Sitting of 29 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Selkirk, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Scroton, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: From Benington; and Sutterton; to lie upon the Table.
  INDO-CHINESE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  Petition from Wilmslow, for suppression; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.
  Petition from Cuckfield, for extension to women; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION OF TEACHERS.
  Petition from Leeds, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CONVOCATIONS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK (LETTERS OF BUSINESS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 24th October; Mr. Paul]; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING (CONVICTIONS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 1st November; Mr. H. H. Marks]; to lie upon the Table.

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th November; Mr. McKenna];

  269
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 366.]

  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1888 AND 1894.
  Copy presented, of Ninth. Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under Section 31 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, including Proceedings upon Complaints made under Section 1 of the The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 367.]
  RADIOTELEGRAPHIC CONVENTION.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 15th November; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 368.]

  INCOME TAX.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence and an Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 365.]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Duties of Richmond (Surrey) Postal Staff.
  MR.CAVE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the indoor staff at Richmond, Surrey, are still liable to split duties and extended hours of attendance, although last July a revision was stated to be under consideration; and whether he can now state when this revision will be put into force.
  (Answered by Mr. Sidney Buxton.) I have approved a revision of the indoor force at Richmond, and it will be carried out as soon as possible. It will then be possible to reduce the number of split duties and the range of attendance.

  Shrewsbury Post Office Staff.
  MR. HENRY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided to reduce the telegraph staff at Shrewsbury by two males, on the
  270
  ground that the decrease of work makes this step necessary; and whether he will state why it is necessary at the same time to advertise for three female telegraphists, to be stationed at this office.
  [Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) In consequence of the decrease of telegraph work at Shrewsbury it was found possible to afford assistance which was needed on the postal side, by transferring two male sorting clerks and telegraphists from the telegraph force. No additional female telegraphists are required at present; and none have been advertised for.

  Local Education Authority and Head-mastership of Aberdare Town National Schools.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the local education authority in respect of the Aberdare town national schools; whether the authority declined to confirm the appointment of a head teacher for the school until the 14th November, although they were informed of a vacancy in the office before the end of July, and though the name of the teacher whose appointment they subsequently confirmed was submitted to them on the 3rd September; and whether they have declined to pay the salary of the head teacher allowed before the 14th November, and have now fixed his salary at a lower scale than that which they adopt for head teachers in their council schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I had not heard of the case until my attention was called to it by the hon. Baronet's question. From investigations I have now made it would appear that the answer to the various paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative, except that I have not sufficient information before me to enable me to form a judgment as to how the salary fixed by the local authority compares with those paid to head teachers in the council schools.

  Legacy and Succession Duty Accounts.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that legacy and succession duty accounts, and the head office querie

  271
  relating to them, were formerly passed through local distributors of stamps, many of whom being collectors of Inland Revenue to whom the duty was paid; will he state why this arrangement was altered to one by which accounts may be sent direct to Somerset House through the post office, the queries from the head office sent direct to interested parties without passing through the hands of any Government official possessing local knowledge, and the duties arising from the accounts remitted direct to Somerset House; will he say whether this system is still in force; and has he considered the possibilities for evasion such a system presents.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The present system has been in operation since 1878. I believe that the reasons for the change then made were economy and simplification of administration. The arrangement does not prevent the Board of Inland Revenue from obtaining full advantage of the local knowledge pos-83ssed by their officers in the districts, to whom reference is made when necessity arises.

  Consular Service—Examination and Conditions of Entry-
  MR. YOXALL. To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the fact that of 200 applicants for examination for appointments as vice-consul only three candidates with commercial experience presented themselves on the last occasion, is largely explained by the facts that only one vacancy was offered to such candidates and that it would have been necessary for them to attend an examination lasting a week and to pay a fee of £4; whether any steps had been taken, except immediately prior to the examination, to make known the new conditions of entry to the consular service among the class of young business men whom the Committee of 1903 especially desired to attract; whether any action is to be taken to give effect to the opinion of the Committee of 1903, in paragraph 3 of Section 6 of the Report, to the effect that nominations should eventually be confined to candidates possessing some business experience; and whether, in
  272
  view of the fact that since the adoption of the scheme based on the Committee's proposals only one vacany out of thirteen has been so filled, he will take into consideration the desirability of offering all or most of the vacancies which occur in the future to candidates with commercial experience, and of making the announcement and conditions of examination arranged more widely known in commercial circles than is the case at present.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) Two out of the five vacancies known before the consular examination were reserved for commercial candidates, but, as only one competitor qualified, the second vacany reverted to the general candidates. With regard to the steps taken to make known that commercial candidates would be welcomed, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on this subject on the 12th instant † The fact that 200 applications from commercial candidates were received would in itself appear to be sufficient proof of the success of these efforts. Paragraph 3 of Section 6 of the Report of the Committee of 1903 does not recommend that nominations should eventually be confined to commercial candidates, neither do I consider that such a course would benefit the public service. The duties of consuls are not restricted to commercial matters, though all who enter the consular service work at the Board of Trade before taking up posts, in order to get some insight into commercial requirements. Though it is hoped that commercial candidates will continue to compete at consular examinations, and that they will be successful in obtaining a proportion of the vacancies, it would be manifestly unfair to admit men already provided with a livelihood into the service on any other terms than those of perfect equality with the ordinary candidate, who spends much time and money in preparing himself for the profession which he has selected. I am under the impression that the announcement and conditions of examination are made widely known, but I am ready to consider any suggestion for doing this which has, not yet been adopted.
  † See (4) Debates, clxiv, 1019.

  Shipping Combine at Singapore.
  MR. WALKER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to official evidence on the subject being given before the Royal Commission upon Shipping Freights, he will call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the statements in the latest Colonial Report from the Straits Settlements regarding the injurious effects of the action of a combination of shipowners upon the trade of Singapore.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Any information in the possession of the Colonial Office on the subject will, of course, be communicated to the Board of Trade.

  Civil Servants and Private Occupations.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines are permitted to carry on any private business during their tenure of office.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Inspectors of Mines are subject in this matter to the general rules applying to all officers of the Civil Service. No officer is allowed to accept any office which would be liable to take him away from, or interfere with the discharge of, his official duties. In particular it is provided by the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, that no officer shall be allowed to accept any part in the management of any society, or any trading, commercial, or financial company which would require the attendance of such officer at any time between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.

  Inland Revenue Entry Forms Nos. 103, 103a and 103b.
  MR. O'SHEE: To aske the Secretary to the Treasury under what regulations of the Inland Revenue are the entry forms, Nos. 103, 103a, 103b, required to be filled up and signed by persons or corporations engaged on the retail licensed trade; when were these regulations made; what object the filling up and signing of the forms now serves; whether the rooms specified by a licensed trader as those in which he stores or
  274
  retails beer, wines, and spirits, may or may not correspond with his licensed premises; and whether, in case the rooms specified form only a part of the premises which are licensed, the trader is liable to any penalty under the Inland Revenue Acts for storing or retailing in other rooms included in the licensed premises but not specified in the entry form?
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The entry forms in question are required by The Spirits Act, 1880, and other enactments going back as far as the year 1795 The main object is to provide a system of registration of the responsible owners of the business, of the premises occupied, and of the rooms set apart for specific purposes. The whole of the premises licensed must be specified in the entry. Whether a penalty would be incurred in the circumstances suggested depends upon the statutory provision applicable to the particular business carried on.

  Visits of Vice-Consuls to Trade Centres.
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the suggestion which has been referred to him by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that newly-appointed vice-consuls should, prior to their leaving for their posts abroad, be enabled to visit the chief commercial and manufacturing centres in the United Kingdom, particularly those connected by trade with the consular districts to which they are to proceed, he will communicate with the chambers of commerce in such centres with a view to facilities being afforded for the vice-consuls to visit representative manufacturing establishments and to become better acquainted, by personal intercourse with the chambers of commerce, manufacturers, and traders, with the kind of consular information which those bodies and classes consider of most value?
  (Answered by Mr. LIoyd-Greorge.) I propose to consult the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence on the suggestion of my hon. friend. As at present advised I am disposed to attach more importance to making arrangements for consular officers already appointed to various districts abroad and possessing knowledge and experience of

  275
  of those districts to pay visits, when in the United Kingdom, to the chief commercial and manufacturing centres connected by trade with their consular districts. In several cases the Board of Trade, in co-operation with the Foreign Office, have arranged visits of this kind, with useful results, and I hope that it will be possible to extend the system. Newly-appointed consular officers spend some weeks in the Commercial Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade before proceeding to their posts.

  Filling of Vacancies in His Majesty's Dockyards.
  MR. ERNEST LAMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty that vacancies at the top rates of pay may be filled as they occur in His Majesty's dockyards.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) It is the custom now to do so.

  Deaths from Cancer in London.
  MR. B. S. STRAUS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he could give him any information as to the districts in London where deaths from cancer are most prevalent.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I do not think I can add anything to the information on this subject given as respects each registration district in London in the Reports of the Registrar-General. I may, however, state that the Registrar-General would be happy to see my hon. friend with regard to the matter, if he would make an appointment with him for the purpose.

  Medical Belief to Destitute Married Women.
  MR. BENNETT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the duty of guardians of the poor to give medical relief to destitute married women, when necessary, before, at, and after confinement, on their own application, just as much as to destitute single women under the like circumstances.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The reply is in the affirmative.

  Children in Islington Workhouse.
  MR. H. J. WILSON (Yorkshire, W.R., Holmforth): To ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to a report made by an assistant inspector, in July last, regarding the children in the St. John's Road Workhouse of the Islington Board of Guardians, which states that the number of children over three years old normally in the workhouse appeared regrettably large; that recently there were nearly sixty such children, and that there appeared to be rarely less than thirty who remain in the workhouse from a fortnight to three weeks or a month; that there were no means of separating the children from the adults, or of instructing, amusing, or supervising them; and that some of the boys slept at night on the floor in a room in which were adult in-mates; and if he will state what steps have been taken to remedy this state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the report referred to, and have been in communication with the guardians on the subject. I am glad to say that the latest figures I have seen show that, in the week ended on the 24th inst., there were only thirteen children above three years of age in the workhouse. Some new buildings are being erected there and are nearly completed. I am assured that when they can be used better arrangements will be made for the children. I will not lose sight of the matter.

  "The Times" Report of the British Indians in the Transvaal Deputation.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the report of the proceedings of the deputation on behalf of British Indians in the Transvaal on Thursday 22nd November, which appeared in The Times on Friday, was communicated to The Times by any official of the India Office; and, if so, seeing that no reporters of the Press were allowed to be present, and that the impression of the members of the deputation was that the proceedings were intended to be confidential, why this report was communicated to The Times and not to those

  277
  organs of the Press which are supporters of His Majesty's Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The report was not communicated to The Times by or with the authority of any official of the India Office.

  Condition of the Ballinamore Canal.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the present derelict condition of the Ballinamore Canal from the Shannon to the Erne; is there any section of the canal at present available for the passage even of small boats; who has the charge of the canal, and is any person responsible for its upkeep as a canal; and was the canal constructed with public money.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that the navigation was constructed at a cost of £228,652, of which £198,652 was a free grant from the public Exchequer. The remainder, £30,000, was repaid by the counties of Leitrim, Cavan, Roscommon, and Fermanagh. The navigation was vested in trustees called the trustees of the Ballinamore and Bally-connell Navigation. It was abandoned by them in 1865 owing to absence of trade. I have no means of ascertaining whether any part is navigable by email boats.

  Tolls on Vessels navigating the Shannon.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any tolls are charged to vessels navigating the Shannon between Limerick and Carrick-on-Shannon; will he state the number of boats, other than pleasure-boats or steamers for excursionists, which passed through the Athlone lock in the present year, if any record is kept; and has he received any representations from traders in Carrick-on-Shannon or elsewhere complaining of the navigation charges or tolls.
  (Anewered by Mr. McKenna.) I am informed that (1) Tolls are charged on the Shannon Navigation on vessels passing between Limerick and Carrick-on-Shannon in accordance with the schedule to The Canal Tolls and Charges Act, 1894
  278
  57 and 58 Vic., c. 206). Tolls are not charged in respect of the lakes forming part of the navigation, though those lakes are buoyed and marked at considerable expense to the navigation funds. (2) From the records kept it appears that the number of boats and steamers that passed through Athlone lock from 1st January, 1906, to 25th November, 1906, exclusive of pleasure boats and excursion steamers, was 1,129. (3) No representations from traders in Carrick-on-Shannon or elsewhere have been received by the Board of Works complaining of the navigation charges and tolls.

  Fair-Rent Cases pending in Tralee District.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of cases pending in the district of Tralee to have fair rents fixed before the Land Commission; and whether he can state about what time the next sitting of the Land Commission will take place at Tralee.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that there are thirty-five cases from the district of Tralee in which the applications to fix fair rents have not yet been listed for hearing. These were all received since the commencement of the present year. A list for hearing, containing cases from the district in question, will probably be | issued in the early part of next year, but no definite date has yet been arranged for the Tralee sitting.

  Purchase of the Doonis and Marara Estates, County Westmeath.
  MR. HEDGES: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present position of the negotiations for the purchase of the estates belonging to Mr. Thomas Manly, and known as the Doonis and Marara Estates, Ballymahon, county Westmeath, the agreement for the sale of which is dated 2nd May, 1905; and whether he can give any information as to the probable date of completion.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements in respect of the estate in

  279
  question have been lodged with them. The estate has not yet been inspected, and the Commissioners are unable, at the present stage of the proceedings, to state when the sale may be completed.

  Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the precise condition whereby the grant from the Exchequer of £150,000 was made to the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund; what is the total amount that the 7,000 subscribers pay annually to this, and what is the yearly disbursement; and whether, when the present subscribers have disappeared, the remaining balance will be surrendered to the Exchequer.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The grant from the Exchequer of £150,000 to the Constabulary Force Fund was made on condition, inter alia, that the fund should be strictly appropriated to the discharge of the liabilities already incurred, and that, if the grant should prove more than sufficient to satisfy the solvency of the fund, the surplus should be returned to the Exchequer. The hon. Member will find full particulars of the matter in Parliamentary Paper, No. 118, of-1891. In the year 1905-6 the amount recived from subscribers was £6,957, and the amount of the disbursements was £13,759. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the affirmative.

  Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill
  SIR E. CARSON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Town Tenants (Ireland) Bill is intended to apply to lands held from the Crown on which houses or other buildings have been or may be erected; and, if so, whether it is his intention "to move to re-commit the Bill with a view to inserting a clause making the matter clear.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Crown is not named in the Town Tenants Bill, and I am advised that the property of the Crown will not be bound by that Bill if It should become law. Neither the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1870, nor any of the subsequent Acts conferring rights
  280
  upon the tenants in Ireland, is made to apply to Crown Lands, and I am advised that there is no reason why an exception should be made in the case of the Town Tenants Bill.

  Annuity of Sergeant Drummer W. Cocking, late 1st Wiltshire Regiment.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a communication from Mr. George A. Doran, J.P., of Belfast pleading for an annuity and medal on behalf of Sergeant Drummer W. Cocking late 1st Wiltshire Regiment and whether seeing that the reply was a copy of a stereotyped letter exactly the same as was sent to the officer commanding the 1st Battalion Wiltshire Regiment on the 24th May, 1893, he will reconsider the case of this old soldier with a view of making the award he claims being entitled to.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) My attention has been drawn to this case. Sergeant Drummer Cocking is not "entitled" to the annuity and medal but he is eligible for it. A certain amount of money is allotted to each regiment, and the claims of candidates can only be considered when a vacancy occurs through the death of an annuitant. The fact of registering a man's name as eligible does not ensure his eventual selection, as there are many applicants and few opportunities of appointment.

  Petition to Disallow the Natal Indemnity Act.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that on the 3rd September last a petition was received by the Clerk of the Privy Council praying the disallowance of an Act of the Natal Parliament called The Indemnity Act, 1906, and a reference of the petition, for hearing proof and report, to the Judicial Committee, pursuant to Section 4 of 3 and 4 William 4, c. 41; that on the 9th October, 1906, a reply was made by the Council that no petition on the subject lies to His Majesty in Council, as it is for the Secretary of State for the Colonies to advise His Majesty with regard to the exercise of his power of disallowance of Acts of a Colonial Legislature assented

  281
  to by the Governor, while in answer to a supplemental petition of the 12th October 1906, setting forth' additional facts and repeating the prayer of the former petition, the Council replied that any representation in the matter should be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and whether, seeing that on the 16th October 1906 the Secretary of State for the Colonies in turn received the before-mentioned petitions, he will say if he offered any, and, if so, what advice to His Majesty in the matter; and whether any reply has been made to the petitioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The Answer to the hon. Member's Question is that His Majesty will not be advised by the Secretary of State to disallow the Natal Indemnity Act, and the petitioners are being informed in the same sense. They have already been informed on the 23rd instant, that Lord Elgin could not advise His Majesty to refer the petition to His Council, as the matter was one on which it is clearly the duty of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to tender advice.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Dover Admiralty Harbour Works.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated damage to the Admiralty harbour works at Dover resulting from the accident during a recent storm; and if the cost can be recovered by insurance or otherwise.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): No damage has been done to the Admiralty harbour works at Dover by any recent storm, but it is possible that the hon. Member is referring to the injury to the contractor's staging caused by a steamer which ran into it. This is purely a matter for the contractor, and no part of the loss falls upon Naval Votes.

    Hours of Labour at Gibraltar Dockyards.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the
    282
    eight hours day is in operation in all His Majesty's dockyards and arsenals at Home, it can also be put into operation at His Majesty's dockyard at Gibraltar.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The question of the hours of labour in Gibraltar dockyard cannot be considered by itself, as it involves the consideration of the hours worked in other Government establishments and dockyards situated abroad. The Question is therefore by no means a simple one, and before any decision is reached it will be necessary to I consult the War Office and Colonial Office.
    MR. BARNES: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to consult the War Office?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That has been done.

    The Disturbance at Portsmouth.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the sentence on a stoker at Portsmouth of five years penal servitude for refusing to go down on his knees; and whether, in view of the severity of this sentence and the character of the alleged offence, any steps will be taken to reverse it.
    *MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to my replies to previous Questions asked by the hon. Member for St. Pancras and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, except that the charge against the stoker referred to is not correctly stated in the hon. Member's Question.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Was it not the order which gave rise to the whole trouble?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: That may be so. It is just one of those points on which I think it is not desirable that I should say anything until the judicial proceedings are concluded. The whole of the cases will be considered by the Admiralty, which has power to suspend, modify, or annul that sentence, or any other.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether, in view of the fact that everybody thought the sentence was excessive,

    283
    the right hon. Gentleman would take special steps to expedite the proceedings.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, Sir, as soon as the judicial proceedings are finished. The right hon. Gentleman added that there were two charges against the stoker of inciting stokers to join in mutinous disturbances.

    The Coastguard.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any orders have already been issued with a view to reducing or abolishing the existing coastguard forces.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 21st November.†

    H.M.S. "Philomel."
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what sum is estimated to be spent upon the refit of H.M.S. "Philomel" during the current year, and what further outlay will be necessary.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The estimated expenditure upon the present refit of H.M.S. "Philomel" during the current financial year is £4,700, and £2,650 will be required to complete in 1907–8.

    Defences of London.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when it is expected that some of the sites and buildings connected with the defences of London will be sold; and to what purposes will the proceeds of such sales be devoted.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): I am not yet in a position to say when the properties will be sold.

    The Scots Greys.
    MR. COCHRANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Scots Greys are to leave Edinburgh.
    † See (4) Debates clxv., 813–4.
    MR. BUCHANAN: No date has yet been fixed at which the Scots Greys are to leave Piershill.
    MR. COCHRANEasked if the hon. Gentleman would be able to give information at an early date in view of the great interest in Scotland; was it intended to make any arrangements after the withdrawal of the Scots Greys for the quartering of a cavalry regiment in Scotland?
    MR. BUCHANANreplied that only last week the Secretary for War indicated that he had by no means implied that it was his intention to permanently remove the headquarters of the Scots Greys.
    MR. PIRIEasked if it were correct that the recruiting of the Scots Greys had been entirely stopped except in Edinburgh.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Not that I am aware of.

    Barracks for Scotland.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the propriety of establishing in the South of Scotland barracks suitable for the accommodation of a force of all arms; and, if so, what is the estimated cost of such barracks.
    MR. BUCHANAN: There is no intention of erecting barracks in the South of Scotland on the scale and of the extent indicated by the hon. Member.

    Piershill Barracks.
    MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any inquiry has been made as to the acquisition of ground adjacent to Piershill barracks, so as to provide suitable accommodation for a regiment of cavalry.
    MR. BUCHANAN: There is no ground that can be acquired immediately adjacent to Piershill that would enable the barracks to be extended or rebuilt so as to provide suitable accommodation for a regiment of cavalry.
    MR. PIRIEasked upon whose Report the barracks had been declared to be insanitary; would the Report be made public?
    MR. BUCHANANsaid there had been no Report which had declared the barracks insanitary, but from time to time there had been cases of diphtheria and typhoid fever.
    In reply to a further Question by Mr. Cochrane,
    MR. BUCHANANsaid that in the course of last spring complaints were received of serious illness in the barracks and a Report was called for on that account.
    MR. COCHRANE: Will that Report be published?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I cannot say.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many horses and men are now quartered in Piershill Barracks.
    MR. BUCHANAN: According to the latest Returns the numbers were as follows:—359 horses and 459 men.
    MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the amount of the valuation recently made of Piershill, how many square yards there are within the walls of the barracks, and what is the value per yard of ground in the immediate neighbourhood when sold for building purposes.
    MR. BUCHANAN: As regards the first Question, no valuation has recently been made of Piershill. The Answer to the second Question is 53,240 square yards. I have no information as regards the third Question.

    Wei-hai-Wei.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any of the money voted by Parliament for the maintenance of the Chinese regiment at Wei-hai-Wei during 1906-7 will not be expended owing to the disbanding of the regiment.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, Sir, but it is not possible at present to estimate the amount so unexpended.

    Ipswich Barracks Contract.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if either the employers or the labourers trades union at Ipswich gave notice to terminate the agreement made under the labourers' wages arbitration award of 1899, fixing the wages rate at 5d. per hour; and whether, if the award has not been denounced by either side, it still remains in force.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member will understand that this is a Question which does not come within the province of the War Department. This is a Question as to the wages dispute at Ipswich, which does not directly concern the Department.

    Woolwich Arsenal.
    MR. BARNES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the advisability of suspending the whole of the workmen and officials in the Woolwich Arsenal for a day or a week, according to requirements, with a corresponding reduction of wages and salaries, as an alternative to discharges of workmen.
    MR. BUCHANAN: No, Sir, such a proposal has not hitherto been under consideration. There are certain departments in which work cannot be suspended.

    New Field Gun.
    MR. SEDDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the type of new 18-pounder gun at present under construction in the field-gun section of Woolwich Arsenal is being produced on a basis of less than £100 per gun for material and work, and that the price of the gun in question to be passed out to the service is £383.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The price of the 18-pounder guns made in the Arsenal this year cannot be stated until after the close of the year. Last year the price was £392, of which £200, not £100, was for material and direct labour.

    Defence of the Thames.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state whether the withdrawal of the Royal Engineers from Gravesend and the dismantling of the forts there are part of a new policy regarding the defences of the Thames.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The withdrawal of the Royal Engineers is due, as the hon. Member was informed on the 26th instant, to the abolition of submarine mines. † The scheme for the defence of the Thames approved by the Army Council does not entail the maintenance of the forts.

    Bengal Opium Exports.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the number of chests of Bengal opium sold for export during the year 1895–6 was 37,695; whether the average number during the ten years ending 1904–5 was 43,417; whether the number for 1905–6 was 49,200; and whether the Budget Estimate for the current year 1906–7 provides the export of 52,000 chests; and whether, having regard to the Resolution of the House on the subject, and to the present attitude of China in respect to the traffic and use of opium, he will take measures which shall lead to the immediate reduction of this progressive increase in the export of Bengal opium, principally to China.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): Owing to recent good seasons the supply of Bengal opium has been exceptionally large, and with a view to reducing the reserve, the sales have temporarily exceeded the standard of 48,000 chests fixed in 1901. I have given instructions that the area licensed for poppy cultivation should be diminished, and that the sales should be reduced at least to the standard of 1901. In 1895-6 and in preceding and suceeding years the sale standard was 54,000 chests, though the number of chests sold in any year depended on the yield of the crop. As regards the import of foreign opium into China, His Majesty's Government have stated that they will consider sympathetically any proposals which the Chinese Government may wish to make.
    † See (4) Debates, clxv., 1231.
    MR. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to reduce the opium trade in China?
    MR. MORLEY: I do not think I need take very much trouble about that. I am sure he is anxious to find ah effective means of dealing with this evil.
    MR. LUPTONasked whether, having regard to the Resolution of the House on the subject, means would be taken to bring the cultivation of the poppy in India to an end in a certain number of years.
    MR MORLEY: I stated in debate what the views of the Government are. We cannnot—it is impossible—at once issue wholesale an order to cancel the regulations for a complicated industry.

    Fever at Rawal-Pindi.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a large number of men of the 10th Royal Hussars stationed at Rawal-Pindi are suffering from malarial fever; and whether, in view of the fact that many cases of malaria occurred in the regiment which preceded the 10th Hussars in their present barracks, and that nothing hitherto has been done to put these barracks into a proper sanitary state, he will cause inquiry to be made with a view of immediate action being taken.
    MR. MORLEY: I will make inquiry from the Government of India. But I understand that fever is not confined to cantonments, but is prevalent in the country around Rawal-Pindi.
    MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: As men's lives are at stake, will the right hon. Gentleman cable his inquiry?
    MR. MORLEY: I have no objection, but I do not see how it will save time.
    SIR JOHN BRUNNER: Is there any evidence that the malaria is due to the state of the barracks?
    MR. MORLEY: I should like notice of that Question.

    Partition of Bengal.
    MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Indian National Congress is about to assemble in Calcutta and discuss, amongst other things, the partition of Bengal, he will consent to receive deputations from the nobility and landowners of Bengal, from Indian members, past and present, of the Bengal Legislative Council, from the Calcutta bar, and from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, in order to place before him their grievances caused by an ill-considered partition of their province, and in order to suggest to him other forms of partition of equal or greater administrative efficiency.
    MR. REES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, may I ask him whether, should he make or order any such inquiry as is suggested, he will take into account the wishes of the masses, as well as the complaints of the privileged classes, on whose behalf he has been interrogated?
    MR. MORLEY: If the bodies referred to in the Question desire to make representations in the sense described, it is entirely open to them, as it has been for a great many months past, to take the ordinary course of addressing the Governor-General, at least in the first instance. I am afraid I cannot undertake to receive what would be rather a demonstration than a deputation in the ordinary sense. Apart from such a course being a departure from invariable and wise precedent, it could lead to no useful object that I can see. As I have often stated, I am perfectly willing to consider new facts, but I may say I believe that both I and the Viceroy are entirely well informed as to the argumentative matters suggested by the hon. Member.

    Crown Agents—Government Responsibility.
    MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State is responsible to this House for his action in exercising a general control and supervision over the conduct of the business of the Crown Agents; and, if so, by what means this
    290
    House can exercise any control over the Secretary of State in this respect, seeing that he has declined to supplement the information which has so far been presented to Parliament by a detailed and explanatory statement of the accounts of the Crown Agents Office.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The hon. Member is aware that either in connection with the Colonial Office Vote or on such other occasion as the rules of the House may allow he can criticise any and every action of the Secretary of State. As regards the latter part of his Question, and with reference to my Answer to a previous Question of his on the 31st of July,† I can assure him that there is no wish to keep back any information which would serve any useful purpose, but the Secretary of State was, and still is, of opinion that it was at present unnecessary to supplement the information which was given in 1904.

    Complaints against Crown Agents.
    MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, seeing that Sir Augustus Hemming, formerly a principal clerk in the Colonial Office, has recently stated, with reference to specific causes of complaint against the Crown Agents, that such cases exist in profusion in the archives of the Colonial Office, whether he will give a Return of the nature of such complaints during the last five years, and of the action that has been taken upon them by the Secretary of State.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State does not consider that any adequate reason has been given for, or that any useful purpose would be served by, giving such a Return as the hon. Member suggests, especially in view of the exhaustive inquiry instituted by Mr. Chamberlain in 1901, which was based on an examination of any cases in the three preceding years in which the Colonial Governments considered that their interests had not been sufficiently protected by the Crown Agents.

    Crown Agents and Railway Construction.
    MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
    † See (4) Debates, clxii., 700.

    291
    whether the consulting engineers to the Crown Agents, or their representatives, have any financial interest in railway construction that is carried out upon their recommendation; and, if so, what has been the amount of their remuneration from this source during the last ten years; how it is assessed; and from what fund it has been paid.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The firms of consulting engineers employed under the Crown Agents to advise the Crown Colony Governments on railway construction or on other public works have no financial interest in such railways or works beyond the remuneration actually paid for their services.

    The Natal Executions.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many men have been hanged, how many men have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment and floggings, and what was the number of the lashes inflicted in each case of a sentence of flogging, and how many men have been sentenced to imprisonment without flogging during the martial-law régime in Natal, in consequence of the loss of two lives, that of a sub-inspector who shot a native dead and that of a trooper in a riot resulting from the arrest of two natives at Byrnetown, Natal, last February, by a body of armed Colonial police for the resistance of a poll-tax of £1 per head imposed by the Legislature on adult unmarried natives.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to give the total number of those sentenced to imprisonment during the operation of martial-law in Natal. With regard to those sentenced for participation in the murder of the two policemen at Byrnetown I understand that in addition to the twelve men shot, three men were hanged, and five men sentenced to imprisonment with twenty-five lashes.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in addition to the number of natives shot, flogged, and imprisoned, and imprisoned without flogging, on being found guilty by court-martial of being concerned in the deaths of Inspector Hunt and Trooper Arm-
    292
    strong in February last, three more natives have recently been tried and hanged on a charge of being implicated in that riot; whether one of these natives, who had been badly wounded and was unable to stand without the aid of crutches, was brought, by the order of the Governor, to the scaffold in a dying condition, that his crutches were kicked away, and that he was supported by warders on the scaffold while waiting for the lever to be pulled; and whether, having regard to the sensation produced in Natal by these executions and the circumstances attending them, and the indignation thereby aroused, the Colonial Secretary has any, and, if so, what statement to make in explanation or defence of this transaction, or with reference to the conduct of the Governor in sanctioning it
    MR. CHURCHILL: It is a fact that three more natives were recently tried, found guilty and hanged for the murder of Inspector Hunt and Trooper Armstrong. The Secretary of State has no information as to the circumstances of the execution. The prisoners were tried by the Supreme Court, not by court-martial, and the Indemnity Act has therefore no bearing on the matter.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if it was not the fact that the murder occurred last February and that these men accused of complicity had been kept in prison the whole time.
    MR. CHURCHILLreplied in the affirmative, and added that the men were kept awaiting trial until they had recovered from the injuries they had received in the affray.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was not this a case in which the prerogative of mercy might well have been exercised? Did the Governor communicate with the Colonial Office on the subject?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think I can make any statement on this subject. Necessarily such representations would be of an entirely confidential nature. The Government knew that the sentences were to be executed, and consequently shared equally with the Governor any responsibility there was.

    The Ferriera Raid.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds has Lord Elgin declined to make representations to the Cape Government similar to the representations made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, when Colonial Secretary, to the Government of the South African Republic, after the Jameson Raid of 1895, urging that clemency should be extended to Ferriera, after participating in the raid on the Cape Colony of which he was a leader; and why has Lord Elgin refused to instruct Lord Selborne, having regard to the fact that Lord Selborne was Undersecretary for the Colonies at the time of the Jameson Raid and is well acquainted with the precedent thereby set, to use his best offices with Dr. Jameson, C. B., the Prime Minister of Cape Colony, to secure an amnesty to these offenders.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I can think of no Answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question except that circumstances alter cases.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: We may assume then that the Colonial Office were not in this raid.

    British-Indian Immigration (Transvaal) Ordinance.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the British-Indian Immigrants Ordinance (Transvaal).
    MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

    Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
    MR. GODFREY BASING: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state approximately the number of Chinese coolies repatriated from South Africa owing to misconduct since the 1st January last.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The number of undesirables repatriated up to the end of October is 629 exclusive of the quarter April to June for which separate figures have not been received.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
    294
    when he will present the Supplementary Estimate for —21,000 which has been devoted by the Government to repatriation of Chinese coolies.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I understand that if a Supplementary Estimate be required, it will be presented in the ordinary course at the commencement of next session.

