; Dover; Stoke Golding; Silkstone; Scalford; Weavenham (All Saints' and St. Peter); Aberdare (St. Fagan); Cardiff (All Saints); Newcastle (Penyvai); Newcastle Higher; Laleston; Ynisawdre; Tythigston; Newcastle Lower (Bridgend); Heysham; Overtoil; Itchen Stoke; and parishes within the Archdeaconry of Worcester. Of Bedwellty Ruridecanal Council; South Lyncombe Church Council; Burford Ruridecanal Chapter; Chester-le-Street Ruridecanal Chapter; Deanery and Teachers of Weldon, Peterborough; Instruction Committee of Parish of St. Barnabas, Bristol; Conservative Association of Market Deeping; and Trustees of Church of England Schools in England and Wales; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for Amendment of; of inhabitants or parents of children attending schools in the parishes of Birmingham (St. Paul's); Kennington Park; Didmarton; Medbourne; Thistleton; Longney; Holborn (St. Albans); Sparsholt; South Normanton; Gordano; Morwenstowe; Gorton; Oldham (St. Mary's); Sidcup; Sidcup; Woodston; Bromfield; Preston (St. Matthew's); Priston; Cameley; Oake; Tixall; Hedenham; Folkestone (St. Mary and St. Eanswythe); Dunner; and Winslade; read and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3729. China (Trade of Chefoo for 1903–5).

  COLONIES (MISCELLANEOUS).
  No. 38. Reprint of a Report (written in 1884) upon the present position and prospects of the agricultural resources of the Island of St. Helena, by D. Morris, Esq., M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., Director of Public Gardens and Plantations, Jamaica.
  Presented (by Command) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, there is a Question standing in the name of the most rev. Primate which comes after the Education Bill on the Paper. It seems to me that the most convenient course, and that which would produce the most satisfactory discussion both upon the Education Bill and upon the question of the most rev. Primate, would be that we should take these Orders as they stand on the Paper—that is to say, that we should at once go into Committee on the Education Bill and continue that discussion up to the time when we adjourn for dinner, and that then we should leave the Education Bill for to-night and, on resuming our proceedings at 9 o'clock, proceed with the debate arising on the most rev. Primate's Question. If your Lordships approve of that, I propose to take that course.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 8:—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to insert the following after sub-section (2):—'' (3)—(a) In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act, the consent of the parents' committee shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except upon grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction." He was merely proposing an extension of the powers which, in Clause 4, had already been given to what was there called the parents' committee, and he
6
thought the additional power which, by this Amendment, he desired to give to that committee was in complete harmony with what had been already done, and he ventured to think that it was even in harmony with the expression of approval which had been given to it by His Majesty's Government. What he asked was that the parents' committee, on the existence of which the Committee had already decided, should have power to veto the appointment of a teacher on religious grounds. This was a point entirely confined to those schools which, under Clause 4, were already pronounced to have a frankly denominational character. There was an Amendment on the Paper until yesterday, standing in the name of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, but that Amendment had apparently been withdrawn.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHexplained that the disappearance of his Amendment from the Paper was merely a clerical error. He still intended moving it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he had supposed that the noble Lord had withdrawn the Amendment, as it was no longer on the Paper. He did not wish that the Amendment which he was now proposing should be regarded as in any way identical with the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. He was not arguing in favour of giving any such right to the parents' committee as was suggested in the Amendment of his noble friend, which gave them the right to' nominate the teacher, subject to the approval of the local education authority. His Amendment fell very far short of that. It merely suggested that the parents' committee should have a power, on religious grounds, of expressing their objection, and effectively expressing their objection, to a teacher who had been nominated for appointment by the local education authority. The power to exercise that veto seemed to him to be eminently appropriate to the position which, with the approval of the Committee had been given to the parents' committee to deal with the religious side of the teaching in the frankly denominational schools. It seemed to him that, without some such proposal, it was hardly possible to give full effect to the wish which His

7
Majesty's Government had again and again expressed that these schools should be, in their full sense, denominational schools. The appointment he would still leave with the local education authority, but subject to some check on the part of those who could appropriately apply it as to whether the appointment thus made was one by means of which it would be possible to carry out the object for which the school held an exceptional position.
What he wanted to do was simply to make real and operative the denominational character which belonged to these schools, and to relieve the local education authority from a responsibility which he did not see how they could possibly exercise. He hoped they would hear from noble Lords who had had experience on local education authorities whether they desired to accept the responsibility of choosing teachers who, from the nature of the case, were denominational, and of discriminating among denominational teachers as to the person most suitable for a particular denominational school. That was a task which could hardly be laid satisfactorily on the local education authority, and it was almost as much for their sake as for the sake of the school that he desired to help them by giving a check elsewhere as to whether or not the teacher would be acceptable. He desired to secure the collateral interest of the parents and the local education authority in the religious teaching which was to go forward in this denominational and exceptional kind of school. He believed that by these means they would give life and force to the local interest which he was sadly afraid would wane under the Bill as it now stood. He believed that in any circumstances it would be almost impossible to centralise authority and management in the way the Kill suggested, without causing to languish or alienating a great deal of that local interest which was, in his judgment at least, quite vital to the healthy life of an elementary school. He specially felt that some such plan as this was necessary in the case of the schools which would come under Clause 4.
Then a further gain was that by this means they would enlist the interest of the parents, educationally, in the curriculum and management of the school. He felt that parents had—owing to the controversies on either side during the
8
last year or two—grown to care a great deal more than they did before about what happened in detail within the walls of the school, and he was quite sure that, whatever else their Lordships might differ upon, there was no difference of opinion as to the desire which they all had that the parents of children attending elementary schools should be keenly interested in. what went on within the school walls, bearing, as far as possible, some personal part in the general life of the school as a whole, and linking on the school days of the children to the life which would follow when their school days came to an end. He did not say that the parents generally throughout the country were ready to come forward and deal with this matter, but it was most desirable that they should help them so to do; and no single thing would stimulate their activity and interest in the matter as much as the sense that they had some responsibility.
Everything really depended on the selection of teachers in the frankly denominational schools. To say that they wanted the local education authority to have some help in making these appointments did not imply any mistrust whatever on their part of local education authorities generally. He ventured to protest with all friendliness against the imputation which had, not once or twice, been made in the course of this debate, that when they were guarding against something which might be a real wrong they were therefore showing distrust of local education authorities as a whole. He did not think that imputation was at all fair, and, if a retort were called for, he would be inclined to say that exactly the same kind of argument was used by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council when he said that certain restrictions were necessary to prevent the misuse of local power by landlords or prominent residents in a neighbourhood. The noble Karl stated that there was no imputation against these individuals generally, but he added that there were exceptional cases against which he must guard. That was exactly what they felt with regard to the local education authorities. A man must be blind who was not aware of the fact that there were certain local education authorities who had already told them that they did not mean that

9
Clause 4 should be an operative clause in the areas over which they had control, and that they did practically intend that it should become a dead letter. He believed those authorities to be very few, but he thought that if that risk existed they were bound, so far as possible, to guard against it.
In addition, therefore, to what he regarded as the main purpose of his sub-section — the helping of local authorities to discharge the task which they would otherwise find it most difficult to fulfil—he wanted also to protect those who had schools under Clause 4 from the occasional wrongdoing or interference of the local education authority, who might render Clause 4 almost ludicrous if they exercised to the full the power which was given them under the Bill. Let them suppose, for example, the case of a Catholic school to which some keen Nonconformist was appointed headmaster by the local education authority. That was possible under the Bill, though most unlikely. But, on the other hand, there were cases of hardship far less unlikely than that. It was not by any means impossible that in certain areas a master or mistress might be appointed to a Church of England school, although he or she was known to be in no way in sympathy with Church of England teaching. That would be a mode in which, in the last resort, a hostile educational authority might defeat the purpose of this Bill.
He would like to add that he hoped that some amalgamation might be found ultimately possible between the managing committee of the school and the parents' committee on a selection committee. It seemed to him that the multiplication of these committees was a most undesirable thing on every ground, and would complicate the administrative work and the whole condition of things. The difficulties might, in his view, be very readily met by giving some strong representation of the parents themselves upon the managing committee of the school. It was impossible to bring that in on this clause, but he hoped the Question would be considered when the Bill was reprinted, as to whether some such amalgamation would not be possible.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 8, after sub-section (2) to insert the words, ' (3) (a) In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act, the consent of the parents' committee shall be required to the appointment of teachers, but that consent shall not be withheld except upon grounds connected with the giving of religious instruction.'"— (The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid he had put down an Amendment affecting the appointment of teachers, but differing materially from the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. He thought the plan suggested in his Amendment was preferable on several grounds to that contained in the Amendment just moved. It was obvious that the local education authority, being debarred from making any inquiries into the religious convictions of the teacher and his capability to give denominational teaching, was absolutely unfitted to make the Clause 4 schools the reality which the Government had, without any variation, said they were frankly intended to be.
It seemed to him that, instead of the teacher being first appointed by the local authority to a particular school and then being objected to on religious grounds by the parents' committee who had control of the denominational education to be given in the school, as the Primate proposed, it would be far better, as his own Amendment suggested, for the parents' committee to submit a teacher or teachers to the local education authority for appointment.
His second ground was, he thought, peculiar, or very nearly so, to the body he was representing—namely, the Roman Catholics. Out of about 7,000 teachers in their schools nearly one-sixth were women. He asked their Lordships to imagine for a moment how it could be possible for the local education authority to form any idea of the suitability of these candidates, because they would obviously not be on the general list of teachers, and would, and could, only go to the particular schools conducted by their respective orders. They were a body of women of very high attainments; they held very high certificates and were very carefully trained, and their life of self-denial and self-abnegation had a very

11
great effect on those entrusted to their care. He was convinced that unless it were arranged for these teachers to be presented and recommended to the local education authority, it would be almost impossible for that authority to staff and conduct these schools efficiently and properly. And he was sure that, were their services rendered impossible in these elementary schools, not only Catholics but the country at large would suffer a decided loss. The Catholics were very anxious to take their place in the educational system of the country. They conceived it to be their right to do so as citizens, taxpayers, and ratepayers and, above all, as parents of the children who attended these schools. What they wanted were Catholic schools with Catholic teachers for Catholic children, wherever that was reasonably possible, and he considered that his Amendment would serve to realise this more effectually than that of the most rev. Primate. If they failed to obtain this there would be left in the Catholic body a sense of wrong and of injustice, which would rankle until it was removed, and its removal would involve a struggle which would be carried on with pertinacity and faith in the justness of their cause, and with perfect confidence that the desire for right and justice which dwelt in the hearts of their fellow-citizens would in the end prevail.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'Act' paragraph (a) to the end of the paragraph and to insert the words 'the appointment of teachers shall be made by the local education authority upon the nomination of the parents' committee, whose nominees shall not be rejected except on educational grounds.'"—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, the most rev. Primate in introducing his Amendment described it as an extension of the powers of the parents' committee, the creation of which has already been sanctioned by your Lordships' House. That, no doubt, is true, but of course the point we hare to consider is how far such an extension conflicts or agrees with the main objects and principles of the Bill. I frankly admit that it seems to me impossible. The change may be justified in the opinion of noble Lords, but it seems to me impos-
12
sible to deny that, to a certain extent, this change, if introduced into the Bill, would involve the imposition of a religious test—I do not see how it is possible to get out of that—to a modified extent in the proposal of the most rev. Primate and to a much greater extent in the proposal of the noble Lord who has just sat down.
The most rev. Primate's proposal is that the consent of the parents' committee should be required to the appointment of the teacher—that is to say, that a teacher's name is presented and the parents' committee would have to inquire into his religious views, and unless those views were satisfactory to them, the teacher could not be appointed. That appears to me to be a test. Still more is that the case in the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, because in that case the appointment would be made on the nomination of the parents' committee, who clearly would make special inquiry into the views of the teacher before he or she was nominated. I was impressed— and I am sure your Lordships were—by the earnestness with which the noble Lord who has just sat down stated his views on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, and I fully appreciate what he said as to the existence of that very interesting body of lady teachers, belonging to religious orders, many of whom, as he said, are very highly trained and certificated, and whose services are greatly appreciated, not only by parents and children of their own Church, but in many cases, I know, by parents of children of the Church of England.
The noble Lord said that there ought to be some means of recommending these ladies as teachers to the local education authority because it was obvious that they would not appear on the general list" But what the noble Lord proposes is that the teacher should, in effect, be appointed, not recommended, by the parents' committee, and the only objection the local education authority could take would be on educational grounds, and that, of course, is an entirely different matter from any question of recommendation of the bringing of names before those with whom the appointment rests. The most rev. Primate has stated that, in his opinion, as a rule, local authorities would not be difficult to deal with in a matter