    Labour Recruiting in Portuguese East Africa.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the negotiations proceeding with Portugal as to recruiting natives in Portuguese East Africa are confined to providing facilities for the Robinson group of mines; and whether the correspondence with Lord Selborne asking for such facilities to be extended to other groups of mines, if granted at all, will be laid at once.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member will have seen from the full statement made by my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in another place on Monday last† that the negotiations are for the present and pending an inquiry confined to providing facilities for the Robinson group and that he stated that he could not lay Papers at present.

    The Denshawi Affray.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mohamed Abd-el-Nebi, the husband of the woman Mohamed, who was shot by the gun of one of the British officers on the day of the Denshawi affray, is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life; and, if so, whether the British Resident will be directed to make representations in favour of the remission of this sentence and his immediate release.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): Such facts as are in our possession are contained in the Parliamentary Papers, and show that the woman referred to was wounded by the gun which went off in the crowd after the officer had been attacked and his gun taken from him.
    †t See (4) Debates, clxv., 1184 et seq.

    295
    His Majesty's Government see no reason for sending instructions to Lord Cromer on the subject.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Ahmed Hassan Zahzouk, the ombashi of police, who accompanied the British officers on the day of the affray at Denshawi, and who in his evidence at the trial contradicted the evidence of the officers in some important particulars, has since then been tried by a disciplinary court and sentenced to imprisonment and flogging; and, if so, what portion of his sentence he has undergone; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of remitting the remaining portion of his sentence.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information on this subject, but will make inquiries.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the facts that the information promised on the 5th July last, has now been made available for Members, and that the condition of Egypt no longer gives cause for anxiety, he will give an early opportunity of discussing the Denshawi affray and the trial and consequences which followed it.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have nothing to add to the statements, which have already been made on this subject, and it is not possible for them to give special time for another discussion.
    MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he asked the House to abstain from discussing this matter until this information was obtained? Did not that lead the House to believe that an opportunity would be given for discussion?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I remember I made that appeal before any statement at all was made and before we had official information. The hon. Member did not respond to that appeal himself, but other hon. Members did. After Papers had been laid I did not deprecate discussion, and a discussion actually took place. There is nothing which has taken place subsequently which would justify the
    296
    Government in allotting special time for discussion.

    Bucharest General Exhibition—English Workmen's Claims.
    MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will direct the British Minister at Bucharest to take prompt steps to present for payment by the Roumanian Government the claims of the English workmen engaged upon the erection for that Government of certain portions of the buildings constituting the general exhibition held at Bucharest last summer, for wages and share of profits under their contract, as well as for compensation for breach of contract, and for compensation for wrongful arrest and imprisonment for various terms, without trial or conviction for any offence.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest is giving full attention to the matter, and is taking all the steps which he can in support of the claims of the British workmen.
    MR. NIELD: I Leg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any communication from Sir Cunningham Greene, British Minister at the Roumanian Court at Bucharest, with reference to the ill-treatment and persecution of Messrs. Morgan and Singer, and the other Englishmen associated with them, and engaged upon the construction and working of certain portions of the Bucharest General Exhibition in July and September last, and also of their subsequent imprisonment for terms varying from thirty hours to six weeks without any formal trial or conviction for any offence; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Papers he may have relating to the matter.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Full reports of the circumstances have been received from His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest, but it would not be desirable at the present stage to lay any Papers on the subject. The men have meanwhile been sent home.

    Treaty of Paris—Norway and Sweden.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

    297
    owing to the separation of Norway from Sweden, the provisions of the Treaty of Paris of 1855 have ceased to apply to the former kingdom.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Treaty has not been abrogated, but it was framed under conditions which have now entirely changed, and His Majesty's Government are considering, in connection with the two countries concerned and other Powers, what steps should be taken for substituting a new Treaty for that of 1855.

    Karadjovo Massacre.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a note from the Bulgarian Government in reference to the recent massacre of Bulgarian peasants in the village of Karadjovo; whether the Government have any Report on the particulars of this massacre from British agents in Macedonia; whether the massacre was carried out by Greeks and Turks; whether the British Government has addressed any remonstrances to the Greek and Turkish Governments; and when further Papers on Macedonia will be circulated.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first Question is in the negative; the Answer to the second is in the affirmative; the massacre was, it is believed, carried out by Greeks and a certain number of Mussulmans in their pay, the leader had come from Greece a few weeks before, having evaded the Greek authorities; His Majesty's Government have recently made strong representations to the Greek Government in regard to the conduct of the Greek bands in Macedonia; they have also made representations on the same subject to the Ottoman Government; further Papers on Macedonia will be laid when the negotiations now in progress have been completed.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have received any information from the British Consuls as to the massacre of Bulgarian peasants at Karadjovo on the 7th November; and whether they will support the Bulgarian Govern-
    298
    ment in the representations which it is in consequence making to the Powers.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have received a preliminary Report on the subject from his Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople; no communication has yet been received from the Bulgarian Government.

    Congo State Reports.
    MR. BENNETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether within the last few months His Majesty's Government has received Reports upon the condition of affairs in the Congo State from the British consular staff on the Congo: and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will lay these Reports upon the Table of the House.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Reports have been received from His Majesty's consular officers in the Congo within the last few months. But I do not propose to present a second set of Papers to Parliament this year, and there is nothing in the Reports referred to which is of such special interest as to require separate publication,

    Egyptian Reforms.
    MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Cromer has recently presented a Report to the Foreign Office on proposed reforms in Egypt; whether this Report contains any recommendations as to reforming the criminal law as between natives and members of the army of occupation; and whether it is proposed to lay any Papers on the subject of reforms in the government of Egypt.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I have nothing to add to the reply returned to the hon. Member for Brentford on the 15th instant, † Any reforms in the government of Egypt will doubtless be dealt with by Lord Cromer in his Annual Report, which will be laid before Parliament next year; it is not proposed to lay Papers before the usual date.

    Macedonian Budget.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
    †t See (4) Debates, clxv., 100.

    299
    Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain and lay upon the Table of the House financial statements showing the revenue and expenditure under the different headings for the Macedonian provinces since March, 1905; and also the amount of deficit on the Budget during periods convenient for comparison, and the sources from which it has been supplied since March, 1905.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government are not aware whether detailed statistics are available in regard to the points in question before the International Financial Commission entered upon its function in January, 1906. In regard to the second Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on the 26th instant, † The information requested in the third Question will, as far as possible, be furnished.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Article XII. of the agreement between the Porte and the Imperial Ottoman Bank, providing that any deficit on the Macedonian Budget shall be made good by drafts on the existing yield of the Customs, is confirmed by the Reglement for Macedonia; and whether it is still in force.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

    Civil Agents in Macedonia.
    MR. GOOCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have recently received any account of the work accomplished by the civil agents in Macedonia; and, if not, whether they will invite the Austrian and Russian Governments to furnish information.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government have not received recently any special report on the work of the civil agents. An account of their proceedings will doubtless be furnished in due course.

    Output of Native Opium in China.
    MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of the question,
    †See (4) Debates, clxv., 610.
    300
    he will consider the possibility of overcoming the difficulties in the way of obtaining even approximately accurate statistics as to the output of native opium in China.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I fear I can add nothing to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 27th instant on this subject. Of course, any further information that can be obtained will be obtained, but I cannot promise to get more than exists.

    Congo Free State Concessions.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the decrees published in the Bulletin Officiel of the Congo Free State by which four new companies were created, the shareholders and promoters being foreigners; and whether, in view of the interests possessed by this and other countries in the Congo Free State, he proposes to take any and, if any, what action in connection with these concessions of territory.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The question whether concessions of the kind referred to are consistent with the free trade provisions of treaty obligations is no doubt an important one, but it is not proposed to make these particular concessions the subject of a special representation at this moment.

    Tangier—The Attack on Mr. Harris.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with reference to the attack on Mr Harris's house by numerous armed natives, whether French and Spanish warships in the bay offered any assistance, and whether the Government propose, by the despatch of a warship, to extend to British subjects the protection now afforded to those of France and Spain.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: According to a report received from His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Tangier, a fight occurred between the Moorish Guards at Mr. Harris's house and a number of men of the Anjera tribe. It is not clear whether the tribesmen were the first to attack the house, or whether they were fired on from the house by the guards as they were passing it, engaged on a cattle raid.

    301
    Eventually the guards were reinforced and the tribesmen beaten off. It does not appear to have been necessary for any foreign troops to have been landed in connection with this incident. I understand that France and Spain are prepared to take, in an emergency, whatever provisional measures may be required till the regular police contemplated by the Algeciras Act are constituted. It is not necessary or desirable for us to do anything more, and it is not intended to send a British warship.
    MR. ASHLEY: Would it not be more satisfactory that British subjects should be protected by British ships?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Old Age Pensions.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his declaration that the subject of old age pensions is one of the most extreme urgency, he will make such representations to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as will ensure precedence being given to the subject in the legislative programme of the Government over the question of Irish Home Rule or Devolution.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX CHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.): I see no reason for making any such representation either to the Prime Minister or to the Cabinet.

    Railway Commissioners.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Commissioners of Railways there are; what are their duties; how many days in the year these duties engage their attention; what is the salary attached to the office; and whether there is any pension when a Commissioner retires.
    MR. ASQUITH: The Railway Commissioners are appointed under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and they have duties under the Workmen's Cheap Trains Act, the Telegraphs Act, and the Water (Metropolis) Act. They sit on about thirty-two days in the year, apart from other duties, of which there is no record. The salary of each of the Com-
    302
    missioners is —3,000 a year, without pension attached.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)asked whether any of the five Commissioners were business men, or were they all lawyers.
    MR. ASQUITH: I do not think the two terms are mutually exclusive.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the five Commissioners are engaged in trade or commerce?
    MR. ASQUITH: I understand that the Commissioner recently appointed is a gentleman of very large commercial experience in a great many directions.

    Inspection of Prison Dietaries.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in accordance with the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on Prison Dietaries in 1898, a well-qualified and competent inspector of the food supplies of prisons has been appointed; and, if not, will he say why this recommendation has not been carried out.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): As a result of the Report of the Dietaries Committee, stringent regulations were made for the inspection of the prisoners' food by the medical officer and the Visiting Committee of each prison, and in view of these regulations, and of the duty laid on the governor to ensure that the supplies received are of good quality, it was thought that the employment to secure the same object of a travelling inspector, who could visit each prison only at long intervals, would be not only unnecessary, but also harmful, as tending to lessen the responsibility of the officials on the spot. In this view I entirely concur.

    The German Gipsies and the Police.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of the police in each of the counties through which the bands of German gipsies have

    303
    passed, who have been occupied in protecting those counties against the dangers to which the German gipsies exposed those counties.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have not the information necessary for the purpose of answering this Question, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by attempting to collect it.

    Southport Chief Constable.
    MR. C J. O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State to the Home Department if his sanction was necessary to the recent appointment of a military officer, entirely without police experience, to be chief constable of Southport; and, if not, whether he will take any action to secure experienced supervision of the police administration of largo towns, and to reserve such appointments as that of chief constable for senior officers of police as the legitimate rewards of long and good service.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The appointment mentioned did not require my sanction. The appointments to a borough police force are made by the Watch Committee, and I have no authority to interfere with their discretion.

    Alderney Abattoirs.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consent to the erection of a wharf at Alderney for the slaughter of foreign cattle on the same conditions as cattle are allowed to be landed and slaughtered in this country, and provided the inhabitants of Alderney are practically unanimous on the question; and, if not, if he will appoint a small Committee to inquire into the feasibility and desirability, and report for his guidance.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As at present advised, I do not think that the erection of a wharf at Alderney for the landing and slaughter of foreign cattle would be desirable, and I do not propose to appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter.

    Hull Level Crossing Signalmen.
    MR. HUDSON (Newcastle-on-Tyne): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the long hours worked by the gate
    304
    signalmen at the St. George's Road and Hawthorne Avenue Level Crossings, Hull, on the North Eastern Railway; if he is aware that these men commence duty at 9.45 a.m. on Sundays, and remain on duty until 6 a.m. on Mondays, a period of twenty hours and fifteen minutes, and then do five turns of twelve-hour shifts and one of thirteen hours on night duty, making a total of ninety-three hours and fifteen minutes for the week on the main passenger line; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I have communicated with the railway company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and am informed that the authorised daily hours of work of the men in question, who are stated to be gatemen and not signalmen, are twelve, with a day off duty once a fortnight. The company state, however, that they found on inquiry that the men, for their own convenience and without the knowledge and consent of the responsible officials, had introduced the system of working to which attention is drawn, and instructions have now been given that the authorised arrangements-must be strictly observed in future.
    In reply to a further Question by Mr. HUDSON,
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he understood the arrangement was made by the men without the knowledge of the company, who gave instructions it should not be adhered to directly it was brought to their notice.

    Foreign-made Motor Buses in London
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the fact that the bulk of the motor omnibuses in use in London have been made in Germany, and that contracts have recently been placed in that country for the construction of about —350,000 worth of these vehicles to be used in London; and whether he can in any way assist in transferring this industry to this country in such a way as to find employment for the mechanics discharged from the Woolwich Arsenal.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am aware that many of the chassis of motor omnibuses in use in London are of foreign production. I understand that foreign makers have had longer experience than British manufacturers in this branch of industry. This advantage, however, as in the case of motors generally, is now diminishing and there is reason to hope that in the future a larger share of the orders will fall to British manufacturers. I see no reason why suitable mechanics discharged from Woolwich Arsenal should not have an equal chance with others of sharing in any employment thus afforded.
    MR. FELL: Was not a contract recently granted?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Board of Trade have no official information.
    MR. BYLES: Are not these imported omnibuses paid for by British labour employed in some other industry?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Swansea Education Dispute.
    LORD E. CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether four of the head teachers of Swansea Church schools are receiving —75 less than they would have received if the arrangements made by the managers upon the teachers' appointment had been adhered to; whether, in the case of two teachers engaged before the appointed day, under the Act of 1902, under signed agreements, entitling them to a rise in salary on the 1st March, 1905, the local education authority refused to allow the increases until the Board of Education directed them to do so; whether, in the case of another teacher in a Church school, a salary at the usual Scale was only secured after negotiations lasting from January, 1905, to May, 1906, by the intervention of the Board of Education; and whether, in view of these facts, seeing that the pending dispute about the salaries of teachers turns mainly on the wish of the local education authority to pay teachers in voluntary schools less than the teachers in the council schools, he will say if he proposes to take any action in the
    306
    matter beyond consulting the Law Officers.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): Figures supplied to the Board by the managers show that the salaries paid to the four head teachers referred to in the first paragraph of the Question were —75 less than those proposed by the managers. In the case of the two teachers referred to in the second paragraph, the Board forwarded to the local authority without comment a copy of a letter from the managers on the subject. I understand that the representations of the managers were acceded to by the local authority. The facts stated in the third paragraph are correct. I cannot say what further action (if any) will be taken by the Board until I have received the opinion of the Law Officers.
    LORD R. CECIL: Did the local authority at first refuse to fulfil its duty?
    MR. BIRRELL: I think that is so.
    LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education upon what date the Swansea Local Education Authority undertook to carry out the directions of the Board of Education.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am not aware that there are at the present time any directions of the Board of Education which the Swansea Local Education Authority have on any date undertaken to carry out or, on the other hand, are failing to carry out.
    LORD BALCARRES: Were any directions given by the Board?
    MR. BIRRELL: I do not quite understand the object or purport of the Question. I can find no particular letter in which any direction was given to the local authority which they either did or did not carry out.

    Waenfawr (Carnarvon) Postman's Pay.
    MR. ELLIS DAVIES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that John Morgan Jones, an auxiliary postman at Waenfawr, in the county of Carnarvon,

    307
    is employed for four hours in the morning and one hour in the afternoon at a wage of only 11s. a week, while another auxiliary postman is paid at a higher rate at the same office for similar work, because the Department failed to obtain his services for less; and whether, in view of the fact that Jones cannot, on account of the arrangement of the hours of service, engage in another occupation, he can increase his pay and so make it a living wage.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I have called for a Report on this subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

    Wolverhampton Telegram Delays.
    MR. T. F. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on Saturday last a telegram dispatched from Stourbridge at 4.5. p.m. was timed as having reached Wolverhampton post office at 7.46 p.m.; and, as this is the second case of the kind within fourteen days, will he give Wolverhampton the same attention as other important business centres.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member refers, no doubt, to a football telegram addressed to the Wolverhampton Express and Star, last Saturday, and a football telegram addressed to the same paper from Manchester on the 10th instant. The first of these two telegrams appears to have reached Wolverhampton in due course. One page of it was apparently delayed in delivery, but I cannot say how the delay occurred without local inquiry. The other telegram was delayed at Manchester, not at Wolverhampton. I regret that these cases of delay should have occurred, but there is no reason to suppose that Wolverhampton has less attention than other business or football centres.

    Russian Eggs and Irish Trade Marks.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the recent prosecution at Manchester of Messrs. Lonsdale and Thompson, Limited, provision dealers, for exposing for sale and marking several cases of eggs branded
    308
    Pat Murphy, Castle Murphy, with a figure of a man dancing between two lines; whether he is aware that it was proved that there was no one in the egg business trading as Pat Murphy and no such place as Castle Murphy in Ireland, and that the eggs referred to were Russian produce; and whether, in view of the injury likely to result to the Irish trade by the selling of foreign produce under fictitious names, he intends to take any steps to prevent the recurrence of such action.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE; for Sir EDWARD STRACHEY): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question on behalf of the Board of Agriculture. The attention of the Board has been called to this case, the facts of which are correctly stated in the Question. The Board will be ready to co-operate with the Irish Department in preventing breaches of the Merchandise Marks Acts, which might prove injurious to traders in Irish agricultural produce.
    MR. JOYCE: Has the firm of J. J. Lonsdale & Co., of which the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh is a distinguished member, anything to do with the convicted firm?
    MR. LONSDALE: I know nothing of them.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: The Board of Agriculture has no knowledge as to who are or are not directors of the firm, but if the hon. Member wishes information as to who are the directors of the firm, he can obtain the information at Somerset House.

    Council of Agricultural Research.
    MR. J. F. MASON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if it is proposed to carry out the scheme outlined by the Board in the memorandum as to the proposed council of agricultural research issued early in the year.
    MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: Negotiations are proceeding with regard to the suggestions made in the memorandum to which the hon. Member refers, but it is not possible as yet

    309
    to say whether they can be brought to a successful issue.

    Glenglassaugh Distillery.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue officer in charge at Glenglassaugh Distillery on 28th October, 1905, when striking the final balance in the spent stock book, found an increase, and in accordance with Sub-section 9 of Section 43 of 43 and 44 Vic, c. 24, and the Board's Distillery Instructions founded thereon, charged duty on excess and received payment from the trader, which he forwarded to the supervisor at Portsoy; that the supervisor refunded the duty to the trader, censured the officer, and directed him to alter the accounts; that the officer claimed to have acted in accordance with the law and the Board's instructions, and refused to alter the books without written directions, which the supervisor refused to give; and whether, seeing that this officer was ordered to remove under displeasure to another station, and was refused a fair trial or inquiry and was suspended in March last, this officer will be restored or an inquiry be held.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I am informed that the facts are in substantial accordance with the hon. Member's statements except that the exaction of immediate payment from the trader was in accordance neither with the law nor with the Board's instructions. I have carefully considered the case, and I am satisfied that it is simply one of disobedience of orders which calls for no further inquiry.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Collector of Inland Revenue, Aberdeen, withheld proper and definite instructions or orders in the excess matter; and whether Mr. Haslam had asked him for advice and guidance in the case.
    MR. MCKENNA: Mr. Haslam asked his collector for advice on 30th October and received it by telegram on 31st, and further by letter of the same date.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the
    310
    Collector of Inland Revenue, Aberdeen, did not, until the 2nd November 1905, give definite orders concerning the cancelling of the Excess Duty; whether the collector accompanied these orders with a document giving the substance of the supervisor's Report, dated 1st November 1905, against Mr. Haslam for alleged insubordination; whether the collector withheld the orders for cancelling the Excess Duty until after the accounts had been delayed on the 1st November and so made Mr. Haslam liable to a charge of alleged insubordination; whether the collector had the Board of Inland Revenue's authority for his ordering, in his letter of 2nd November, Mr. Haslam to cancel the Excess Duty; and, if he had this authority, why was it not quoted, as is usual, on his letter.
    MR. MCKENNA: The collector's instructions were given as soon as he was in full possession of the facts. His order, to which reference is made in the last part of the Question, was given in pursuance of the Board of Inland Revenue's printed and standing Regulations and required no special authority from the Board. The Answer to the second Question is in the negative. I may add that in this and the succeeding Question the hon. Member refers to the cancelling of the Excess Duty. The charge of Excess Duty was not questioned but merely the date of its exaction.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Supervisor of Inland Revenue, Portsoy, neglected to give orders in writing to Mr. Haslam to cancel the duty on the excess or increase which was charged with duty at Grlenglassaugh Distillery on the 28th October 1905 in the spirit store stocktaking, seeing that Mr. Haslam had asked him for written orders, which request he acknowledged to have received.
    MR. MCKENNA: Mr. Haslam received verbal instructions from his supervisor which were confirmed in writing by his collector.

    Retirement Gratuities in the Civil Service.
    SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the class of aged writers who are to be discharged

    311
    in February can be differentiated by the facts that they would have been promoted to the pensionable class of abstractors had they not been debarred by age, and that they average seventy-four years of age and thirty-four of service; and whether, seeing that there are not any other old servants of the State in the same position, he will consider whether the gratuities of these writers can be increased.
    MR. MCKENNA: The case of these copyists does not appear to be distinguishable from that of the other copyists who have already retired with gratuities on the approved scale. Nor is it really distinguishable from that of great numbers of persons in the employ of the State who are on a temporary footing and not entitled to pension but only to gratuity under the Superannuation Act of 1887. My hon. friend regrets that he is therefore unable to accede to their request for an increased gratuity.

    Lax Weir Fishery Board.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the owners of the Lax Weir fishery in Ireland, valued at —400, recorded 135 proxy votes at the recent election on the licences taken out by the company for the fishing on that particular fishery, the property of such owners as a company or otherwise; and whether, under Section 9 of 11 and 12 Victoria, cap. 92, or any other section of the Irish Fishery Laws, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEYGENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): I have made inquiries, but have found it impossible to obtain definite information as to the number of proxy votes given at the recent election to which the Question refers. If there were any irregularity in the election, any person aggrieved would have, of course, the ordinary legal remedy, but I have no power under the section referred to, or any other section that I am aware of, to interfere in the matter.
    MR. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend the Irish Government to make full and impartial inquiry into this matter?
    MR. CHERRY: That Question should be addressed to the Chief Secretary.

    Quilty Fishery Station.
    MR. HALPIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when Cornelius O'Brien and two other fishermen, of Quilty, West Clare, were nearing the shore at Seafield, on the 17th October, their canoe struck upon the Wild Rock at the entrance to the pier at Seafield and capsized, O'Brien being drowned, the other two men being rescued; that another fisherman was drowned at the same place last year, and that Mrs. O'Dowd, of Quilty, in trying to get from the pier to Mutton Island a few months ago, was also lost in the same place; and whether, with a view to pre-venting other deaths from drowning at that place, he will send an inspector to Seafield to examine the inlet to the pier and the Wild Rock, with a view to the lowering of the inlet and removal of the rock at its entrance, thereby giving a free passage to canoes and sailing vessels to the pier.
    The hon. Member had also given notice of the following Question:—
    To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the 165 fishermen at Quilty, West Clare, with their fifty-five canoes, have not earned —25 this year on account of the rough weather, being unable to go to sea, as the passage is unsafe with the Wild Rock at the entrance of the passage when the tide is in, and not being able to go out from the pier at low water when the tide is out on account of no tide being in the passage; whether, seeing that in seasons when the fishermen can go fishing, they were able to catch up to —3,000 worth of fish, and in view of the fact that, on account of not being able to fish, they are in a state of starvation at present, he will send an inspector to examine the passage and rock with a view to give a grant to sink the passage to the pier about 3 feet and remove the rock, the passage being about 150 yards in length by about 25 yards wide; and whether he has received a memorial signed by the clergy, magistrates, medical officers, and ratepayers of this district in favour of this proposal, and what action he proposes to take accordingly.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I am informed that it is the fact that Cornelius O'Brien was drowned on 17th October, his canoe having been upset by a wave near the rock mentioned; and that other cases of drowning had previously occurred in the same locality. It is, I understand, the case that there are 165 fishermen and fifty-five canoes at Quilty. I have no information as to the earnings of the fishermen this year; but I believe they have been small, owing mainly to the absence of fish. Fishing is stated to have greatly improved since the middle of the present month. I have received the memorial referred to. I am advised that the expense of deepening the channel and removing part of the rock opposite the entrance would amount to about £3,000, and that this work would be of little use unless a breakwater were erected at a considerable further cost. The entrance to the harbour must always be dangerous in bad weather. The Department of Agriculture, however, will gladly consider whether anything can be done to lessen the danger of landing, if the county council are prepared to co-operate with them in the matter. Both the Department and the Board of Works have already examined the spot and reported to me upon it. I may add that in 1890 the sum of £5,184 was spent in the works then executed by the Board of Works, consisting of the pier at Seafield and the channel through the rocks leading to it. Of this sum £875 consisted of a loan recoverable from the county council.
    MR. WILLIAM EEDMOND: Is it the fact that there is still £130,000 standing to the credit of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Ireland? Could not some portion of this money be expended on this necessary work of providing safe accommodation for fishermen who have to face the winter with no resources except those of their calling, which is rendered impossible by the state of the harbour?
    MR. BRYCE: I should like notice of that Question.

    Ennis Inebriates.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether inmates
    314
    of the Ennis State Inebriates' Reformatory, on becoming insane, are committed to the Ennis District Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, whether it can be arranged to have them committed to the asylum of the district they came from, and so prevent an unfair burden being placed on the ratepayers of Clare by having the insane from other counties placed in the Ennis Asylum.
    MR. BRYCE: Under the provisions of the Criminal Lunatics (Ireland) Act, 1837, inmates of the Ennis State Inebriate Reformatory on becoming insane are committed to the Ennis District Lunatic Asylum. There is no power under the existing law to have them committed to the asylum of the district from which they came. Under the Lunacy (Ireland) Act, 1901, the entire cost of the maintenance of such persons is defrayed out of Imperial Funds up to the date of the expiration of their sentences, and hence they do not become a burden on the ratepayers of Clare until after the sentence has expired. I am informed that since the establishment of the Inebriate Reformatory in 1899, only two cases of transfer to the Ennis Asylum have occurred, and one of the persons has since died.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill to obviate this injustice to the ratepayers?
    MR. BRYCE: I will consider it. I can make no promise.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will bring one in myself.

    Sir M. R. O'Connell's Ballycarberry Estates.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received a memorial from the tenants on the estate of Sir M. R. O'Connell, at Ballycarberry, near Cahirciveen; and whether they are prepared to negotiate with the landlord for the purchase of that property, with a view to reselling it to the tenants.
    Mr. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the memorial referred to has been received by them and

    315
    they have communicated with the owner on the subject. The agents of the owner, however, have informed the Commissioners that no copy of the memorial has been received either by them or the owner, and a copy has therefore been sent to them. The matter is still the subject of correspondence.

    Clonan Evicted Tenant.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a claim for re-instatement has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners by Bernard Dunphy, who was evicted in 1882 from a holding on the estate of Henry Cornelius, Rosna, Clonan, Coolrain, Mountrath, Queen's County; whether he is aware that the farm remained on the landlord's hands and was let by the eleven months for grazing purposes until recently, and is now taken possession of by a daughter of the landlord, who has applied to the Board of Works for a loan to build a dwelling-house; and, seeing that the evicted tenant is still living and has four sons and one daughter depending upon him, can he say what action the Estates Commissioners are going to take in this case, or whether the Board of Works is prepared to advance the loan.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that an application for re-instatement has been received from Bernard Dunphy. They have inquired into the matter and have learnt that the owners, having no other place to live in, now reside on the farm from which Dunphy was evicted, and will not consent to reinstate the evicted tenant. Dunphy's name, however, has been placed on the Commissioners' register of applicants as being a suitable person to work land, and his case will receive consideration in the event of the Commissioners acquiring untenanted land in the district. I am informed by the Board of Works that an application was made to them by Anna W. Cornelius and others for a loan of £200 for the erection of a dwelling upon the farm in question. The applicants have now deferred the matter till next spring, and the Board, therefore, have not yet considered whether the case is a suitable one for a loan.

    Ballymacooda Estate, Clare.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Ballymacooda estate, at Kilmaley, county Clare, has been purchased by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, on what terms.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have had the estate in question inspected with a view to purchase under Section 7 of the Act of 1903, and they expect to be in a position to make an offer for purchase to the Land Judge in the course of a few days.

    Kinvara Harbour.
    MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he received a Resolution from the County Council of Galway respecting the extension of the works to be carried out in Kinvara Harbour; whether he is aware that an understanding has been arrived at between the county council and the Board of Works, which makes it possible for the works to be commenced at once; whether he will communicate with the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board with a view of having the grants promised by them placed immediately at the disposal of the county council; and whether, in view of the urgency of the works and the need of finding employment for the poor, he will take immediate steps to give effect to the Resolution of the county council.
    MR. BRYCE: The Irish Government have received the Resolution in question, and have obtained a report on the subject from the Board of Works. The Resolution appears to be bused on an erroneous assumption that the works to which it refers are to be executed under the Marine Works Act. The works under that Act have been completed at a smaller cost than was originally estimated, and the arrangement between the county council and the Board of Works has reference to the apportionment of the cost of those works. A project for certain other works has been undertaken by the county council with the assistance of contributions from the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board, and it appears to be the desire of

    317
    the county council that the saving on the works already completed under the Marine Works Act should be applied to the new works which are not to be executed under that Act. This, however, cannot legally be done, as I informed the hon. Member on 28th June last † The main difficulty which has arisen in regard to the additional works relates to the fact that under the existing law the county council have no power to provide their share of the funds. As I stated earlier in the session, the Government are prepared to propose legislation which would remove the difficulty, but in the present state of public business I cannot name a date for the introduction of the Bill.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill to authorise this work? Nobody in the world would think of opposing it.
    MR. BRYGE: I am considering the desirability of that, but my experience in the past is not very encouraging.

    Courtown Fishing Industry.
    SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that recently, when the fishermen of Courtown were out at night fishing, a sudden gale arose and they had to run for the harbour, which is now, and has been for a long time, blocked with sand; that seven of the fishing boats grounded on the bar, and that their crews, thirty-four men in all, had to get overboard, at the risk of their lives, and lift their boats over the bar into deep water; and whether the Government propose to take any notice of the repeated representations which have been made to them regarding the condition of these fishermen.
    MR. BRYCE: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. I am informed, however, that in the case of one boat only did the crew get overboard and lift the boat over the bar; the remaining six boats were pulled over the bar from the pier with ropes. Courtown harbour is vested in the Wexford County Council, whose duty it is to maintain it; but, as I informed the hon. Baronet on the 8th instant ‡ the
    † See (4), Debates, clix., 1103.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, clxiv, 759–760.
    318
    Department of Agriculture, having learnt that the entrance to the harbour had become choked with sand, were then about to assist the county council in the matter by erecting a steam crane and grab to remove the accumulation of sand, as they had done on a previous occasion. This work is now in progress.

    North Donegal Fishing Industry.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what steps, if any, are being taken to improve the fishing accommodation along the coast of North Donegal; and whether he is aware that a disaster recently occurred at Glengad, Malin, resulting in the loss of four lives, and due to the want of necessary accommodation for landing suitable boats.
    MR. BRYCE: It is unfortunately the fact that four lives were lost owing to the capsizing of a fishing boat off the coast of Glengad, Malin, on the 7th instant. As regards the provision of harbour accommodation on that coast, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his Question of 30th May last. ‡ The matter has received much consideration from the Congested Districts Board, who have reported that the use of large boats on the coast of north-east Donegal is beset with difficulty, as there are no natural facilities there for making large harbours at a reasonable cost. The hon. Member may remember that I visited the coast some weeks ago in his company; and the question of what can be done for fishing piers and how to find the money to do it has since engaged my constant attention.

    Cavan Untenanted Land.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of the untenanted lands in the landlords' hands in the townland of Coolbane, Lossett, and Drumroe on the Lieutenant-Colonel W. C. Lloyd, and others, estate, county Cavan.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the only untenanted land on the estate in question
    †† See (4) Debates, clviii., 426.

    319
    consists of seventy-seven acres in the townlands of Coolbane and Lossett, which the vendors are selling in parcels to five persons who have signed agreements for the purchase thereof.

    Lloyd Estate, Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what is the position of the sale of the Lieutenant-Colonel William C. Lloyd, H. W. Lloyd, Major Alfred Lloyd, K. Lloyd, Arthur B. Lloyd, and Major Frederick C. Lloyd estate, near Arva, county Cavan; when were purchase agreements filed; how many tenants signed these agreements; when was this estate inspected; how many evicted tenants are there on the said estate; what amount of untenanted land is on the landlord's hands; and how many tenants are still outside this sale.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that twenty-four agreements for purchase by tenants on the estate in question were lodged with them on 16th March last. An agreement for the purchase of a parcel containing thirty-two acres has also been lodged, and the only untenanted land included in the sale consists of three acres. From the schedule of tenancies it would appear that there are still seventeen holdings for which agreements for purchase have not yet been received. Four applications from persons claiming reinstatement as evicted tenants on the estate have been received. The estate has not yet been inspected, and, having regard to its order of priority, may not be inspected for a considerable time.

    George Stewart Smith Estate, Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if agreements for the sale of the George Stewart Smith estate, county Cavan, have been filed, and when, with the names of the townlands; has the townland of Latnadronagh been excluded; will he say if the landlord has refused to sell two other townlands in the county; and will an inspector visit the estate.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements in respect of the estate mentioned
    320
    were lodged with them in April, 1905. The townlands included in the estate for sale are:—Portanure, Drumkeel, Shan-now, Kilmainham, Corlateerin, Drumegil, Latnadronagh, Drumcarey, and Ardleny. The lands of Latnadronagh are not excluded. It does not appear from the documents lodged, that the vendor is the owner of any lands in the neighbourhood other than those for which purchase agreements have been lodged. An inspection of the estate will take place in about six months' time.

    Glenlough Postal Arrangements.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is a delivery of letters to the inhabitants of the district of Glenlough, near Castle Cove, county Kerry, on only one day in the week from Sneem; and whether, in view of the fact that a few years ago there was a daily service from Castle Cove, he will arrange that the letters be delivered on two additional days in the week.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Inquiry is being made on this subject, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

    Cahirciveen Telegram Delay.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is frequently a delay of an hour in the delivery of telegrams which are sent from London to Cahirciveen and vice versa; and whether, in view of the fact that there is only one transmission, namely, at Cork, he will inquire into the cause of these delays and effect the necessary improvement, so that the delay shall not exceed a quarter of an hour.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am making inquiry on the subject, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    Royal Commissions.
    SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will state how many Royal Commissions have been appointed since the present Government came into office; what has been the expenditure to date; and what amount is estimated to cover the future expenditure on these Commissions.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The number of Royal Commissions appointed by this Government is eleven. The expenditure defrayed for them out of the Temporary Commissions Vote to 31st October is £3,287 13s. 7d. This does not include the cost of stationery, printing and office accommodation, which are borne by the Votes of other Departments. No Estimate can at present be made of the future cost of these Commissions, but an estimate of the sums required for them in 1907–1908 will be submitted in due course.

    Expiring Laws Continuance Bill
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what date it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot yet name the day on which the Second Reading will be taken, but it will be shortly.

    Street Betting Bill.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to proceed with the Street Betting Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Government intend to pass the Bill, but I am not in a position to say on what day it will be proceeded with.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Arthur James Sherwell, esquire, for the Parliamentary Borough of Huddersfield.
TOWN TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended, on consideration, to be printed. [Bill 359.]

WORKMENS COMPENSATION BILL.
As amended by the (Standing Committee), considered.
MR. COCHRANE*MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.) moved a new clause to empower the Postmaster-General to make arrangements for safeguarding the issue of policies granted by insurance companies to small em-
322
ployers. He pointed out that the Bill now embraced every small employer including those who employed five men or less, and this clause would give facilities which they otherwise lacked. These very small employers as a class were absolutely ignorant on questions of insurance, and they would fall very ready victims to a certain class of insurance companies. He proposed that in the Post Office the small employer should have an agency by means of which he would get into touch with solvent insurance companies, whose business would be carried out under regulations prescribed by the Treasury. The regulations which he contemplated would provide for annual returns showing the extent of the liabilities and the amount of the reserves, and possibly for some deposit in recognised securities. Care would be taken, too, to secure that the conditions imposed were not unduly onerous. A case came under his notice the previous day where a man had insured against an accident for £200; but in the policy there was a clause providing that all costs were to come out of the sum assured. This was a direct incentive to the company to fight the case, and as a matter of fact they did so. The costs ran up to £150, and the holder of the policy therefore only got £50. Such a thing as that might be avoided under the clause.
MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Was that a case under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
MR. COCHRANEsaid he was not certain, he thought it arose under the common law, but he only cited it as showing that under his proposal such a provision would not be likely to escape the vigilant eye of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Again, there was danger of the insolvency of the small employer, unless it was made easy for him to insure. There was a warning of that in the Report of the Departmental Committee, in which it was pointed out that some precautions should be taken to minimise that danger. In that Report the Committee stated—
"What is to be expected if this prospect of a great access of business brings about the establishment of a number of new companies eagerly competing for the custom of the classes of employers who will for the first time be brought under the liabilities imposed by the Act,"

323
That point needed no illustration on his part to make the House see that it was in the mind of the Departmental Committee, although not a subject included in their reference, that if the Act was widely extended some provision must be made to protect the small fad ignorant employers against bogus companies. He himself would have liked to propose something much wider; for instance, to have made the Post Office Savings Bank directly responsible for insuring the small employer. Indeed, he would have gone a step further and said that, having regard to the fact that the small employer must necessarily pay a higher premium than the large employer, the same protection should be given to the small employer as was given to the small investor in the Post Office Savings Bank. He blamed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for having done nothing whatever to meet the case which was raised eight months ago at the Second Reading of the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, himself, and other speakers. The Home Secretary had had every opportunity for inquiring into this point and of bringing forward legislation upon it, if he had so desired. The Government had been ready enough to adopt private Members' Bills, regardless of their merits—[MINISTERIAL cries of dissent]—or their demerits, he ought to have said.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to: (1) Marriage with Foreigners Act, 1906, (2) Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Act, 1906; (3) Clydebank and District Water and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1906; (4) Blair-gowrie, Rattray, and District Water Board Order Confirmation Act, 1906; (5) Edinburgh Corporation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Act, 1906; (6) Metropolitan Electric Supply Company Act, 1906; (7) Dover Harbour (Works, etc.) Act, 1906; (8) Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Act, 1906.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
As amended, further considered.
MR. COCHRANE*MR. COCHRANE, continuing his speech, said that during the last eight months the Government had done nothing to deal with this important question of insurance, although they had dealt with many other less important measures introduced by private Members of Parliament. In Germany this matter had been dealt with by several Acts of Parliament which commenced in 1883 with one of compulsory insurance, while the fundamental law was passed in 1884. Since that date five supplemental Acts of Parliament had been found necessary, and all he could ask of the right hon. Gentleman was, "Why do we lag so far behind?" The right hon. Gentleman, on the Second Reading, said—
"The fact of the matter is that the wider you extend the scope of what we call the principle of workmen's compensation the greater is the urgency you create for some system to guarantee the position of those entitled to compensation."
But his right hon. friend had done nothing between April of this year and the present time to provide for that necessity which had been accentuated enormously since the time at which he spoke, because the restrictions in regard to the number of people who would be affected by the Act had been swept away. The urgency of the situation had therefore been accentuated. Then, again, in the course of the debate the right hon. Gentleman said that the present Government considered that there was a risk as regarded the ability of the small employer to make compensation to his workmen in case of injury. If that risk existed, and the Government could not find a remedy, he thought it was their duty to accept a remedy proposed to them from the other side of the House. His real object was to encourage insurance by the small employer. The Act, he might point out, was being very widely extended. The right hon. Gentleman himself had said that he wanted to limit the number of shop assistants to three, that was to say, that the Workmen's Compensation Act should not apply in cases in which there were less than three assistants, and he had pointed out how widely a proposal to include less than throe would extend

325
the Act as compared with cases which applied to organised trades. He said—
"Shop assistants number 1,000,000, of which about 450,000 are the sole assistants of the small shopkeepers by whom they are employed, and the House will have to consider whether it is advisable and safe to make these small grocers, drapers, and booksellers liable under the Act."
This expression of opinion also applied to masons, bricklayers, carpenters, carriers, joiners, blacksmiths, et hoc genus omne. As the Royal Commission pointed out, 25 per cent, of the small builders did not insure, and the evidence about the small tenement factories was to a similar effect. Commander Smith said—
"The tenants of these factories neglect to insure, and being men of straw would be unable to pay any compensation awarded against them."
In view of that expression of opinion, he held that considerable responsibility in regard to these men rested upon the Government. If the Government left them without any protection they would be very wrong indeed. Knowingly to promise compensation and yet to take no steps in such oases was cruel and unstatesman like. In these cases very often the employer made no more money in the course of the year than the employee, and the only resort of the latter, if he were injured, was to make his employer a bankrupt or go without his compensation. After all, the small ignorant employer did not know probably what his duties were, but the Government, unless they were careful, were going to injure a man who had a wife and family to support just as much as his employee had. The Government were aware of the facts of the case, because the Home Secretary had stated—
"The fact of the matter is that the wider you extend the scope of what we call the principle of workmen's compensation the greater is the urgency you create for some system of insurance to guarantee the position of those entitled to compensation."
Again the right hon. Gentleman had said —
"The present Government consider that there is a risk with regard to the inability of the small employer to make good the payment to the workmen entitled to compensation."
These were weighty words, and this new clause would help the small employer and warn off insolvent adventurers who wished to traffic upon the needs of the
326
poor and ignorant. But what was being done in foreign countries? In Spain the employer was released from his personal liability on insuring with an approved insurance company. In Holland one of the alternatives open to the employer was the transfer of his liability to an insurance company provided that this company deposited sufficient security with the State Insurance Office. In Sweden the employer was given the right to insure in "the Royal Insurance Institution," apparently a State institution. In Russia employers were exempted from liability if the had arranged for insurance in certain insurance companies. In Belgium employers escaped the obligation by contributing to an insurance fund set up by the State, and if they contracted for the payment of an indemnity by an insurance society approved by the Government. In Italy the general rule was that the employer must insure with the National Bank for the insurance of workmen against accidents (an institution established by the Government by agreement with various savings banks whose operations were assisted gratuitously by local officials and the Post Office), or with other societies approved by the Government. Exemptions were allowed to employers who gave security or belonged to a mutual insurance corporation fulfilling the conditions prescribed by law, the regulations of which had been approved by the State. The Home Secretary had admitted that the conditions in Italy were well worth our while to consider, but nothing had been done. Under the clause which he had submitted to the House he had endeavoured, so far as a private Member could, to meet the difficulty which he saw before them.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASseconded the proposed new clause brought forward by his hon. friend and former colleague. Everyone would admit that the Bill would throw a great burden on the employers of the country. That was one of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should give, every consideration to this clause. It ought to be made as easy as possible for email employers to effect these insurances with proper and solvent companies. If the right hon. Gentleman could

327
not go further he ought at least to see that a list of proper insurance companies was exposed in the post offices of the towns and villages. In that way the names of these insurance companies would come before the small employers, who would then be protected against bogus companies. The Government ought to see how far they could go in making it easy and cheap for the small employers to effect these insurances with solvent companies and protect them from the mushroom companies which would grow up directly this Bill became law. If the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the clause as it was, he hoped he would accept its principle and bring up another clause dealing with the matter.
New clause—
"(1) For the purpose of enabling small employers to enter more easily into contracts of insurance in respect of their liabilities under this Act, the Postmaster General may enter into and give effect to agreements with any insurance company approved for the purpose by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, for the issue through the Post Office of policies of insurance in respect of those liabilities granted to any such employer by the company. (2) Regulations made by the Treasury shall prescribe the conditions to be fulfilled by a company to obtain approval under this section, and shall provide for the payment by the company to the Registrar and the Postmaster-General of the amount of any expenses incurred by them in connection with any investigation of the affairs of the company before approval and with the issue of policies granted by the company, and shall contain such further provisions as may be necessary or proper to enable the Postmaster-General to carry into effect this section and any agreement made thereunder. (3) In this section the expression 'small employer' means an employer who, at the time when the policy is issued, has not in his employment more than five workmen, and it shall be a term of every policy issued under this section that if at any time during the currency of the policy the number of workmen in the employment of the policy holder exceeds five the policy shall thereupon become null and void, without prejudice to any liability already accrued thereunder, and the company shall repay to the employer such a proportion of the premium paid by him as is attributable to the unexpired portion of the period in respect of which the premium was paid."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
Brought up and read the first time
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, Central)said the Government were in full agreement with the object the right hon. Gentleman and his friend had in view in moving this clause. They desired as for as possible to make it easy for small employers to effect insurances through the Post Office or in other directions, but they did not view with favour the general object of compulsory insurance. The necessity for dealing with the large question was admitted, and when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of small bogus companies he would remind him that the Government had in hand a Bill, which would probably be brought in next year, by which that evil would to a large extent be dealt with, as a deposit would be required so as to insure a reasonable amount of solvency on the part of the companies. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had blamed him for having neglected his opportunity in this matter, stating that before 28th November there was ample time to inquire into the whole subject and to bring in a scheme, or plan, or Bill to deal with the question of compulsory insurance. But the hon. Gentleman had also said that in Germany it had taken years of inquiry and five Acts of Parliament to deal with it. How all that work was to be done in two months he could not say. This clause was based on the general proposition brought forward by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean on the Second Reading of the Bill. On that occasion it was fully discussed by the right hon. Member in an interesting and exhaustive speech in which he shewed how comprehensive and difficult the question was, and it was made perfectly clear that it would be sheer folly on the part of the Government, without full consideration, to commit itself to a particular scheme of national insurance. The Government required to consider the advantages and the disadvantages of the numberless schemes in existence, and the working of our own laws in relation to those schemes, before they determined what particular scheme could be applied in this country. What the House was now considering was the clause proposed

329
by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, to whom they were indetted for the obvious care with which he had dealt with the subject. He did not plead guilty to any neglect of his opportunities, but he thanked the hon. Member for the trouble he had taken in his desire to facilitate the working of the Act and to give employers hints. But the Amendment itself went too far. It involved an absolutely new departure and put a very great responsibility on the Post Office. It provided machinery for making the Post Office in a large measure an insurance agency. That was what the whole Amendment rested on, and if his right hon. friend took upon himself all the responsibility which rested on such agencies with the added responsibility of his office he would be in a position of great danger. The Chief Registrar also saw the greatest difficulty in the Amendment. Two things must happen if this Amendment were accepted. First of all, he presumed the Home Office would have to furnish a list of selected insurance companies which should be exposed in every post office throughout the kingdom. Before that could be done the Government would have to examine the financial condition of every recognised insurance company, and there would have to be a permanent committee for that purpose. There was no statutory power for such examinations, and probably the truth would not be ascertained. How was it possible to draw up such a list before 3rd July—the date at which this Bill was to come into operation. The hon. Member had not suggested how he proposed to get at the financial position of the companies.
MR. COCHEANEsaid he thought the explanation was on the face of the clause,
"For the purpose of enabling small employers to enter more easily into contracts of insurance in respect of their liabilities under this Act, the Postmaster-General may enter into and give effect to agreements with any insurance company approved for the purpose by the Registrar of Friendly Societies."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that in that case the Amendment did not go far enough. A very serious question was raised. Was the State to guarantee the solvency
330
of all the companies on the list? It was perfectly clear that if on the authority of the Government a list of selected insurance companies were hung up at all the post offices it would be equivalent to a Government guarantee that all these insurance offices were solvent. If he followed the argument of the hon. Gentleman that was not all. He understood him to say that a harsh company would not be selected, so that not only would the Government have to be responsible for the solvency of a company, but for its methods of conducting business as well. That opened up a vista of considerations which went to show that no solution of this question would be satisfactory without a formal and an exhaustive Government inquiry into the whole subject. There was another point. Any company that happened to send in its name would have it added to the list of companies to be hung in the post offices. Any company, large or small, good, bad, or indifferent, which chose to have its name put on the list would be put on. Was the Government to be a medium for giving facilities to a man to insure in a bad or insolvent company? Was it proposed that a sub-postmaster should select or advise the applicant to select a particular company? How was he to advise on the question? He had no knowledge of employers' liability law or of insurance risks. A special branch of the Post Office would be required to deal with the matter. One of the great difficulties in the matter of insurance for small employers was the cost of insurance relative to the risk that was run, and if they proposed and elaborate, but he was bound to say, with all respect to his hon. friend, an ill-considered scheme of Post Office interference, he very much doubted whether the effect that all desired would be obtained, namely, a cheap and easy policy to the insurer. In 1900 something like 2,000,000 agricultural labourers came under the Act, but ft had not occurred to the late Government in five years to prepare a scheme, and he could not accept a proposal of the kind at two days' notice. Though he could not accept the Amendment, he, with the Postmaster-General, would be quite willing to confer with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and see if a way could be found to offer certain facilities through the Post Office and by executive action to assist the object in

331
view. Having said that, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman had recognised the interest which his hon. friend took in this question and the part he had a right to take in their debates on the subject. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would recognise also that he had some interest in workmen's compensation, partly of a filial nature, partly on this particular Amendment, because he had had the honour at one time to hold the office of Postmaster-General. That was his justification for intervening in this debate. Though there was much he could find to criticise or to differ from in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, his concluding sentences, for which he had not been altogether prepared by the earlier portions of his speech, encouraged him to hope much better things than he had hoped at first. The right hon. Gentleman himself in arguing against the Amendment had stated the difficulty with which they were really confronted. They wanted to make workmen's compensation as embodied in the original Act and as amplified by the amending Acts reach as far as possible. They wanted to secure compensation to the injured person with the least possible expenditure on machinery and with the greatest possible certainty that he would attain it when the proper time came. The more they extended it to industries carried on by very small employers, the greater was the difficulty of ensuring any one of these conditions being properly fulfilled, for, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, the small employers in a country village or scattered widely over a country district with very little to insure, and with a very small premium to pay, were not an attractive field for the insurance agent. That was the difficulty recognised by both sides of the House which it had boon the object of his hon. friend to meet. He had not proposed to interfere with private enterprise, even in these scattered cases, still less in the cases of large industrial insurance, with which private enterprise could most easily deal; but he had suggested that to bring home the benefits of this insurance to these scattered cases of small employers they might fairly look for some assistance from the State,
332
and that that assistance should be given through the Postmaster-General. Might he say as one who for a very short time held that office that he thought there was a natural disinclination on the part of the Post Office as an institution to add to its already large responsibilities new and onerous duties? At the same time, be conceived that the Legislature might find in the Post Office ready to hand an instrument at once certain, far-reaching, and economical, for some of the changes or reforms which they desired to see introduced, and he was extremely glad to hear from the Home Secretary that the present Postmaster-General was not averse to considering the tacking on to the Post Office of some additional duties outside the ordinary work of the office What were the, objections urged by the Home Secretary? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the chief registrar of friendly societies would have great objection to the duties thrown upon him, and they ought to pay attention to his opinion. The same objections would apply to Clause 8, under which similar duties were imposed.
MR. GLADSTONEthought the right hon. Gentleman was rather anticipating the line the Government proposed to take.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Home Secretary had altogether exaggerated the duties which would be cast upon the Chief Registrar and the Treasury by his hon. friend's proposal. It would not be necessary to examine into the details of the management and solvency of every insurance company throughout the United Kingdom. All that was necessary would be to make an alteration in the law which would impose upon every insurance company doing this class of insurance business the obligation of depositing sufficient security to meet any liability which might arise under these policies. The words of the new clause in sub-section (2) provided that—
"Regulations made by the Treasury shall prescribe the conditions to be fulfilled by a company to obtain approval under this section."
No doubt if the Government consulted with the Chief Registrar they would be able to frame general regulations which would guarantee the solvency of the

333
companies concerned for the purposes of these policies. The Home Secretary had drawn a picture of the sub-postmaster having to refer individual cases to the Postmaster-General, or to the new branch of his Department which would have to consider each case on its merits; he agreed if that were the result of this Amendment it would make the working of the scheme practically impossible. He submitted, however, that that would not be necessary, because all that was required was to lay down general regulations by which it could be easily ascertained what class of risk the applicant would come under. He thought there were strong reasons for using the Post Office as an agency in this matter, because it would add to the present life annuity business. He welcomed the statement made by the Homo Secretary in his concluding remarks, although he thought he had somewhat exaggerated the difficulties. He hoped that before the debate closed the Postmaster-General would explain to the House what was in his mind, and the lines upon which he thought he might be able to take action.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said everybody recognised the sympathetic manner in which the Home Secretary had met this Amendment, and that the hon. Gentleman opposite had done good service by raising the question. It was one that must be considered and, if possible, dealt with, because the State by this Bill would place an obligation upon small employers, and they ought to make that obligation as light as possible. It was a question to which he should like to devote his attention. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had asked what actual proposals he was in a position to make. The House would recognise that he could not give a reply to that question without the fullest consideration.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was not his question, because that would be quite unreasonable. What he asked was if the Postmaster-General could indicate the lines on which his mind was working, and the results he hoped eventually to obtain.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had not yet had an opportunity of giving it
334
full consideration, but, speaking without prejudice, he thought that if the Post Office dealt with the matter all it would be better that it should deal with it as principal and not as an agent. There were two difficulties in the way of the State's acting as an agent. There was the difficulty of the State, through its officers, distinguishing between one company and another, and if a distinction was made, it would be considered to be an absolute guarantee of the solvency of the company, and in the case of any defalcation on the part of the company there would be a claim upon the State to fulfil its obligations. Therefore it appeared to him, on the first blush, that, if the State found it could deal with this matter at all, it should deal with, it directly, because it would incur all the responsibility; though it might be found, in working out a practical scheme, that the difficulty might be overcome and agency be utilised. That was a question that required grave consideration. He might mention that there was a Bill pro-pared, which would be introduced in the coming session, more or less on the lines of the present Assurance Companies Act, whereby such companies who desired to make a deposit, or in some other way to show to a certain extent their solvency, would be put on a list, and no company who did not show sufficient security would be allowed to undertake this assurance at all. That was what they all desired—to prevent rotten companies from undertaking the work. For the moment all he could promise was that, so far as administrative action was concerned, he should desire to do anything he found it in his power to do. He saw the advantage of placing lists of solvent companies in post-offices for information.
MR. COCHEANEasked how the right hon. Gentleman would discover which companies were solvent and which were insolvent.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that unfortunately they had no means at present of discovering which companies were solvent and which were insolvent. Under the Bill to be introduced next year they would have a list, and as soon as there was a list of solvent companies he would undertake that it should be so dealt with as to be utilised in bringing the two parties together. He

335
would be prepared to allow the sub-postmasters in various parts of the country to act in their private capacity as agents for these companies and to give such information as they could. Until more security was obtainable they could not be allowed to make the State liable for the information which they gave. He hoped the House would recognise that the Home Secretary and himself desired to deal with this matter in a sympathetic spirit.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that the Labour Members on both sides of the House were agreed in principle in regard to this Amendment. It was felt that it did supply a need for which there was no provision in the Bill. The statement just made by the Postmaster-General, however, had put an entirely new aspect on the question. He had given what was practically an assurance that in one form or another the Post Office would be used at least as a means of communicating information concerning insurance companies. A further indication that it was possible that the Post Office might develop into a principal insurer rather than an agency for insurance companies was most valuable and welcome. He would like to ask the Postmaster-General whether he could give any indication that some method of meeting the point made by the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire would be devised to come into operation simultaneously with the Act on the 1st July next. If an assurance of that kind could be given he hoped the hon. Member would agree to the Amendment being withdrawn.
SIR E. CARSONsaid he did not know very well how far the powers of the Post Office went under present legislation, but he thought most of them at all events were agreed with the observation which the Postmaster-General made that eventually this matter ought to develop into a scheme for the Post Office themselves carrying out these small insurances just as they carried out other matters not germane to Post Office work. What he would suggest was that if the Post Office had not already sufficient
336
powers the Postmaster-General should take powers by this Bill by a short clause, limited in any way that the right hon. Gentleman thought necessary, so that if and when he saw it was feasible to formulate a scheme for setting up these insurance provisions they could do so. It would be merely a permissive clause, and the whole matter would be dealt with under the regulations of the Post Office and the Treasury, so that it would be lawful for the Post Office with the consent of the Treasury to set up a scheme to enable small employers to insure through the Post Office.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had stated as fully as he could at present the views which the Government entertained on the subject. Without having further opportunity of looking into the matter, the only pledge he would give to the House was that he would give it sympathetic consideration on the lines he had indicated.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University was extremely dangerous. He understood the proposal was that the Post Office should start an insurance business. He was astonished at the rapidity with which they were going on the road to socialism. He understood further that the Postmaster-General was going to allow postmasters to recommend insurance companies on the understanding that the Post Office did not accept any liability.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To give information.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the result would inevitably be that the people who received information would consider that the name given by a postmaster carried with it the liability of the State. Therefore he thought that before the right hon. Gentleman gave permission to postmasters to do this he should take some steps to ascertain that the companies recommmded were in a sound financial position. He could find out in a fortnight which insurance companies were sufficiently sound to be

337
recommended with a reasonable probability that they would be able to meet their liabilities. This was an extremely important point on which he felt strongly, and he hoped the Postmaster-General would consider what he had said.
MR. COCHRANEthanked the Postmaster-General and the House for their kindly and sympathetic reception of the Amendment. He did not share the fears of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London as to what would take place. The Post Office had already undertaken considerable insurance business, and after due inquiry it might be found that the Department could still further extend the sphere of its usefulness. The right hon. Gentleman had substantially admitted his point and promised that the matter should receive immediate attention, and he had further stated that the Board of Trade would early in next session introduce a Bill dealing with the subject. He therefore asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved an Amendment providing that an employer should not be liable in respect of any injury which did not disable the workman for a period of "one week" instead of "three days." He would briefly remind the House what had been done in regard to this point. The Bill as originally introduced provided that there should be compensation after seven days. In the Standing Committee an Amendment was carried against the advice of the Government substituting three days for seven. There had been considerable debate about the matter, and communications had been received from employers complaining that the qualifying period had been made so short. Proposals were made on behalf of the employers to the effect that if "seven days" were reinserted, they would be ready to accept a dating back provision after twenty-eight days. Afterwards he announced to the Grand Committee that the Government, after careful consideration, proposed to reinstate "seven days," and subsequently they provided a dating back period so that the workman should get compensation after fourteen days.
MR. COCHRANE: I did not gather that "fourteen days" was part of the bargain at all.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he announced that to the Grand Committee. There could be no question about that. He did not say that the hon. Gentleman accepted it, but unless he was under a misapprehension, it was received with approval in the Committee by hon. Gentlemen opposite and below the gangway. The principal argument in favour of substituting seven days for fourteen was to his mind to be found in the evidence given before the Departmental Committee, which showed the great hardship which this long qualifying period inflicted more particularly on the small wage - earners of the country. A man or woman earning 7s., 10s., or 12s. a week, after being injured, had to pass a whole fortnight before getting either wages or compensation, and the Government felt, in view of the many cases of hardship which would arise, that the matter was one of which they ought to take notice. He quite agreed that the proposal of the Government would involve considerable increase in the cost, especially in connection with the more dangerous trades of the country. There were many trades where the question of cost was quite inconsiderable to the employers themselves, but when they came to such trades as engineering, shipbuilding, mining, and so forth, it was a far more serious matter. What he maintained was that the proposal which the Government were making in this Bill was a necessary and direct consequence of the Act of 1897, because this principle was adopted as underlying that Act. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, to whom everybody was under a great obligation in connection with the question of workmen's compensation, laid down these words—
"When a person on his own responsibility Sets in motion an agency with grievous risk to others, he ought to be similarly responsible for what he does."
In 1897 the Government in many directions refused to put upon the employer a higher liability than was proposed in their Bill; but they did not refuse to accept Amendments involving higher liability because it was wrong

339
in itself. Time after time they urged that the Bill which they were introducing was tentative and experimental, and that they wanted fuller experience before committing themselves to the further progressive stages which they frankly admitted would ultimately become absolutely necessary. The country had now had almost ten years experience of the working of the Act of 1895, and he maintained that the cost of the Act had not inflicted the smallest damage on any industry in the country, in spite of the lugubrious and harrowing prophecies which were made in 1897. The two great hardships which had emerged from the working of the Act had been the hardship to the small wage-earner in losing his wages for two weeks when he was only temporarily incapacitated, and the hardship on the severely injured man, who might be laid up for six months or a year, who was cut off absolutely from any compensation for the first fortnight. These particular hardships were inconsistent with the principle laid down in 1897 by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. No provision in the Bill would injure the country, as against foreign countries. He was confident that no damage would be done to the industries of the country, and that the provisions in the Bill would fall lightly on the shoulders of employers. In some foreign countries the compensation law pressed more hardly on the employers than any Act passed by Parliament in this country. He knew quite well that the employer did not like to increase the responsibilities Parliament was imposing upon him; but the employer would not bear any higher burden under this Bill than under the Act of 1897. The burden would be transferred to the consumer. It seemed to him that the workman had as much title in one sense as the employer to keep his eye on increased charges of production, because he knew that unless the employer could transfer those charges to the consumer they would affect his wages. It would be acknowledged that those who represented workmen made no complaint that this charge indirectly, fell upon them, because it was in order that those who were injured should be provided for.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'three days,' and to insert the word 'seven.'"— (Mr. Secretary Gladstone..)
Question proposed, "That 'three days' stand part of the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEsaid he could not quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman had said in regard to what took place in Committee upstairs. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to have then made the statement that the claim for compensation was to be after fourteen days from the injury.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that in Committee he stated that while the Government then accepted three days they would be prepared on Report to restore it to seven days from the date of the injury.
MR. COCHRANEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the prophecies which had been made in 1897 as to the evil which would result from the Workmen's Compensation Act. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that those prophecies came from the right hon. Gentleman's own Party which was then in opposition. He remembered a wealthy goalowner getting up in the House and saying that if the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were passed he would be a ruined man. What had happened to that prophet? Like all prophets he had in due course been translated to a higher sphere—in his case to the House of Lords—and he was still solvent. He endorsed emphatically what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman that this was not entirely an employer's or a workman's question. It was a national question. The fund from which the compensation would be paid was the wages fund, and the working classes had as direct an interest as the employers in the economical management of that fund. He desired to see all reasonable precautions taken to prevent the increase of malingering from which the working classes were no more exempt than other sections of the community. The

341
friendly societies by their rules protected themselves against malingering, and although he did not wish to make allegations of any kind he wanted hon. Members to see that there was a case to be met and dealt with. If the compensation were allowed to be dated fourteen days back a man would be entitled to get his half pay after fourteen days for the whole fourteen days. He would take, for example, the case of a man earning 30s. a week. What would his position be under the Workmen's Compensation Act? It would be found that if after the eighth day he remained idle rather than go to work he would make more money by it. This had been very carefully worked out, and the figures sent to him showed that there was a direct incentive to a man not to return to work. It was not only the question of the compensation which had to be paid, but it was the fact that the man remaining away from his work disorganised the establishment. To reduce the time from fourteen to seven days would mean increased percentages in the cost of insurance rising from 8 to 44 per cent. in the coal-mining, shipbuilding, textile, and other industries. This appeared from the figures supplied by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the figures he gave in reply to a Question were merely speculative estimates by employers.
MR. COCHRANEsaid he was aware of that, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that they were genuine and bona fide figures which any hon. Member might quote to the House. What he suggested was that they wanted some measure of time which would enable them to tell whether the injury was serious or not. He was certain hon. Members opposite would agree with him, although they could not give him the support he desired. He desired to meet this difficulty. He did not want to see the man who had met with a serious accident left without assistance. He should, therefore, support the present Amendment, but he hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would not be inflexible with regard to the Amendment
342
he (Mr. Cochrane) proposed to move at a later stage.
MR. FENWICKsaid his understanding was that if the period of seven days was restored it would be made clear that on an injury incapacitating a man for fourteen days the payment would date from the beginning of the fortnight. As the phrase "more than two weeks" was used in the schedule he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government that payment for the past week should be withheld if the illness did not last fifteen days.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the schedule would be made to accord with the hon. Member's understanding.
MR. CORYsaid he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, that the passing of the Act of 1897 did not affect the interest of any one industry. So far as the coal trade was concerned he differed entirely from the right hon. Gentleman. It had made it more costly to extract coal, and to that extent more difficult to compete with the foreigner. Other nations had similar schemes, but they, especially the German scheme as it affected the coal trade, were much more favourable. It could not be said that the workman paid the cost of the Compensation Act, because wages were not based on profits, but on prices. If the cost was increased and the price did not go up less profit was obtained, but the same wages were paid. Nor did the wages paid rest with the employer. They rested with the Conciliation Boards. He contended that the increased cost imposed by the Bill would fall not on the consumer or the workman, but on the producer. In certain cases a workman would be better off by remaining away from work than by working at full wages. The North Durham Colliery Company had given an instance of miners who, receiving benefit from the different benefit funds, together with compensation, would be better off than if they returned to work. For instance, a man might receive from the Permanent Relief Fund 5s. a week; from the Durham Miners' Fund, 10s. a week; and from the Colliery Fund another 8s a week, making a total of 23s., which supposing his wages were 30s. a week,