13
of this kind. He carefully guarded himself against any supposition that local authorities were, as a rule, unreasonable or inclined to be tyrannical; but he wished to guard against the possibility of such a thing occurring, even though only in rare instances.
Now, I ask the most rev. Primate to consider for a moment what would happen under his Amendment. Supposing a local authority were thoroughly hostile and vindictive and disposed to be unreasonable. They would recommend a teacher to the parents' committee whom that committee would be quite unable to accept. Negotiations would pass, the parents' committee would persist in their refusal and the local authority, being thoroughly exasperated, would recommend another similar teacher, and apparently would proceed to do so ad infinitum. In that case it might be possible that, under the Amendments which your Lordships have inserted to Clause 5, there would be an appeal to the Board of Education. If the owner of the school-house or twenty parents—and I suppose the parents' committee might put either in motion—are dissatisfied with the action of the local authority under Section 4, or as to the mode in which extended facilities are afforded, there is an appeal. That might possibly be intended to meet this case. In that event there would be an appeal to the Board of Education as to the religious views of this particular teacher, and how far the parents' committee were justified in saying that his religious views were such that they did not think him competent to give religious instruction even if he were prepared to do so. But it would be utterly impossible for the Board of Education to deal with these perfectly personal and delicate questions. And if they did, I ask the most rev. Primate to consider this. The real effect would be that the teacher, in the end, would have to be appointed by the Board of Education —a very novel thing to ask of that Department—and one which, like many of the duties sought to be imposed upon us by the Bill as amended, we are by no means disposed to undertake.
But there is a more general consideration than this on which I would desire to appeal to the most rev. Primate. He, I know, is not one of those who take an extremely hostile view of what I may call the main principle of the Bill—
14
namely, that public control and public money should go together. I therefore put this to him. Supposing his Amendment is added to the Bill, will not the local authority ask, "In respect of what is the school remaining on the rates? In what degree does any control of ours come in?" Would not a school run in this way be practically equivalent to a denominational school as run under the Act of 1902, or, as far as regards its management, to those State-aided schools which it is proposed to create, but which would not receive rates? It does seem to me exceedingly difficult to conceive any manner in which these schools could be said to be worked as provided schools, although they would be provided schools under the Act, and would get the benefit of rate aid and of having all their repairs carried out by the local authority. That is an exceedingly practical difficulty in this connection.
There is one more point to which I am bound to allude. Clause 4 has been very seriously altered in your Lordship's House. As you are well aware, when it came up from the House of Commons it was limited to schools in which four-fifths of the children were children of parents who desired this particular teaching, and very strict regulations were imposed for discovering that that proportion really existed. Your Lordships have turned that into a bare majority, and you are disposed to relax the restrictions. I quite admit that the most rev. Primate did not take part in that proceeding. I think he did not vote. The other most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of York, voted against the change which your Lordships opposite enforced. Your Lordships opposite were more episcopal on that occasion even than the Archbishops, but the fact remains that that is in the Bill as it now stands. I wish, therefore, to express the opinion that, even imagining that such a thing as this were possible, it only could, under any circumstances, be possible if it were applied to a class of school formed under very close restrictions such as those we inserted in our original Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that in the course of his interesting speech the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had declared that if the Amendment wore accepted he could not

15
see in what way Clause 4 schools would differ from voluntary schools under the Act of 1902. They would differ profoundly. In the first place, the locality would have the advantage of the buildings for nothing. In respect of other schools rent was to be paid by the local authority for the use of the building, but in respect of Clause 4 schools there was to be no rent —that was to say, the denomination was to supply for nothing the building in which the school was carried on.
He contested the contention of the noble Earl that in respect of the teachers there would be any parallel between the condition of things which would exist if the most rev. Primate's Amendment were accepted and the condition of things under the Act of 1902. Under the Act of 1902 the voluntary managers appointed teachers subject to the veto of the local authority, whereas under the Amendment of the most rev. Primate the local authority would appoint subject to a veto by the parents' committee. There was all the difference in the world between the two proposals. He himself preferred the Amendment of his noble friend behind him. But, of course, the Bill was one for which they on that side could not take any degree of responsibility.
There was no greater delusion than to suppose that the Bill had been converted into a Bill approved by the Opposition. After all the Amendments which the Opposition had submitted were carried, the Bill would remain not only a thoroughly bad measure from the adminstrative standpoint, but one for which they on that side would not be responsible in any way from the religious standpoint either. He was unable to understand how the Government could decline to allow religious considerations to enter into the question of the appointment of the teacher. In Clause 11 the Government themselves laid down that the teacher was to be appointed subject to religious considerations.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: That is the transitional clause.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that might be, but the principle was admitted in it. The Lord President had admitted that it was impossible altogether
16
to exclude religious considerations, but to suggest that those considerations should only have effect after and not before the appointment of the teacher was an absolute sham. He was sick of these Parliamentary shams. That had reference, not merely to denominational instruction but to undenominational instruction; it had reference just as much to the proficiency of the teacher in Cowper-Temple instruction as in the teaching of Anglican or Roman Catholic formularies. The question was whether the local education authority were equally competent to decide upon a teacher's Cowper-Temple capacity and his Anglican and Roman Catholic capacity. Some local education authorities rather fancied themselves in Cowper-Temple religion. They thought that they were able, with the assistance, perhaps, of a sermon from Dr. Clifford, to decide some of the most difficult questions which had puzzled learned men in all ages. But when it came to appointing a teacher to what was admittedly an Anglican, Roman Catholic, or other denominational school, it was evident the local education authority was not completely to be trusted.
Why did not the noble Earl get up and frankly tell them, as he knew quite well, that the question of the religious position of the teachers must be an element in their appointment, and that, without that, public opinion in England would be profoundly shocked? He agreed that most of the local authorities were to be trusted, and that in most cases they would work the clause in a manner of which few would have any reason to complain. But there were some who could not be completely trusted, and he could not imagine anything more natural or reasonable than that they should say they would have the one check provided by the most rev. Primate's Amendment.
They did not propose to take the appointment out of the hands of the education authority, but, in the last resort, if it were found that the teacher was thoroughly unqualified or perhaps unwilling to give the religious instruction, the parents' committee would have the right of exercising their veto. The noble Earl the other night had seemed to pooh-pooh the possibility of occasions of difficulty of the kind to which he had alluded arising. He would ask their Lordships to conceive the

17
state of things in a small school with a single teacher, an enormous number of which existed in the rural parts of the country. If that teacher was appointed and was thoroughly disqualified from a religious point of view from giving the instruction, what a hopeless state of things would result! The children would require religious education, and yet the only teacher available would be unfit to give it, and would have to be forbidden by the authority from giving it.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Are these four-fifths schools to which the noble Marquess is referring? The most rev. Primate's Amendment applies to them solely.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYadmitted that his criticism was of general application and would apply to all schools, but it applied tenfold to denominational schools, and it was to protect those schools that they were asking their Lordships to agree to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. To ask them to agree to a provision that, in a school which was to have a denominational atmosphere, and as to which a parents' committee had been appointed, with the consent of the Government, in order to secure that denominational atmosphere, the teacher should be appointed without any reference to that committee, seemed to him so absurd that he could not believe the Government would resist the Amendment.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that even in rural districts there were, as a general rule, at least two teachers in a school; the school with a single teacher would be almost invariably a very small school in a lonely rural district. The single-teacher school was an extreme rarity even in rural districts, and it was obvious that, even under Clause 4, as amended by their Lordships, the special facilities would not apply to these schools because there was still retained in the Bill the provision that other school accommodation must be available for the children of dissentient parents. Unless they assumed absolute unanimity in a hamlet, the case of granting Clause 4 facilities could not arise.
The noble Marquess had spoken of local authorities who were very pleased
18
with themselves, and thought that, with the help of a sermon from Dr. Clifford, they could settle difficult questions on theology. Such authorities might flourish in Hertfordshire, but he had not come across any. The only case of which he had had experience where an attempt was made to set up religion by authority was in the memorable controversies in the School Board for London, when the protagonist in favour of that movement was a gentleman, well known to the noble Marquess, who had lately been in controversy with the Archbishop on a hymnal which was held by the most rev. Primate to lean rather to the teaching of the Church of Rome than to that of the Church of England. That was his one experience of an attempt to establish religious teaching under a local authority. He would now come to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate and to the Amendment which, though not strictly before the Committee, had been indicated as an alternative by the noble Lord opposite.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHasked what the noble Lord meant by saying that his Amendment was not before the Committee. He thought he had clearly explained that it was owing to an inadvertence that the Amendment had been taken off the Paper, but that he moved it all the same.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My noble friend is quite right in saying that his Amendment to the Amendment of the most rev. Primate is before the Committee.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he did not understand that the noble Lord had moved his Amendment. Continuing, the noble Lord reminded the Committee that in Clause 4 they had passed the words that teachers should, if they were willing to do so, give the religious instruction desired, and suggested that what the most rev. Primate evidently contemplated by his Amendment was that, if a teacher was not willing to do so, that should be a ground of incapacity and used, in the first instance, as a reason for rejecting him, or, if he changed his mind after a certain date, for turning him out. Under the most rev. Primate's Amendment, which would leave the teacher who

19
in the ordinary council school gave Cowper-Temple teaching in a free position, the strictest tests would be imposed on teachers in Clause 4 schools, and the strictest obligation to give that teaching which under the Bill he was free to give or to withhold. The Amendment would strike at the root of the principle of public management. The strong desire shown by denominationalists to minimise the obligation to find alternative accommodation, following upon many other demands, seemed to him to be evidence of the utter impossibility of reconciling the principles of public management and the abolition of tests with the inordinate demands the denominationalists continued to make.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he thought the noble Lord who had just sat down was a real enemy of Clause 4. He seemed to desire to render the exceptional facilities for religious instruction afforded by that clause absolutely unworkable. He suggested that something was being asked for denominational schools—for they were to be denominational schools—which had not been given in the case of council schools. The noble Lord had entirely forgotten the Amendment which was moved last night by the Government and accepted unanimously by their Lordships, which provided that nothing in this Act should prevent the local education authority from satisfying themselves as to the fitness of any person, who was willing to undertake to give religious instruction of the character permitted by Section 14 of the Act of 1870, to give that instruction. If the local education authority had that duty so strongly suggested to them with reference to council schools, a fortiori something of the same kind should be provided with reference to the schools which were to be purely denominational.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: They have full power not to appoint any teacher who does not satisfy them.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: That is not clear. If it had been your Lordships would not have thought it necessary to insert the words "council schools."
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: In Clause 4 schools, and even in ordinary-facilities schools, those who require the
20
facilities will themselves appoint the teacher to give that instruction.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: But they have not the power of appointing.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Yes, for religious instruction.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid if the noble Lord meant that those who were interested in the schools that came under Clause 4 would be satisfied with the power to appoint external teachers solely for the purpose of giving religious instruction, allowing the ordinary teacher to be an atheist or anything else, in spite of the school's having a denominational character, he thought that would not be accepted by anybody, not even by the Government. From everything that had been said with reference to this clause it had been admitted that it was the intention to make these schools denominational in their character, and how could that end be attained unless the teachers of the school were members of the denomination to which the school belonged? It was simply impossible. The persons who were concerned in this matter were the parents' committee who were to be responsible for and to have the control of the religious instruction in the school. He thought, however, that it would be very difficult practically to enforce the Amendment of the most rev. Primate except on appeal to the Board of Education. He sympathised with the object of the Amendment in combining the parents' committee with the local committees of management in Clause 15, and with the absolute necessity of maintaining local interest in these schools, for they could not be properly administered by one central authority alone. He suggested that the Amendment should be altered so as to provide that—
"In every public elementary school in which extended facilities are afforded under this Act the local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the school, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which extended facilities are afforded."
This declaration would show, with reference to the denominational schools, not only the will, but the capacity to give proper religious instruction, and that the views of the parents' committee