343
and he received 15s. a week as compensation, would bring him in a total of 38s. a week if he remained away from work, instead of the 30s. he would get at regular work. In these circumstances there was sufficient inducement to a man to malinger. Under the present Act the proportion of cases in which compensation was paid per thousand of persons employed had increased from 43 to 148, which showed that as the men became better acquainted with the mode of making a claim the number of claims had enormously increased. He did not think that was to their credit. The Act had induced men to claim who were not entitled to do so, and by degrees they had been demoralised. Every class was liable to malinger, the working classes being no worse than any other. So long as a class had sufficient temptation they would avail themselves of the opportunity if it arose. The present proposal of the Home Secretary was infinitely worse than that carried in Grand Committee. Inquiries had been made from districts all over the country as to whether they would rather have three days, seven days, or a fortnight in this matter, and he thought without exception in all the big industries—certainly where coal was concerned—three days was preferred. Therefore the compromise that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of was merely a compromise between him and the Labour Members, and so far as the employers were concerned it seemed to him they would be very much worse off than under the Bill at present. He should oppose the Home Secretary's Amendment if it were coupled with the fourteen days provision.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he felt some difficulty in knowing how to vote upon the question which would be first put from the Chair. He would have been perfectly ready to support the right hon. Gentleman in the Motion that stood on the Paper had it not been for his explanation given in answer to the hon. Member for the Wansbeck Division as to his intention when they came to deal with a later portion of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that whilst proposing now to insert seven days in place of three days, he intended at a later point, to make the compensation retrospective if the accident disabled a man four-
344
teen days. Under those circumstances he supposed he could hardly vote upon the present Motion without having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman intended it to lead up to. At any rate he must reconsider his intention to support the right hon. Gentleman. This was not a Party question in any way, and should not be treated in a sectional spirit. Their interests were all alike, and those of the good workman and the good employer were the same. They desired to secure that no serious injury should take place without the fault of the workman for which he should not receive compensation. They did not desire that the industry on which the workman was dependent for his livelihood or the employer should be unnecessarily burdened in giving effect to that principle, and, therefore, they did not desire that an industry should be taxed to support what were not genuine cases of incapacity. There was, of course, always a difficulty in ascertaining whether a man who pleaded incapacity for work was or was not really incapacitated in the first days of an illness or injury which might be very serious, but which, on the other hand, might be more the effect of his own imagination than anything else. Speaking for himself and for those whose views be knew in the Midland counties, he believed it would be better for the insurance societies and for the workmen that they should take the three days limit than have a proposal of the kind now made. If they encouraged a man to stay out from work by telling him that if he only stayed out long enough compensation from that date forward and also for the time he had previously been out would be paid, they would be giving him an enormous temptation to keep away from work. The great mass of workmen desired to prevent malingering, and did their utmost to prevent it, but they knew that their societies were from time to time defrauded by claims which they were unable to check. In Birmingham there was an Employers' Mutual Insurance Society. The society insured employers, who employed over 125,000 workmen, and for some time past they had been making investigations in order to ascertain the comparative cost of insurance on different systems. They computed that

345
if the limit was three days the increased cost over that of the Act of 1897 would be 65 per cent., and if the limit were seven days the increase would be 74-4 per cent., in both cases the figure including increased cost of administration and investigation. For that additional cost to the employer no corresponding advantage was given to the workman. Personally he would support the old period of fourteen days without any counting back, because he thought it was the best. He would prefer, however, seven days to three days, because he did not think seven days inflicted any hardship on an injured workman, and was a greater security against malingering. But if the seven days were to be counted when the injury extended beyond a fortnight, he preferred the Bill as it left the Grand Committee to this proposal.
MR. BRACEsaid that if there was as much malingering among workmen as hon. Members professed to believe, the best solution of the difficulty would be to pay compensation from the date that the accident happened. Speaking as a workman, he had no hesitation in denying that there was anything like the quantity of malignering that they had been told existed. Far be it from him to say that they would not find here and there in a large number of working men a man who was not as honourable as he ought to be, but he was really an exception. The House was asked to legislate for the rule, not for the exception. He did not think hon. Members ought to emphasise too much the question of malingering. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire told the. House that sometimes workmen's accidents were more matters of their own imagination than anything else, he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had not been hurt or injured by following manual labour himself. He himself had, and for years before he entered Parliament it was his particular business to deal direct with oases of compensation. Men had been hurt who bore no signs of it, but they knew they were hurt, and even after they returned to their work they had been obliged to give up. Much emphasis had been laid on the case of a man who although he received £100
346
for total disablement began to work again. They were not told, however, whether that workman had commenced to work at his own trade, which was an important distinction. A miner was often injured and received compensation but was able to do some light work outside his trade. There were many cases of that kind. A man should not be called a malingerer because he worked at some lighter trade. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed quite correctly that compensation was paid out of the "wage and profit" fund of a concern, and therefore the workmen paid their proportionate share towards the compensation. The hon. Member for St. Ives said that wages were ruled by prices. He noticed that the same hon. Gentleman fought as strongly and determinedly against any advance of wages as he was doing against compensation, and looked at the matter from the side of the employer. He agreed that he himself might be somewhat biassed in looking at the question from a workman's point of view, but he would remind the hon. Member that neither the selling price nor the wages paid were taken into account so far as compensation was concerned, because compensation was paid out of the wage and profit fund, and if that was reduced the workmen stood to lose. If the concern did not pay the men got no allowances when workinp in bad or unfair places. He would like to ask the House to pause before placing too much reliance upon the documents which had been sent to Members by representative employers' associations. He did not say they were compiled purposely to mislead, but the question of cost was looked from the standpoint of the employer through a magnifying glass that the facts were exaggerated. It was stated by the employers on the introduction of this Bill that the result of its working would impose a burden of 3d. a ton on all coal got, but the actual figures showed that it was less than 1d. per ton.
MR. MAEKHAM: The hon. Member is quite wrong there.
MR. BRACEsaid he was speaking well within his own knowledge but he would be glad to hear from the hon.

347
Member the source of his information. If the employers made such a blunder before what reliability could they place on their statements now? But the question of cost ought not to be considered in connection with injured workmen. Surely it was not too much to ask the House of Commons to provide that when men had been badly mauled in producing the nation's wealth they should be given sufficient compensation to keep then -selves and their families in some kind of comfort and respectability until they were able to resume work. He did not think that seven days for a minor accident was unfair, although he was sure that he could make out a strong case for payment from the first day of injury in serious and minor accident cases. In his view the proposal of the Government was a fair compromise. An honourable understanding had been arrived at by which the injured were to have compensation from the first day of the injury in serious accidents, and a limit of seven days for minor accidents, and he thought that was an arrangement which the House might very well accept. When a man was injured the cost of keeping up his home was very much greater than under normal circumstances. During the first few weeks whilst the injured man was nourishing his body an increased cost would be thrown upon the home and its resources. When a man's earning power was withdrawn by an accident surely it was only right and equitable that the Legislature should open a channel through which the means of sustenance might flow until he had recovered. He hoped the compromise arrived at would not be departed from.
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid the Government had agreed to this compromise, and he did not think the point was worth arguing under the circumstances. It had been said that there were more serious accidents than minor ones, but surely the path the Government had taken was the right one, namely, to give compensation for the larger number of the accidents.
MR. CORYsaid that according to the report of the inspector of mines serious accidents had decreased, whereas trivial accidents had increased.
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he believed the suggestion was a compromise which would be largely instrumental in pre-venting the occurrence of accidents, and the Government ought to adhere to it.
MR. MARKHAMsaid he had some knowledge of the cost of the working of the Compensation Act. In South Wales the cost of compensation insurance was originally 18s. per £100, but it had risen to 35s. The cost to his colliery company in South Wales —and he did not regret it, because he considered that every employer could recoup himself in the prices he charged for his commodities—was 50 per cent. higher than the hon. Member had stated. It was 1½d. per ton and not 1d. In Yorkshire the cost of insurance had increased according to the latest quotations of insurance companies by 20 per cent. This also applied to Derbyshire and counties in the federated area. He heartily supported the Amendment, as it would be most disastrous to have three days. He had always advocated to his constituents that the time should be a week in the case of trivial accidents. He was quite certain that when the clause was in operation the cost to the employer would be nothing like what some Opposition Members had stated. He had made careful inquiries and he estimated that the Increased cost due to this just and equitable provision would be less than ¼d. per ton.
MR. PARKES, who was indistinctly heard was understood to say that there was no compromise in the Grand Committee.
MR. H. J. TENNANTsaid he excepted the hon. Gentleman.
MR. PARKESasked of what value it was if the compromise was made with only one portion of the Committee. Various solutions were mentioned in the Committee as to dating back. The Bill, when originally brought in by the right hon. Gentleman, mentioned seven days without any qualification at all. The Government were

349
beaten on that point, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill expressed his disagreement with the decision of the Committee, and suggested as a compromise seven days and fourteen days dating back. A deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman, after the Amendment substituting three days had been carried, and he stated that he stood by the Bill as originally drawn.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid the deputation accepted the proposal as to dating back.
MR. PARKESsaid he had read the report of the deputation, and there was no mention in it of dating back. What was said to the deputation showed that the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with "three days." The compromise which the Home Secretary had promised was no better than the three days, and would give no relief to the industrial people of the country There was no disposition on the part of any section of the House to refuse compensation to a man who was genuinely disabled. He believed the desire was that every man who was seriously injured should receive compensation, starting from the day on which the injury was sustained. He thought that provision might be made in the Bill to give effect to that view. The proposal now made by the Government was worse than the "three days" provided for by the Amendment carried in the Grand Committee. Those who were not parties to the suggested arrangement were perfectly justified in saying that they disagreed with the solution put before them.
MR. BRODIEsaid he entirely agreed with the statement that this Bill should have been so framed that compensation should date from the day of the injury. Most hon. Members accepted the Bill because they believed it paved the way for a wider scheme of compensation for all accidents. The Home Secretary was not singular in moving this Amendment. He had himself given notice of a similar Amendment, though he intended it to pave the way
350
for a later Amendment in the following terms—
"Provided also that where the disablement arising from the injury prevents the workman from earning full wages for a period of one week the employer shall be liable to pay compensation for the whole period of such disablement starting from the commencement."
He suggested that the dating back period should be one week instead of fourteen days. Hon. Members above the gangway had been considerably impressed by the memorandum which they had received from engineering employers and the federation of shipbuilding employers. They very pertinently pointed out that if compensation was to date back to the commencement of the injury, provided that the injury should have lasted fourteen days, that was a reason why a man, who might be ill for a week or ten days, would be anxious to be ill for fourteen days in order to obtain the benefit. It seemed to him—and there were others who agreed with him—that it would be far better in the interests both of employer and employed that the period should date back after one week to the date of the accident. He should have preferred that the clause had remained exactly as it was, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion that compensation should commence after the end of one week and date back to the date of injury. He should like to dissociate himself from what had been said as to malingering on the part of the men. They all knew that there were bad workmen as well as bad employers, but he believed that they might rely upon the trade unions bringing their influence to bear in order to prevent malingering in the manufacturing districts. In other parts of the country there was a wonderful freedom from anything like malingering or shirking of work.
MR. WALSHsaid he rose with some little hesitation, because he did not want to delay the passing of this measure, but he wished to state how sincerely grateful he and his friends were to the Government for standing by the Bill both in the House and in the Grand Committee. On the Second Reading of the Bill he himself had suggested to the Home Secretary that the provisions

351
of the French law should be adopted in this measure. The predictions of woe and of disaster which were to fall upon the employers from the first Workmen's Compensation Act would have been sorrowful had they not been so ridiculous. In France since 1898 compensation had been paid in all industries from five days after the accident; and since 1905 if the injury lasted ten days compensation had been paid from the day of the accident. They bad been told that the competition was so keen in these days that under the pressure of such a Bill as this they would be beaten in the race of life; but he maintained that they had nothing to fear, as had been proved by experience. It should be remembered that the onus of proof rested on the workman, who would also have to produce a surgeon's certificate that he was suffering from the effects of an accident. The employers themselves had always their own machinery for their protection. He held that the French experience of eight years sufficiently demonstrated that a nation did not suffer by paying its injured workpeople from at least the first week of an accident, or, if the injury lasted more than ten days, from the day the accident occurred. He remembered how the coal owners of Great Britain had insisted that the first Workmen's Compensation Act would increase the price of coal by from 3d. to 1s. per ton; but evidence was laid before the Commission that for years the increase was only ½d. per ton, and it had never yet exceeded two-thirds of a penny per ton. He again offered sincere congratulations to the Government on the firm stand they had made in regard to this Amendment.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that he understood that the Government had come to an arrangement with the hon. Members below the Gangway in regard to this Amendment. He confessed that after giving the best attention he could to the arguments used in Grand Committee, he thought that three days as the period after the accident when compensation should commence might safely have been adopted by the Government. He had argued in hundreds of cases brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, and
352
he was happy to assure the House that he knew of only one case in which malingering had been successfully brought home to a working man. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had stated that there were cases where men who had been compensated for injury were engaged in other employments, but that argument was totally irrevelant to the present case. The only question before the House was whether or not the payment of compensation three days from the accident was a greater advantage to the working classes than a burden on the employer. In his opinion there could be no doubt that it would be a great advantage to the working classes. He had had the advantage of discussing this quesion with associations of working men in his constituency, and he found that their wish was that compensation should be given at the earliest possible day. They preferred that it should be given from the first day, and if not that it should be given from the third day. He believed that employers of labour and the general body of workmen would much prefer three days to the scheme put forward by the Government, and on behalf of the working men of his constituency he could be no party to the bargain entered into between the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members below the Gangway. Even if he voted alone he would divide the House upon the subject.
THE UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said it would be interesting to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down represented the opinions of hon. Gentlemen around him and of right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench. If he did, he had made an exceedingly belated revelation. The unanimous opinion of the direct representatives of labour was that on the whole they preferred the present proposal of the Government to an all-round three - days period. He thought they might assume that from the economic point of view there was not much difference between one scheme and the other, but the

353
Government believed that the three days scheme would result in an immense flood of comparatively small claims which would clog the working of the Act. It was impossible, as had been suggested, to define what was a serious accident. It was provided in the Notice of Accidents Act that serious accidents should be reported, but the phrase had been found so ambiguous that it was impossible to maintain it. As to the burden of cost which this measure and compensation generally threw on the industry of the country, when they spoke in percentages the increase seemed heavy. But what did it amount to in actual figures? At present the ordinary rate of insurance was about £1 for every £100 spent in wages in an ordinary trade. The increase in the cost of insurance was precisely equivalent to a rise in wages, and a rise in wages of 1 per cent, would be regarded as a matter of very small importance. The cost under the Act of 1897 was equivalent to a rise in wages all round from £1 to £1 0s. 2½d., and if they assumed that this new Bill would add 30 per cent., that would be equivalent to about ¾d, per £1 of wages, bringing it up to £1 0s. 3¼d. He thought the House would agree that that was not a very heavy burden.
Question put, and negatived.
Proposed words inserted in the Bill.
MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved what he described as a drafting Amendment. As the clause stood it provided that when the injury was caused through the negligence of the employer nothing in this Act should affect his liability,
"but in that case the workman may at his option either claim compensation under this Act or take the same proceedings as were open to him before the commencement of this Act."
He moved to leave out the words "the same" and also "as were open to him before the commencement" and insert "independently," so that the clause would read—
"The workman may at his option either claim compensation under this Act or take proceedings independently."
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
"In page 1, line 22, to leave out the words 'the same."
354
"In page 1, line 23, to leave out the words 'as were open to him before the commencement,' and insert the word 'independently.'" —(Mr. Gladstone.)
Amendments agreed to.
MR. WALSH*MR. WALSH moved as an Amendment to leave out sub-section (c) of Clause 1, which runs—
"If it is proved that the injury to a workman is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of that workman, any compensation claimed in respect of that injury shall be disallowed."
The hon. Member said he did not wish to give the House a rehash of the arguments used in the Grand Committee, but he might say that nine years ago a very lengthy debate took place upon the insertion of this provision, but in operation it had not proved of much utility. The cases in which the employers had been successful in establishing that a workman had been guilty of serious and wilful misconduct had been very few in number, and little tangible relief had been obtained by them under this provision. The sub-section however, while it afforded very little relief to employers, had inflicted great hardship upon widows and children. After all, the general scheme of workmen's compensation was not based on abstract justice to the employer. Employers were held responsible for thousands of accidents over which they had no control. It was a charge upon industry when people set in motion machinery which might result in injury or loss of life. He did not; want to repeat what he had said on former occasions, but he could quote case after case where hardship had resulted to widows and children. In the case of one colliery within three miles of his home, and in the constituency which he had the honour to represent, a portion of the mine filled with gas and the workpeople were removed to, another part of the mine. The fireman of the mine and a man working by day wage went into the part which was filled with gas in order to rescue the rails and sleepers and the various implements required by the men. In doing so they no doubt committed an error of judgment. One man was an official of the mine and naturally would do his best for the owners, the other was a man on day wages and could not hope to derive any

355
benefit from his action. Those two men were brought out of the mine dead, and it was held by the County Court Judge that their widows and children were not entitled to compensation because the men had been guilty of wilful misconduct. This clause became more detrimental day by day, especially in Scotland, where the Court of Session had tightened up the interpretation of the law to a considerable extent. A great many of those who now occupied the Treasury Bench voted against this sub-section when it was introduced into the Act of 1897, and therefore, without labouring the matter further, he begged to move that this paragraph be deleted.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 5, to leave out paragraph (c) sub-section (2) of Clause 1."—(Mr. Walsh.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'if it is proved that the injury to a workman is' stand part of the Bill."
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON, S. Shields)said the hon. Member had reminded the House that nine years ago many who now occupied the Treasury Bench voted in the way the hon. Gentleman wanted them now to go, but since then many things had happened. In England the scope of this sub-section was by no means extensive; it did not do extensive good, and it could not inflict considerable harm. He thought it was to the credit of the Bill that there should be some penalty attaching to misconduct which could be described as serious and wilful. A mere breach of rules had not been treated as serious and wilful misconduct in England. There had been some cases in Soctland where a stricter view of the sub-section had been taken than was taken in England. He had little doubt that before long the law in England and in Scotland would be made to accord. There would be an appeal which would give for both countries an authoritative exposition of the law. In England the question of serious and wilful misconduct had always been treated as a question of fact, and there could be no doubt as to the justice of dealing with it in that way. The Scottish Courts had treated the question as being in some measure a question of law. He had
356
little doubt as to what the result would be of any appeal to the House of Lords-They must treat the sub-section as one which would soon receive a construction applicable both to England and to Scotland, which would leave this question entirely as a question of fact to be decided by the arbitrators and Judges, and in accordance with the tendency of arbitrators and Judges to treat cases of serious and wilful misconduct as being almost inconceivably rare. Therefore he saw no reason for deleting a clause which was intended to be a protection to the employer. The clause did some good, although it found its way so little into the law Courts. There were cases in which the sub-section would operate as a deterrent against misconduct that might lead to injury. It did not infringe in any serious way the rights of workmen, and whatever might be said in favour of amendment he hoped the House would not delete the words.
MR. BELLsaid that although at the time he gave evidence before the Departmental Committee he had no knowledge of any member of the organisation of which he was secretary having ever been refused compensation on the ground of misconduct, unfortunately since then a case had occurred which made him feel very strongly in favour of this Amendment. It was a very simple case and one which no hon. Member, he was sure, would say could be construed into misconduct. It had been through the lower Courts and the Court of Appeal, and it was now waiting the pleasure of the House of Lords. It was a case of firemen on an express engine running many miles on a trunk line without a stop. The instructions issued by the officials of this particular railway, he believed, corresponded with what other companies also stipulated, that no fireman or engine-driver must go on the tender whilst the train was in motion. In this particular instance it appeared that the coal within reach of the foot plate had been burnt, and it became necessary for the fireman to go to the back of the tender to shovel down the coal so that it should be within his reach for stoking purposes. In going to the back of the

357
tender the man came into contact with a bridge, and was killed. It was held in this instance that his death was due to his wilful misconduct in going to the back of the tender, and the claim was not allowed. Certainly no fireman would ever do anything of that kind unless it became absolutely necessary, but in this case there was only one other alternative, namely, to stop the express, and he left hon. Members to imagine what would have been the consequences then. That was certainly putting a strain on these words "wilful misconduct," though the act of the fireman was technically a breach of the regulations. If it was to be held to be misconduct it was a kind of misconduct which was committed daily by railway men, and he hoped therefore that the Home Secretary would accept this Amendment.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid the speech of the Solicitor-General was so conciliatory that he was disposed to think the Home Secretary might still accept the Amendment. He thought, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was inaccurate in stating that this section would apply to only rare cases in England. He had known a considerable number of cases in which the claims of the workmen had been defeated owing to the interpretation put upon the words "serious and wilful misconduct." The real mischief was that the decision of the arbitrator—often a County Court Judge—was absolutely final in this matter. The cases held to be "serious or wilful misconduct" had almost always been based upon some non-observance of rules. On the other hand, he knew of no case where in the ordinary acceptation of the term the offence could be held to be serious and wilful misconduct. A workman who was anxious to serve the interests of his employer frequently volunteered to do work that he ought not to do, and the result was that the widow of such a workman when he lost his life got no compensation. He appealed to the Home Secretary to strike out the objectionable words altogether, in order to secure to the workman, if only in comparatively isolated cases, due compensation to himself or his family for every injury he received.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid thousands of accidents happened over which the employers had no control at all, and if they made rules for the protection of the workmen he thought it would be very hard indeed upon employers if when accidents happened through the breaking of those rules no notice was taken of the fact. He spoke as an engineer, so that he held no brief for employers. It was a rule in engineering works that machinery must not be cleaned while in motion, and the engines were stopped just before the ordinary stopping time on a Saturday in order to give workmen an opportunity to clean the machinery before they went away. It was a common practice for young fellows to try to clean the machinery while it was running, and he had known more accidents take place in that way than in any other. It was very hard upon employers who had made the rules for the protection of the workman that they should have to pay compensation to a workman for the loss of a finger in such a case. This clause was needed for a disciplinary reason, and it would be very wrong, coming as it did after the clause placing so much responsibility upon employers, if it were deleted.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid he rose really to make a suggestion which he hoped would receive some consideration. It was to limit the sub-section to non-fatal accidents. In the first place, it seemed to him it did not involve a large concession on the part of employers, but it was a very considerable concession to those who were unfortunately concerned. If a man were killed and his death were held to be due to serious and wilful misconduct, he was not there to give evidence on his own behalf, and the consequence was that his dependents got no compensation at all, and it was little consolation to them to know that there was serious and wilful misconduct on the part of the man who was killed. The hon. Member for Derby had given a case in point. It did not amount to serious and wilful misconduct. There was the case of a man who was held to be guilty of serious and wilful misconduct because instead of taking refuge in the nearest man-hole in a tunnel he ran on to the next and was killed.

359
Having regard to the comparatively few occasions in which this sub-section would come into operation, he did not think it was much to ask employers to consent freely to the proposal that it should be limited to non-fatal accidents. They ought to consider the position of the dependents in this matter. The bread-winner in these cases would be killed, and why should his family suffer? On behalf of the Government he was willing to insert after the word "shall" in line 8 of sub-section (c) the words "unless the injury results in death."
MR. CORYsaid the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would not meet the case. It had been admitted that very few employers took advantage of this clause, and they did not resist claims for compensation under it. A case came before his notice of a man who was returning home after working on the docks, and instead of crossing the railway line by a bridge he passed under some trucks just when the train was starting and was killed. That was a clear case of wilful misconduct. In that case the employer did not try to evade the claim, but paid it. The proposal did not make the workmen any more careful, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would keep the clause as it stood.
MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that admitting an accident was due to carelessness or wilful misconduct, surely it was better that an employer should suffer a slight injustice than the widow and family of the man who was killed. He wished to point out, however, that it did not always require an act of serious or wilful misconduct to disqualify the man. Under the Mines Regulation Act there were no less than 157 special rules, a large number of which were violated daily with the full knowledge, concurrence, and consent of all those concerned in the mine, from the manager downwards. He knew of cases where men had been threatened with dismissal for rigidly carrying out the special rules. In the case of an accident, however, if it could be shown, particularly in Scotland, that every one of the rules had not been rigidly observed, loss of compensation followed. If the Home Secretary could make the serious
360
and wilful misconduct some serious act committed by the workman and not merely some omission to observe the rules, that might be made a basis for some common understanding. He wished to acknowledge the generous way in which the Home Office and the Government had endeavoured to meet the working classes on this point. Although they did not wish to press the matter unduly, he thought the Home Secretary would see that it was an important question.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid a very reasonable appeal had been made by the hon. Member, but he warned him of the danger of any such limitation as he had suggested. Those who had to discuss these matters in Courts of Law knew how difficult it was to distinguish between the omission to keep a rule and the commission of an act. There might be a rule in a colliery that a man must not leave his own working place to go to the working place of another. The suggestion of the hon. Member was that a man who did that should not be held guilty of wilful misconduct. Surely it could be argued that that was the commission of an act by the man. After all, he thought the safest plan was to revert to the position of the original Bill of 1897, in which there was no such sub-section as this at all. In the opinion of the author of the Act of 1897 these words were not necessary. He quite agreed that nothing ought to be done which would seem to be an encouragement to the workman to commit serious or wilful misconduct. In the actualities of life the fact that there was such a subsection as this in an Act of Parliament had no deterrent effect on men. The danger of this sub-section was pointed out in 1897 in that it would increase litigation, and, it being always a question of fact, no appeal brought would ever interfere with a finding of fact by the Judge who tried the case. The result was there was always litigation over these words "serious and wilful misconduct," and if it was certain that the inclusion of the words had no deterrent effect and that the exclusion would have no effect in the way of encouraging misconduct, the best way was to revert to the old position. A compromise had

361
been suggested by the Home Secretary, but he did not think it went far enough or had any logical basis. If it was not right to deprive the representative of a deceased person of compensation in cases where injuries had resulted in death it was not right to deprive the man himself who, possibly through some error of judgment which might be regarded as serious misconduct, would be deprived of all compensation which the law should allow him. If that was the true aspect of the situation it was not a very great burden they were putting on the employer. He thought the time would soon come when compensation would have to come from some fund provided by the State. That was an additional reason why, when they were framing a code of compensation, they should omit these words, the inclusion of which inflicted considerable hardship on the workman. It would be very much better to omit the sub-section altogether.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that from his recollection of the evidence he could not admit that the provision in the Act of 1897 had not a deterrent effect. It had always been somewhat surprising to him that gentlemen directly representing labour, who had from the first protested that what they wanted was not compensation but safety, had shown such unwillingness in all stages of this controversy to admit the inclusion of words such as those now proposed to be left out of the Bill. Although it had to be admitted that the effect of these words had been small, he thought their retention was a matter of great importance, for the reason that negligence or recklessness of a workman involved the safety of other besides himself. For that reason alone he would have supported the retention of the words. At the same time he thought the Home Secretary had proposed to draw a very sound distinction in making an exception in cases where the workman had lost his life. It was impossible to conceive that a man was likely to be so reckless is to court his own death. He would, therefore, support the arrangement proposed by the Home Secretary.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hallam Division had stated that he was astonished that workmen should have attached so much importance to their opposition to the inclusion of these words in the original Ridley Bill, and that they should now be anxious to leave them out. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the hardness of the case where a man was killed. When the proposal to put these words in the original Bill was argued, their case was that it would not be real misconduct that would be hit by the words, but breaches of special rules, and what was now proposed showed that every word they said then, though contradicted at the time, was true. The House of Commons ought to be careful how it acted on mere Government assurances in matters which affected life and limb.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON,)hoped the House would see its way to accept the suggestion of the Home Secretary. He thought the only obstacle in the way of the general acceptance of the suggestion was the one stated by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil. The general principle which he enunciated was that workmen did not desire the law to provide compensation for men. who had by wilful misconduct brought upon themselves the calamities which attended their acts. No one desired that the law should provide solatium for a man who was guilty of wilful misconduct. But in the case of misconduct which had a fatal result two new principles came into play, both of which operated in the determination of the question of compensation. In the first place there was the principle that the lips of the man who was the victim of what was said to be his misconduct were closed; he was no longer a witness in the case as to the degree and character of the misconduct which had to be determined, and therefore he was not able to clear himself from any reproach which might be made upon him. The other principle was that the solatium they were providing was not solatium to the man who had the misfortune to meet his death because of

363
an act amounting to misconduct, but solatium to the innocent person or persons he left behind him, and who did not participate in his reprehensible conduct. It was said that was illogical. Logic had long ago gone in legislation of an exceptional kind. This was altogether exceptional legislation, dealing with a class of the community which had been considered by a whole series of statutes founded on grounds of humanity to have a claim to such special treatment as the principles of justice would allow. The hon. Member opposite had simply said in a different way what he had endeavoured to convey to the House. The hon. Member said that the difficulty was that the misconduct was not really serious although so understood by Courts of justice, and the result had been that injustice had been done. He did not think that the adoption of this compromise would remedy the case of which the hon. Member complained. He had suggested that the Government should frame new words which might discriminate between misconduct in the nature of omission, and misconduct in the nature of commission. He personally doubted whether that could be done. He had failed to find any such formula. Every act, or nearly every act, was an omission if regarded from one point of view, and a commission if regarded from another. In his opinion the words "serious and wilful" applied to the misconduct whether it was in the nature of an act of commission or omission. He did not think it was possible to frame words which would enable that discrimination to be defined in such a way as would effect the result which the hon. Member desired. Everything depended on the gravity or importance of the rule of which there had been a breach. If it was a rule on which human life depended—if it was a serious rule—then the wilful violation of that rule, whether it was an act of omission or commission, was "serious and wilful" misconduct.
MR. FENWICKsaid that as one who had taken an active interest in opposing the Amendment of the Bill of 1896 which became an Act in 1897, he confessed that he should have liked to have seen the Home Secretary prepared to accept this Amendment. It was quite true
364
what his hon. friend had said that this provision was not in the first Bill, and it was clear that the original promoters of this kind of legislation did not consider that such a provision was necessary at all. In the opposition which he urged to the adoption of the Amendment moved in 1897 by Mr. Seton-Karr, then Member for St. Helens, he was strongly backed by the legal Members of the then Front Opposition Bench, and by none more strongly than by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Seton-Karr's Amendment was—
"The employer shall not be liable under this Act to pay compensation to any workman by whose wilful and wrongful act or default the accident arises in respect of which compensation of injury may become payable."
With the permission of the House he would read an extract from the speech then made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"Speaking for himself alone, he felt the greatest regret that the Government had adopted the Amendment. He admitted that the matter was one of very great difficulty, and felt that it would be absurd to dogmatise about it; but it appeared to him that the introduction of words like these involved a departure from the fundamental principle of the Bill."
That was what they all felt. And the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"This Bill was not started from any idea of moral obligation, as it made an employer liable for accidents for which lie was not directly responsible, simply because in the general interest and the interest of trade it was necessary to make provision for injured people. But now the Government were introducing in the case of the workman a moral obligation, and opened the door to an inquiry as to what were the circumstances under which an accident happened, and how far the conduct of a man was a breach of a statutory obligation."
He would remind the Government that nothing could be stronger than the language of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposing Mr. Seton-Karr's Amendment, and for the life of him he could not see how they could consider themselves under an obligation to stand by words which one of their leading leaders considered were a violation of the principles of the Bill of 1897. He made an appeal to the Home Secretary that if he could not see his way on behalf of the Government to accept the Amendment moved by his hon.

365
friend, he should leave the matter an open question and allow the House an opportunity of dividing freely and untrammelled by the Government Whips.
VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid that the suggestion of the Home Secretary had not been supported by any logical argument. The hon. Member for Wansbeck had said that they were importing moral considerations into this measure by penalising the workman who, by his own act brought misfortune on himself. But if the words of this subsection were omitted the effect would be that the rules made for the safety of the workmen in any factory or colliery might be regarded as rules which could be lightly broken. He maintained that were the rules absolutely necessary for the safety of life they should be strictly enforced. The Home Secretary had suggested to the House a compromise, but he agreed with the Attorney-General that there was no argument by which that compromise could be defended. It appealed frankly to sentiment and to sentiment only—that a man had already been sufficiently punished for misconduct by his death. He maintained that it was to the benefit of both employer and workman and to industry as a whole, that workmen should be encouraged to believe that rules were made to be observed, and that they could not be lightly broken without the responsibility falling upon them.
MR. LUPTONwished to thank the Government for the concession they had made in regard to fatal accidents, but he thought they might have gone a step further and extended the provision to permanent injuries or injuries which totally incapacitated a man from earning a living. He represented a considerable number of employers who attached no value whatever to the rule excluding compensation to workmen who happened to break a rule. His idea was that all men injured in any way should be compensated.
MR. J. WARD (Stoke-on-Trent)de-sired to add a word or two for the purpose of trying to induce the Home
366
Secretary, who had gone a good way in the direction of meeting the wishes of Labour Members, to go a step further to meet particular cases. The sub-section as it stood really re-enacted the antiquated doctrine of contributory negligence. There was a rule in some collieries that no one was to ride in a waggon, and there was a case in South Wales in which the County Court Judge decided that where some lads who had ridden in a waggon to get to the shaft in order to return to the surface had met with an accident and been seriously injured—in fact he thought some were killed—they had been guilty of wilful misconduct and a gross breach of the rules of the colliery, and therefore he refused compensation. He knew that many similar cases had been decided in the lower Courts against workmen in a similar fashion. He also knew that trade unions had advised their members that this section would prevent them from getting compensation. The noble Lord beside him had called attention to the previous sub-section (b); but he had not read the whole of it. It provided that when the injury was caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer, certain things should occur, but the noble Lord did not read on to the part which said what would occur. The sub - section went on to say that the workman might in that case at his option either claim compensation under this Act or take proceedings under the Employers Liability Act, which gave a higher scale of damages. Therefore the position was not so illogical as it appeared, although no doubt the Compensation Act of 1897 was illogical, because if a man earned thirty shillings a week the Act said that he should only receive fifteen shillings. He thought that this particular sub-section should be re moved, because although it only affected a few cases it inflicted a positive hardship. He therefore hoped that the Government would give way on the point.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid that after what had beer said it was clear that they must modify this sub-section. The Government did not insist on retaining the actual words of the sub-section. He proposed to add words which would

367
provide that compensation shall be disallowed in the case of serious and wilful misconduct of the workman "unless the injury result in death or serious and permanent disablement."
MR. WALSHin view of the concession which the right hon. Gentleman had made said he wished to withdraw the Amendment.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say "serious and permanent disablement," but he thought the words should be "serious or permanent." An injury might be serious in one sense, but it might not be permanent. It might also be a permanent disablement and still not a serious one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONEformally moved the addition of the words "unless the injury result in death or serious and permanent disablement."
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 8, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'unless the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement.'" —(Mr. Gladstone.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. COCHRANEthought he had a grievance. He should have supported the right hon. Gentleman in his first concession, but he doubted whether the second concession was not too large. The right hon. Gentleman had seriously extended the scope of his proposal. He did wish that occasionally the Home Secretary would stick to his guns. He was in the Committee upstairs, and what happened there was that the Solicitor-General nailed his colours to the mast, and the right hon. Gentleman said that they were so nailed. Then somebody would criticise the action and straightway the Under-Secretary was sent to the masthead to pull down the colours from the mast to which they were said to have been nailed so firmly. The right hon. Gentleman had in the first place made a proposal with which he agreed, but further pressure having been brought to
368
bear upon him he did not stick to his guns, but said: "Let us extend the provision to serious and permanent disablement." He therefore considerably widened the scope of the Bill, but he had given no reason for doing so, or for departing from his original proposal after a most eloquent argument on the part of the Solicitor-General in favour of it. He was placed in this difficulty, that while he was inclined to support the hon. and learned Gentleman on the first Amendment, he thought the second went too far. He thought the hon. and learned Attorney - General might explain what, from his point of view, would be the effect of this section, and thus remove the cloud of doubt which obscured the minds of many hon. Members of the House.
SIR JOHN WALTONthought the hon. Member would realise that it was better to have this clause in its modified condition than not to have it at all. The alternatives were whether the Amendment to strike out the clause altogether should be accepted by the House, or whether the clause should be modified so as to meet the views of those who supported the Amendment. As the matter now stood the clause was not unreasonable. All agreed that if deliberate wilful and serious misconduct had occasioned a misfortune in regard to which the sufferer sought compensation, he had deprived himself of all moral and legal claim for compensation. But though they might approve of that as a general principle there were exceptions to every rule. One exception had been mentioned by an hon. Member opposite, namely, where the misfortune had been so terrible that it had cost the man his life. There were other misfortunes almost as terrible and difficult to deal with which might result in injuries so severe as to involve a living death almost worse than death itself, and this class of misfortunes seemed to demand some humane consideration. The exception that had been so far created was not more legally or logically defensible than that which would be created by allowing the exception to apply to an injury short of death. One might fairly ask, whether without introducing any large exceptions to the general principle,

369
they might not extend some consideration to the unfortunate individual in an accident to which he had contributed by his own misconduct. It, of course, would have to be a serious accident. They would not have to deal with a trifling accident which resulted in the loss of a finger or of even the left hand; it would have to be a serious permanent injury. And when it came to a case of life-long suffering and of a man being permanently disabled from following his calling, he thought they had a case which was entitled to consideration and relief.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid the House in his opinion had come to a very extraordinary pass in this matter. The Attorney-General had made a most unusual statement from the Treasury Bench. He had asked the House whether it was not better to have the clause in a modified form than not to have it all. They had to choose between two alternatives, therefore, either not to have the clause at all or have it in a modified form. Why should they not have the Government clause as it stood? Had the House come to such a state as this? He congratulated hon. Members below the gangway—
SIR JOHN WALTON: I said that the proposal was to omit the clause altogether. If the hon. Member had been in the House as long as some of us he would know that when there is a proposal to omit a sub-section it is very often met by a suggestion to amend it, and in that way a satisfactory solution is frequently arrived at.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid the words of the Attorney-General only gave one interpretation, and they certainly led the ordinary listener to the conclusion that there were only the two alternatives. He was certain that hon. Members around him also put the same meaning on the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, if the Attorney-General assured him that he had no such thought in his mind, he would not press that point. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had indeed changed his guns. He
370
began by declining to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Lancashire to do away with the clause which he, in common with so many hon. Gentlemen, believed had acted as a deterrent. But as the debate went on and Member after Member spoke in favour of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman gradually gave way. He first promised a limitation to compensation in the case of death, and a little later another limitation to give compensation in the case of permanent and serious injury. The hon. and learned Attorney-General said that the injury must be serious and permanent, and declared that the loss of a finger or of the left hand would not be a serious or permanent injury. To many people the loss of a finger, and certainly the loss of a hand, would be a very serious injury, and no one could deny that it was a permanent injury.
SIR JOHN WALTON: I withdraw the hand.
MR. COURTHOPEsaid he pressed the finger. In many trades the first finger of the right hand was as important as the whole left hand, and he believed that any Court would probably hold the loss of the first finger of the right hand to be a serious and permanent injury. That did away with the argument, with which the hon. and learned Attorney-General had tried to cover up the process of "climbing down" by his colleagues, and his suggestion that it would apply to only a very few cases of complete and permanent disablement. As a matter of fact it would apply to an enormous number of cases. Would the Undersecretary for the Home Office, who earlier in the evening had given the House an interesting statistical speech as to the probable increase of premium for insurance, give the House any idea of the increase in premium for insurance which these Amendments accepted by the Home Secretary would cause? Personally he (Mr. Courthope) believed it would be an enormous increase. Hon. Members would admit that it might very likely be held to apply to loss of a finger or hand, and if that were so insurance companies would have to bear that in mind. Was not the increase in premium likely to be enormous, and

371
would not the Amendments have a more far-reaching and disastrous effect than the right hon. Gentleman suspected when he suggested them in order to satisfy the views which the Labour Members so ably expressed? He hoped the Under-Secretary would give some statement about this—he was a great authority on such matters—and if he said it would be a certain figure the House would be inclined to accept his statement, but it could not accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney-General. He thought they were justified in raising a protest against such a change being made by the Government without the slightest warning to those who happened not to be in the House at the time and who, had they been there, would have raised strong objections.
MR. MARKHAMappealed to the hon. and learned Attorney-General to go a little further in this matter, because the House was drifting into a very bad state of affairs. If they gave compensation, in the case of a man who met his death in his calling, to the widow and the child, and if they gave compensation to a man for permanent disablement, surely they could give compensation for any kind of accident. In every other country in the world—certainly in Germany at any rate—compensation was given to every man who met with an accident in his calling irrespective of whether it was by reason of his own misconduct or not. The hon. Member had referred to the great increase of cases which was likely to take place if this Amendment was accepted. He was connected with the employment of many thousands of miners, and during the whole of last year there was not a single case that came before his notice where a company pleaded this clause to avoid giving compensation. As the Government had gone so far why could not they go the whole hog and give compensation in all cases of injury? If such a change was not made the clause would be a cause of more litigation than there had ever been before. After all, what constituted a serious accident? He would say that the loss of a hand or a finger was serious injury. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had asked whether the Government proposed that their Amend-
372
ment should refer to accidents resulting from misconduct that was "serious and wilful" or misconduct that was "serious or wilful," and the Attorney-General said the former expression was the correct one. To prevent any ambiguity it was surely much better when the House had the opportunity that they should quite clearly lay down what was the intention of Parliament. He believed the clause as drawn would give a workman the right to compensation who met with a serious accident. It would be very much better that the Government should accept what was the law in every other country but this, because he did not know of a single case where a man had allowed himself to meet with an accident in order to get the compensation.
MR. F. E. SMITHsaid it had been pointed out already in the course of these debates that this Bill was not a Party one, and the speech just delivered showed very clearly, if additional illustration were needed, the great difference of view which existed in the various parts of the House. On the particular issue before the House he accepted absolutely the speech of the Attorney-General, and thought the solution which had been adopted by the Government was on the whole the one which would give rise to fewest difficulties end fewest injustices. Under the present law if there was serious and wilful misconduct the workmen could not recover from his employer. They were confronted first of all with the serious difficulty that one County Court Judge had differed from another in the determination of what was serious and wilful misconduct. The Court of Appeal had repeatedly decided that it was in every case a question of fact for the County Court Judge to determine, and it had been decided in one sense by one County Court Judge and in another sense by another County Court Judge. They were met in the present Bill by a proposal for which in the abstract there was a great deal to be said, though he thought the Government were right not to accept if unreservedly. The proposal was to get rid of the ambiguity by striking out all these words. That proposal made for simplicity, and so

373
far as that went he was in favour of it, but there was a reason against it which he thought had weighed with the Government, and it was not a reason which made the present position of the Government one which a self-respecting Government need be ashamed to adopt. The point of view which appealed to him so strongly was this: a workman would not commit a breach of rules for any improper motive if the result of that breach was likely to inflict upon him permanent disablement or death. The Legislature, however, was not only entitled, but bound, to provide against cases where a man might well say, "Whatever happens is a trivial matter, and I shall get compensation." But to say that it was necessary in the case of where a man's life or limbs were concerned was flying in the face of all human experience. For these reasons he believed the solution of the Government was the best. He rather regretted on one ground the actual words used, because there had been many conflicting decisions as to what the word "serious" meant. One County Court Judge might regard the loss of a finger as a serious disablement, whereas another County Court Judge might not so regard it, and the Court of Appeal would not interfere because they would say it was a question of fact. If the Attorney-General would substitute some word with a more definite meaning he would without reservation be ready to agree to the position the Government had taken up.
MR. GLADSTONE: The suggestion will be considered.
MR. JOHN WILSONthought the Government might go a step further and take out the clause altogether, The general consensus of opinion seemed to be that the Government should go further than they had gone. It was well known to those who had to deal with accidents to working men that that which appeared only trivial at the time often developed into very serious permanent disablement. In such a case the question arose in his mind whether the man would have to go to the Court to have revised the judgment which regarded his injuries, in the first place, as trivial, or
374
whether the County Court Judge would have power to say that the man was permanently injured and ought to have had compensation from the first. Another thing which induced him to think the Government might have gone further was that the number of cases left to be dealt with was very small indeed. He knew the fight they made in 1897 in order to prove that this section should never have been in the Act. He was surprised to hear the argument as to a man lighting his pipe in a mine and causing explosions which consequently deprived the man and a large number of his fellow-workmen of their lives. There was the prior consideration to be taken into account, namely, that the owner of a mine which was in such a state that it contained constantly an explosive mixture deserved to be tried for manslaughter. He had the Report of the working of a Committee under the present Compensation Act showing the results of six years operation of the Act. It was the Report of the Durham Miners' Mutual Protection Association, and the Durham Miners' Association, according to which there had been 39,623 cases under the Act in the six years, and all of them had been either paid or disputed. Inquiries showed that in that district there only had been seven fatal and seven non-fatal accidents in Court. Consesequently there would only be seven cases under this provision in the largest coal-producing county in this country if all were trivial. If the experience of his own county was on a par with other counties there was very little to fear. He assumed that a few out of the seven would be permanent cases, and not all trivial, and it would be quite fair to eliminate a portion of the seven. If he eliminated only two that would leave five in the county of Durham. A great deal had been said about violating rules. His opinion was that the first consideration of the men should be the preservation of and obedience to the rules. No man ought to hesitate in the least about impressing upon every workman the importance of carrying out strictly the rules. There was an old proverb that "familiarity breeds contempt," and there was no place he knew of where that proverb held good so much as in a mine. Before the Compensation Act of 1897

375
the maintenance and enforcement of the rules were not so strict, and the men broke the rules because there was no serious financial consequences behind. Consequently the men became familiar with danger and exhibited a contempt for it. The forced observance of the rules had brought about a much better state of things. He thought that having gone so far the Government might go a little further, and leave this sub-section out altogether.
SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid that exactly what happened in the Grand Committee was happening on the Report stage. The Labour Party section of the Grand Committee said that the proposals of the Government would not do for them, and they brought pressure to bear, and, although the Home Secretary said that nothing could be done, the Government gave way. That happened not once on the Committee, but over and over again, with the result that the Bill they were now considering was vastly different from that which the Home Secretary first introduced. Exactly the same thing was now happening on the Report stage. The first exception made to serious and wilful misconduct was in case of death, in order to provide that those left behind should be allowed to benefit under the Bill. Now they were being asked to consent to "serious and permanent accidents," and he would like to know where they were going to stop. In making further concessions to the Labour Party the Government were acting unfairly towards employers and in a way that was derogatory to their own dignity. It was not fair to keep on altering the Bill under continued pressure. He thought the words "serious and permanent accidents" ought to be eliminated altogether. He felt that they must draw the line somewhere, and in these matters they ought to be just not only to the employees, but also to the men who had invested their capital.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid he was surprised at the indignation which had just been displayed by the ton. Member for Stockton and the attack he had made upon the Grand
376
Committee. He had stated that the alterations made in Committee were carried either with the consent or the connivance of the Government. He would like to point out that the important principles embodied in the Bill by the Committee were inserted against the wishes of the Government. Therefore, there was no good ground for the indignation shown by the hon. Member for Stockton. Upon this point he was in agreement with the hon. Member for Mid Durham. If the words they were now discussing were inserted the sub-section would not be worth retaining at all. He thought it would be more courageous to take the bull by the horns and let the sub-section go altogeher.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid no stronger speech could have been made against the Amendment than that which had been delivered by the hon. Member for Mid Durham. He had stated that it would be very difficult to prove whether injuries were serious or not, and that was an argument against putting in these words. His hon. and learned friend the Member for the Walton Division of Liverpool had told the House that county court judges held different views as to the interpretation of the word "serious," and that was another argument against the Amendment. The words which had been proposed would lead to any amount of litigation. The Government Amendment would lead to all the evils which the hon. Member for Mid Durham did not wish to see made possible. If the clause stood it would indicate to a working man that if he was not careful, if he did not pay regard to the serious rules laid down for his guidance, and if, owing to his wilful neglect he suffered an accident, he or his family would not get compensation in case of injury, and the result would be to give him some encouragement not to commit a breach of the rules. If, as the hon. Member had said, very few cases had arisen under this sub-section, why delete it or do anything which would minimise its force? There could be no object in doing so from the point of view of working men, but there was an object from the point of view of those who desired that rules

377
should be obeyed. If people were encouraged to break rules, they would be encouraged to incur risks which everyone in the House desired that they should not be encouraged to incur. Looking at the matter as a business man, he could not conceive what object the Government had in inserting these words. Rather than put in the words, it would be much better to delete the clause, but he believed the clause ought to remain.
MR. R. DUNCANsaid that in the long run it was by common sense and good feeling that they had to be guided. He appealed to his hon. friends not to take a course tending to relax discipline in such a way as to encourage recklessness which would lead to greater danger than existed. As business became more complex, and as those engaged in industrial concerns had to deal more frequently and intimately with the great forces of nature, there must of necessity be more regulations and more attention to rules. Was it not a false position to take up to say that a man who transgressed deliberately, thoughtlessly, or recklessly, the rules by which the business in which he was engaged was conducted, should be on the same footing as the man who obeyed the rules, and who did not endanger his own life or the lives of those who worked along with him? If a man was permanently disabled through having failed to obey the regulations of the establishment with which he was connected, and if for that reason he only received half pension or a modification of what otherwise he would have been entitled to, that condition of the law would be a warning to him not to break rules framed for the protection of himself and others.
MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid he wished to protest strongly against the idea that a man would commit a breach of the rules when he did not know the extent of personal injury that would ensue, simply to get compensation. It was too mean for a body of hon. Gentlemen to think of for a moment. He protested with all his heart against such an idea. He was full of gratitude to the Government for what they had done, and as they had done so much he appealed to them to delete the sub-section altogether. He was chairman of an organisation which had 100,000 members, and agent of a district with 30,000 members, and he did not know of one case where they had been face to face with the position which had been suggested. The Government would not save a five-pound note by keeping the sub-section in the Bill, and he was sure many Members would like to see it taken out altogether.
MR. C. DUNCANsaid that the only assumption on which one could understand the arguments that had been used was that a man would go to his work in the morning in the hope that he would be killed for the benefit of his wife and children. A man who wanted to commit suicide would not go to work to do it. In ninety-nine out of 100 cases in which a man was killed or injured owing to his own wilful misconduct the expense was thrown on the boards of guardians. He held that the employers should bear that expense.
Question put.
House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes,27. (Division List No. 454.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Beauchamp, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (H'xhm

Brigg, John

Agnew, George William

Beck, A. Cecil

Bright, J. A.

Armitage, R.

Bell, Richard

Brodie, H. C.

Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

Brooke, Stopford

Astbury, John Meir

Bertram, Julius

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

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, R'mf'd

Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. Ches

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberd'n

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Billson, Alfred

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Barker, John

Boland, John

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Barnes, G. N.

Bowerman, C. W.

Byles, William Pollard

Beale, W. P.

Brace, William

Cairns, Thomas

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Henry, Charles S.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Nuttall, Harry

Clarke, C. Goddard

Higham, John Sharp

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid)

Cleland, J. W.

Hills, J. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Clough, William

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Clynes, J. R.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

O'Doherty, Philip

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

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Cooper, G. J.

Hogan, Michael

O'Hare, Patrick

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd)

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hope, W. Bateman (S'm'rset, N.)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Horniman, Emslie John

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Paul, Herbert

Cowan, W. H.

Hudson, Walter

Paulton, James Mellor

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hyde, Clarendon

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n)

Crean, Eugene

Idris, T. H. W.

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Cremer, William Randal

Illingworth, Percy H.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Crombie, John William

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Pirie, Duncan V.

Crooks, William

Jackson, R. S.

Pollard, Dr.

Crosfield, A. H.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Crossley, William J.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dalziel, James Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Centr'l)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Joyce, Michael

Radford, G. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Raphael, Herbert H.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Kelley, George D.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

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

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Laidlaw, Robert

Redmond, William (Clare)

Dillon, John

Lambert, George

Richards, T. F. (W'lv'rh'mpt'n)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Richardson, A.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

Lamont, Norman

Rickett, J. Compton

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Ac'ngt'n)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwick)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Levy, Maurice

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Elibank, Msater of

Lewis, John Herbert

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Essex, R. W.

Lundon, W.

Runciman, Walter

Evans, Samuel T.

Lupton, Arnold

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Everett, R. Lacey

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Fell, Arthur

Lyell, Charles Henry

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Fenwick, Charles

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

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne)

Ferens, T. R.

Maclean, Donald

Seddon, J.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shackleton, David James

Findlay, Alexander

Macpherson, J. T.

Sherwell, Arthur James

Flynn, James Christopher

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Callum, John M.

Simon, John Allsebrook

Fuller, John Michael F.

M'Crae, George

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Fullerton, Hugh

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Killop, W.

Snowden, P.

Gill, A. H.

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Ginnel, L.

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

Spicer Sir Albert

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Maddison, Frederick

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Glendinning, R. G.

Mallet, Charles E.

Steadman, W. C.

Glover, Thomas

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Gooch, George Peabody

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Massie, J.

Sullivan, Donal

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Meagher, Michael

Summerbell, T.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Menzies, Walter

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Hall, Frederick

Molteno, Percy Alport

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Halpin, J.

Mond, A.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr T'dvil)

Mooney, J. J.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thompson, J. W. H. (S'mers't, E)

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

Morrell, Philip

Thorne, William

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Tomkinson, James

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Myer, Horatio

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Toulmin, George

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nicholls, George

Verney, F. W.

Hedges, A. Paget

Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r)

Vivian, Henry

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Nolan, Joseph

Wadsworth, J.

380

381

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

White, George (Norfolk)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Walsh, Stephen

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Whitehead, Rowland

Young, Samuel

Wardle, George J.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Wiles, Thomas

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

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Watt, H. Anderson

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Moore, William

Balcarres, Lord

Du Cros, Harvey

Morpeth, Viscount

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carlile, E. Hildred

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Talbot, Ford E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Sir Henry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Chance, Frederick William

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Robert Ropner and Sir

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Frederick Banbury.

Cory, Clifford John

Markham, Arthur Basil

Courthope, G. Loyd

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

VISCOUNT MORPETH VISCOUNT MORPETH moved the addition of the following words—
"Insobriety or the wilful breach of any rule printed and published by the employer for the safety and protection of his workmen, shall be serious and wilful misconduct within the meaning of this Act."
He said the Law Courts put many interpretations upon what constituted wilful and serious misconduct. Therefore he proposed that they should define as far as they were able what it consisted of. He should say that wilful misconduct was a deliberate and intentional breach of the rules framed not only for the safety of the man himself but also for the safety of his fellow workmen, such as the regulation against carrying a naked light in a mine. He thought it would be a very great advantage if the Legislature were deliberately to put in the Statute that the wilful breach of rules should be wilful and serious misconduct within the meaning of the Act. Then he had also put the word "insobriety" into his Amendment because it was manifestly unjust and unfair that when a man, in a condition of drunkenness and unable to control himself, met with a serious
382
accident, his employer should have to pay him compensation. It was unjust and unfair to charge upon the employer an accident which a man owed to his own want of self-control and his lack of character.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERseconded, and said it was absolutely incumbent that employers should have some means of maintaining discipline in their works, but so long as the Bill stood as it did at present there was nothing to enforce obedience to rules which were necessary not only for the protection of the man himself but of the men generally. These rules were made for the safety of the employees, and not, as hon. Members were constantly suggesting, for the purpose of relieving the employers' pockets. Insobriety was a very serious thing in a workman, and it was frequently displayed, especially on board ships and on the quay when sailors came down at the last moment and shipped in a state of drunkenness The employers ought to be given some kind of influence over the proceedings of their men, and therefore he hoped the House would accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert the words 'Insobriety or the wilful breach of any rule printed and published by the employer for the safety and protection of his workmen shall be serious and wilful misconduct within the meaning of this Act.'" —(Viscount Morpeth.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONEdid not think the noble Lord had realised how far the Amendment carried him. Under it an employer might put up a notice that no workman employed should do anything which would lead to an accident, and then if an accident occurred the employer might escape liability. He would remind the House that this proposal, although not in so many words, was before the House in 1897, but was not adopted. It was proposed by the Government, but on consideration they withdrew it. The present Government could not under any circumstances accept it. The Departmental Committee condemned the proposal and expressed the opinion that it would be unwise to lay down any hard and fast rule of this kind. It might be that the use of a naked light in a fiery mine would be wilful misconduct, but it seemed an in- justice to deprive the Court of the power of looking at all the surrounding circumstances in order to see if the act was capable of some explanation.
MR. HARMOODBANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the word "insobriety.?"
MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.
MR. F. E. SMITH MR. F. E. SMITH, while he thought his noble friend was justified in bringing
384
forward his Amendment, said there were numerous legal decisions which rendered it unnecessary. It had been decided over and over again that the breach of a rule by carrying a naked lamp was wilful misconduct. It had also been held that no cleaning was to be done unless machinery was stopped, and he could give case after case where in reference to the breach of a special rule the Courts had had no hesitation in deciding that that was wilful misconduct within the meaning of the Statutes. His hon. friend had also raised the question of insobriety, but anybody who had given the least attention to these cases knew perfectly well that the decisions showed clearly that if insobriety was of a degree or kind which could be said to be wilful misconduct it would be covered by those words, and any such Amendment as that now proposed would only introduce confusion into the existing law. Therefore he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
MR. GILLsaid he wished to call attention to one case with which he had had to deal resulting from a notice put up in a cotton mill. A short time ago he had to make a claim for compensation for a person injured in his own town. He had been injured while cleaning machinery in motion. Notices were put up in the mill stating that this was forbidden, but the overlookers were nevertheless constantly seeing it done. The employers would not as a matter of fact allow the men to stop the machines in order to do the cleaning. Under those circumstances they refused to pay, whereupon he said: "We will see to it in future that there is sufficient time allowed for the machines to be stopped in which the cleaning can be done." The

385
result was that instead of having the machinery stopped, they paid. It had been a constant thing for machinery to be cleaned while in motion under certain conditions. The notice was, however, put up in every mill in Lancashire and considered as a rule, yet it was winked at by the employers. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would not accept that Amendment.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was not one to treat disobedience to rules too lightly. A breach of the rules might affect not only one man but also a number of his fellow employees who had nothing to do with the breach. But he thought the Amendment went far beyond anything the House should sanction, and would be destructive of a good deal that was good in the parent Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HARMOOD BANNER MR. HARMOOD BANNER moved an Amendment with the object of making-it compulsory instead of permissive for a Court to deduct the costs caused by a plaintiff bringing an action for damages against an employer instead of proceeding under the Bill for compensation. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment which really placed the Bill in the position in which it was when before the Committee. It was necessary because this Bill would no doubt open the door to a great deal of litigation. It was possible under the present law to proceed against employers in three separate Courts. If the employer won in one of the Courts and proved that the claims was wrongfully brought in that Court and the workman subsequently won under the Workman's Compensation Act the employer had no right to set off the costs of the first action against the amount
386
he had to pay as compensation. That did not seem to be either justice or equity, and he hoped he would carry the House with him when he proposed that they should make it impossible for such actions to be brought. They must protect the employer poor though he was. He begged to move.
MR. CORYseconded the Amendment, because he thought that if a workman brought a speculative action with a view to getting compensation under the Employers Liability Act he ought to be compelled to pay the costs when he lost. It seemed to him that if costs were not to be obtained it would be an inducement to enterprising solicitors to go round and find workmen whom they could induce to start an action of this kind. The hon. and learned Member for Mid Glamorganshire had thought proper to say that he should not support these Amendments because he was an interested party. He was not at all ashamed to admit that he was an employer. Furthermore he was a Member of the Mining Association of Great Britain, and he thought it was only fair that the Mining Association of Great Britain as well as all the other employers in this country should have an opportunity of putting their views before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had the audacity to make that statement in the face of hon. Gentlemen opposite who were there not to represent the interests of the general community, but were paid by the workmen's associations. [An HON. MEMBER: By whom are you paid? He was not paid by anybody. He maintained that hon. Gentlemen opposite represented workmen's unions.
MR. SPEAKER: This does not seem to be very relevant.
MR. CORYsaid he had been attacked on this question, and he thought he was justified in making this personal statement. The House in the main seemed to be with him in thinking that the employers' views should be represented, though there were no hon. Members in this House representing employers simply and solely. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 25, to leave out the word 'may,' and insert the word 'shall.'"—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.'")
Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the point was a very small one and was decided in Committee, he believed, unanimously. Both hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment appeared apprehensive lest the legal element in the House should encourage Amendments which might afterwards lead to litigation. He assured the hon. Members that there was no intention whatever on the part of even the most self-interested lawyer to encourage such Amendments. Other Members in the House did that for them. Regarding the Amendment, he would point out that in the Bill, as it stood, if a workman brought an action under the Employers Liability Act and failed, the Court was given the discretion to deduct from the compensation that they might give him the costs of his abortive action. The Amendment proposed that the Court should be obliged to make a deduction. Was that just or fair? The Government proposed to leave it to the Court to judge all the circumstances.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the piece of advice he had ventured to give his hon. friend the Member for St. Ives was based upon the fact that lawyers were very often attacked in this House for pursuing their own interests. He had never known a case, however, where a lawyer had argued the cause of an Amendment in order that he might have litigation arising out of that Amendment if carried. As regarded this Amendment he thought it was right that in the interest of all parties discretion should be given to the Court. No one could say that the discretion had been in any way abused during the last nine years. The effect of anything else would be that people who had a good ground for a common law action might be deterred from bringing it. No one who had followed the Courts would venture to argue in favour of this Amendment.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke)*MR. CLAVELL SALTER (Hants, Basingstoke) moved to leave out in line 38 the word "maintainable" and to insert the words "commenced except by leave of the Court." The workman had always been treated by the Courts with great indulgence with regard to notices, but the difficulty was that the question whether some technical omission made by the workmen would be fatal or not to his claim could not, under the Bill as it stood, be decided until the claim came before the County Court Judge for trial. When an omission of that kind had been made by the workman a great deal of time would be saved if the parties were able to go at once to the County Court Judge, and have the matter decided. It was

389
said that the object of this Bill was to remove the blots from the Act of 1897, and he thought the point he had raised was a blot which ought to be removed. He begged to move.
LORD R. CECILformally seconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 38, to leave out the word 'maintainable,' and to insert the words 'commenced except by leave of the Court.'"—(Mr. Clavell Salter.)
Question proposed. "That the word 'maintainable' stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid the effect of the Amendment would be very serious indeed. As the Bill now stood any defect or omission on the part of the workman in the prosecution of his claim would be considered at the hearing when the Judge would be acquainted with all the facts of the case. The Judge would be entrusted with a very wide discretion to waive all technical omissions, and he could consider the matter in a way which would not be possible unless he had the whole case before him. Under this Amendment attention would be concentrated on some technicality, and he felt sure that all who had given careful attention to this subject would agree with him that it was far the best course to give the Judge power to waive technicalities. It would be placing a serious burden upon workmen if claims for compensation had to be extended and multiplied by separate applications to the Court before the trial of the action itself actually began. That would be a most undesirable state of things, and he hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he did not take the same view of this Amendment as the
390
Solicitor-General. His hon. and learned friend had pointed out from practical experience that it frequently occurred when a claim came on for hearing and some technical omission on the part of the workman was raised the Judge disallowed the claim altogether. It was obvious that in a good many cases the workman would be put to very serious expense in getting up his case and bringing forward witnesses, and the whole cost of that would be thrown away if the technical objection succeeded. A technical defect could be easily shown in the first instance, and the process would not be expensive.
Amendment negatived.
MR. CLAVELL SALTER*MR. CLAVELL SALTER moved to omit the words "as soon as practicable" and to insert the words "within fourteen days." What he proposed to leave out was a loose and unsatisfactory expression which had given rise to a great deal of litigation that could be easily avoided. He entirely agreed with the view of the Departmental Committee that it would be far better to fix a period after which it would be incumbent on the workman to show cause. He thought fourteen days ample time, unless the county court was of opinion that it might be exceeded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 2, line 39, to leave out the words "as soon as practicable," and to insert the words "within fourteen days."—(Mr. Clavell Salter.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONexpressed the hope that his hon. and learned friend would not press the Amendment. The words "as soon as practicable" were of a somewhat elastic character, but to substitute