21
should be considered by the education authority who had to appoint the teacher.
Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment —
"After the word 'Act' in paragraph (a) to insert 'the local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the schools, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which the extended facilities are afforded.'"— (Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFenforced the view that the Clause 4 schools were to be denominational, that this was the intention of the Government, and that the teachers should be permitted to give denominational teaching. The noble Earl had stated that public control would be completely destroyed by the Amendment. He could hardly conceive that that argument was justifiable when they considered that under Clause 4 as it stood, not only would the local education authority have the use of the school, but they would have the nomination of the managers. The whole of the management of the school would be in the hands of the local education authority. In Clause 4, as the Government proposed it, public control through the managers was not held to be inconsistent with the giving of denominational religious instruction, and the public control of the local education authority was not diminished by the fact that denominational religious instruction was given in the school. The Government intended that that instruction should be given, and the only question was how could they make sure that it should be given, and given satisfactorily. Their Lordships had passed a provision in which it was laid down that the parents' committee were to be responsible for, and to have control of, religious instruction in the Clause 4 schools. How, he asked, could they control the religious instruction if they had no voice in the nomination of the teacher? The beginning of their control must be some voice in the selection of the person who was to give the instruction.
He supported the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, between which and the Amendment moved by the most rev. Primate, the difference was one not of principle, but of form and method only. The most rev. Primate had argued with
22
great force that the interference of the parents' committee was really a help to the local education authority, and he Proposed to give that help by conferring upon the parents' committee a veto upon the suggested appointment by the local education authority. Surely that was putting a very heavy burden on the Parents' committee. They might be humble people in some out of the way village and they were to be empowered to veto the appointment of the local education authority comprised of men of importance and ability in the county. Surely it was rather a slap in the face, both to the local education authority and to the teacher appointed, to put a veto upon an appointment that had already been made. It seemed to him that in that way they were giving help to the local education authority, coupled with a slight both to them and their appointees.
What weighed more strongly with him was the argument that a number of their schools were provided, managed, and staffed by religious orders. What chance had they that a local education authority in Wales or in the West Riding would ever appoint a member of those religious orders to a teachership? It would be simply idle to expect that even a moderate much less a hostile, authority would ever dream of appointing a member of such a community to be a teacher. That was to Roman Catholics a most essential and vital matter. He earnestly appealed to the most rev. Primate to concede the Amendment of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. There was no difference in principle between the two proposals. What his noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh suggested was that names should be submitted to the local education authority, who should have the absolute power of vetoing those nominations if the nominees were not educationally qualified.
LORD BELPERsaid he had no wish to detain the Committee at any length, but the most rev. Primate had made an appeal to those who had had the onus of administering education, and though he did not pretend that he could voice with authority the opinions of others, yet he could state from a practical point of view the way in which local education authorities would look upon this matter when called upon to appoint a teacher under the circumstances of Clause 4. He thought

23
it was perfectly clear that they would recognise, in the first instance, that where a school had been set up with special facilities for special denominational instruction it would be desirable that there should be a teacher of that denomination placed in the school. But they would not be in a position them selves, or very seldom would be in a position, without inquiry, to know the teachers whose views would be in consonance with those of the parents of the children attending the school, and they would feel bound to consult those from whom they could best get the information. It had been laid down that there should be a parents' committee, and that committee would, at all events, represent the parents in the district, and presumably would also represent the feelings of those by whom the school was erected. He ventured to think that the local education authority, being responsible for the education given in the school, would take care, in appointing a teacher, that they had such information laid before them by the parents' committee or some other suitable body as would enable them to come to a wise judgment upon the question of his or her suitability. He could not for the moment recall the terms of Viscount St. Aldwyn's suggested Amendment, but before the noble Viscount rose he (Lord Belper) had prepared this provision, which he thought would meet the view of many noble Lords:
"The parents' committee may make recommendations to the local education authority in regard to the teachers to be appointed, and the local education authority shall, when making appointments, take such recommendations into consideration."
These words reserved the absolute authority of the local education authority in making the appointment, and they also ensured that the representations of the parents' committee would be taken into consideration. He had been very much exercised in mind, in listening to the discussion, as to what would be the position of the local authority with regard to the minor authorities set up under Clause 15. The provision in that clause as it stood would, he thought, lead to great confusion and difficulty. It would be much easier to retain the boards of management, with modifications in their powers, and to make the parents' committee a sub-committee of the board of managers, with the instruc-
24
tion that the managers should look to the committee for suggestions as to teachers. He hoped that the delegation question would be eventually solved in such a manner as to make the Bill workable.
LORD FITZMAURICEsaid he was grateful to the most rev. Prelate that in his speech introducing his Amendment he had expressed, not indeed for the first time, a general confidence in the local education authorities; and feared only that there might be, hero and there, a local authority which would be disposed to act unreasonably. But he must point out that this proposal of the most rev. Prelate, like other proposals that had been made, took a very different colour in the eyes of those who sat on the Government Benches from what they might have assumed had not Clause 4 been so considerably altered by noble Lords opposite. By the change of the number from four-fifths to a bare majority of parents, whose consent was to be a condition of bringing a special facilities school into existence, the number of teachers who would be affected had been enormously increased; and the Government, in considering the most rev. Prelate's proposal, could not overlook that unfortunate Amendment merely because of the opinion of the noble Viscount opposite that, if the Bill became law, Clause 4 would probably be found to be without it. He was glad to notice there was present in the minds of noble Lords the administrative aspect of this question. Apparently they were at last about to hail the appearance, however faintly on the distant horizon, of the subject of education in the real sense of the term, and apart from what was called the religious difficulty. One of the chief objections of the Government to the Amendment was that it would still further complicate the administrative machine. The county councils, who would have to administer the Act, were becoming more and more alarmed at the growing number of Amendments, which would add enormously to their labours. Their Lordships were placed in a difficult position by the number of Amendments now before them, especially as the proposal of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh had unfortunately dropped out of the notice Paper; and his suggestion was that the question of the duties of the parents' committee should be postponed until they

25
reached Clause 15, which dealt with schemes of delegation.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CAN-TERBURYsaid he was, perhaps, the last person in the Committee who wanted to stand upon the form in which a principle was asserted, provided that in any way they could obtain the security for which they sought. If the Government could hold out a hope that they would accept the words of the noble Viscount, even in some modified form, he would gladly substitute them for his own.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid it would not be possible for Catholics to accept the most rev. Prelate's proposal in the modified form suggested by the noble Viscount. They stood by the proposal of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. They thought that the most rev. Prelate's proposal, even in the form in which it was moved, would not work out satisfactorily. It would be a most invidious task to throw upon the parents' committee to inquire into a teacher's beliefs after his appointment, and then perhaps to declare to the world that he did not come up to their standard from the religious point of view. Such a proceeding would be grossly unfair to the teacher as well as to the parents' committee.
The proper course was that proposed by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that the parents' committee should submit to the local authority a list of candidates with whom they were content on religious grounds, and that the local authority should then select from the list one with whose qualifications as a teacher they were satisfied. They had to consider whether friction was likely to arise, and to provide- machinery to obviate it. He earnestly believed if they considered the two Amendments they would find his noble friend's was the more likely to achieve the desired object.
Undoubtedly they felt that this Amendment would safeguard the position of the religious teachers in their schools, which was very dear to them. He believed he might confidently appeal to the officials of the Board of Education to say that if those religious teachers were taken out of the schools it would be a distinct blow to the cause of education. What they were doing to this Bill could not be measured by the number of Amendments.
26
If two Amendments would safeguard their denominational schools, then two should be passed; but if twenty Amendments were necessary, let them not be satisfied with eighteen.
They were told that this was no longer the Bill of the Government, but the Bill of the House of Lords. It was no such thing; it still remained the Bill of the Government with the Amendments grafted on it by their Lordships, and he very much feared that Amendments grafted on that stock would not be afforded support and nourishment. He honestly feared that the dangers lurking in the original Bill were there still, and had not boon removed by their Amendments. They took upon themselves a very heavy responsibility indeed, when, as friends of religious education in the country, they allowed the Bill to pass its Second Reading, and he could not but feel that if they were asked to be satisfied with Amendments of such a shadowy kind as that which was now suggested by the most rev. Primate, when they came to the Third Reading of the Bill they must carefully consider it, as the same responsibility would confront them again in a more accentuated form. The Catholic Peers felt deeply that they could accept nothing less than his noble friend's Amendment, and he had been assured that the Jewish community were at one with them on this point.
VISCOUNT HALIFAXasked permission to quote from the writings of the late Archbishop Temple to show the opinion entertained by that authority. The late most rev. Primate had left it on record in his Life what his opinion was on this point. He said—
"Why do we attach so much importance to our denominational schools? Is it not because of their denominational character? The educational character of these schools mainly depends upon the appointment of the teachers. No rules—
and he would beg their Lordships' attention to this point——
"prescribing the kind of religious instruction, important as that instruction is, can he compared for a moment to the diameter of the teacher in determining what that school will be like. … There is not, and there cannot be, the same security for the character of the teacher if is is merely appointed by the local authority."
He (Viscount Halifax) was speaking with the most profound conviction when he

27
said that there were thousands and thousands of people all over the country who were looking to their Lordships' House to introduce Amendments which would really preserve the denominational character of Clause 4 schools; and that could not be done unless they preserved the denominational character of the teacher.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, your Lordships will, I cannot help thinking, be of opinion that the time has come when the sense of the Committee may be taken upon the Amendments before us. We have the Amendment of the noble Lord on the back benches and the Amendment of the most rev. Primate with the variant suggested by the noble Viscount behind me. The two Amendments differ, no doubt, in an important particular, but both of them are directed to the same purpose. The object of both the movers is to sue to it i that the 4th Clause of this Bill shall be a reality and not a sham. These 4th Clause schools are to be denominational schools. We have been told again and again that they are to be denominational schools; that their denominational character is to be retained; and that the old teaching is to go on. But, in our view, that is absolutely impossible unless precautions are taken at the outset to secure for them; teachers who shall be qualified to give the particular form of religions instruction desired in those schools. And may I be permitted to say that that argument appears to me to hold good whether these Clause 4 schools are more or less in number. It is quite true that in consequence of the Amendment carried by your Lordships' House the number of these schools may be increased, but whether the number is large or small we contend that you cannot have a denominational school unless you have a teacher selected on account of his fitness to give denominational instruction.
Let us see for one moment how it is proposed to obtain this security. The Lord President of the Council has given us an idea of the mode in which he would set to work. We understood from him that in his view no questions are to be asked on the initial appointment of the teacher; but he suggested to us, curiously enough, the other evening that,
28
although there were to be no questions, although it was not to be permissible to ask the teacher whether he was a Roman Catholic or a Jew, it was extremely likely that in most cases the local authority would have some means of finding out what a teacher was and would make the appointment on that knowledge.
THE EARL OF CREWE: May I tell the noble Marquess what I was thinking of? I meant that in the case of those schools their character would be generally known by those who wished to serve in them as teachers, and it is presumed that teachers of the kind acceptable to the particular denomination would apply and that others would not apply.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The process then is a sort of blindfold process of selection, but the noble Earl explains that a corner of the handkerchief will be raised so that it will be possible to see pretty distinctly what kind of person you have to deal with. Then there is the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. With that we entertain a great feeling of sympathy on this side of the House, although we are disposed to prefer the form of words suggested by the noble Viscount behind me, which seem rather loss peremptory in character, but at the same time to be well calculated to procure the desired result. We hold, with the most rev. Prelate, that you cannot exclude the parents' committee from a voice in the selection of teachers. You have already decided that that committee is to have control of, and to be responsible for, the religious instruction given in the school, and it is impossible that that control should be exercised or that responsibility assumed unless the committee is given a real voice in the selection of a teacher. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh proposes a somewhat different procedure. According to his Amendment it would be for the parents committee to nominate the teacher and for the local education authority to confirm or object to the appointment as the case might be. In our view it is better that the task of originally selecting a teacher should not be thrown upon the shoulders of the local education authority; and for that reason we prefer the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. But, as I said just now, we think the variant suggested by the noble Marquess behind me is an

29
improvement upon his wording. May I read the Amendment suggested by the noble Viscount, as the words are not on the Paper? They run—
"The local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the school, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which the extended facilities are afforded."
Those concluding words, remember, are the words which the Committee adopted when we were dealing with council schools, and it seems to me that for reasons of symmetry alone they should find a place in the clause. One word as to the suggestion that the final consideration of this matter should stand over till we get to Clause 15. I am not quite sure whether the Amendment would very fittingly find a place in Clause 15, which deals with the functions of the county councils, but it may be possible, when we come to Clause 15, to consider how far this scheme of the parents' committee can be fitted into any scheme of local administration which may be agreed upon under that clause. We do not however see any reason why the Committee should defer a decision until we get to Clause 15. I am afraid I must tell the noble Lord behind me (Lord Clifford of Chudleigh) that we cannot follow him into the Lobby, but we are prepared to support the Amendment of
the most rev. Primate as altered by the noble Viscount (Viscount St. Aldwyn).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The question is "That all the words after 'Act' in the Archbishop of Canterbury's Amendment be deleted."
On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," resolved in the negative.
LORD STANMORE: May I ask the noble Earl the Lord Chairman what the effect of this vote is upon the Amendment moved by Lord Clifford of Chudleigh?
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: It is competent for the Committee now to insert other words. The question now before the House is the proposal of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh to insert the words—"The appointment of teachers shall be made by the local education authority on the nomination of the parents' committee, whose nominee shall not be rejected except on educational grounds."
On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not-contents, 137.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Halifax, V. [Teller.]

Dormer, L.

Newcastle, D.

Hill, V.

Emly, L.

Northumberland, D.

Llandaff, V.

Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

Somerset, D.

Gage, L. (F. Gage.)

Bangor, L. Bp.

Gerard, L.

Bute, M.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

Exeter, M.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Abingdon, E.

London, L. Bp.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Amherst, E.

Oxford, L. Bp

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Ashburnham, E.

Muncaster, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Abinger, L.

North, L.

De La Warr, E.

Armstrong, L.

Rothschild, L.

Denbigh, E.

Barnard, L.

Seaton, L.

Devon, E.

Braye, L.

Sherborne, L.

Feversham, E.

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Stanmore, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L.

Harrowby, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Garlies, L (E. Galloway.)

Nelson, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Manchester, D.

Hertford, M.

York, L. Abp.

Ailesbury, M.

Lansdowne, M.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Bath, M.

Northampton, M.

Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Camden, M.

Winchester, M.

Albemarle, E.

Ridley, V.

Hastings, L.

Beauchamp, E.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Haversham, L.

Brownlow, E.

Headley, L.

Cadogan, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Hemphill, L.

Camperdown, E.

Chester, L. Bp.

Hylton, L. [Teller.]

Carnwath, E.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Kelvin, L.

Carrington, E.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

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

Cathcart, E.

St. Asaph, L. Bp.

Cawdor, E.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Chesterfield, E. [Teller.]

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Kinnaird, L.

Chichester, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Knaresborough, L.

Craven, E.

Lawrence, L.

Dartrey, E.

Ampthill, L.

Llangattock, L.

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

Ardilaun, L.

Lyveden, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Macnaghten, L.

Guilford, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Manners, L.

Haddington, E.

Atkinson, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Hardwicke, E.

Barrymore, L.

Napier, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Lichfield, E.

Belper, L.

Pirrie, L.

Lindsey, E.

Blythswood, L.

Poltimore, L.

Londesborough, E.

Boston, L.

Rathmore, L.

Lytton, E.

Brassey, L.

Ravensworth, L.

Northbrook, E.

Burghclere, L.

Reay, L.

Northesk, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

Revelstoke, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

Ribblesdale, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee L.

Radnor, E.

Colchester, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Russell, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Saint Germans, E.

De Mauley, L.

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Scarborough, E.

de Ros, L.

Stamford, E.

Denman, L.

Stalbridge, L.

Temple, E.

Digby, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

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

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Tennyson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Estcourt, L.

Waleran, L.

Cobham, V.

Eversley, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Cross, V.

Faber, L.

Weardale, L.

Falkland, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Welby, L.

Falmouth, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wolverton, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fitzmaurice, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Glantawe, L.

Knutsford, V.

Harris, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The question I now have to put is that the words proposed by Viscount St. Aldwyn be inserted, viz.: "The local education authority shall consult with the parents' committee as to the appointment of any persons to be teachers in the school, and shall satisfy themselves that the persons so appointed are qualified and willing to give the religious instruction for which the extended facilities are afforded."
THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, before the noble Earl in the Chair puts that question, I think perhaps it is as well that I should say one or two words on the manner in which it is regarded by His Majesty's Government. I think noble Lords opposite will agree that it is scarcely reasonable to expect us to give a definite opinion about this Amend-
32
ment, in view of the fact that we have not actually seen it in writing, and have only heard it read. The House must also remember that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Belper) stated that a somewhat similar suggestion had occurred to him, and he read out some words which I am not able actually to remember, but the general purport of which I think the Committee will recollect, dealing with the same subject. We were unable, as I stated, to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, and as regards this one, I am not able at this stage to do more than say that the whole question, in the light of these two Amendments, will have our consideration. It is impossible for me to accept the words of the noble Viscount at this stage. And when I say "consideration." I mean consideration, because on one or two previous occasions when I have used that phrase I

33
have been told by noble Lords opposite that I have accepted the idea. I mean "consideration." His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the arguments which have been used by the noble Viscount; and I was very glad that, in the course of his remarks, the noble Viscount saw the force of some of the objections which we raised against the Amendment as introduced by the most rev. Primate. Therefore, we are quite prepared to take the question into full consideration, but I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment as described by the noble Viscount, or even as modified by the noble Lord opposite.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he could quite understand the position taken up by the noble Earl on behalf of His Majesty's Government. It was perfectly true that he had not the wording of the proposed Amendment before him, and it was only natural that he should desire not to give any pledge on the subject. He hoped, however, that their Lordships would insert the words in the Bill. They would be open to reconsideration at a future state.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought the words suggested by Lord Belper were more satisfactory than those before the Committee, and they might form the basis of a settlement. He hoped Lord Belper would put his words on the Paper in plenty of time before the Report stage.
LORD BELPERexplained that he had not moved an Amendment. He had suggested some words, but the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount met his view.
On Question, ''That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid that the Amendment standing in his name was considered on Clause 4 and postponed until now, the Committee being of opinion that it could be better dealt with at this point. The provisions in the Amendment did not require any further explanation, and the only
34
question was whether this was the proper place to insert it.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 8, after the word ' worship,' to insert the words 'The religious instruction given in the school shall as regards its character be in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed (if any) relating to the school; and nothing in this section shall affect any provision in the trust deed giving to any ecclesiastical or denominational authority the power of deciding whether the character of the religious instruction is or is not in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed. The parents' committee shall have access to the school house at all times. Vacancies in the parents' committee caused by death, resignation, or otherwise, shall be filled by election by the parents attending the school or by nomination in the same manner as the original appointment was made. In all schools in which facilities are afforded under Clause 3 of this Act, in State-aided schools and schools used by the local education authority under Clause 11 of this Act, there shall be a parents' committee elected and nominated as provided in sub-section (4) of Clause 4 of this Act, and all the provisions above enacted shall apply to such committee.'" —(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: The Amendment of the noble Lord covers a certain amount of ground part of which has been covered already. The first Amendment is, I think, covered by the words which have been inserted at the beginning of Clause 4, to the effect that the local education authority shall afford extended facilities for religious instruction of some special character and in accordance with the trust deed, if any, of the school. Therefore, from the noble Lord's point of view it is, unnecessary to insert those words. As regards the latter put of the paragraph, that nothing in tin's section shall affect any provision in the trust deed giving to any ecclesiastical or denominational authority the power of deciding, that I think has already been effected in repealing the Kenyon-Slaney clause of the Act of 1902. The effect of that repeal is to restore the state of things to what it was before that Act, and I conceive that what the noble Lord wishes to provide for in the latter part of this section dealing with ecclesiastical or denominational authority is that the law should be as it stood before that Act. As to the parents' committee having access to the school at all times, we could not agree to that. The parents' committee, as constituted, is to have control of, and

35
be responsible for, the religious instruction given in the schools. I think that local authorities would resent the perpetual intrusion of these people during the time of secular education, with which they almost explicitly have nothing to do; and, therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment on that point. As regards the last paragraph, I am not quite sure whether the wording of the noble Lord's Amendment would not go a great deal further than I take it he means to go. If he means that ordinary schools under Clause 3 should have a parents' committee to manage the religious instruction, we take no exception to that, but it should only be the facilities instruction which they should manage. It clearly should not be the Cowper-Temple instruction, whereas, as the noble Lord's words stand at present, they possibly would apply to that. I I think the words "all the provisions above enacted" applying to such a committee might cover more ground than the noble Lord intends. I do not take it that he really means anything more than this, that in State-aided schools, in schools under Clause XL, and in ordinary facilities schools there should be a parents' committee to manage the religious instruction; but I am afraid his words go a great deal further than that and we cannot agree to them.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNpointed out that the clause under discussion was a teachers' clause pure and simple, and that the Amendment referred to many other matters and not particularly to teachers. He hoped the noble Lord would not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFcould not see any other place where the Amendment could be put in except here. The noble Earl the Lord President had expressed the opinion that Clause 4 rendered the first section of his noble friend's Amendment unnecessary, but Clause 4 only bound the local education authority. They wanted also to bind the parents' committee, who had the control of the actual giving of religious instruction. Words were necessary to be inserted to compel them to comply with the conditions in the trust deed. He therefore thought the words in the Amendment were not unnecessary. That the parents' committee should have access to the schoolhouse at
36
all times the noble Earl had suggested was unreasonable. He (Viscount Llandaff) did not suppose that parents would wish to intrude during the time of secular education, and he had no doubt his noble friend would limit the Amendment by inserting the words "at all times when religious instruction is being given." The next clause about vacancies, he thought, was necessary. They must have some provision for filling up vacancies. The last paragraph in the Amendment raised a question to which he had called attention the other night. In a State-aided school and in a temporarily occupied school they would have under the Bill no managers, and, therefore, no means of appointing teachers. As the noble Earl the Lord President had said, they had repealed the section of the Act of 1902 which created the foundation managers, and those managers would no longer remain in existence. The noble Earl had also suggested that the Board of Education would have some power to create a body of managers who would appoint the teachers. With great respect to the noble Earl, he did not think that was so. He was not aware of any section in any Act of Parliament which gave the Board of Education power to constitute managers, Managers had always been appointed by statute. Some provision for the appointment of teachers in these schools was absolutely necessary. He thought the noble Earl would agree that in Clause 3 schools, as in Clause 4 schools, the Amendment of Viscount St. Aldwyn would apply equally. It seemed to him that all the paragraphs contained in his noble friend's Amendment were necessary and consistent with what the Committee had already done.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: These provisions dealing with vacancies in the parents' committee and other matters seem to me hardly germane to the clause your Lordships have under consideration. They no doubt might very properly be raised on Report when we are dealing with Clause 4, or later when we come to Clause 15, which deals generally with the administration of schools.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFreminded the Committee that the inconvenience caused was not the fault of his noble friend because he proposed the Amendment

37
on Clause 4, to which these matters, were germane, only to be asked by; the Leaders on both sides of the Committee to postpone it until the teachers' clause was reached. His noble friend accordingly postponed the Amendment until they reached the present clause, and it was very hard that he should now be shunted off to Clause 15.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that in Clause 4 it was enacted that the parents' committee should be responsible for, and have control of, the religious instruction. Now it was said that owing to the Kenyon-Slaney clause having been repeated the schools would be relegated to their old trust deeds. He took that to mean as to the character of the instruction—not that they were to be thrown back on every condition of the trust deeds. It was well known that in a great number of trust deeds of the National Society the whole control was left to the clergyman of the parish. He wished to ask whether the repeal of the Clause in question would affect the control of the instruction.
The EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: A question of order has been raised by the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, and surely we ought to decide that before discussing further questions.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I withdraw the Amendment for the present, on the understanding that at a later stage I shall have the opportunity of again moving it.
LORD BARNARDdrew attention to the fact that one point dealing with teachers was partly covered in this clause and partly in Clause 27. He asked His Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared at a future stage to consider a proposal for either putting Clause 27 into this clause or moving the latter two sub-sections of this clause to Clause 27.
The EARL OF CREWE: I will give full consideration to the question raised by the noble Lord. I am afraid I cannot answer it at this moment. As regards the point raised by Lord Stanley of
38
Alderley, I have always regarded this as very much a matter for the Committee to settle. The form of the Bill as it came up, your Lordships will remember, left the provision of all special denominational instruction out of school hours to be provided and paid for by the members of the denominations, and under those circumstances it seemed to be most reasonable to us that the manner in which that instruction should be conducted, and the terms on which it should be conducted, were really matters for the denominations themselves and for Parliament to decide. We had no very distinct wishes on the subject one way or the other, and I think remembering the form in which the Bill was introduced, that that was a reasonable course to take. My noble friend behind me will remember that, as the Bill was introduced, these schools were placed in a very different position from the present voluntary schools under the Kenyon-Slaney Clause. The Kenyon-Slaney Clause was, as many of us thought, a valuable addition to the Act of 1902, but the conditions in these schools, as we intended them to be, were so entirely different that we did not consider it reasonable or necessary to apply that clause. The question whether this religious instruction should be in accordance with the trust deed or whether the committee of parents should have a very distinct say as to its character and the manner in which it was conducted, is one for the denominations themselves, and on which the Committee could, if it desired, express an opinion. Before I sit down there is one other point on which I wish to make myself perfectly clear with reference to the Amendment moved by Viscount St. Aldwyn. We were not able, as the noble Viscount quite admitted, to express a definite opinion as to its merits, but of the two suggestions, I confess I preferred the words of the noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Belper). It certainly seemed to me, so far as I could gather them, that the words in the noble Viscount's Amendment contravened the provisions of sub-section (2) of Clause 8, whereas the phrase suggested by Lord Belper apparently did not, and, for that reason, so far as I could catch the purport of what he said, I preferred his words. But the noble Viscount and the Committee will understand that we are not

39
bound to the acceptance of the principle that there should be anything like a preliminary inquiry by the local education authority into the religious belief of the teacher.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he did not intend, in the words that he drew up, to contravene anything in Clause 8, any more than it had been contravened— and he did not believe it had been contravened at all—by the words which their Lordships had agreed to yesterday with regard to council schools. The matter was, of course, open to further consideration.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee this evening.
The sitting was then suspended, after the House agreeing, on the Motion of the MARQUESS OF RIPON, to give precedence on resuming to a question by the Archbishop of Canterbury relating to the Chinese in the Transvaal.