391
a definite period might result in hardship to a workman who happened to exceed the fixed date. If the Amendment were accepted, and a workman gave notice of injury on the fifteenth day, then, save so far as the Court exercised its dispensing power, the claim would be absolutely barred.
Amendment negatived.
MR. GIBBS*MR. GIBBS (Bristol, W.) moved an Amendment providing that the claim for compensation should be made "in writing." It would be more satisfactory for all parties if the claims were made in writing. There were good employers and good workmen, and the reverse, and it was certain that good employers and workmen would prefer that claims should be made in writing. It was possible to conceive that the notice of an accident might not reach an employer in certain circumstances unless it was made in writing. He thought it was reasonable to ask that the claim should be made in writing.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNER MR. HARMOOD-BANNER, in seconding the Amendment, said that the case of an injured man who on account of insensibility was prevented from sending notice in writing was fully provided for. It was only proper that the employer should get written notice of the claim.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 2, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'in writing.'"—(Mr. George Gibbs.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid this matter was fully discussed in Committee, and it was decided by a large majority that it was undesirable to import any definite form of legal document into the making of the claim. If they insisted on the claim being in writing what would happen?
392
The workman would go to a solicitor, and he might not be able to put down the claim in writing, simple as that might seem to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. It was a complicated and difficult matter to put down in plain writing what the claim was. He hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be accepted.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. EVELYN CECIL MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor) moved an Amendment providing that the claim for compensation should be made within "three" months after death instead of "six" months. The Amendment was based on a recommendation of the Departmental Committee, and he, submitted that three months was ample: time for the purpose.
MR. PARKESseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 3, line 2, to leave out the word 'six,' and to insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Bill."
SIR W. ROBSONsaid he considered six months a reasonable time, and therefore he could not accept the Amendment.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered on Monday next.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at one minute after Eleven o'clock.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

1. Marriage with Foreigners.

2. Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland)

3. Clydebank and District Water and Burgh Extension Order Confirmation.

4. Blairgowrie, Rattray, and District Water Order Confirmation.

5. Edinburgh Corporation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation.

6. Metropolitan Electric Supply.

7. Dover Harbour (Works, etc.).

8. Great Northern Railway (Ireland).

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for amendment of—of inhabitants of Mountain Ash; Hyde; South Hylton; Hoveringham; Nempnett; Manchester (St. Gabriel's, Hulme) (2); Oakworth; Barton-le-Street; Stan-ton-in-the-Peak; Youlgrave; Worth Matravers; Garpole; Halton and Moston. Of teachers in non-provided schools in Bristol; and Church School teachers and managers in London.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against—of inhabitants of, or parents of children attending schools in parishes of Fenny Drayton; Wake-field (All Saints); Newport (St. Marks); Sydenham (St. Barts); Newport (St. Woolos); Parkfield-in-Middleton; Wilby; Campsall; Heath; Stoke-on-Trent; Great Addington (2); Hault; Broughton (St. Clements); Leicester (St. Peter); Kirkdale; Southwark; Oldham (St. Paul); Houghton; Congresbury; Blaenavon; Monkton Combe; Llanigou; Moordown (2); St. Andrews Major (Dinas Powis); Darwent (St. James); Much Dewchurch (2); Undy; Bishops-wood; Knottingley; Barming; Hale; Hardwicke-cum-Weedon; Thame; Comp-
  186
  ton; Stewkeley; Radley (2); Little-worth; Hedgerley and Deane; Cowley (St. Johns); and Peterborough. Of trustees of Church of England Schools in England and Wales.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
  Ninth Report by the Board of Trade of proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, including proceedings upon complaints made under Section 1 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Report be now received."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not consider that I am trespassing on your indulgence, or disregarding the usual forms of the House, if I venture to say a very few words to you on the subject of the Amendments on the Paper, and on those which your Lordships have already accepted. Whether your Lordships approve of that course or not, I am sure you will be with me in one observation which I desire to make at the outset, and that is to express my regret that the most rev. Primate should be prevented by indisposition from being here to-night. It is not necessary for me to dwell on the distinguished part he has taken in these debates. Those who had the advantage of listening to his speeches on the Second Reading of the Bill, on going into Committee, and in Committee itself must, I think, have admitted that there have been few occasions on which an individual Member of this House has borne a larger or a more honourable part in the discussion of a great subject. And, if I may be permitted to say so, it seems to me that the speeches which he has delivered are in themselves a sufficient answer to what

  187
  I must say has always seemed to me to be a most preposterous suggestion— namely, that there is something excessive or improper in the part which has been taken by the Episcopal Bench in this controversy. They can claim, if any Members of this House can claim, to be experts on this subject, and I think we may say without hesitation that their expert knowledge has been imparted to us in a manner which we all appreciate and value.
  I observe, my Lords that complaint has been made of the inordinate bulk of the House of Lords' Amendments. To my mind, that is a most inconclusive argument. Surely, in a case of this kind we do not measure the Amendments by the standard of the foot rule. Surely we have a right to consider what backing of common sense and common justice lies behind them, and, if we are to be told that our Amendments bulk too large, I hope noble Lords opposite will remember the great difficulty of the task which they have given to us. Can any of your Lordships recollect a Bill more intricate and perplexing than the Bill on the Table of the House, and although the subject itself is a perplexing one, it has, if I may be pardoned for saying so, been rendered more perplexing by the manner in which it has been presented to us by His Majesty's Government.
  For, my Lords, His Majesty's Government did not start, as they might have started, with the frank admission that in this country it was desirable that there should be some variety in our system of national education. They started, on the contrary, with an attempt to establish a hard and fast rule for the whole of our schools, and with one sweep of the net they brought within its compass the whole of the 14,000 voluntary schools of England. Although no doubt their hearts smote them, and although they did make an attempt here and there to enlarge the mesh, so as to allow a certain number of schools to escape, they guarded the exit so closely that even those schools which may be so fortunate as to extricate themselves, find themselves not restored to their former position of freedom, but subject to a most irksome and harrowing tutelage. In the result you have given us a Bill containing concessions, most of which we regard as worthless, and you offer
  188
  us in substitution for the system which you are abolishing a system under which no local education authority need provide or permit any religious instruction, denominational or undenominational; a system under which no parent need send his child to receive such religious instruction; a system under which no teacher, however willing, could be required to give it. I must say that when you offer us these terms you offer us, not a settlement, but a capitulation.
  Another thing which is to be borne in mind is this—that the bulk of the clauses of this Bill were never properly discussed before they came to this House. One House of Parliament owes a great deal to and derives great benefit from the discussions which take place in the other. We had no such assistance in the case of a great number of the most important clauses in this Bill. We all of us on this side acknowledge the unvarying courtesy with which we have been met by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, but to that we must, I am afraid, add that under that courteous exterior there lurked an amount of dogged tenacity which we may indeed have admired, but which did not lend itself to an amicable settlement of many of these thorny points. We had to grope our way unassisted amongst the puzzles and pitfalls of this Bill, and I am quite prepared to admit that many of the Amendments which we have inserted in it may be somewhat inartistic in their structure. I am not surprised that that should be so. But if they were inartistic, we were, at any rate, able to support them by weighty arguments, a great many of them supplied by Ministers themselves, those very Ministers who now give us to understand that our Amendments are so excessive that they are not even to be considered or discussed.
  I pass for one moment to the clauses of the Bill. I observe that there are one or two Amendments put down to the first clause. As to that, may I say that we deprecate any further alteration of that clause? It is the clause under which public control, which we are told is the principle of the Bill, is asserted. We have inserted in it a single Amendment which we do not regard as inconsistent with that public control, and we should be sorry to see any further

  189
  attempt made to alter the wording of the clause. With regard to Clause 2, this is certainly a clause in which we have inserted very lengthy Amendments. I am quite ready to admit that, so far as the form of the clause as it now stands is concerned, it may be capable of improvement, but in point of substance we shall certainly adhere to the Amendments which we have inserted. In our view it should not be left open to any local authority to refuse to take over a school which is able to comply with what I may call the statutory conditions merely because that local authority, for reasons of its own, would prefer that the school should not be taken over. That is the substance of our Amendment; the form does not matter very much to us. I dwell on that because I see that the noble Duke below the gangway (the Duke of Devonshire) has put down Amendments with the object of restoring Clause 2 to the shape in which it first reached this House, but he has also put down other Amendments, in the form of a new clause, which have the effect of providing that, if the local authority decline to take over a school, an appeal shall lie to the Commission, which shall make a scheme if what I have called the statutory conditions are complied with. Those Amendments read together seem to give us all that we desire, and if in point of form they appear more satisfactory to His Majesty's Government, we shall be very glad to see them substituted for the provisions of the Bill as they now stand.
  I come to Clause 3. My noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn has put down an Amendment which has the effect of removing from the Bill the Amendment which your Lordships accepted at the instance of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I believe a considerable number of the noble Lords who voted for the Bishop of Oxford's Amendment had some doubts, on reflection, whether they were wise in supporting it. We, at any rate, regarding the matter as one rather of degree than of principle, concur with, my noble friend behind me in desiring that the clause should be restored to its original shape. Then, my Lords, on Clause 3 there arises an extremely important point in connection with what we usually speak of as the grant of facilities to council schools in single school areas. I have never heard
  190
  a discussion upon this question in which the grievance of the minority in single school areas was not admitted, and I believe it will be the view of your Lordships generally that this Bill will be incomplete if some attempt is not made to deal with that grievance. I speak of the grievance of the minority in single school areas, no matter what the complexion of the single school is, whether it is a Cowper-Temple school or a denominational school of any kind.
  Here your Lordships will recollect that a very important Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but in the opinion of many of your Lordships that Amendment went too far, and it was not pressed to a division. We do not desire to revive it, and we understand the reluctance which has been expressed in many quarters to anything which could be regarded as a needless interference with the council schools, but we do think that in some cases such interference is necessary. With that object the House accepted an Amendment of the right rev. Prelate who presides over the see of Hereford. But your Lordships will remember that his Amendment provides only for the case of single schools in rural areas. We regard that distinction between rural and urban areas as an arbitrary and unreasonable distinction. Moreover, we have satisfied ourselves on inquiry that the Amendment inserted at the instance of the right rev. Prelate is one which would present almost insuperable difficulties of an administrative kind. We, therefore, think that other words should be inserted in the Bill, and my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, will move to insert words with this object, allowing Section (3) facilities for a reasonable number of children, only if the local authority are satisfied that the children cannot conveniently attend other schools, and "so far as shall be reasonably practicable." I am tempted to hope that as this wording allows considerable discretion to the local authority, His Majesty's Government, whose watchword in these debates has been confidence in the local authority, will not regard the Amendment as open to serious objection.
  In Clause 4 our object has been, as we have often told your Lordships, to render these facilities attainable by those whom they are intended to assist. We have

  191
  made the clause mandatory because we believe that if you lay down, as you do in this section, very stringent conditions, it should follow as a matter of course that those who are able to fulfil those conditions should have the boon promised to them by the clause in question. In the same way we have abolished the distinction between urban and rural areas, because we regard it as an arbitrary and inequitable one. But further on in the clause there arises a point of very serious difficulty. I refer to the provision in which we have laid down that the view of the majority of the parents is to prevail. In my opinion a very strong case was made in favour of the substitution of the bare majority for the original proportion of four-fifths. I have never myself been able to see why in the case of these schools it should be put within the power of a minority of the parents to disturb the well-established condition of things.
  But, my Lords, I must add to that that when I supported the proposal that the majority should be allowed to prevail, I did so because I hoped to see words inserted further on in the Bill under which a very liberal and generous provision would be made to meet the requirements of the minority in these extended facilities schools. Your Lordships will recollect that Lord Cadogan moved an Amendment with this object, and that it did not find favour with the House. That having happened, I regard the case in favour of the majority as compared with a fraction as having become much less strong, and therefore I am prepared to support my noble friend Lord Londonderry's proposal that we should substitute for a bare majority the fraction of two-thirds. But I must add that, in my opinion, the two-thirds should be calculated not on the basis of the total number of parents, but on the basis of the number of parents actually taking part in the ballot. I have never been able to see on what reasonable grounds those parents who are so indifferent to these things that they absent themselves altogether from the ballot are to be counted as if they were actual opponents of the desired facilities.
  There is one other point in Clause 4 to which I must refer. It is impossible for us to leave that part of the clause which follows exactly as it stands. We have so framed it, owing to the accident
  192
  of debate, that in its present shape it leaves it open to one dissentient child to stand in the way of the granting of extended facilities to a school, even if that school for all other reasons is fully entitled to such facilities. That was not the intention, I believe, of your Lordships' House, and we must find some means of correcting it. I have ventured to put an Amendment upon the Table with that object, and I shall have the honour of explaining it to the House later in the evening.
  With regard to Clause 5. I am glad to see that His Majesty's Government have reconsidered their attitude in regard to appeals, and are bringing up Amendments which, whatever we may say of the details, seem to us to contemplate a more businesslike mode of dealing with the whole question of appeals under this Bill. Of the other clauses I need say but little. With regard to Clause 6, our only desire is that the procedure for obtaining facilities for new schools should not be of an obstructive character, and that it should be founded on the lines on which the earlier clauses are drawn. With regard to Clause 7 we desire to make no change.
  With regard to Clause 8, the teacher clause, we are again convinced of the reasonableness of the Amendments which we have inserted. As the clause came up to us it prohibited the teachers under Clause 3 from giving anything but Cowper-Temple teaching. It also left it open to the local authority to refuse permission to teachers in Clause 4 schools to give denominational instruction. These proposals seemed to us an outrage upon the liberty of the teachers, detrimental to the interests of education, and likely to render the facilities offered in these schools of an entirely nugatory character. Therefore, we propose to adhere to the Amendments which we have made. In Clause 15 my noble friend Lord Belper will, I understand, propose an Amendment which will bring the clause more nearly into the shape which His Majesty's Government were prepared to approve the other evening. The only other serious alteration your Lordships made in the Bill is that contained in Clause 26. I see that the noble Lord opposite is going to make an attempt, if I may so describe it, to sweep up and piece together the fragments of the Welsh

  193
  Council, which my noble friend Lord Cawdor so effectively demolished the other day. I hope the attempt will not be successful.
  I have enumerated the Amendments which we have made and desire to make; and I put it to your Lordships whether these demands are really excessive or unreasonable, and whether we are open to the charge of having transformed the Bill, or of having added to it excrescences of such a kind as to make it un-recognisable by its authors. We have admitted to the full the principle of popular control. We have admitted that there shall be no tests for teachers. I do not really believe that on that point we differ in principle from the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. We have admitted that the denominations must pay for the religious instruction which they require. We may expect, out of doors, that there should be a certain amount of ill-informed criticism of the action of your Lordships' House; but I trust that in this House we shall not hear any language of the kind, and that we may look to the noble Earl opposite and his colleagues to assist us in quelling the flood of misrepresentation by which our action has been obscured.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, we certainly have no complaint to make on this side of the House of the course which the noble Marquess has thought it right to take on this Motion. On the contrary, I think the House will be disposed to agree that, in making the statement he has, and in going briefly through the various Amendments which appear on the Paper, he has contributed in no small degree to the saving of time at a moment when time is becoming rather valuable.
  We also agree very completely with what the noble Marquess has said as to the great loss which our deliberations sustain at this moment by the absence of the most rev. Primate. Needless to say, we deeply regret his illness, which, on personal grounds, I trust is not serious. All on this side of the House recognise the great knowledge of the most rev. Primate on this subject, and his earnest desire to be fair; and although we are not able to agree in all the conclusions which he reaches, yet we frankly admit
  194
  that he, more than some other Members of your Lordships' House, desires to take a generally moderate view of this question.
  The noble Marquess said that complaint had been made of the bulk of the Amendments. That, no doubt, is true to some extent, because, when Amendments have to be considered mere bulk makes that consideration more difficult. But I am bound to say that the general complaint on this side of the House, and of those who support us in the country, has referred less to the bulk of the Amendments than to their quality. The noble Marquess appealed to his supporters to say whether after all the majority here had done anything but carry out the dictates of common justice. That is really to beg the question. We naturally all think that our own views when translated into words exhibit not merely common justice, but even uncommon justice; and therefore I am afraid that the noble Marquess's boast, if I may call it so, does not carry us very much further.
  Then the noble Marquess said that we had attempted to bring in a system of schools without variety. We frankly admit that we did aim as far as possible at the establishment of a national system of schools, but we also had from the first equally to admit that it was impossible in this country to have only one type of school. We did desire, however, that there should be a general national system, and that those schools which could not fall into that system should be treated as exceptions. Our system, we again frankly admit, was an undenominational one, and the effect of the Amendments of noble Lords which have been passed, and some of those which no doubt will be passed before very long, is in our opinion to continue a denominational system. It is on that simple ground that we have based the statement made inside and outside the House, and likely to be made again, that your Lordships have altered the essential character of the Bill, and have in so doing made it exceedingly difficult to discuss the question on the lines upon which we should ourselves desire to discuss it.
  The noble Marquess also complained that some portions of the Bill had been imperfectly discussed in another place.

  195
  I am afraid that, as business is now done in Parliament, that is a complaint which is always likely to be made about a Bill of great importance and of great length; but I do not think, so far as the really controversial parts of this Bill were concerned, that that can to any very great extent be said. The controversies which circle round Clauses 3 and 4 did meet with a very adequate degree of discussion in another place; and though the noble Marquess is within his right in saying what he did, I do not think that, as far as regards the special questions in which your Lordships have been so actively concerned, the charge can be said to have any real basis.
  I was exceedingly grateful to the noble Marquess for what he was good enough to say about my conduct of the Bill. I have endeavoured to the best of my powers to satisfy what seemed to me at times the almost insatiable curiosity of noble Lords opposite on the questions that have arisen, and if I have succeeded, I am exceedingly happy that it should be so. But the noble Marquess went on very kindly to say that all the same I had been very far from showing anything like a spirit of compromise. I should like to point out that when a Bill comes up from another place to this House and is placed in charge of a Minister, it cannot be considered to be the duty, or even within the province, of that Minister to amend it on Second Reading as he goes along. He is obliged to hear what are the particular points to which the Opposition take exception, and he is obliged to see, in the case of a minority such as we are, what steps the majority take to carry their disapproval of certain provisions into effect. Consequently, my Lords, although it might have been possible for me to say as we went along what were the points which we considered absolutely crucial and those to which we did not attach the same degree of importance, yet I do not see that it would have in any way assisted the deliberations, and I am quite certain it would not have altered in the slightest degree the result we now see in the Bill as it now appears.
  The House will not expect me to follow the noble Marquess into the lucid description which he gave of the Amendments as they appear on the Paper. We are most grateful to him for giving us
  196
  this bird's-eye view, and it will tend to a saving of time if I do not follow the noble Marquess into the merits or the demerits of particular Amendments. That would be better done when we reach them; therefore your Lordships will forgive me it I now ask that we may proceed to the consideration of the Amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  THE EARL OF CREWEthen moved an Amendment in the first Clause, postponing the date when the provision should take effect from 1st January, 1908, to "July," 1908. The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to which I am sure the noble Marquess's observations about Clause 1 do not apply, and it is in pursuance of a promise which I gave to postpone the operation of the Bill in its essential features for some little time. I think it was the noble Earl opposite, Lord Camperdown, who had an Amendment on the Paper in the Committee stage and who proposed, as does the noble Viscount opposite, Lord St. Aldwyn, that the operation of the Bill should be postponed for a year. We think that unnecessarily long. We agree that some postponement is quite reasonable, owing to the fact that it certainly was hoped that the Bill might have been passed before the House adjourned for the Autumn; and that the Autumn months, including the time we are now spending here, might have been devoted by authorities and owners of schools to the making of friendly arrangements. These hopes having been baffled, it seems to us reasonable to place the 1st of July in Clause 1 instead of the 1st of January. Perhaps it would save time if I proceed to point out that we propose to make a similar alteration in the dates throughout the Bill, with the exception that we do not put off the work of the Commission for quite so long as six months. We put the Commission down for the 1st of May. That gives four months, supposing the Bill to come into operation on the 1st of January next, for the purpose of bargaining before the Commission would be sitting to undertake the transfer of schools. All the other dates are postponed for six months, and, therefore, when I come to those Amendments, in due course, I shall merely move them as consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'July.'"— (The Earl of Crewe.)
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, postponing the coming into force of the Act for a year, was put down with the object of calling the attention of their Lordships to the matter and before he knew that the Lord President had also placed an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this point. He had no wish to press his Amendment against that of the noble Earl. The extension which the noble Earl proposed was, of course, nothing more than the extension necessitated by the delay in arriving at the final stage of the Bill. But was the noble Earl quite satisfied that the additional time proposed to be given would suffice in all cases? If he was not, might it not be well to add, after the words "one thousand nine hundred and eight," the words "or such later date as His Majesty in Council may appoint for any district on the application of the local education authority of the district." That would enable any exceptional case to be met."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill if, in selecting the 1st of July, he had taken into consideration whether that date was a convenient date with reference to the annual accounts, the payment of grants, and other matters of that kind. If he had not, then no doubt the words which the noble Viscount had just suggested might be of assistance to him.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think there is something in the point which the noble Earl has made, although as the grants are now paid I do not know that one date is very much more convenient than another. We should not, of our own motion, have inserted the words proposed by the noble Viscount; but, if he strongly wishes to see them in, and noble Lords opposite think it would be desirable to insert them, I will not make any further objection.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'eight' to insert the following words, 'or such later
  198
  date as His Majesty in Council may appoint for any district on the application of the local education authority of the district.'"— (Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MEATH,who had given notice to move the insertion of the following new sub-sections—
  "(2) In all public elementary schools, with the exception of such as shall come within the operation of Clause 4 of this Bill, the parents of the children attending the school shall elect, in accordance with regulations to be made for the purpose by the Board of Education, four persons, some of whom may be women, who, together with two other persons nominated by the local education authority, shall be known as the parents committee. The parents committee shall be responsible for and have the control of the religious instruction given in the school.
  "(3) A ballot for the purposes of this section shall be taken in accordance with regulations made for the purpose by the Board of Education, and those regulations may incorporate any of the provisions of the Ballot Act, 1872 (including the penal provisions thereof).
  "(4) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to test the efficiency of any religious instruction given under the provisions of Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school or schools under its control by arranging for adequate inspection and examination of the children, which shall take place not less than once a year, and every such authority shall draw up a report as to the results of such inspection and examination, which shall be accessible to the parents of the children attending the school or schools, and to the ratepayers of the respective districts of such authorities—
  said he regretted that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition could not see his way to accept this Amendment, and after—
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think that I ought, in the interest of time, to interrupt the noble Earl. It does seem to me that this is a very singular place in which to propose the insertion of the parents' committee. I do not see that it bears any particular relation to Clause 1. It ought, I think, to be a clause by itself. Consequently, so far as regards Sub-sections (2) and (3), I think the noble Earl ought to postpone them. Sub-Section (4) is, of course, another matter; but that, again, does not seem to me particularly relevant to Clause 1.
  THE EARL OF MEATHrepeated his regret that the noble Marquess could not see his way to accept the Amendment,

  199
  and said that in the circumstances he could not hope successfully to press it. He desired, however, to make clear that the object of the Amendment was simply to safeguard the rights of parents in all public elementary schools, to ensure that the simple Bible teaching which was to be given at the expense of the ratepayers should be effective, and that all rate-supported schools should receive equality of treatment in religious teaching. He had hoped that, inasmuch as he was only desiring to see that the religious teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause should be effective, he would have received the support of His Majesty's Government. In the circumstances, however, he would not move his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRErose to move the first of a series of Amendments of which he had given notice. He said: My Lords, the Amendments of which I have given notice would have the effect of restoring Clause 2 to the form in which it orginally came to this House. The first Amendment, as well as the other of which I have given notice in relation to Clause 5, is, however, purely consequential on a third Amendment, of which I have given notice on Clause 9, and of course I should have preferred, if it had been possible, to have postponed what I have to say until we arrived at that clause to which the really essential part of my Amendment relates. But, as the arrangement of the Bill does not admit of that course, I think I had better say what I have to say with regard to Clause 2, postponing a full discussion on my principal Amendment until we arrive at the clause to which it relates.
  This Amendment is, as I have said, entirely consequential upon the proposal which I shall later have to make, and which to a very great extent is in the same direction as certain new clauses or sub-sections in Clause 9, of which notice has been given by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. I desire, as far as possible, to postpone any discussion upon it until we come to Clause 9, but I think it would not be premature to point out that the general intention of my Amendment, as well as of the noble Earl's Amendment, is to entrust the Commission appointed under
  200
  this Bill with larger powers and wider discretion in framing schemes for the transfer of voluntary schools to the local authorities than they would possess under the Bill in its present form. If this were done, as I hope the united efforts of my noble friend and myself may enable it to be done, I think we shall find that it will be possible to restore Clause 2 to its original form.
  The necessity for introducing the obnoxious word "shall" into this clause, and for the elaborate provisions which we have inserted at the end of the clause, arose from the fact that up to the present time the Government have declined to give us any security whatever that schools which were structurally fit to be transferred to the authority, and schools which were required in order to give to the children attending them that kind of instruction, including religious instruction, which the parents desire, might not be capriciously rejected by the local authority and eliminated altogether from the educational provision of the district. That was a possible grievance and a possible hardship, the existence of which has always been admitted.
  It was admitted over and over again in the course of the discussions in the other House that a gap existed in the provisions of this Bill, that the offering of certain facilities for religious instruction to be given in transferred schools was a perfectly illusory proposal if no security existed that those schools would ever be transferred at all; and with the object of remedying this grievance, or preventing the occurrence of this injustice, the President of the Board of Education introduced in the other House what was called a bilateral clause, which would have given to the owners of schools an appeal to the Board of Education in the case where an authority declined to take over the school-house and, on the other hand, would have given an appeal to the local authority against a private owner who was unwilling to part with the school which was his property. Although the bilateral clause was introduced in the other House, the moment the Government found that it was not received with open arms by the Opposition on account of its bilateral character, they not only offered to withdraw it, but actually

  201
  voted against their own clause. Therefore the Bill has come to us without any security whatever against what has been, throughout these discussions, admitted to be a possible grievance and injustice.
  In these circumstances there existed a necessity for us in this House to attempt to find some remedy for the injustice which the Government had admitted, but had altogether failed to provide for, in the other House of Parliament, and that was the ground upon which those elaborate Amendments were introduced into this clause in the course of the discussions in Committee. Although I think this course was forced upon us by the refusal or the failure of the Government to provide any remedy against this injustice themselves, still I am bound to admit that very few can consider that the clause as it now stands is in a perfectly satisfactory state. It is no doubt of a somewhat cumbrous character. It provides, in the first instance, that every school shall be taken over by the local authority. It imposes upon the Commission the necessity of making a scheme for the transfer of every school, and, in the last place, it provides an appeal to the Board of Education by which the local education authority can be relieved of the possession of a school which it does not want. That, I think, is no doubt a somewhat cumbrous and unwieldly proceeding.
  It may also be open to some of the objections which were urged against it by the President of the Board of Education in the speech which he recently delivered at Bristol. Your Lordships will remember that perhaps the most bitter of the complaints made by Mr. Birrell in that speech related to the enormous amount of work which would be thrown by this Bill, and especially by this clause, upon the Board of Education, work which, he said, it was quite impossible for his officers or himself to undertake, work—I understood him to say—which, if he or any future President attempted to undertake it, would end in removing him from his office either as a worn-out corpse or as a raving lunatic. I must point out that this clause, of which Mr. Birrell made those piteous and pathetic complaints, was not the invention of this House. It was the invention of Mr. Birrell himself.
  202
  In July last Mr. Birrell was prepared to undertake that the Board of Education should consider any appeal by the owners against the decision of the local authority not to take over their school. I am not aware that the numbers of appeals which would have come to him under that proposal would have been any fewer than the 7,000 which he anticipates under the present proposal; but he was perfectly ready to undertake this task if, on the other hand, he was allowed to undertake the additional task of deciding on the appeals of the local authority against the refusal of an unwilling owner to transfer the school. Therefore, my Lords, I do not see that if Mr. Birrell has reason, as he thinks, to complain of this scheme as sent to him from this House, he would have had loss reason to complain of the work which would have boon thrown on himself and his Department if the bilateral clause which he introduced in the other House had been accepted. Whatever might have been the limits of that bilateral clause it certainly could not have had the effect of reducing, but rather of increasing, if not of doubling, the work thrown on the Department and its unfortunate President.
  But, my Lords, while, in my opinion, our clause is at all events no worse than that which was suggested by Mr. Birrell in the other House, I cannot, as I have already said, believe that either of them is satisfactory, and I think that it is our duty to try to discover some means by which this admitted grievance may be remedied in a more simple and satisfactory manner and in away which will not impose so great a burden on the Education Department. When the Bill has become law the first step to be taken will, I conceive, be for the local education authority to enter into communication with the owners of schools to inform them which, if any, of those schools they propose to take over, and on what terms they are willing to take them over. At the same time, almost simultaneously, the owners of existing voluntary schools will communicate to the respective local authorities which of their schools they desire to hand over, and in making that communication they will also state what demands they make, what sort of facilities they require, and the provisions they want for their own use of the school out of school hours, what provisions they require as to rent,

  203
  and, in fact, will explain fully the terms upon which they are disposed to transfer their schools.
  In many cases, I trust in a great many cases, I think probably in a great many more cases than Mr. Birrell seems to anticipate, there will be voluntary arrangements as to all these matters. In those cases where the parties agree, where the authorities and the owners can agree, subject to the approval of the Board of Education, who, of course, must be satisfied that the terms of agreement are within the limits of the law, the transaction will be complete and need never go before the Commission or any other authority. In other cases no doubt there will be differences. There will be differences as to which schools shall be transferred and which be left out; there will be differences as to the terms on which they are to be transferred; there will be differences as to the facilities asked for, and, for all I know, there may be differences on many points which do not at the present moment occur to me. The suggestion which I have endeavoured to embody in the addition to Clause 9, which I shall subsequently move, is that at this stage of the proceedings, both parties should be afforded equal access to an impartial tribunal such as the Commission appointed by this Bill; that they should have access to this tribunal, not by way of an appeal against something which has been done, or which has been left undone, but as an initial step in the procedure. I suggest that both parties should have an equal right to apply to the Commission to frame a scheme for the transfer of the school which one party wants to acquire and the other party wants to transfer, and to frame a scheme by which both parties would be bound, and give the final decision on all the points involved in the disagreement between the two parties. I conceive that the Commission appointed under this Bill is the right body to undertake this task. Such a transaction as is contemplated by this measure, the transfer of a very large proportion of the exiting 14,000 voluntary schools, is one in which necessarily questions of every kind must arise. They cannot all form the subject of voluntary agreement, and questions of difference, with the best will in the world on both sides, must arise, and all those
  204
  questions must be decided by someone. It would not be just, in our opinion, and I do not think noble Lords opposite would contend that it would be just, to leave the decision of all the questions which will arise in this great transaction to the sole judgment of the local authority.
  It is not to express any distrust of the local authority to say that that authority, no more than any other persons, can be safely trusted to be the judges in their own cause. It therefore cannot be left to the sole judgment of the local authority. It cannot, in my opinion, with advantage be left to the Board of Education. The Board of Education do not want to undertake the solution of all these questions, and if they did I should say again of them that they would be in these circumstances, to a certain extent, the judges in their own cause. Then it seems to me to follow, as the consequence of all these circumstances to which I have referred, that the right and proper body to which these questions of difference ought to be referred is the Commission appointed under this Bill, and that if, as at present constituted, that Commission is not competent to entertain and decide all these questions, the proper remedy would be to enlarge to the necessary extent both the powers and perhaps the constitution of that Commission. This is the proposal which I have endeavoured to embody in the Amendment which I shall propose to Clause 9.
  It probably would not be in order, and certainly I do not desire at present, to elaborate that proposal further. I believe, as I have said, that the new clauses proposed by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council are very much in the same direction as the further clauses of which I have given notice. I hope that by the adoption, either of the President of the Council's clauses, or of my own, we may be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the body which should decide upon these questions. I believe there is now, since those clauses were put on the Paper by the Government, so little difference between us that we may assume that when we come to Clause 9 we shall arrive at an agreement on the subject. I think I may safely, under those circumstances, recommend to your Lordships that we should allow this clause to revert to its original,