THE CHINESE IN THE TRANSVAAL.
On resuming at 9 o'clock—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid: I rise to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to furnish any information respecting the result of investigations as to the prevalence of vice in the compounds occupied by Chinese coolies in the Transvaal. I shrink somewhat from Opening in your Lordships' House a discussion upon a subject so painful and even terrible as that to which my Question alludes, but I feel bound in consistency to raise the question again at the earliest possible moment. Your Lordships may remember that two years ago, I think it was in February, 1904, † when the first discussion in this House took place on the subject of Chinese labour in the Transvaal, I ventured to call attention to what I thought was a branch of the subject which had been strangely overlooked, I mean the moral question involved in the arrangements which
† See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1001.
40
were then in contemplation, and I received at that time assurances that the obvious difficulties had not been ignored, that those perils were being in some way or other guarded against; and alike from the then representatives of the Colonial Office and from other noble Lords, and more especially from Lord Grey who is now in Canada, but who has been closely connected with South Africa and its work, the House received assurances that this matter would certainly be kept under careful surveillance, so that if possible the evils which I ventured to foreshadow might be averted. Mow that is quite two and a half years ago, and from that time until now I have hardly ceased to make, indeed, I have not ceased to make, constant inquiries upon this subject in South Africa and from other sources where it seemed to me that information was likely to be, or ought to be, available. In the files of the Colonial Office will be found not one or two, but many more letters of an unofficial kind from me on this subject, and my further inquiries have extended to travellers in South Africa who have made a special study of the Chinese problem, and from residents in South Africa who have had opportunities of looking into this question, and who are likely to take an unprejudiced view. I have also made inquiries from the clergy and ministers of different denominations with whom I have been in correspondence as to what is happening in the Chinese compounds. I have further endeavoured, by frequent communications with those who are familiar with Chinese work elsewhere, especially in the Malay Peninsula and other places, to ascertain what is likely to be the South African peril in this respect if an inference may be drawn from what has happened elsewhere. The result of all these inquiries is that I know no subject upon which the conflict of evidence, where evidence exists, or the absence of evidence where it might have been expected to exist, has been so marked. I have had assurances that this dreaded evil had been either averted or the peril had been over-rated, and I have had assurances on the other side that the mischief was of the gravest possible kind at this hour, and I have never been able to obtain any certain first-hand assurances from one side or the other which seemed to me sufficiently trustworthy to justify one in taking any public action, or joining in

41
a public demonstration upon this subject. It is not surprising that this subject is one upon which it is difficult to obtain accurate evidence. The very nature of the question at once suggests to any thinking man how difficult it must be to obtain really independent, trustworthy and first-hand information about it. But, my Lords, within the last week or two there has appeared in the Press a statement that official information has been procured and collected in South Africa, and that such information is now in the possession of the Colonial Office. As soon as I learned that this was so, or rather received the statement that this was so, I ventured to put a Question upon the Paper of your Lordships' House, and that Question would have been asked some little time ago but for the request of the noble Marquess the Lender of the House—and I am not complaining in the least degree of his action—who suggested that it might be well to wait until we had got on a little further with the Education Bill. Of course, I at once acceded to that request, but when I found that feeling was growing stronger upon this question I ventured to press that I might be allowed to ask the Question to-night rather than postpone it any longer. I want to thank the noble Marquess for the courtesy which he has shown me throughout on this matter. I feel bound to bring the question forward now to ascertain whether or not we are at least within reach of something that will enable us to judge from reliable evidence instead of from reports which may be discredited, because they are supposed to be biassed in one direction or another. I hope at last we are in a position to got some trustworthy information upon a matter so grave, not merely in its direct and immediate effect upon the surroundings in which the mischief takes place, but also in its possible indirect effects upon other populations than those of the Chinamen, a very terrible effect which would tarnish the honour and good name not only of England, but of her Colonies. That is all I have got to say. I ask this Question simply for information, and with no desire to embarrass the Government in difficulties which must be very great, and simply because I want to know whether anything is being done and whether there is any way in which we, in connection with these matters,
42
whether by influencing public opinion or otherwise, can support or strengthen any efforts which may be necessary to put down this evil if the evil is found to be as grave as some people fear.
LORD COLERIDGE: I thank the most rev. Primate for bringing this subject under the attention of the House, and I think I have some right to say a few words before the noble Earl replies to the Question. From first to last I, along with others who then sat on the other side of the House, have opposed and fought against the importation of Chinamen under this. Ordinance, not only for other reasons connected with their importation, but also mainly for the grave risks which the most rev. Primate has urged against the system this evening. From the very first Lord Stanmore, whom I am sorry is not here, pointed out the vital difference between the conditions of this Ordinance and the conditions of all hitherto known Ordinances as they existed in the Empire. The main difference was that the Chinamen were allowed to come into the imported country as bachelors and were not accompanied by their wives and children. I remember in this House when we raised this question the noble Lord who is now High Commissioner in South Africa, Lord Selborne, indignantly pointed out to us the terms of this Ordinance, and exclaimed, "What could the Government do more?" I regret to say that in the contests which we have waged against this Ordinance for the last two years we have not had the open support of the most rev. Primate. He knew, as he told us in the speech he delivered upon this question more than two years ago, that the Chinaman would go into the Transvaal alone without being accompanied by any of the opposite sex. At that time I appealed and Lord Carrington and others also appealed to the most rev. Primate on more than one occasion to speak out in bold, clear, and unqualified terms of condemnation in regard to this traffic, and I believe such is the recognised weight which the most rev. Primate deservedly holds in the counsels of the country that if he had spoken the right word, and spoken it in time, the Chinamen would never have been imported, and these evils would never have arisen. I doubt not from reasons which were conclusive to him,

43
but from reasons which I should Think he now regrets, he hesitated on those occasions, and the result is what unfortunately we know to-day. This House disregarded and set aside our arguments, and the noble Duke of Marlborough, who then represented the Colonies in this House, finally had to admit that out of the 50,000 Chinese only two women had ultimately been imported. I know we had golden pictures drawn of the Chinamen in the compound. I remember the noble Karl Grey, now the Governor-General of Canada, went so far as to mention the words "garden city" in alluding to the Chinese compound. Lord Halifax, who spent some time in the country, told mo that he had visited the compounds in South Africa, and that he was not able to find any one who had noticed any of the moral objections against the Chinese which had been brought forward in England. All I can say with regard to the noble Viscount's statement is that when he went on his tour in the Chinese compounds it must have been a very specially conducted tour. I know the Government are in great difficulties because they have never had a High Commissioner who disapproved of the importation of the Chinese. First we had Lord Milner, the fons et origo of the system, and I do not know whether noble Lords would be ready to sanction a continuation of his policy in South Africa. He was succeeded by Lord Selborne who was also, for reasons amply sufficient to himself, an advocate, and an ardent advocate, of the Chinese labour importation system. But now at last the truth is out, and I venture to think there is not a noble Lord in this House who will contradict what I say when I declare that the whole system is doomed. I make no extreme demands upon the Government; I do not ask them to do the impossible. I do not suggest that they can in a moment, with the wave of a wand, repatriate 50,000 or 60,000 China men, but I do wish to ask one or two questions on this subject. First of all I ask the Government who knew of it? Where was the superintendent of labour? Where were his inspectors, all of them officials of the Government administration? Where were the compound managers who have been vouched for again and again in this House as such admirable administrators within the Chinese compound?
44
Where were the recruiters who, if the tales be true, recruited from China into South Africa a class for the purpose of immorality? Did they know, and if they knew, did they tell, and if they did not tell, why did they not tell? I do not think the country will be satisfied with a mere half measure; they will want to bring home to somebody—and I do not care how high that somebody is—the responsibility for this state of things. That responsibility must be brought home to somebody. Although I do not ask for impossibilities I do urge upon the Colonial Secretary that nothing but a drastic remedy will do anything to appease the wholesome and very proper indignation which these revelations have produced.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: I want to do what I can to emphasise the points raised in the most rev. Primate's Question. I have always unwillingly taken a great interest in this question owing to something which was told me at the very beginning of its discussion in this country. I thought that this Question was not going to be asked until next week, and then I should not have been able to be in the House, but as I am here I should like to add a few words upon the subject. When the importation of Chinese coolies was first under discussion, a layman who knew what he was talking about very well told me plainly that wherever Chinese were imported in largo numbers, exclusively male, there unnatural vice followed as something not sporadic or occasional, but as something normal. I have never taken any part in decrying the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa on such grounds as the fear that they would be cruelly treated. I never thought that there was any bottom in such charges, and I have always dissociated myself from them. But exclusively on the moral ground I have always felt that the reasons why they should not be allowed, in the beginnings of a young community more particularly, were overwhelmingly strong, if such representations as were made to me were true. After that first information I was at pains to get all the information I could from various quarters, and like the most rev. Primate I have found it rather contradictory. Curiously enough, it seemed to me that the clergy

45
were generally optimistic and the laity were almost uniformly of the opposite mind. We know that with regard to all such painful moral questions we find the same difficulties, namely, that it is the official guardians of morality who are the most blind as to what is going on. Again and again I have been told things so extraordinary about the prevalence of this vice amongst the Chinese under such conditions, that they have left on my mind the impression that it was very difficult to believe that such statements were true. We were told that the Chinese would have full liberty of being accompanied by their wives, and that they were to be established under normal conditions of family life. We were told almost simultaneously, by those who knew, that that was a mere matter of empty words, and that there was not the remotest chance of the Chinamen being accompanied by their wives, and that has turned out to be the case. The question continues to be agitated. On all moral matters it is notoriously difficult to get convincing evidence, because there is, as we all unhappily know, upon such questions a large conspiracy of silence. We know what the accusation is, and I want to make it as pointed and definite as I can. It is said that such vice exists in almost all communities, but that as a rule it exists as a sporadic but not as a normal vice. I believe that where this kind of vice becomes not sporadic but normal there it threatens fundamentally the moral well-being of a community, and I believe that to allow in the midst of any community, and most of all in the midst of a young and yet unformed community, any society in which this vice is known to be normal is to do that which is most fatally contrary to the progress of any young rising generation. I believe that although the society in which this vice normally exists is a comparatively small one and one which is separated from the rest of the community in a distinct manner, yet, as I should expect and as I have been informed, the state of morality in this distinctive community is well known. It is a continual subject of condemnation and discussion in the communities outside that this is what the Chinese do. Therefore, it not only means that there is something foul in itself in the midst of the community, but it also means that it spreads contamination around. I remember that this Question was asked some
46
time ago in the House of Commons, and at that time Mr. Winston Churchill, with the Prime Minister sitting beside him, gave a most explicit Answer and a most explicit promise. He said that as these charges were made the Government would send out a Committee of Inquiry to South Africa, and if they found the charges were true, then during the temporary period during which the Chinese were still to be allowed in South Africa they would fundamentally revise their policy. I have heard that Question and that Answer read out in another place a few moments ago, so that I am sure that what I am quoting represents substantially, though I cannot pretend that it represents verbally, the Answer of His Majesty's Government, or the Answer of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies who represents the Government. The inquiry was made by the Government. It was made by Mr. Bucknill, and he has returned to this country and reported upon the subject. It is not my duty to inquire as to the conditions under which information or supposed information has become widespread, but your Lordships probably know how widespread and how different the statements are with regard to the evils complained of. I think your Lordships probably do not read what I think is one of the best and certainly one of the most influential of the religious organs of this country, I mean The British Weekly. If any of your Lordships do read that remarkable organ you will know how very wide the area of moral feeling must be which is profoundly deeply stirred about this question. In that perturbation I most profoundly share. I think it is one of those tremendous questions which a nation cannot evade, and I do not think that any kind of commercial necessity can justify a country in allowing the normal prevalence of that kind of vice in any community of which can possibly rid itself. It is with that belief that I earnestly ask His Majesty's Government to let us know what they intend to do with reference to the very definite undertaking given last August by the Undersecretary for the Colonies with regard to an inquiry into this question and the results of that inquiry.
LORD REDESDALE: I have probably had more experience of the Chinese than