  205
  form, in which it dealt only with voluntary arrangements, reserving to ourselves that power which it is possible for us to exercise under the procedure which prevails in this, but not in the other, House— the power on the Third Reading, if we should, unfortunately, as I hope we may not, fail to come to an agreement on the proposals which are made as to Clause 9, of reinstating this clause in the form in which it now stands, believing, as we do, that it is an absolute necessity that some provision should be made against the possible hardship and injustice which might occur if the question remained in the state in which it was sent to us from the other House of Parliament.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'shall if required by the owners continue,' and to insert the words 'for the purpose of continuing.'"—(The, Duke of Devonshire.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Duke in this Amendment, and in the subsequent Amendments which hang together with it, has made a proposal which is no doubt of the first importance, and it is perfectly true that so far as part of his proposal is concerned I have various Amendments on the Paper, dealing with Clauses 5 and 9, which are of a kindred nature to those of my noble friend. There is, however, this one important difference between his suggestions and mine, that my proposals deal only with schools under Clause 4, whereas the noble Duke's deal with all schools. As we understand the Bill, we, as the noble Duke has told us, made it compulsory for no local authority to take over a school in consideration of which only the minor facilities were likely to be demanded. It was only in the case of the demand of the major facilities that a compulsion might, under certain circumstances, be put upon the authority if they went before the Commission.
  It is quite true, as the noble Duke says, that there was a certain possibility of what he called hardship arising in the case of these schools if the authority refused to take any over. It might so happen that you would have a large district in which the local authority did not give much religious instruction of its own, and at the same time declined to take over any school, and, therefore, a
  206
  large district might be left with an important minority of children whose parents desired denominational teaching and were unable to get it. Against that, of course, it was necessary to set the general supposition, which has always seemed to me a strong one, that the local authority would prefer to hire the use of the schools than build now schools of its own. That was the principal safeguard which we offered to the denominational schools; but it was admitted by my right hon. friend, and I have admitted it myself in this House, that it was quite conceivable that, at any rate in theory, cases of hardship might arise. You might meet that hardship in two ways — either by doing what the House has already done, and what the noble Duke proposes to do in another form—make it practically compulsory on the authority to take over these schools; or you might do something in the nature of what is proposed by Viscount St. Aldwyn, in the direction of giving religious facilities in cases where schools were not taken over.
  Those are two separate and distinct means of arriving at this object. Noble Lords opposite are now, I see, proposing to do both. It is quite true that either one of these proceedings would have removed what we admitted was the gap in Clause 2. It is also the fact that my right hon. friend in another place offered what is known as the bilateral arrangement. That was to apply to all schools. It was evidently felt by the Opposition, and to a certain extent by everybody, that it was a strong measure to deal with schools of private owners in that way, and that such a dealing could only take place by a very general measure of consent, and when that consent was not forthcoming my right hon. friend withdrew his clause and showed by his vote that he considered that the time for promoting it had passed by. But that offer, it is important for the House to remember, only applied to necessary schools; it was never expected or intended that schools which were only to receive the Clause 3 facilities were to be taken over if they were unnecessary, although it always wa3 and is contemplated that schools which were temporarily unnecessary might be taken over in order to receive the instruction under Clause 4.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Who is to decide whether they are necessary or not?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: That would be decided by the Commission. The Commission would decide as to whether they were entitled to receive the benefits under Clause 4. My right hon. friend spoke at Bristol of the great burden which would be thrown on the Board of Education by the frequent appeals as provided by the clause as amended. The noble Duke fairly stated that when this bilateral proposal was made my right hon. friend did offer to undertake, not only those appeals, but others; and in view of the fact that at Bristol my right hon. friend spoke of the probable effects upon himself, it only shows how anxious he was to arrive at an arrangement that in July last he was willing to imperil either his life or his reason in order to satisfy honourable Gentleman on the opposite side of the House to himself.
  One remark of the noble Duke gave me great satisfaction, namely, that he believed that voluntary arrangements would be very common. I have always had the same hope, and I have never seen any reason, I am happy to think, to believe otherwise; but, if that is so, it is a very distinct testimony to the fact that the ordinary facilities offered under Clause 3 will by a very large number of persons be considered adequate to carry on the religious character of their schools. We have always hoped that that would be so, and I am exceedingly glad to hear from the noble Duke that he is of the same opinion. The noble Duke's proposal is that both parties should have equal access to the Commission in order to take schools over. When the noble Duke talks of equal access he must remember two things — that there are a large number of privately owned schools which the authority may want to get, but by common agreement cannot, and also that there are a very large number of schools of which the trusts are of a character which can be carried out in some other way than by continuing the school as a public elementary school Therefore, when the noble Duke talks of equal access he must remember that all that class of schools apparently are to be allowed to come before the Commission
  208
  and get a scheme, whereas the local education authority will not be able to drag them in turn before the Commission and get a scheme. They will escape owing to the fact that their trusts allow them to escape, and unless the Commission are authorised to depart from the principles of the Court of Chancery, a considerable body of schools—upwards, I think, of 2,000—would have a chance of evading the scheme-making powers of the Commission. That, however, is in one respect a minor point.
  We have to consider the very serious matter as to how far it is possible to bring this question before the Commission at all. The Commission has been appointed, it has been said over and over again, both in the other House and in this, as a judicial body. Its functions are those of a Court or of the Charity Commission, and we have never attempted to impose upon it any of the administrative duties of the Board of Education. If the noble Duke's plan should be carried out, the Commission would have to take into consideration a great number of matters on which it would be very difficult for them to decide judicially, and they would have to decide rather as an administrative body. The noble Duke, with really marvellous skill, was able to avoid any allusion to his later Amendments, but I am obliged to allude to one of mine by way of illustration. Later, on the Paper of Amendments, there is a sub-section (2) —
  "The certificate of the Hoard of Education as to the result of a ballot taken with respect to the wishes of parents, and as to whether a schoolhouse is structurally suitable or not, or whether any condition as to public school accommodation is satisfied, shall be treated as conclusive by the Commission"
  —which deals with various considerations which may arise before a Clause 4 school can be formed. Noble Lords will notice that we have not asked the Commission to decide as to the wishes of the parents as shown by the ballot, or whether a school-house is structurally suitable, or whether any necessary condition as to public school accommodation is satisfied. In our desire to keep the Commission a purely judicial body we have allowed the Commission to take the certificate of the Board of Education on these points as final. But this point, and a number of other kindred points, would have to be inquired into by the Commission if the

  209
  noble Duke's proposition were adopted. That, of course, is a very serious proposal, because it does involve the complete alteration of the character of the Commission.
  How far those very distinguished gentlemen who have kindly consented to act as Commissioners would be prepared, under any circumstances, to undertake these different duties — duties which would come entirely novel certainly to two of them, I am not in a position to say. But I am very doubtful whether they would find it possible to under-take them. In any case, whether they could or could not, or would or would not, I think it certainly would be necessary to have a considerably larger Commission than the one contemplated, and some further provision would have to be made to provide it with a staff, because what you would be doing would not be to provide a judicial body, but you really would be constituting a new department of the Board of Education, which would have to be regularly staffed with experts. I defer until we get further on with the Bill any observations on my own proposals applying to Clauses 4, 5 and 9. Of course, so far as the noble Duke's present Amendment is concerned, it exactly meets our wishes. We are very glad to see the clause put back into its original shape. When we come to the noble Duke's consequential Amendments, which really contain the substance of his proposal, we shall then have to deal with them as they arise.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsupposed it would be more convenient to defer any remarks upon Clause 9 until that clause was reached. In the meantime he would only make one remark with regard to what had fallen from the noble Earl. The noble Earl had stated that to call upon the Commissioners to make these schemes for transfers would be to impose upon a body appointed for judicial purposes, and for judicial purposes only, certain administration duties. Unless he read Clause 9 altogether wrongly, the primary duty for which the Commission was appointed was to make schemes, and the making of schemes implied administrative action of various kinds, which their Lordships would see detailed in Clause 9. Therefore he could not follow the noble Earl's argument on that point.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid it was idle to disregard the effect of the noble Duke's Amendments as a whole, and among the things to be borne in mind was the question of the cost to the rates. He did not admit that the local authority were in any way bound to maintain buildings for the denominational instruction of the various sects of the country. Parliament could, of course, if it desired, compel a large number of authorities at very greatly increased cost and impaired efficiency to take over a number of small schools where larger schools would be more convenient. In connection with the question of surplus places he would say nothing about country districts; the number of villages with dual schools was comparatively small. The question of surplus accommodation and extinguishing a certain number of schools was preeminently an urban question. In the urban districts about 72 per cent. of the accommodation was utilised by the average attendance. That figure he considered indicated a margin of 10 percent. of superfluous school places. It ought to be the right of the local authority to dispense with those places. As to structural suitability, he could not trust anybody but the local authority to be the final judge. The Board of Education had been, and still was, remiss in tolerating schools which were unsuitable. There were in the town of Leamington eleven schools possessing so much surplus accommodation that the children might be accommodated in about six of the schools. Should the local authority be compelled to keep eleven schools going in order to meet the denominational preferences of parents? What the authority had to direct its attention to was educational efficiency. It was not their business to endow denominational-ism out of the rates and taxes. He was opposed to a proposal which would put this cost on the people and was inimical to educational efficiency, from whatever quarter it came.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I only wish to say a word on this Amendment. If we on this Bench accept the proposal that Clause 2 should be restored to the shape in which it came to this House, we do so on the distinct under standing that we may, when we arrive at Clause 9, obtain, at any rate in substance, what is contained in the Amendment

  211
  placed upon the Paper by the noble Duke. It has been suggested that the difference between the noble Duke's Amendment and the one which stands in the name of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, dealing with the same subject, is not a serious difference. That is not our opinion at all. I would point out to your Lordships that if you refer to the noble Duke's Amendment you will find that there are no fewer than five points on which it differs materially from the Amendment of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. The Lord President's clause applies only to schools under charitable trusts; the noble Duke's clause is not so limited. The noble Duke brings in the owner; the Lord President does not. The noble Duke makes a special reference to the wishes of the parents; the Lord President makes no such reference. The noble Duke's clause contains that magical word "shall;" the Amendment of the Lord President accepts the word "may." Finally, the noble Duke's clause towards the end contains words which are clearly words of direction, words which I cannot find in the Amendment of the noble Earl the Lord President. We intend to obtain in some shape or form the substance of the Amendment of the noble Duke, and should there be any difficulty about it, we wish it to be distinctly understood that we reserve to ourselves the right of again replacing Clause 2 substantially in the position in which it stands with the Amendments which we inserted in Committee.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he was certain he could appeal to the sympathy of their Lordships in having to speak from the Episcopal Bench without the assistance of the most rev. Primate, who had helped them so much, and he would like, on behalf of the right rev. Bench, to express their thanks to noble Lords on both sides of the House for the sympathy they had extended to the Archbishop in his illness. He maintained that the figures relating to average attendance given by Lord Stanley of Alderley showed that there had been excessive building of board schools, and he held that the small slum schools of the Church of England in London, upon which great labour and self-sacrifice had been expended, would be swallowed up under the system which the noble Lord had
  212
  outlined. As to the allegation that the Bill would endow denominationalism, he desired to point out that it would largely endow undenominationalism, and that the endeavour to safeguard denominational interests when denominational schools were swept away was in accord with the principle of common justice. To remove the word "shall" would be to remove something the local authorities would be glad to have. They wore most anxious not to have denominational differences mixed up with the administration of the Act.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE LORD GRIMTHORPE, who had given notice of an Amendment in Clause 2, after the word "manner" to insert the words—
  "And the owners of the schoolhouse shall, if required by the local authority, hand over to the local authority any existing voluntary school as a school provided by them, and may make any arrangements they think fit by agreement with the local authority with respect to such use of it as is requited for carrying on a public elementary school, and may as occasion requires renew any such arrangement or make fresh arrangements for the purpose in a similar manner,"
  said that the acceptance of the noble Duke's Amendment rendered it unnecessary for him to move his. If compulsion was not to be applied on one side, he had not the slightest wish to see it applied on the other. He expressed his satisfaction that the clause had been restored to its original shape, believing, as he did, that compulsion as applied to local authorities was of doubtful expediency. He did not wish to move his Amendment.
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE moved to omit from sub-section (2) of Clause 2 the words "subject to the approval of the Board of Education." He explained that the words were not consistent with Amendments which were to be moved later. If he found it necessary to insert any qualifying words, he would do so at a subsequent stage.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 34, to leave out the words "subject to the approval of the Board of Education.'"—[Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I offer no objection to the course which the noble and learned Lord proposes to take.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKE-FIELDrose to move an Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Bishop of Exeter, to sub-section (5) of Clause 2. The sub-section ran—
  "Nothing in this section shall prevent the granting or requiring of facilities for special religious instruction in accordance with this Act, or prevent a local education authority, as a condition of an arrangement made under this section with respect to the use of the school-house of an existing voluntary school, from giving an undertaking to give religions instruction which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, in the school."
  The Amendment was to insert after the words "from giving an undertaking to give religious instruction" the words "of any specified character and amount." The right rev. Prelate explained that the object of this Amendment was to secure that the religious instruction given in transferred schools on non-facilities days should be of a real and definite character. The debate on this clause in Committee showed that His Majesty's Government believed that the clause as it stood already gave this power to the owners, as the bargaining party, in making their agreements with the local education authority. So strongly did they hold this view that the Lord President and Lord Fitzmaurice both went as far as to say that a specified syllabus might be insisted upon by the owners in making the transfer. Whether that was so or not, it was quite clear that it had been, and was, the intention of His Majesty's Government that the parties on handing over their schools should be able to secure that some real and effective Cowper-Temple teaching should be given in the transferred schools. The effect of this Amendment was to make that intention perfectly clear. It was a simple Amendment, but it was one to which they attached a great deal of importance. In the schools in some districts with which he was familiar there was nothing more than the bare reading of a chapter from the Bible, and that was entirely at the discretion of the teacher himself; and in many schools
  214
  with which he was acquainted there was for months at a time no religious instruction at all. They wished, if possible, in handing over their schools to the local education authority to be able to ensure that religious teaching which was real in its character should be given. They did not go so far as to ask that they should have a definite syllabus. He agreed with Lord Stanley of Alderley that that would be asking too much. What they did ask was that there should be religious education of a specified character and amount, and that it should not be contrary to the teaching given to the children on facilities days. The character of the instruction was, of course, limited by Section 14 of the Act of 1870. This Amendment would go a part of the way towards inducing some of them to acquiesce, at all events for the present, in the restriction of the facilities to two days in the week, because they would feel that they had something substantial on the other days.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 18, after the word 'instruction' to insert the words of any specified character and amount.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Wakefield.)
  THE EARL OF MEATHexpressed the hope that the Lord President would carefully consider the right rev. Prelate's Amendment. There was, he said, real need for some such words. Their Lordships might not be aware that there were at this moment 191 education authorities who issued no syllabus whatever, or, if they issued a syllabus, neither examined nor inspected the teaching. He was quite certain that those in the country who had returned the large majority to the other House were men who had a distinct desire that their children should be taught simple Bible teaching.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am exceedingly unwilling to interrupt the noble Earl, but the point before the House is so small a one that in view of the real necessity of saving time as much as possible I hope the noble Earl will not think me discourteous. The right rev. Prelate made a speech of some length on the general subject of facilities, but I desire to call his attention, and that of the House, to the actual point

  215
  involved in this Amendment. The right rev. Prelate seems to me to have mixed up two entirely distinct things. The words in the clause as it stands gives the most absolute freedom bargaining, and nothing except bargaining is contemplated. It is perfectly true that the right rev. Prelate's words would strengthen the clause considerably if the giving of these facilities was part of the scheme, but it is part of a bargain and you cannot have a freer bargain than is supplied by the words in the clause. It is perfectly obvious that the owners can insist on anything within the limits of the Cowper-Temple clause as part of their bargain, and the right rev. Prelate's words do not, from that point of view, strengthen the clause in the least.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNagreed with the noble Earl the Lord President, and expressed the opinion that the right rev. Prelate's Amendment would seem to limit the powers of the owners.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My next Amendment is consequential on my Amendments to Clause 9, and is due to the fact that we separate in my Amendments a scheme under this part of the Bill and an order made by the Commission, which is a new provision in Clause 9. I do not know whether your Lordships would consent to adopt this Amendment provisionally until we are able to discuss the whole scheme.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 26, to leave out the words 'scheme under this part of and to insert the words 'order of the Commission under.'"—(The Earl of Crewe)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to leave out from Clause 3 the words "or if in any parish in a rural area there is only one public elementary school provided for the children of the parish, and the parents of a reasonable number of children attending the school have required such facilities, the local authority," which, he explained, was the Amendment moved by the Bishop of Hereford in Committee and accepted to meet the case of single school areas in rural districts.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: There are Amendments standing in the name of Lord Halifax and Lord Lytton raising substantially the same point, and I think it would be for the general convenience of your Lordships that the discussion on what are called outside facilities should proceed on the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXexpressed his agreement with the course suggested, but intimated that he intended to press his Amendment to a division.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in explaining the grounds on which he proposed to ask the House to strike out of the clause the Bishop of Hereford's Amendment, said the real question for the House was with how little of general facilities would the absolute demands of justice be satisfied? He did not ask the House to go a single step beyond what, in his judgment, was absolutely necessary in the interests of justice. His objection to Lord Lytton's Amendment was that the noble Earl proposed that those facilities should apply to all schools without exception. It was only permissive in its character, and therefore was a very different Amendment from Lord Bal-four's. It applied to all schools of every description, instead of to the limited class of schools to which the Amendment for which he was responsible asked their Lordships to consent. The Bishop of Hereford's Amendment involved the principle that wherever, in a rural district, a child had access to only one school, and the religious teaching given there was not in accordance with the wishes of the child's parents, facilities should be afforded to that child. The limitation to rural districts was indefensible, and in practical working the Amendment would produce absurdities. Let them take the case of a rural district which adjoined an urban district. In the rural district there was a single council school giving nothing but Cowper-Temple teaching, and a certain number of children living on the borders of the rural district but within it were anxious to have facilities. There might be in the urban district a few yards across the boundary a Church of England school quite satisfactory from the point of view of religion, and yet, under the Bishop of Hereford's Amendment, a child might insist upon

  217
  facilities in the rural school, although there was no great grievance and no great difficulty in its availing itself of the services of the Church of England school in the urban district hard by. That was a condition of things which was on that side quite as indefensible as on the other side was the denial to the urban child of the right which was given to the rural child. The Bishop of London had proposed an Amendment which attempted to define a single school district; but he himself had drawn his Amendment on a different principle. The new clause on this point which he (Lord Salisbury) proposed subsequently to move, was as follows—
  "(1) If the parents of a reasonable number of children attending any public elementary school require facilities for their children of the same character as those to be afforded under Section 3 of this Act, and, in the opinion of the local education authority, those children cannot conveniently attend game other public elementary school in which facilities for religious instruction of the special character desired by the parents are afforded, the local education authority, without prejudice to any of their powers or duties under Section 3 of this Act, shall, so far as it is in their opinion reasonably practicable to do so, afford those facilities in the school within school hours accordingly.
  "(2) No part of the expense of giving religious instruction of a special character under this section shall be paid by the local education authority."
  He left the duty of defining what a single school area was to the local authority, which was familiar with all the circumstances in each case. The local authority would decide when there was only one school available for any given child, and if there were a reasonable number of children desiring special religious instruction, then facilities should be given. There were some forms of Cowper-Templeism of which few would approve; and to compel a child to attend such instruction was an exercise of gross religious tyranny. He confidently recommended his Amendment to their Lordships' favourable consideration.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 28, to leave out from the word' school house' to the word 'authority' in line 31, and to insert the word 'that.'— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that as the noble Marquess had
  218
  somewhat pointedly referred to his poor little Amendment he hoped he might be permitted to say one word. His impression was that the noble Marquess supported that Amendment when it was moved in Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes, I did.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that since he moved his Amendment others tying the hands of the local authorities had been piled up to such an extent that the situation was changed from his point of view. Though he had a natural parental affection for his Amendment, he was quite prepared, in the circumstances, to leave its existence or non-existence in the hands of noble Lords opposite.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid that he was quite prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess in preference to that which he had put down, and which ran as follows—
  "In page 3, line 29, after the word 'parish' to insert the words 'or in any urban district there is any public elementary school provided for the children of the district which is distant not less than half-a-mile from any public elementary school in which facilities are afforded for the giving of such religious instruction.'"
  They were both aiming at the same point, and he thought the noble Marquess's words were better than his own. It was necessary to have regard, not only to the rural areas, but to those great forlorn districts in the great cities where there was no school but the board schools. The population of his diocese increased by 40,000 every year. It taxed their utmost resources to build churches, parsonages, and Sunday schools, and they could not manage to erect Church schools as well. He would plead for such districts as Tottenham and Edmonton where Church parents had no schools whatever to send their children to except council schools. Since the Committee stage he had examined into the condition of things at Edmonton, the population of which was 60,700, and he found that there were 2,800 children of Church of England parents who had no facilities for learning the religion of their parents. The Amendment would safeguard the denominational principle, and he was sure that it would in practice be easy to work.

  219
  The noble Earl the Lord President had said that this was an undenominational Bill. That was precisely the reason why they disliked it, and why he and others regarded it as a bad Bill. What they were trying to do was to secure that when the Church schools were swept away some fragments should be saved. As to the practicability of the proposal, he mentioned that he had been himself a manager of three large board schools in Bethnal Green, and the one especially entrusted to his care was a very large school with 1,500 children. There was one Churchman — the headmaster—and eight Nonconformist teachers. Though this would be perhaps one of the worst schools that could be chosen for the experiment, he would have gladly undertaken to carry it out in that school. The headmaster would have been willing to take a class of Church children, and he (the right rev. Prelate) could have managed these facilities in that school without friction. He appealed to their Lordships in this matter on the ground of common fairness.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEpointed out that the situation of the Edmonton children was exactly that of the Nonconformist children under the Act of 1902.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON*THE EARL OF LYTTON, who had the following new clause on the Paper—
  "(1) The local authority may, at the request of the parents of children attending any public elementary school, and with the consent of the local school managers, permit religious instruction to be given to such children according to the tenets and faith of their parents in the school building, at hours other than those assigned for secular instruction, without making any charge for the use of such buildings; provided that the instruction be under the direction of a qualified person duly accredited on behalf of the religious community to which the parents concerned belong, and provided also that such person, or the body on whose behalf he or she is accredited, shall defray any cost of such religious instruction, and, if required, extra renumeration of the caretaker of the school buildings, and shall make good any damage that may occur."
  "(2) This clause shall not apply to any school administered under the provisions of Clause 4—"
  said his Amendment and that of the noble Marquess differed in two respects. One was a very small matter, but the other was of considerable im-
  220
  portance. In the first place, his Amendment was intended to apply to all schools throughout the country, whereas that of the noble Marquess was intended to apply merely to schools in single school areas. That was a small difference, because the object which they both had in view was the same. His object and that of the noble Marquess was that where a child was so situated that he could not receive in the existing school the religious instruction which his parents desired for him he should have the special facilities. The other difference was that whereas his Amendment was permissory, that of the noble Marquess was mandatory. Personally he preferred the permissory form, because it was more in accordance with the principle of the Bill. It even established a greater measure of public control than the Government Bill since it allowed more discretion to the local authority. His chief reason for preferring his own Amendment was that it got rid of all questions as to the practicability of the machinery. How far the system was practicable was at present an open question. Many speeches had been made both inside and outside the House to show that it was unworkable. On the other hand wherever it had been tried it had met with a great measure of success. It was in force at the present moment in industrial schools, in the Duke of York's military school, and in the Colonies, and in all these cases it worked perfectly successfully. Members of the Church of England and Roman Catholics had shown themselves willing to accept this Amendment in 1902, and he had no reason to believe that Nonconformists would be unwilling to accept it so far as religious grounds were concerned. But, if they were unwilling to give the facilities, he could only say that the objection came very ill from people who in the past had championed the cause of religious liberty; and if Nonconformists refused at this moment to concede to others the liberty they claimed for themselves, the whole battle of religious liberty would have to be fought out again, and it would be found that the combatants had changed sides. The situation that the Opposition were seeking to remedy was precisely that which the Nonconformists had protested against for so many years, and from which they had suffered particularly in country districts. The noble Lord who spoke

  221
  last had revived a taunt which had been brought against them once or twice before, viz., that their zeal in the cause of minorities and in the cause of parents was of new growth. Where, the noble Lord opposite asked, was their zeal for this cause in 1902? When the Bill of 1902 was under discussion he (Lord Lytton) moved precisely the same Amendment that he now had on the Order Paper, and the Amendment then received the assent of a large number of noble Lords and was only defeated by a very small majority, although it was opposed by both Front Benches. If that Amendment had received the support of noble Lords opposite it would certainly have been carried, and the interests of minorities would have been safeguarded. If the Amendment had then been agreed to the very thing they were now trying to do would have been done in the Act of 1902. Therefore he maintained that this taunt came very ill from the persons on whose shoulders rested the responsibility for the clause not being in the Act of 1902. Hitherto the denominational schools of the country had occupied a privileged position more or less outside the national system. That privileged position was now to come to an end, and the schools were all to be made national schools. However much the supporters of those schools might object to that arrangement they would not, he thought, question the fact that it would be impossible to re-establish them in that privileged position. Therefore, in looking to the future, if they desired that religious education should continue as a vital force in the lives of the children, attending the schools, they must look rather to facilities for such education in all schools alike than to the creation of a special and privileged type of school. It was in the hope that some proposal of this kind would make the Bill more acceptable to all those who cared for the maintenance of religion that he should vote for its insertion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it was incorrect to assume that he had suggested that this duty should be imposed on the local education authority even if it was impracticable, for his Amendment contained the words "so far as it is in their opinion reasonably practicable."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the course that has been taken, of considering these various Amendments together, has certainly been a convenient one. We have not, however, heard anything from the noble Viscount Lord Halifax. He, I understand, desires to vote separately on his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX, who had on the Paper an Amendment to delete from Sub-section 1, Clause 3, the words—
  "any parish in any rural area there is only one public elementary school provided for the children of the parish, and the parents of a reasonable number of children attending the school have required such facilities,'
  and to insert in their place the words—
  "the case of any public elementary school in which extended facilities are not offered under this Act, the parents of not less than twenty children have required facilities under this section,"
  said there was a wide and deep feeling throughout the country as to the withdrawal of the Amendment originally moved by Lord Balfour. Meetings had been held in different parts of the country to discuss it, and the two great principles which had met with universal assent was that there should be absolute justice and equality as between the different denominations, and that parents should be allowed to say what kind of religious teaching should be given to their children. Requests had, therefore, been made that Lord Balfour's Amendment should be brought forward again. He asked the supporters of the Government on what possible principle of justice and fair dealing they would refuse to agree to the Amendment of the noble Marquess? If it was just and fair that there should be facilities for undenominational teaching, on what possible principle could they deny the right of facilities for parents who desired them in the undenominational schools, and who, it must be remembered, asked to be allowed to pay for them themselves? They were told that it was one of the greatest glories of the Bill that it placed undenominational teaching within the reach of every child throughout the country. Why was it not equally important to place denominational teaching within the reach of every child whose parents desired it? How could the support of one form of religion and the rejection of another form

  223
  be justified? Had not the parent a right to decide what religion should be taught to his children? He maintained that it was a right which should be acknowledged in the Bill, and that was what the Opposition contended for here. Unless an Amendment of this kind were incorporated in the Bill there could be no hope of a settlement of the education question. He made no concealment of his dislike to the Bill. It was a measure to substitute undenominational teaching for denominational teaching, and without the incorporation of some Amendment like this the strife would simply be transferred from Parliament to the country. Their Lordships might depend upon it that if that strife was engaged in in the country, liberty of conscience and the rights of parents would triumph in the long run. It had been said again that evening by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council that this was an undenominational Bill. The Prime Minister and Mr. Birrell had said the same thing. He would appeal from the words of the Prime Minister and Mr. Birrell since the election to the words of both before the election. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said on 26th October, 1904—
  "We want the child to be brought up in the faith of his father, at least until he comes to such an age as to be able to judge of a faith for himself. I am sure that the Liberal Party throughout the country has but one object, which is to secure perfect freedom of conscience and equal treatment and complete public control for the system."
  Mr. Birrell on 12th January, 1905, said—
  "He was very anxious that facilities should be given whereby all religious denominations should have an opportunity of instructing the children in what they believed to be the true religion. His anxiety was very great on the subject. It was a very difficult thing to be able to do, but at any rate his efforts were all in the direction of throwing open all schools of this country, not only for simple elementary Bible instruction, but also that facilities should be granted to enable parents to have their children instructed in their own religion and in their own particular doctrines."
  It was on declarations such as these that the General Election, so far as it turned on the education question, was fought. These words contained all that the noble Marquess asked for, and all that his (Viscount Halifax's) Amendment asked for. The Amendment practically endorsed the principles laid down by the Prime Minister and the President of the
  224
  Board of Education. If the Government would agree to do justice to denominational schools and the rights of parents he would be glad to do all that was possible for a settlement of this question. But, if not, they would be obliged to say that this was not a Bill for the furtherance of education, but a Bill for putting undenominational in the place of denominational religion, and this at the instigation not of religious but of political Nonconformists who desired through the schools to strike a blow at the Church of England.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having given us his views, because now I think we have the complete views of those who have brought forward these Amendments, or perhaps I ought to say this multiform Amendment. The first Amendment was made by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who inserted words providing that these facilities should be given in council schools in single school country parishes. Next in order I think comes the Amendment of the noble Earl (Lord Lytton), who leaves a complete option to the local authority in every case to say whether they will give these facilities or not. Then come the Amendments of the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury and the right rev. Prelate, and I think it is evident that we may take the noble Marquess's as being the authorised version of this Amendment on which the sense of the House is to be taken. The noble Marquess corrected Lord Lytton when he said that there was a certain degree of compulsion on the local authority in his (Lord Salisbury's) Amendment. I confess I had read the clause somewhat in the same sense. The noble Marquess says that they shall—
  "so far as it is in their opinion reasonably practicable to do so, afford those facilities."
  Perhaps the noble Marquess will tell us before we divide upon this clause, or before we come to a conclusion upon it, whether those words altogether bar an appeal either to the Board of Education or to Courts under this clause. I had certainly taken it that under Clause 16 of the Act of 1902 there would be an appeal to the Board of Education in this matter; but, of course, if the noble Marquess means that the words "in their opinion" should entirely govern the clause

  225
  I suppose it might be that they would be safe from any appeal. In that case the noble Marquess's Amendment would be the same as Lord Lytton's. The noble Viscount's Amendment is stronger still. It provides that in all schools where the parents of not less than twenty children ask for facilities they shall get them, but I understand the noble Viscount does not mean to press that Amendment, but accepts the Amendment of the noble Marquess. We opposed the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, which was inserted in Committee, because we did not think it possible to arrange for any facilities being given in board schools in the form which the Bill has taken; but, of course, there was this to be said on behalf of the right rev. Prelate's scheme, that a very considerable number of those single council rural schools were transferred Church schools which might not have been transferred if the owners had known what the provisions of this Bill might be, and, therefore there was a certain case for them. Now I turn to the Amendment of the noble Marquess. When the noble Marquess says, "facilities of the same character as those to be afforded," I suppose he means simply facilities for two days.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear!
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Therefore, of course, it is quite possible that applications might in some instances be numerous, in which case all the objections which were so forcibly pressed by the noble Duke, by the noble Viscount (Lord St. Aldwyn), and by noble Lords on this side of the House when we were discussing Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment, would again come into play.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That would not be "reasonably practicable."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: And in that case the facilities, the noble Marquess means, would not be obtained. I think it is quite clear that a very large number of local authorities would decline to take any steps whatever under the Amendment of the noble Marquess, assuming it to be optional, and for this reason. After all,
  226
  what the noble Marquess is asking for is a new invasion of districts where there have been no Church schools at all. There are a number of large towns which have gone on since 1870 with nothing but board schools, now council schools, and in those schools hundreds of thousands of Church children have been educated without, as far as we know, active complaint. They have received in many cases, one hopes, very good teaching under the Cowper-Temple Clause, and they have received outside the school and on Sundays the teaching of the Church of England. The noble Lord must see that to ask those local authorities to admit a system of facilities into their schools is to ask a very great deal indeed, and you must remember what it comes on the top of. It is conceivable that they might have been asked to accept it as part of a general settlement under which all schools in England were going to be really of the same type. But that is not so. You are leaving your denominational schools to a very considerable extent denominational. We left them in many cases very largely denominational as the Bill came up to your Lordships' House, and by your Lordships' Amendments they are very much more denominational. The enormous multiplication of schools under Clause 4 cannot be forgotten in this relation, and, on the top of all that, to ask these local authorities, who have run their schools on undenominational lines for thirty years, to admit an unknown number of denominational teachers into the schools, is to put upon them a burden that I am quite sure they would refuse to carry. Therefore, the result of the noble Marquess' Amendment would be that in some places where Church influence was strong these facilities would freely be given, but in such cases as those to which the Bishop of London alluded, namely, large districts where there are no Church schools, and also in a great many towns of varying sizes where there have been nothing but council schools, things would be left as they are, and that in the places where, according to the theory of the noble Marquess and the right rev. Prelate, the facilities are most wanted. In towns where Church influence was strong there might be a board school or two and a friendly authority to whom these provisions would apply; but in those desolate districts of which the