47
any Member of your Lordships' House. I have lived with them in their own country, and in other countries, and I have lived with them in the Colonies, and I can only say that when the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down talks about these vices being normal and not sporadic amongst the Chinese, he does the Chinese an injustice which I am sure he would be the first to deplore. That there are vicious Chinese just as there are vicious Europeans is a certainty, but the great majority of the Chinese would view with horror not unlike that which the right rev. Prelate has so eloquently expressed, the existence of such crimes and vices amongst them. If it had not been for the Chinese many parts of the world which are now rich and thriving would not have been prosperous at all. In California and in the far Western States of America, without the Chinese the railroads could not have been built, the great cities could not have sprung up, and the state of prosperity which is the envy of the world could not have been brought into existence at all. The Chinaman is a frugal and industrious man and, at his best, is one of the very best citizens that I know anywhere. That there are bad Chinamen is a certainty, but to say that nameless vices are not sporadic but normal among them—and the right rev. Prelate repeated the word more than once in the course of his remarks—is a most unjust and unworthy accusation, and it is only fair that a man who has lived amongst them should get up and repudiate the charge to the best of his ability.
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I make no complaint that the most rev. Primate has put to me this Question, although it has imposed upon me a very disagreeable duty, and I hope I may ask your Lordships' forbearance while I endeavour to discharge it. At the end of the summer sittings certain evidence was tendered to me of such a character that in any Court in this kingdom it would have been treated with closed doors. Therefore, of necessity, I treated it as confidential. That is the footing on which I communicated with the High Commissioner, and it is the footing on which the inquiry was instituted. It is right to say, particularly in view of the remarks of the noble Lord behind me, that the High
48
Commissioner lost not a moment in instituting this inquiry. He entrusted it to one of his best officers, a gentleman with legal training which enabled him to take and sift the evidence which came before him. The Government remain of opinion that Mr. Bucknill's report and the evidence taken at the inquiry which he held must remain confidential. The right rev. Prelate has referred to what I suppose is an undoubted fact, that portions of this document have become public property. Those of us who have had to deal with confidential documents are not unacquainted with accidents of this kind, and all I can say upon that point is that it can only have become public from a misuse of a confidential document. The fact that we consider that it is necessary to treat these papers as confidential necessitates my making a statement to your Lordships, and what is still more onerous, I have had to examine the papers myself. I think I can say that the inquiry has been of an exhaustive character. Twenty-six witnesses were orally examined, and there was a great mass of documentary evidence, including fifteen reports from medical officers. The charges which were tendered to Mr. Bucknill may be summarised as follows—(1) That there were malpractices which were widespread, open, and scandalous; (2) that there were consequently demoralisation and disease; (3) that this state of things had been tolerated by the police and mine managers; and (4) that the natives of Africa were contaminated. It is obvious that I cannot say all that could be said upon all these topics without entering upon unmentionable details, but it is my duty to say that the Report states, and I am obliged from a survey of the evidence to concur, that the evidence goes to show that the offence prevails at most, if not all, of the compounds. That is a serious matter, but I do not suppose that anyone who, like the most rev. Prelate, had studied the question before could be entirely unprepared for it. Many on my side of the House always had a dread of this occurrence in our minds when we opposed the system. I can certainly say that that was so in my own case. I admit at once that this Report, making every allowance for certain qualifications which it contains, and which I will refer to immediately, does in my judgment

49
strengthen the view that the permanent adoption of this system is impossible, and perhaps we are justified in calling upon the most rev. Primate and those who think with him to join us in that declaration.
But, my Lord, having said that, I am bound to add, and I gladly do so, that the grosser part of the accusations which the charges as tendered to me involved are not substantiated by the evidence. I say this on my own responsibility, and I am willing to stand by it. Having examined the Papers independently and the Report, that is the conclusion to which I have come. It is clear that one of the main difficulties which arose in checking this practice is the secrecy with which it is conducted, and that is a point to which the most rev. Prelate referred. Accordingly the estimates of the amount of crime vary greatly among those whoso knowledge of the coolies both in China and South Africa is the largest. I rejoice to add that so far as my examination has gone I have found no single witness who came forward to say of his own knowledge that there were the open scandalous malpractices; which were alleged. I admit at once that that would have been a reflection upon the public service and others concerned with the management of the mines which, so far as I am concerned, I am convinced that they do not deserve. Lord Coleridge asked me, I think, to throw the responsibility on some of those officials. I can only answer that if I thought it was the proper thing to do I should not hesitate to do it, but so far as my study of the evidence has gone, the result is what I have stated.
But further—and I am sure this will be satisfactory to your Lordships— I am glad to say that as regards the question of the contamination of the South African natives the Report states that the witnesses were practically unanimous in their view, and Mr. Bucknill himself was convinced, that this statement was without foundation. But even as it is, with these qualifications, the position is serious enough, and I can assure your Lordships that neither His Majesty's Government nor the High Commissioner—for I have had communication with him, and I think I can speak for him in this matter—underrate
50
the urgency of the matter and the necessity for prompt action. I think I can say that the view which Lord Selborne takes of this matter is that, although certain charges may have been disproved, it is none the less the duty of the Government to stamp out the evil whenever and wherever it is found. The Prime Minister in another place has stated that the matters disclosed were engaging the most serious attention of the Government, who will adopt without delay such steps as may seem to them necessary to deal with the case. I think it will be evident from what I have said that there is no divergence whatever in the views of His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's representatives on the spot, or in the standard which we have set before ourselves. I had hoped that this Question would not have been asked for a few days, and that in that time I might have had further communication with the noble Lord the High Commissioner. As the matter now stands, I can only say that we shall use every means in our power to act upon any reasonable suspicion, and repatriate, as we are entitled to do under the Ordinance, any persons addicted to this practice. I mention this because there seems to be some doubt upon the matter. Of course the penalty which the law provides for the punishment of offences actually committed and detected will be rigorously enforced. I apologise to the House for inflicting upon it what has been to me, and what cannot fail to be to your Lordships, a painful statement, but we are anxious to conceal nothing which can be published with due regard to public decency, and I only hope that your Lordships, as the most rev. Primate has promised, will support His Majesty's Government in any action, however energetic, which they think the circumstances may call upon them to pursue.
LORD HARRIS: I have had some experience on the subject of labour in South Africa, and perhaps it will be expected that I should say a few words upon this subject, however distasteful it may be to have to open one's mouth upon it. Although I have no direct authority to speak for either of the groups of mining houses in South Africa, I am perfectly certain that I can speak on their behalf as well as on behalf of the

51
mining interests which I control, and I have no hesitation in saying that in every effort that the High Commissioner may make on the instructions of the noble Earl to stamp out this enormity, he will have the most cordial assistance of everyone connected with the mining industry. I think the noble Earl need not regret that he has been rather prematurely called upon to make this statement to-night, for although, of course, we accept implicitly his explanation that this Report is absolutely confidential, and that if anyone outside confidential circles has become apprised of its contents it must have been by a misuse of confidence, but it is a fact nevertheless, and it is unfortunate for the noble Earl, that certain newspapers representing his own Party allege that they have got copies of the Report, and upon the strength of that allegation they are making statements injurious to persons in positions of responsibility in South Africa. The allegations include the assertion that this crime is organised, systematised, and that perhaps what I may most shortly describe as "the professionals" are dressed in a particular way, and that they are moved about from mine to mine for the purpose. The last allegation I imagine must be untrue, because the Ordinance provides that these labourers cannot be moved about indiscriminately, and I take it from the noble Earl's statement to-night that these specific allegations which have been given such great publicity are incorrect. The Report tells us that the crime is so secret that it has been difficult to obtain the clear evidence, and therefore these allegations as regards the publicity of the crime are very improbable. One would hope that that immoral contamination which would flow from publicity has not yet been spread These are the inferences that one may draw from the statement that the noble Earl has made to-night. I join in every word of indignation that has been expressed in this House to-night, and most strongly emphasise the statement that it is impossible that such a state of things should be allowed to exist. Unfortunately one knows that it does exist wherever large communities of young men are brought together and where females are not present. The noble Earl always apprehended that this state of things might be discovered in the case of the Chinese in South Africa. I imagine that one might be apprehensive of finding it existing in
52
any very large community of young men in any part of the world, but I think it is a satisfaction to know that the noble Earl can say on the careful perusal of the Report that even amongst the Chinese themselves the crime is so shameful that it is kept as secret as possible. That I should hope bears out what Lord Redesdale said just now in support of the character of the Chinese as a nation. I hope that that means that it will be possible to enlist the proper feeling and right-mindedness of by far the greater part of that community in stamping out the evil, and that it will be possible to exclude absolutely from their ranks any portion of the contamination that exists.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: We are placed in some difficulty with regard to the discussion which has taken place in consequence of the interpellation of the most rev. Primate, for the facts which we are now discussing are not yet before us. We have heard this evening references to revelations which have lately been made. Of those revelations we, on this side of the House, are not aware. At the same time I am bound to say that when the noble Earl, the Secretary for the Colonies comes here and gives us his summary of the information before him, knowing his high character and sincerity, we accept that summary as being a correct and truthful account of the facts as he is aware of them. I gather from that summary that he is satisfied that this evil undoubtedly exists amongst the Chinese coolies. I heard him say, and I was glad to hear him say it, that some of the worst charges which had been made had not been substantiated. I think the expression he used was that the more scandalous of the malpractices had not been proved. We have been told that we who are now sitting on the Opposition benches and who were in favour of importing Chinese labour into Smith Africa ought to have anticipated that all these results would occur. As to that, all I have to say is that so far as we had any trustworthy data before us, they by no means justified that anticipation. Let me remind the House that there was— I cannot recall the exact date, for I was not prepared for this discussion, I think somewhere in the eighties—a Commission which inquired into the employment of Chinese labour in the province

53
of British Columbia. That inquiry was undertaken in consequence of assertions which had been freely made with regard to the conduct of Chinamen. I think I am right in saying—and the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—that that Commission found that the Chinese coolies in British Columbia were, upon the whole, a more moral and better conducted community than the European workmen employed in the same circumstances. I must say that I was glad when I heard Lord Redesdale get up and bear witness to the many high and valuable qualities for which the Chinese race are distinguished. Like my noble friend I have seen something of Chinamen in different parts of the world, and I have no hesitation in saying that as a general rule the Chinaman is a hard-working, frugal, and well-conducted citizen, and there are many British provinces which would not be in the splendid position they are in to-day if it had not been for the presence of Chinese labour in their midst. Of course, to speak quite frankly, we must have been aware that where a great number of celibate labourers—I do not care whether they are Chinamen or belonging to any other nationality—are gathered together there will be a certain amount of vice and immorality. But we had no reason whatever for supposing that that vice and immorality would be of the character which is now imputed to the Chinese community. Let me also remind the House that when this question was referred to in the debate on the Address at the beginning of the present session, and when His Majesty's Government had had therefore something like three months during which they might have considered the question, the attitude which they then assumed towards it was this: that the question of the employment of Chinese labour was one which might well be left to be dealt with by the responsible Government which was about to be accorded to the two Colonies. That shows that up to that point, at any rate, His Majesty's Government had no reason to believe that these imputations wore well founded. We now understand that there has been an inquiry conducted by a trusted officer appointed by Lord Selborne for that purpose; that that inquiry has disclosed the very grave condition of things to which the noble Earl has called attention. All we can
54
say is that if that is so we shall certainly, as far as our opportunities permit, give our support to His Majesty's Government in dealing energetically with this evil wherever it can be shown to exist. I hope I do not misunderstand the noble Earl when I gather that he told us that there had been no connivance on the part of the local officials. Is that so?
THE EARL OF ELGIN: I do not think that is imputed in the evidence.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am glad to hear that, because in the Reports which had been circulated on this subject it has been stated that there was evidence to show that there had been connivance upon the part of the officials. All I can say is that if any connivance could be brought home to them, I could conceive no measures too severe to deal with such a grave dereliction of duty. We shall so far as we can support His Majesty's Government in their efforts to stamp out this evil, wherever it can be found, and to that extent I am entirely in accord with what fell from the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 9:—
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to leave out the word "charitable" in the first sub-section and insert the word "educational." He said that Clause 9 enabled the local education authority to apply to the Commission established by this Bill if they desired to turn into a provided school any elementary school held under a charitable trust. Their Lordships were aware that the term "charitable trusts" was a very wide one, covering not only a trust for public elementary education but trusts for a great many other objects of public utility, such as public worship, Sunday instruction, the relief of the poor, and a vast number of other trusts of that sort. There were in the country a great many elementary schools, the trustees of which had an alternative

55
in their trusts. They might use the buildings and endowment either for a public elementary school or for other purposes such as Sunday schools or religious observances, or they might turn their buildings into almshouses and apply their funds to that purpose. Those alternative trusts were all charitable trusts, and therefore under this clause as it stood, trustees who had such an alternative trust could be brought before and be dealt with by the Commission. It was perfectly true that His Majesty's Government had more than once expressed clearly the view that trustees with an alternative trust ought not to have their endowments or buildings or school houses interfered with by the Commission. He would just read to the Committee a passage from one of Mr. Birrell's speeches—
"I thought I had made it plain that under the scope of this clause, only those schools could be compelled to permit the use of their premises for the purpose of a public elementary school when it was quite plain that that was the only way in which they could discharge their trust."
No language could be clearer than that. He also said that in the case of private owners and trustees, where there was an alternative trust, so far as the Bill was concerned, they would be free agents. Therefore, it was quite clear that in the mind of the Government, if those trustees were brought before the Commission, they ought to be set free, and be told that as they had an alternative trust their endowments could not be touched. If that was to be the result of bringing them before the Commission, why bring them before that tribunal at all? They might be trustees in Northumberland and Durham who were not provided with the means of locomotion, and why put them to the cost of making this defence? Surely it was only a sensible view that they should not use words in the Bill that would enable anybody to bring before the Commission trustees who were not liable to have their funds alienated and their school turned into a public elementary school. Therefore he thought this clause should be confined to educational trusts. If a trust gave the trustees no option but to supply elementary education, then they were proper subjects for the Commission to deal with. But it seemed to him a little cruel to expose to this liability trustees who had an alternative trust.
Amendment moved—
"In page 7, line 29. to leave out the word 'charitable' and insert the word 'educational.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he was desirous of obtaining more information about this clause from the Lord President of the Council. He wanted to know if his interpretation of the process which he and others who had built schools within the last eight or ten years in the slums of London would have to go through under this clause was correct or not. First of all, he understood that he would have to be taken before the Commission of three in case he did not wish to transfer his school. He then understood that if he wished to keep it as an elementary school he would have to give a guarantee for continuing that school for five years. He put it to their Lordships whether he had not a grievance in regard to that provision? To take a concrete instance of a perfectly new and very beautiful Church school which a few years ago out of their poverty they had built the middle of Bethnal Green for £8,000. Supposing he did not wish to transfer that school? He would be asked, first of all, to give a five years guarantee that he would be able to carry it on as a public elementary school. In a place like London a guarantee of that sort was a very serious thing indeed in a poor district. Even if he did give the five years guarantee the Commission, on looking into the matter, had power to say to him, "Well, on the whole, whether you like it or not, we consider your trust can be best carried out as a provided school"—in other words, that it must cease to be a Church school. In that case the large expenditure to which they had been put would be diverted to another purpose against his will. It might be said that they would be given rent for the school, but he would reply that they did not find that £8,000 to produce rent. If they had wanted a building to produce rent they would have selected a building suitable for a rubber or a boot factory, or spent their £8,000 upon something that would have brought them in a substantial monetary return. Then he looked about to see what rent he was going to get for that brand now school, and he found that the things which the Commission had to look to were four in number, all of which

57
were on the side of the local education authority and not on his side at all. The matters which the Commission had to have regard to were—
"(i) The grants or assistance, if any, received from public funds towards the building, enlargement, or improvement, or fitting up of the school-house;
"(ii) The limited nature of the user thereof by the local education authority;
"(iii) The facilities given therein for special religions instruction and the performance of the original trusts;
"(iv) The cost of maintenance and repair."
There was nothing to say that the Commissioners should consider in any way the fact that £8,000 had been spent on that school by a number of very poor people. It might be said, "Yes, but you will get facilities upon two days and perhaps more." But they did not build that school for facilities. They built it to have a school with a religious atmosphere in the middle of that large slum district, and it was an atmosphere that was so popular that the school was crowded with children from the first and had been crowded over since. His contention was that unless he had interpreted this clause wrongly that school, against the will of the owner, would be dragged down from being a Church school into being a provided school, and as far as he could see the owners would have no redress. That school was under a trust deed. He only gave it as an illustration, but there were thousands of similar cases all over the country. They had been encouraged by the Government to build those schools, and they had been told that if they erected them their maintenance would be placed upon public funds. He thought in the case of a school like the one he had mentioned they had a great grievance. In such cases there was a double trust, namely, the educational trust and a trust for teaching the children in the tenets of the Church of England. If the State made them break the religious part of the trust, was it right that they should make such educational use of it as they thought fit? Those beautiful schools were to be taken from them against their will. His grievance under the clause was that they were not permitted to keep such schools for the purposes for which they were built. If the clause was under consideration on
58
Monday, he should move the insertion of these words—
"Without prejudice to the exercise by the trustees of any discretion vested in them as to the application of the schoolhouse to some other charitable purpose."
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid the right rev. Prelate seemed to have passed on in his remarks to a later part of the clause. When they came to discuss the other portions he had two or three points which he would like to state. In the meantime the Amendment was to omit the word "charitable" and insert the word "educational." What he thought they were anxious to know from the Government was why they had chosen a wide word like "charitable," which included a great deal more than "educational," when, in reality, the schoolhouses had reference only to education. As they understood it, this Commission was to be established for the purpose of dealing with trusts connected with education, and education only.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Spointed out that what had been called alternative trusts were, in another place, called open trusts. The Minister for Education had said that alternative trusts referred to such oases as the Wesleyan schools, and he went on to say—
"He did not suppose that they would be brought before the Commission at all."
But the Attorney-General went further than that, and said—
"Open trusts, where there were large discretionary powers, would not, he should think, come within the scope of the clause."
He was sure the noble Earl would be glad to have an opportunity to explain this point upon which there seemed to have been some misunderstanding in regard to the statement made by one of the Law Officers of the Crown. He wished to know whether they were to take it that alternative and open trusts were not trusts at all. He did not venture to suggest the course the noble Earl and the Government should take, but he thought their Lordships would agree with him that it would be well if that matter were cleared up, because from what had been said in another place the point was by no means clear at present.
LORD BARNARDsaid he was sorry to differ from the Earl of Camperdown and Viscount Llandaff upon this point. The term "charitable trusts" was used very deliberately. It was a term well understood in law, and even if the clause was limited to "educational trusts," they would still remain "charitable trusts." It should not be forgotten that this Bill dealt only with schoolhouses and property subject to educational trusts. If the property which Viscount Llandaff alluded to was not subject to a trust for education at all, it would not come within the purview of the Bill, and therefore it could not be treated as an alternative trust. That was a matter, however, which had better be dealt with later in the clause. He was not altogether in accord with His Majesty's Government upon the Bill, but on this point he felt quite clear that the words "charitable trusts" were used correctly and ought to be retained in the Bill.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence in dealing with a point which in the main is really a point of law. When I alluded to certain legal aspects of this measure on the Second Reading, the noble Earl was not in his place, but the late Lord Chancellor twitted me with having rather rashly stepped within those precincts. I can assure you that I approach those dreadful precincts on tiptoe, and I am prepared to run away whenever any learned and noble Earl raises an intricate legal point. But after all, these matters have to be dealt with by the votes of laymen, and laymen will have to play a considerable part in the administration of this clause. Consequently although in a very crude and imperfect manner, I hope I may be able to excite in the minds of those who are as ignorant as I am some perceptions of a kindred nature. The single point raised by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord on the cross benches is that we have used the term "charitable trusts" instead of "educational trusts." But Lord Barnard has indicated in the main the reasons which induced the Government to insert the word "charitable" instead of "educational." So far as this clause is concerned, it may be the case that the word actually used does not very greatly matter. The
60
Bishop of London has asked me to indicate what the process would be when a school came before the Commission. What happens is this. Under Clause 1 any school which is not a provided school receives neither rate nor grant. Therefore, every school which is subject to a charitable trust has to consider whether its trust can be carried on or not. It may be carried on as the right rev. Prelate indicated by being turned into a certified efficient school, but I will not attempt to deal with the reason which induced us to say that a five years guarantee would be necessary for that purpose. Consequently, owing to the provisions of the Bill, all schools subject to trusts are liable to go before the Commission. If it is found that the trust is of an alternative character, and of the kind mentioned by the noble Viscount, the Commission will be able to declare that fact and authorise the trustees to carry out their trusts in an alternative way. When the right rev. Prelate complains that the Commission may have to consider what is the best mode of giving effect to the trust, and expresses the fear that it might always mean the turning of the school into a provided school, I must ask him to look at the top of the same page of the Bill where he will find it stated that—
"The Commission shall act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exercising as the successors of the Court of Chancery the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court."
It is perfectly obvious that if there is really an alternative the Commission would give the trustees the option of exercising that trust as a matter of course and acting on behalf of the Court of Chancery. Consequently, when "the best mode" is spoken of it means the best mode subject to the principles of the Court of Chancery. Viscount Llandaff said it was a hardship that these people should go before the Commissioners at all, but they must go before somebody unless they are prepared to carry on their school as a certified efficient school without public funds.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF: But they have an alternative trust?
THE EARL OF CREWE: But surely someone must approve a scheme on which an alternative trust can be exercised, or otherwise anyone could bring the

61
trustees before the Court for not exercising their trust in a proper manner.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: They might make an arrangement under Clause 2.
THE EARL OF CREWE: That is perfectly true. I would, however, draw attention to the first words of the clause, which state—
"Where the school house of an existing voluntary school is held under charitable trusts and no arrangement has been made with respect to schoolhouse under this Act."
If no arrangement has been made the school cannot be carried on. It has been said that these parties should appear before the Commission and have their trusts examined in order to see if they are of an alternative nature, and then they would be free to carry them out. These trusts are of a most various character, and they contain all manner of provisions. There are a number of Roman Catholic trusts which allow alienation from educational to other purposes. Those will be dismissed by the Commissioners if the trustees choose to carry out their trusts in another way. On the other hand, there are declaratory trusts, where a declaration of trust has been made in quite recent years after a long-continued user of the schools as elementary schools. That applies where the schools are now declared primarily to exist as Roman Catholic elementary schools, and secondly, for charitable purposes. Whether those schools would be allowed to go free and select the other alternative would, of course, be a matter which the Commission would have to decide.
As to mixed trusts as distinct from alternative trusts, and where the purpose for which each part of the trust is to be used is clear, I do not know what the noble Viscount would suggest; but I ask whether it would not be a convenience if mixed trusts could be dealt with as a whole by the Commission in one scheme, instead of obliging the trustees to come before the Commission, and probably before the Charity Commissioners or the Court, to got a fresh scheme for the other part. That would be a convenience for the trustees. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the Commission from making a complete
62
scheme for the whole trust if the trustees desired it. No one suggests, I should imagine, that the Commission would do anything of this kind against the will of the trustees. I think the question of the interference of the Court of Chancery arises on a later Amendment, and therefore I will not attempt to deal with it now. As regards the insertion of the word "educational" instead of ''charitable," we adhere to our belief that the word "charitable" is the better word to use. I do not think that the insertion of the word "educational" would make any practical difference so far as Clause 9 is concerned, although I might have something to say on a later clause upon which the noble Viscount again wishes to make a change. I hope the Committee will take the opinion of Lord Barnard on these matters in addition to the opinion of His Majesty's Government, and I appeal to the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid it appeared to him that the noble Earl had not confined himself to the first Amendment, but had dealt more or less with the general scheme of the clause. The first suggestion made by his noble friend was that "charitable" was not the proper word to use, and that a better word would be "educational." He looked upon that as a complement to the scheme of the Bill, because the words used in Clause 2 were "charitable trusts." They started with the words "charitable trusts," and they gave the owners of a schoolhouse with charitable trusts the power of making an arrangement. This clause was the complement of that proposal, and it provided that where a schoolhouse, subject to such a trust, had not made an arrangement, then the Commissioners would come in and deal with the school which had not been dealt with in the way laid down under Clause 2. He would prefer that, on the Report stage, that that idea should be considered in reference to the two clauses. It would be convenient to deal with the point upon a later clause, and he hoped his noble friend would allow that part of his Amendment to stand over until the next stage of the Bill.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sgathered from the noble Earl's reply that

63
the statement made by the Attorney- General was not the view taken by the noble Earl himself. The Attorney-General had said that an alternative trust would not come before the Commission at all, but he gathered from the reply which had just been given that that was not so. He understood that where there was an alternative trust the trustees had a discretion, but it appeared to him that this proviso took away that discretion from the trustees and vested it in the Commission of Three.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division, but he would like the noble Earl to consider seriously whether this provision was not inflicting a hardship on trustees who had an alternative trust. Supposing in the case of a mixed trust part of the funds had to be devoted to public elementary education and part to providing almshouses for old people: under this Bill they might bring those trustees before the Commission and the whole endowment might be devoted to the purposes of public elementary education, which would clearly be wrong. His view was that they took the educational trusts and the trusts that were not educational, and turned the schools held under both into public elementary schools, and he thought that was a hardship.
THE EARL OF CREWE: There is no reason why the Commission should do that any more than the Court of Chancery or the Charity Commissioners.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid he thought the Commission would be quite free from the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to insert words giving power to "the owners of the school-house," as well as the local authority, to apply to the Commission to make a scheme with respect to the mode in which effect is to be given to the trusts of the schoolhouse in the future.
Amendment moved—
"In page, 7 line 31, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'or the owners of the schoolhouse.'"—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CREWE: I regard the Amendment as consequential on what your Lordships have done in an earlier part of the Bill, and I offer no opposition, but I guard myself from being supposed to be an assenting party to the whole scheme of which the present Amendment is a part.
LORD ASHBOURNEpointed out that this was not a consequential Amendment. It might be that the owners were unable to make an arrangement because the local education authority would not meet them in a way which they thought reasonable. The Amendment would allow the owners to appeal to the Commission for a fair arrangement.
THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, but it is more or less consequential upon what has been done earlier in the Bill.
VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved the omission of paragraph (a) from sub-section 2. He said that nothing was more emphatically asserted in the House of Commons than that this Commission was going to act upon the principles of the Court of Chancery. That was the answer made whenever the large powers of the Commission were complained of. It was said that the Commission was to be instituted because the Court of Chancery would not have time to deal with the large number of voluntary schools which would have to be dealt with, and so the Government said they would appoint some eminent men to act as a kind of chapel-at-ease to the Court of Chancery, and it was stated distinctly that they would be guided by the principles of the Court of Chancery. Nothing could be more satisfactory than that, but those words were now followed by other provisos which introduced matters quite contrary to the principles of the Court of Chancery. There was the requirement that the owners of a school should give a guarantee for its effective continuance during the period of at least five years. He did nut think any noble and learned Lord would assert that that was one of the principles upon which the Court of Chancery would ever dream of acting; they never would impose upon trustees conducting public elementary schools as a going concern a condition that they should give a guarantee

65
for the effective continuance of a school for five years. Such a principle was unknown in the Court of Chancery. What had happened in this Bill was that a broad principle had been laid down, and then it was followed by exceptions which completely destroyed the Bill, Paragraph (b) was still more contrary to the principles of the Court of Chancery. The effect of that sub-section would be to enable the Commissioners to take a school of which the trust was denominational, and which had been built for the very object of carrying on denominational teaching of a certain kind, and make a scheme which they considered would be the best mode of giving effect to the trust. They might take such a school and twist it into a Cowper-Temple school unless the trustees were prepared to give a guarantee to maintain the school for five years. To whom the guarantee was to be given he did not know, neither did he know what shape it was to take because the question was left vague and at the good pleasure of the Court. How were they going to get the humble subscribers to the right rev. Prelate's school in Bethnal Green, which cost £8,000, subscribed in half-crowns and sovereigns, to give a guarantee that they would continue their subscriptions for five years? He contended that the requirement of such a guarantee was a thing unknown to the Court of Chancery, and he begged to move the omission of paragraph (a).
Amendment moved—
"In page 8, line 4, to leave out from the word 'Court' to the end of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2)."—(Viscount Llandaff.)
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in supporting the Amendment, said the case was much stronger than had been made out by the noble Viscount. The Act laid down that the Commissioners—
"Shall not treat a proposal to carry on an elementary school as a proper mode of giving effect to the trusts of the school-house unless sufficient guarantee is given for the effective continuance of the school for a period of at least five years."
It did not even say that if the guarantee were given they could carry on the school. Whether they gave the guarantee or not it did not follow that the school would be carried on; at least that was his conclusion after reading paragraph (b).
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Sthought a good deal of significance attached to the word "but." It did not appear to him that paragraph (a) under sub-section (2) was in accordance with the principles of the Court of Chancery. Why should trustees who desired to carry on their trusts not be allowed to do so, even if they were willing—simply because they could not give an undertaking to carry on the school for five years? Sir Henry Craik, who spoke with great authority upon this Bill, had said deliberately that this condition was one which it was impossible for trustees to fulfil. Therefore he hoped the noble Earl would be able to tell them that this was a point to which His Majesty's Government were prepared to give further consideration. A very strong feeling had been raised by it, and he looked upon it as a proposal which violated the very rudiments of liberty. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to assure the Committee on this point, because a great many people considered it most objectionable and inequitable.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELDsaid there were one or two points which had not been made quite clear to the Committee. He wished to know what kind of schools could be carried on under this guarantee. Would it include a certified efficient school or a State-aided school? He wished to know what was the exact meaning of "a sufficient guarantee." Did it mean that the trustees would be obliged to produce a guarantee to provide a certain amount of funds for five years, or would the assurance of certain persons be considered sufficient without laying down a certain sum of money? It was important they should know these things before voting for this clause, because it seemed a very cruel thing that schools should be abruptly stopped from carrying out their trusts.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I want to ask why it is that His Majesty's government are not content to leave the Commission to be guided by the principles of the Court of Chancery? What they do in effect is that they begin by laying down that the Commission is to follow the principles of the Court of Chancery, and then they proceed to enumerate a number of considerations which the

67
Commission is to take into account. With regard to those considerations, it occurs to me that most of them are considerations which, without any special guidance, would be present to the minds of the Commission; and, in the next place, the considerations singled out are of a one-sided character, and all of them adverse to the owners, while no other considerations which conceivably might have operated in another direction find a place in the clause.
THE EARL OF CREWE: This proposal has evidently caused a considerable degree of criticism on the part of noble Lords opposite and many right rev. Prelates. Perhaps my best plan is to state briefly what the position of a school under these circumstances is. This is a trust school, and if the educational character of the charity is proved, unless it is made the subject of an arrangement, it loses the whole of its State support both from the rates and from grants. Noble Lords may say that that is a scandalous thing to do, and that we have no right to treat schools in this way. That, however, is a semi-political question, and I only mention it to make it clear that that is what legally would occur under the Bill. The right rev. Prelate says that that is a great shame, because the school has been carried on with the aid of grants, but I would remind the right rev. Prelate that it is not a one-sided arrangement. It is at least equally true to say that the grants were allowed by the State on the payment of subscriptions, and that when the subscriptions were not adequate the bargain failed. Suppose the school having lost its rates and grants is penniless and it comes before the Commission in that form. I respect the opinion of the noble Viscount, but I should certainly have thought that if a school in that condition was going before the Court of Chancery for a scheme, which is what it would have to do, a mere statement that it was going to be carried on as a certified efficient school would not have been enough for any Court, and they would have said when a scheme was asked for, "You must show us how you are going to carry on the school as a certified efficient school." A general statement that the owners were going to carry on a school by private funds would certainly not be taken as the groundwork of a scheme which the Court would have to
68
prepare. The Bishop of Wakefield asked me whether such a school could become a State-aided school. The answer to that is "Certainly not," because if the right rev. Prelate looks at the Bill he will see that various processes have to be gone through before schools can become Stateaided schools, and it would be impossible for the trustees to foresee those conditions and to prophesy that the school would fulfil the conditions required of a State-aided school. What is meant by this is a certified efficient school. Then it is said that it is a monstrous hardship to require that it should be carried on under a guarantee for five years. Apparently it has not occurred to noble Lords and right rev. Prelates what the obvious reason of this provision is. It seems to be assumed that it is due to some sort of animosity against the religiously conducted schools. What has been in the mind of the Government is a consideration which, unluckily, we have not heard as much of as we ought to have heard during the last few days, owing to the necessities of the case. What was in the mind of the Government is a purely educational consideration. It is obvious that, if people are tempted by a desire to keep these schools going, they may hold a vain hope that they might be able to carry them on as certified efficient schools without rate or grant. That would happen in proportion to the fervour and keenness of those interested in the schools, and the enthusiastic and hopeful would try to persuade themselves and others that the money would be found. Perhaps it would not be found, and the school would necessarily go down. It would then be badly conducted, the children would suffer, and, after all, probably they would have to come for a scheme. That is the simple reason why this provision has been inserted; and if it is struck out I should consider that the Bill suffered severely. The question of the guarantee will be left to the Commissioners to decide. I think it is evident that they would demand something more than a mere friendly assurance that the money would be found; they would demand some distinct assurance that the subscriptions would be forthcoming for the term of five years.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid their Lordships would realise what an extraordinary and difficult

69
thing it would be to give a guarantee for five years in a poor district with a shifting population, and he could not see why anything like a period of five years should be required at all. It did not take five years to make the necessary changes, and this guarantee would be prohibitory in many cases. He protested against the noble Earl's assertion that subscriptions had fallen off. As a matter of fact they had doubled, while the expense of education had increased something like four or five times. It would be an almost intolerable thing to expect that the subscriptions should be maintained in proportion to the constantly rising cost of education.
EARL CAWDORsaid that the clause provided that the Commission should abide by the rules of the Court of Chancery, and he could not understand why these one-sided conditions had been inserted. The noble Earl said it was necessary that the guarantee should be for five years, but surely that was a point which the Court of Chancery ought to take into consideration? It appeared to him that the more reasonable course would be to leave the Commission to abide by the rules of the Court of Chancery.
LORD FITZMAURICEthought noble Lords had forgotten the interests of the ratepayers and of the local authority. There must be some security for what the local authority might be called upon to undertake in the future, and it was surely a rational thing that a period should be laid down within which the guarantee was to operate. As to the increase of subscriptions, he did not underrate the efforts made either in the past or now by sincere Churchmen, but he asked how it had come about that since 1902 the whole annual maintenance of Church schools had been thrown upon the county or borough funds? He failed to see under those circumstances how there could be any call upon Church subscribers for the upkeep of those schools. He knew they had to keep up the structural repair of the schools, but they had to do that before.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid the argument of the Lord President of the Council was that the whole circumstances had changed by the falling off of the subscriptions. He was speaking of what had happened during
70
the last decade, and he was speaking in general terms. The position had been affected very much since 1902, but it was quite a misapprehension, and a common one outside, to take simply the percentage of the proportion of the cost of education as a whole and then say that the Church subscriptions had fallen off. It was true that the subscriptions were bearing a smaller proportion to the cost of education than they used to, but they were very much larger in amount, and wore not smaller than in the decade immediately preceding.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYpointed out that these schools must be certified efficient schools. He thought it would be better if the clause ran "unless the proprietors give an undertaking to conduct their school as a certified efficient school." The great mass of Church of England schools were held under the trust deeds of the National Society, which provided for the education of the children in the principles of the Church of England. He thought it was only fair that whore there was a wish to keep on the school they should have the right to do so, and they would be giving complete effect to the trust if they undertook to maintain their school as a certified efficient school. If the words he suggested were put in the people who undertook to manage a school would do so at their own risk, and the local authority would have a prompt remedy if they did not fulfil their trust, because the school would have to be inspected by the Government Inspector.
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped that the Government would consider the suggestion which had been thrown out by the noble Lord opposite. The five years guarantee was a serious matter, but to undertake to maintain the school as a certified efficient school was quite a different thing, and one which, he thought, might fairly be considered by the Government.
THE EARL OF CREWE: As regards this suggestion, I do not know whether it has occurred to my noble friend that the practical difficulty which we have to meet is not overcome by his suggestion. There would be nothing to prevent a large number of schools declaring their

71
intention to become certified efficient schools and not remaining efficient long, and that, of course, would not carry out the object of the Bill.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that surely the Government could trust their own Commission in this matter not to allow a school to continue unless the conditions were reasonable. They called
House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.
a Commission into existence and gave it great powers, and then they fettered the Commissioners all through with conditions as to how they should carry out those powers.
On Question, "That paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) stand part of the clause," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 30; Not-contents, 91.

CONTENTS.

Crewe, E. (L. President.)

Temple, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Lyveden, L.

Manchester, D.

Brassey, L.

Reay, L.

Burghclere, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Coleridge, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Courtney of Penwith, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

Carrington, E.

Denman, L. [Teller.]

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Chesterfield, E.

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

Tweedmouth, L.

Chichester, E.

Wandsworth, L

Craven, E.

Fitzmaurice, L.

Weardale, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Haversham, L.

Welby, L.

Russell, E.

Headley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Radnor, E.

Barrymore, L.

Stamford, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Stanhope, E.

Blythswood, L.

Newcastle, D.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Braye, L.

Northumberland, D.

Wharncliffe, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Richmond and Gordon, D.

Yarborough, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Somerset, D.

Clinton, L.

Cobham, V.

Colchester, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Colville of Culross, V.

De Mauley, L.

Bath, M.

Falkland, V.

Estcourt, L.

Camden, M.

Falmouth, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Exeter, M.

Halifax, V.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Hertford, M.

Hill, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lansdowne, M.

Llandaff, V.

Harris, L.

Winchester, M.

St. Aldwyn, V.

Hastings, L.

Hylton, L.

Abingdon, E.

Bangor, L. Bp.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Camperdown, E.

Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Cathcart, E.

Birmingham, L. Bp.

Knaresborough, L.

Cawdor, E.

Chester, L. Bp.

Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

Dartrey, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Leith of Fyvie, L.

Denbigh, E.

Lincoln, L. Bp.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Devon, E.

London, L. Bp.

Newton, L.

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

Oxford, L. Bp.

North, L.

St. David's, L. Bp.

Rathmore, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Guilford, E.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Seaton, L.

Haddington, E.

Stalbridge, L.

Kilmorey, E.

Abinger, L.

Waleran, L.

Lichfield, E.

Addington, L.

Wolverton, L.

Londesborough, E.

Ampthill, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

Barnard, L.

House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.