  227
  right rev. Prelate spoke, the permission would undoubtedly be refused.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: It does not follow that they would be refused there. The districts are desolate, but the Church is strong there.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I have no doubt the Church is strong there, but it would not be for the Church, unfortunately, to say whether the facilities were to be given or not. It would be for the local education authority, and I was assuming for the moment that the local authority was not the sort of one to see its board schools visited by these facilities. I must remind the noble Marquess and the House of another point. Lord Lytton said that, after all, all you want to do is to give minorities a chance, and he hinted that if in 1902 his Amendment had been accepted by the House this difficulty would not have arisen. I am afraid the noble Earl is completely in error there, and for this reason, that by this clause you are giving to one kind of minority, principally the Church of England, something of which they could make most effective use, but you are not giving, certainly to the poorer sects of Nonconformists in the country, a boon of which they would be able to make any use at all. That is the real difficulty, that your facilities are not in pari materia in regard to the different denominations. It was admitted by the Bishop of Manchester, in a speech that he made, I think, at a diocesan conference, that this particular provision must inevitably, owing to the nature of the case, not through any vice on anybody's part, work with a vast preponderance of advantage in favour of the Church of England. I do not know what view the noble Duke and the noble Viscount (Lord St. Aldwyn) opposite may take of this proposal. They did not agree with the larger proposal of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and whether they will agree with this modified proposal I do not know. As regards the noble Viscount, I always thought, and I still think, that there was a strong case for his proposition, that there should be some means of keeping the facilities alive in districts where a great number of Church schools were extinguished. There always seemed to me to be a rather
  228
  strong case for them, but as we pointed out at the time, it is an exceedingly difficult matter to provide for in the words of the clause, and we were unable to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. But that, of course, is a very different matter indeed from this general entry into council schools, not as part of a great national settlement, but coming as an accumulative claim really and mainly on behalf of the Church of England on the top of the assertion of the continuance of the denominational character of a very large number of her schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The noble Earl is correct in his surmise when he suggests that those who sit by me will support the noble Marquess in his Amendment. The noble Earl referred in the concluding passage of his speech to another Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn, a very ingenious proposal under which facilities were to be given in cases where a denominational school has been got rid of, and where the children who had attended that school, or might have attended it, would have been specially provided for; but my recollection is that the noble Earl did not give very much encouragement to that proposal, and that, indeed, he discovered a good many administrative objections to it.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Yes, it was difficult.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That proposal, I venture to suggest, is not now before the House. The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, expressed his regret at the abandonment of the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He does not stand alone in that. I have received from many sources evidence of the regret with which the withdrawal of that Amendment was regarded. The noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, asked on what conceivable ground could the proposal of Lord Balfour of Burleigh be objected to. It was objected to upon one ground which certainly was entitled to some weight— namely, that where these council schools giving what we call Cowper-Temple teaching were in existence, and where the teaching given in them had been

  229
  accepted and gladly acquiesced in by the people of the locality in which they were situated, it was very unwise suddenly to disturb the status quo and to bring in teaching other than Cowper-Temple teaching. There is, I feel, some force in that objection. The proposal of the noble Marquess beside me is not, at any rate, open to that objection, because he deals with the case where there is a real grievance and where there are dissatisfied people who cannot be provided for without some such encroachment, if it be an encroachment, upon the arrangements in force in those council schools. I ask your Lordships' attention to the conditions which the noble Marquess attaches to his proposal. They are these. The parents of a reasonable number of children attending the school must make it clear that they desire these facilities to be given. In the next place, it is to be established to the satisfaction of the local education authority that these children cannot conveniently attend another school. In the next place, the local authority is authorised to permit these facilities only so far as it is in their opinion reasonably practicable to do so. Your Lordships will therefore see that a very wide discretion is given to the local authority, a discretion which would leave it quite open to them to refuse facilities if they believed that the granting of them involved a serious disturbance of the conditions prevailing in any particular school. The noble Earl asked whether it was in our contemplation that in a case of this kind there should be an appeal against the decision of the local education authority. The answer to that question is in the negative. The noble Earl also dwelt for a short time upon the administrative difficulties which he anticipated from the adoption of this proposal. It has always seemed to me that noble Lords opposite are much too easily deterred by the anticipation of these administrative difficulties. The right rev. Prelate who presides over the diocese of London, and who has had practical experience of these matters, has told us of cases in which within his own knowledge this experiment has been tried and tried successfully without any inconvenient results.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: I did not say it had been tried, but that I could have carried it out without difficulty.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg the right rev. Prelate's pardon. There is, however, a weightier authority, if possible, in favour of the view that these administrative difficulties need not be regarded as insuperable. Here is an extract from a speech delivered by the Minister for Education at Bristol. He said—
  "His efforts were all in the direction of throwing open all schools of this country, not only for simple elementary Bible instruction, but also that facilities should be given to enable parents to have their children instructed by ministers of their own religion in their own particular doctrines."
  That, to my mind, shows conclusively that one who can speak with authority upon these subjects did not regard it, when he made that speech, as beyond the powers of the education authorities of the country to accommodate themselves to a condition of things under which, in certain circumstances, facilities might be given for denominational teaching in any school no matter of what complexion. I therefore feel that the case made by my noble friend beside me, for the very moderate proposal which he has put upon the Paper is a strong case, and I shall un hesitatingly vote with him if he goes to a Division.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMsaid there was a very strong feeling, not amongst Churchmen only, but amongst members of local education authorities of all kinds, that precautions should be taken to prevent questions of religious education coming up at local elections. This question of facilities was one upon which a great number of persons felt very warmly, and he was afraid if so much option, as the Amendment of the noble Marquess proposed, was left to the local authority, without appeal, the question would in certain districts enter acutely into municipal elections.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he felt compelled to adhere to the wording of his Amendment. He thought they might rely with some confidence on the local authority exercising properly the quasi-judicial function which the option entrusted to them.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDrose to address the House amidst loud cries of "Divide." He

  231
  said he thought he might claim the attention of their Lordships for a few minutes.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am afraid the right rev. Prelate is out of order. He has already spoken on this Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD: When I spoke earlier I ventured to say then that I reserved anything I had to say on the noble Marquess's Amendment.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: You cannot do that.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDthen resumed his seat.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I might explain that we propose on this side of the House to take only one division on this subject.
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," resolved in the negative.
  On Question, "That the word 'that' be there inserted," their Lordships divided:—Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 43.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Morley, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Morton, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Braye, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Nelson, E.

  Burton, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Northbrook, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Plymouth, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Powis, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Stamford, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry)

  Digby, L.

  Bath, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  Dunboyne, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Camden, M.

  Ebury, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Bridport, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Landsdowne, M.

  Churchill, V.[Teller.]

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Cross, V.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Winchester, M.

  Zetland, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Glenesk, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Halifax, V.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Abingdon, E.

  Hill, V.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Amherst, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Cairns, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Ludlow, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Clarendon, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Mostyn, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  North, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Devon, E.

  London L Bp.

  Rathmore, L.

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

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Redesdale, L.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Rothschild, L.

  Eldon, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Sanderson, L.

  Fevarsham, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Sandys, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Seaton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Haddington, E.

  Sinclair, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Addington, L.

  Southampton, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

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

  Lindsey, E.

  Ashcombe, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Colebrooke, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Crowe, E. (L. President.)

  Coleridge, L.

  Lyveden. L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Courteney of Penwith, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Davey, L.

  Monson, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L.

  Carrington, E.

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

  Pirrie, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Reay, L.

  Craven, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Rendal, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Russell, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Althorp, V. (L.. Chamberlain.)

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Haversham, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Headley, L.

  Welby, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Joicey, L.

  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN moved an Amendment providing that the facilities for special religious instruction under Clause 3 should be afforded "on two mornings a week in school hours at such times as may be consistent with the proper conduct of the school." He said he had given notice of this Amendment because he thought it right to ask their Lordships to reconsider the Amendment introduced into Clause 3 on the Motion of the Bishop of Oxford. At that time the position of Clause 3 was distinctly different from that which it now occupied. Formerly school teachers were not to be permitted to give denominational religious instruction in schools under the clause, and religious instruction was, moreover, to be given outside school hours. This was no longer the case. Under the eighth clause teachers were now to be permitted to give denominational religions teaching in schools under Clause 3, and in those schools, as elsewhere, the religious teaching was to be in school hours. The net result, so far as facilities for denominational religious instruction was concerned, was practically to place schools under Clause 3 in precisely the same position as schools under Clause 4. So far as he could see, there was only one difference, and that was that in the case, of schools under Clause 4 the parents' committee were to be consulted as to the appointment of the teacher. But given a school under Clause 3 in which —and there would be many such cases, he hoped, for a long time to come— a school teacher existed willing and able to give denominational religious iustrucsion, precisely the same denominational atmosphere would exist as if the school had been under Clause 4, and yet the
  234
  purely denominational atmosphere would have been arrived at, not, as in the case of Clause 4 schools, owing to the wishes of the parents of a large proportion of the children attending the school, but solely because the owners of the school on its transfer to the local education authority had required that facilities under Clause 3 should be given. No doubt some of their Lordships were desirous that that state of things should exist, but it must be admitted that it was a material interference with the framework of the Bill. The intention clearly was that schools under Clause 3 should be less denominational in character than schools under Clause 4. In the one case there was, and in the other there was not, to be a denominational atmosphere, and in Clause 4 provisions appeared for the purpose of enabling schools to obtain that atmosphere. The effect of the Bishop of Oxford's Amendment, taken together with the changes to which he had referred, was inconsistent with some of the most important principles of the Bill, and if it was so they ought, if they intended to adhere to the Amendment to have rejected the Bill on Second Heading. He had always understood that one of the main points which His Majesty's Government had had in mind with regard to schools under Clause 3 was that the majority, at any rate, of the present denominational schools in country villages would fall under that clause, and that their object in limiting the amount of denominational instruction that could be given in Clause 3 schools as compared with schools under Clause 4 was that these schools should be of a less denominational character, so that the

  235
  grievance of the Nonconformist parents who had to send their children to such schools should be in some degree met. That grievance had been admitted on both sides of the House, and many felt that it was not sufficiently met under the provisions of the existing law by the conscience clause. It might be said that if it was desirable to restrict the denominational character of the religious instruction in Clause 3 schools to meet the grievance of Nonconformist parents, they ought not, in order to do that, to inflict an injustice on the denominationalist majority, which in these cases would be mainly a Church of England majority. There was no doubt great force in that view, but was it really necessary, to avoid inflicting a grievance on a Church of England majority, that denominational religious teaching should be given in these schools on every day on which the school was open? He asked their Lordships to consider what was possible in these schools under the clause as introtroduced. Denominational teaching could be given on only two days in the week, but on the other three it was perfectly possible for prayers to be offered, for the Bible to be read, and for undenominational religious teaching to be given, which, if given by the same teacher, need not in any way conflict with the denominational teaching given on the other two days in the week. Therefore practically all that could not be given on the three days was teaching of the Church Catechism. Was it really necessary that that particular teaching should be given on every day of the week? What had been their Lordships' own experience at school? For his own part, nothing of the sort ever happened at the schools in which he was educated. He fully admitted there was a difference in the position of many of the children attending elementary schools in the matter of home influences, and it might fairly be argued that more religious teaching should be afforded in the elementary schools on that account than needed to be given in the case of those who had healthy religious influences at home. But he was bound to say that the clause as it now stood went too far in that direction, and he thought it would be perfectly reasonable, so far as the number of days on which denominational religious instruction might be
  236
  given, if it were restored to the position in which it originally stood, and his Amendment was designed with that object. The only difference between his proposal and the clause as it originally stood was that he had included a proviso that the teaching should be within schools hours—which was practically already in the Bill—and he had inserted words giving greater elasticity to the power of owners and the education authority to decide when and how the denominational teaching should be given. The clause as originally introduced limited that power in a way which in practical administration would have been found extremely inconvenient, and his words pointed to the possibility of an arrangement by which the denominational teaching on the two days should be given in such a way, subject to the general law, as the owners and the education authority found convenient so as not to interfere with the general conduct of the schools.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 34, after the word 'instruction,' to insert the words 'on two mornings a week in school hours at such times as may be consistent with the proper conduct of the school and.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid he found himself, reluctantly, in opposition to Viscount St. Aldwyn. The noble Viscount had described the effect of the clause as it now stood as placing Clause 3 schools in precisely the same position as schools under Clause 4.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: With one exception.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid he noticed that after using the word "precisely" the noble Viscount qualified it by saying there was one exception. But the differences between the two classes of schools were really three. The noble Viscount had referred to one—that a voice was given to the parents' committee with regard to the appointment of teachers. The second was that with regard to Clause 4 schools the parents' committee were given the control of the religious instruction, while there was no such committee and therefore no such control in the case of schools under Clause 3. That second function of the parents' committee had an independent importance beyond that which they exercised in

  237
  regard to the appointment of teachers. The third point of difference—which was still more important—between schools under Clause 3 and those under Clause 4 was that, in the former "the religious instruction," whatever precisely was meant by that, would be undenominational. Facilities would be freely afforded for other instruction: but, so to say, the characteristic religious instruction of those schools would be undenominational. It was quite true that in many cases that might be modified or altered by the denominational instruction given under the facilities, but the fact remained that in Clause 3 schools, and not in schools under Clause 4, the normal religious instruction might be undenominational. These were three important differences of detail between the two classes of schools. But he asked their Lordships to think of the general result. The Government had declared, and it had been generally recognised, that the intention was that schools under Clause 4 should be "frankly denominational." Clause 3 schools, even as the clause now stood, might be, and so far as any charge on the rates or taxes was concerned, must be, solidly undenominational. That could not be disputed, and it constituted a very real line of distinction. Those who thought that the effect of the clause as amended was to make Clause 3 schools identical in character with schools under Clause 4 either over-rated the effect of Clause 3 or greatly under-rated the effect of Clause 4, and thought of it as falling far below its avowed and recognised purpose. They had always spoken of the religious "atmosphere" created in schools coming under Clause 4. He disliked the phrase, and would rather speak of the religious character; but howsoever it was spoken of it was something created under Clause 4 and not under Clause 3. The noble Viscount had asked whether all this was really necessary in order to prevent the infliction of a hardship upon those who would be in many cases the majority in the transferred schools. There were many districts in which the majority of the children would be the children of Church of England parents. They certainly prima facie seemed liable to hardship under Clause 3 as it originally stood, inasmuch as there would be imposed upon them on three days of the week undenominational instruction. Exag-
  238
  gerated statements had been made in many quarters as to the probable effect of Clause 3 as amended. People had apparently not noticed that where the local authority was willing to provide it, undenominational teaching might be given on every day in the week to the children of those parents who desired it for them, and the whole purpose and effect of his Amendment had been to secure equal opportunities and privileges for those children whose parents desired denominational teaching. He quite recognised that in a great many schools things would probably go on as they had done hitherto, and the religious and thoughtful teacher would give good Bible teaching on three days and definite denominational teaching on the other two. But they had also to consider the schools in which the position would be widely different. In a considerable number of schools the children of Church parents would suffer a real hardship under the clause as the noble Viscount wished to amend it. He would take two instances in which hardship would be sustained. As Lord Clifford of Chudleigh had said on a former occasion, under the clause as it stood in the Government Bill, Roman Catholic children in transferred schools would simply be withdrawn from religious instruction on three days in the week; their opportunity of receiving religious instruction in accordance with their religious convictions would be cut down absolutely to two days in the week. That was a real hardship against which the clause as now amended would protect them. The second case of hardship would be in a transferred school which had been provided by great effort for the maintenance of Church of England teaching, and to which might be appointed, say, a Baptist headmaster. The school might be in a country district where it was practically inevitable that the undenominational teaching on the three days in the week must be in his hands: and it was said that the children of Church of England parents must receive such instruction, given by a convinced Baptist, or none at all, on three days, and the Catechism or other definite denominational teaching on two. Who could regard those two volumes of religious instruction as constituting a single and coherent whole? Who would say that on a basis of Baptist Bible instruction given for three days a superstructure of

  239
  the Catechism could be added on the other two days, and that there they would have the full body of the Christian faith? It was necessary that provision should be made for such cases as those, where real hardship would otherwise be inflicted upon the children of Church of England parents. As the action of the House in adopting his Amendment had been criticised, he desired briefly to recall the position on the evening on which it was adopted. Lord Balfour of Burleigh had two Amendments on the Paper, independent one of the other, but both resting on the one great principle of affording equal opportunity for all religious convictions and equal advantage for all parents with regard to the education they desired for their children, whether that instruction was demoninational or undenominational. The first Amendment provided that equality of opportunity in regard to all schools; the the second in regard to all days. The former was withdrawn: and he believed that when the history of the debate came to be reviewed it would be found that that withdrawal and the criticisms which led to it would be regarded as one of the great mistakes the House had made. It was now proposed that the second Amendment, which, in the absence of Lord Balfour of Burleigh he had moved and the House had accepted, should also be abandoned. If that were done, he believed the House would have made a second great mistake; for they would have gone back from the principle of religious liberty, set up a position of privilege, given an advantage, and inflicted an injustice. They would have given an advantage to those who preferred or were content with undenominational teaching: because they could have it on every day in the week and at the public expense; they would have inflicted an injustice on those who preferred and required denominational teaching, because they could have it on only two days in the week, and only at their own expense. Moreover, those on whom were inflicted the injustice and the disadvantage were just those for whom the schools to be transferred were built and provided; it was proposed to take those who had already done most, and to say to them that henceforth they should suffer most.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMsupposed they were all really anxious so to act as, if possible, to procure the passing of a Bill which, regarded from all points of views as suitable, should secure, at least for some considerable period, a settlement of the religious question which for so long had been obtruding itself in such a way as to hinder the real interests of education in general. But if that end was to be secured they must not in revenge for any injustice of the past create another injustice of grave and even startling magnitude. If they on the Episcopal Benches, representing Churchmen, were to acquiesce in the Amendment of Viscount St. Aldwyn he believed there was behind them such a, body of opinion and feeling as would sweep them, even contemptuously, aside and refuse to consent to any such acquiescence. He doubted whether their Lordships realised what the transference of schools meant to a great number of people who had loved the schools and worked hard for them. He was cordially at one with the two great principles of State control and the abandonment of religious tests for teachers so far as their place in the Civil Service was concerned, but if those principles were to be carried out the State when face to face with various kinds of religious teaching must preserve an attitude of strict impartiality. What would be the state of mind of persons who had supported those schools in the interests of a particular kind of religious teaching which they believed to be true and valued exceedingly? They might, and in many cases would, see appointed a headmaster who was not a member of the Church of England—a Baptist, a Congregationalist, or even a Unitarian— and undenominational teaching given by such a headmaster would be the primary religious teaching in the school. He could not believe that the people of the country would consent to the gross and unbearable injustice of subjecting the children of Church parents, against their will, and quite arbitrarily, for three days a week, to compulsory religious teaching of a kind which they did not like. If such an enactment were made a statute of the realm it would arouse such an opposition as would make the Act absolutely unworkable, because in

  241
  these days it was impossible to fight against people who had on their side a manifest injustice. To subject children of Church of England parents on three days in the week, arbitrarily and against their will, in schools built for the maintenance of Church teaching, to teaching which they did not like, when there was someone ready to give the instruction they wore anxious to receive, was contrary to the fundamental principles of religious liberty, and would wreck any proposed settlement that Parliament might devise. An analogy might be found by going to a place of academic instruction, and, in the controversy between the old and the modern methods of teaching geometry, suggesting as a compromise that Euclid should be taught on three days a week and modern geometry on two. A settlement could not be arrived at by such a proposal, nor could the new legislation desired by the Government be reconciled with the minds and consciences of the people. He appealed to the great historic Parties in the State to realise that it was a serious matter if at this time of day they were going to set their seal to a deliberate preference of one kind of religious teaching to another, by compelling children to receive religious instruction which they did not want when there was ready for them another kind of teaching which they did want, but which, by the arbitrary fiat of the State, they were prevented from obtaining. It would be a strange thing if the new Labour Party were found to be the only Party really true to the principle that the modern State must maintain an attitude of strict impartiality towards the different kinds of religious teaching. Even if it were provided that the children of Church of England parents might be taught elsewhere than in the school on the three days a week, it would be a great and needless unsettling of the routine of the school. He hoped their Lordships would not, by accepting the proposal of the noble Viscount, sanction an injustice which would be quite capable of upsetting any proposed arrangement which they might have fondly hoped they had arrived at.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The noble Viscount who moved the Amendment has interpreted so correctly the intention of His Majesty's Government in bring-
  242
  ing in Clause 3 in the form in which it was introduced that I need say very few words upon this Amendment. I am anxious also on general grounds to make as few Second Reading speeches as possible at this stage, which I regard as a distinctly business stage, and therefore I shall be as brief as I can. The noble Viscount is perfectly correct in saying that in our opinion—and I am glad to know that it is also his opinion—the acceptance of this clause in the form to which it was reduced by the Amendment of the Bishop of Oxford would be destructive of the fabric of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: I did not quite say that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: At any rate, that the Amendment was entirely alien to the structure of the Bill as introduced. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Oxford endeavoured to combat the statement that the acceptance of his Amendment would be to reduce Clause 3 schools very nearly to the condition of schools under Clause 4, and he mentioned three differences between the two classes of schools. One, which was admitted by the noble Viscount opposite, was that in the case of the Clause 4 schools the parents' committee is to be consulted as to the appointment of teachers, and that there was no parents' committee in the case of Clause 3.schools, which, said the right rev. Prelate, constituted an important difference. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of Lord Halifax providing for the institution of parents' committees so far as facilities under this clause are concerned, and to that principle we, at any rate, offer no objection; consequently, before the evening is out, that point of difference will probably have disappeared. Then the right rev. Prelate said that in these schools Cowper-Temple teaching would be the rule and facilities teaching the exception. But there is no obligation on the local education authority to have any teaching whatever in the schools under Clause 3, and it would be perfectly possible, under the right rev. Prelate's arrangement, for a local authority with a strong Church of England majority to have five days of Church teaching, and none other Consequently it seems to me that that argument falls to the ground.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD: That would not be the case if any parents desired undenominational teaching; it would be equally open to them to secure that.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not know how. It is entirely in the discretion of the local authority whether it gives any undenominational teaching at all. ["No."] There is a further important difference to which the right rev. Prelate did not allude, namely, that these schools are to receive what in many cases will be a substantial rent, while Clause 4 schools will receive none. If they are to retain so denominational a character as is contemplated by the right rev. Prelate, I imagine a great many people will ask themselves in consideration of what is such a rent to be given. It is all very well to talk of the difference between these two classes of schools, but supposing in a country village where clerical influences are strong you have this five days a week church teaching given by the teacher in the school, in what possible way will that school differ from the Church school that it is at this moment? In no essential respect will it differ at all. It will only be by an exercise of the conscience clause, which we all agree it is hardly to be expected village children will make, that the children of Nonconformists and others who do not care for this special teaching could avoid having to attend it. Everybody knows that where parents are not markedly affected one way or the other, it is to the teaching given by the teacher the children as a body will go.
  Two right rev. Prelates have addressed us, but I am disposed to ask them whether they profess to speak the whole mind of the Church of England on this matter. My impression is that there are a very large number of the country clergy who are perfectly content with this provision of two days a week facilities. It is a wing—a very important and active wing—of the Church for which those right rev. Prelates speak so energetically and with so much force, but it is necessary to guard your Lordships against the belief that they are speaking for the Church as a whole, because we know that that is not the case. All I can say is that if this clause remained as it is, there would have been very little
  244
  object in bringing in the Bill at all, and if the right rev. Prelate imagines that the Bill containing this clause as it stands can pass as a settlement I can only tell him quite frankly that if this provision were to remain in there would be no prospect of the Bill's passing at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that it was with extreme regret that for the first time in his life he found himself opposed to the Episcopal Bench. The two right rev. Prelates who had spoken had put forward their case with force and eloquence, but he could not agree with them, for the simple reason that he believed the Lord President of the Council was right in saying that if the Amendment of the Lord Bishop of Oxford were adhered to it would entirely alter the structure of the Bill. If he had his own way, he would like to see the idea of the right rev. Prelate carried into effect, but, although he had had some considerable experience of denominational schools, he had yet to learn that they devoted five days a week to denominational religious instruction. Two, or at most three, days were the limit of definite denominational instruction, and therefore, opposed though he was to this Bill, he failed to see how they could gain any advantage to the cause of denominational religious instruction by insisting on the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. The question was a very difficult one, and Church people felt strongly upon it, but he thought the proper line had been taken by Lord St. Aldwyn in declaring that the denominational instruction should be given on two days a week. From his experience he believed it would be found difficult to extend it beyond two days. In his own schools the clergyman and the curate found it extremely difficult to carry out the religious instruction on the two or three days. He was convinced they would find the task impossible if it were extended to five days. Therefore, while he did not swerve in his devotion to the principles of denominational instruction, he sincerely hoped the House would support the Amendment of his noble friend.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXappealed to their Lordships to remember that the schools in question were Church of England schools, provided by Churchmen for the teaching of Church of England

  245
  children in the Church Catechism. Those schools were now to be transferred to the local authority and to become undenominational schools. It was not a question whether the Catechism was to be taught on two or three days or even on one. The question was on what basis was religious instruction to be given on every day. In the denominational schools where the Catechism was taught the basis of the religious instruction given to the children was that supplied by the answer to the first question in the Catechism—that the children were members of a Church, that they had to live up to the obligations of that membership, and that membership of that Church was a matter of vital importance. The basis of undenominational instruction was that it was a matter of no consequence at all whether they belonged to this or that Church or to any Christian community. How was it possible to reconcile such teaching in the minds of the children? If the Amendment were carried, on three days the children would perhaps be told that our Lord was a great human teacher; they would be asked to commit to memory certain portions of the Bible; they would hear nothing of the Incarnation or of the Atonement; they would only get that teaching which, according to Lord Stanley of Alderley, must not be disagreeable to Unitarians. Then on two days of the week they would be told the exact opposite, that their obligations as baptised members of the Church were of vital importance, and that their duties to our Lord were dependent on the fact that He was God made man for their salvation. How could the faith of the children stand such a contradiction? How could any person in his senses propose a system of religious education open to such vital objections as that embodied in Clause 3 as now proposed to be amended must necessarily be? The Lord President had said the Bill would be wrecked if the clause in its present form were carried. He did not know whether it would be wrecked in Parliament, but it would be in the country if this clause were carried. If the Bill were made decently just, he would transfer the schools belonging to him, but if this clause were insisted upon he would not do so, and he knew that many other owners would take up the same position. He was really unable to
  246
  understand how His Majesty's Government and his noble friends Viscount St. Aldwyn and Lord Camperdown could sanction what was so radically and inherently unjust. He sincerely hoped the House would not accept the Amendment; even though he stood alone he would divide against it.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEhoped that, in spite of the charm and sincerity which distinguished all his utterances on this Bill, the House would pay no attention to the observations which had just fallen from Viscount Halifax, but would bring their minds back to the case put forward by Lord St. Aldwyn in support of this Amendment. With regard to the remarks of Lord Londonderry, he and the noble Marquess were very cordial on the subject of fox-hunting, but he was sorry to say this was the first occasion on which he had found himself in agreement with the noble Marquess on the Education Bill. He agreed with the noble Marquess that it would be practically impossible to give religious teaching in the schools on five days of the week. The Bishops might be able to do it, but they were picked people. Religious teaching was a bump, and the reception of religious teaching was a bump, and he did not believe that either the teachers or their disciples in the ordinary voluntary schools of the country were capable of getting much advantage out of five days a week teaching of that kind. The Bishop of Birmingham had referred to the "gross and unbearable injustice" that would be inflicted in the ease of voluntary schools built by people who wanted a particular form of religious instruction to be given in them. Lord Halifax had said that he did not exaggerate, but he did. He himself also spoke with experience of voluntary schools, and in his part of Yorkshire the whole question of denominational teaching in the voluntary schools had turned on the question of the cost to the rates, it being rather cheaper to the rates when the landlord stood in the breach and the tenant had not to find the money. He got a little tired of these ad captandum arguments, the spiritual metaphysics, and the sort of prelatic climate with which so much of the discussion of the Bill had been clouded, and he hoped the House would support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount opposite.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKdesired to make an appeal to those about him to reconsider their position. He was in whole-hearted agreement with the general case put forward by the Bishops of Oxford and Birmingham, and he thought their case had been entirely mistaken by some noble Lords. Nobody wanted to cram children with the Catechism for five days in the week; what they wanted was that the instruction given should be of one spirit and character. If they had only to deal with schools in which there was ample accommodation, he would say that what had been put forward was quite incontrovertible, and that it was absolutely essential that those who were being deprived of that which they had hitherto had, and for whom the schools were built, ought to be allowed to retain the opportunity of a complete course of religious instruction according to their own convictions and of avoiding the real and grave danger of the clashing of different elements in the instruction. But in the issue before them they were in grave danger of seeming to do that which was unjust, of seeming to do that which was an aggression on the consciences of others. He did not think it could be denied that in some of the country schools this clause as it stood might be used in such a way as to be oppressive to the consciences of Nonconformists. That might be done in a few cases, and the purple rhetoric of invective with which they were so familiar would seize on such instances and inflate them to such proportions as to make it appear that it was being done throughout the villages of the country. If he interpreted the Bill rightly, that would be possible, because there was no clause giving the minority the right to ask for Cowper-Temple teaching. All that was made compulsory was that there should be some religious instruction given in the school on every day of the week, and that requirement would be satisfied by the giving of Church teaching. But that was not all. As Lord Stanley of Alderley had pointed out, there were many schools in which, owing to the staff and the nature of the accommodation, it would be practically impossible to have two kinds of teaching going on at the same time. Therefore if the Church got in possession, with the teacher
  248
  on five days a week there would be no room for anyone else. He would be sorry if they went into the lobby against the noble Viscount's Amendment, because it would give the impression—he was sure it was a mistaken one— that that was what they wanted to happen. If indeed it were true that, as Lord Halifax had said, these children would be compelled to go and hear teaching on the three days which in material points contradicted the definite instruction they desired to receive, he agreed that whatever was necessary should be done to avoid it. But that was not the case. There was a power of withdrawal for religious instruction elsewhere. In country districts the Church of England had always another building in which they could give instruction, namely, the parish church. In many cases the teaching given under the Cowper-Temple clause would serve as a foundation on which more could be built. If something of a very different kind were given, recourse could be had to the power of withdrawing children and so save them from the injustice which had been so eloquently set forth. Therefore his appeal was not that they should in any way compromise their principles, but simply that they should avoid dividing against the noble Viscount's Amendment, because opposition to that Amendment would be regarded not as an assertion of what was justice to themselves, but as an act of aggression and oppression towards others.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTERsaid that he voted against the Bishop of Oxford's Amendment in Committee, and everything that had happened since had confirmed him in the view that the step that he took on that occasion was the right one. He sympathized with much that had been said by the Bishops of Oxford and Birmingham, but could not identify himself with the kind of arguments used by Lord Ribblesdale. He hoped the Government would realise how very much they were asking and even compelling Churchmen to give up. He identified himself very largely with what the Bishop of Southwark had said and with his appeal to his brethren. He would vote as he had voted before, but in so doing he wished again to emphasise what Churchmen were being called upon to surrender.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: May I just say, in the interests of peace—
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS of RIPON): We are now considering the Report, and unless my
  noble friend wishes to make a personal explanation he has no right to speak again.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided: Contents, 142; Not-Contents, 23.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Northbrook, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Onslow, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Plymouth, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Bedford, D.

  Powis, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Glenesk, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Stamford, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.]

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Harris, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Haversham, L.

  Wellington, D.

  Hemphill, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain)

  Hothfield, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Bridport, V.

  Joicey, L.

  Bath, M.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Camden, M.

  Cobham, V.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Kintore, E. (E. Kintore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Falmouth, V.

  Lawrence, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Hill, V.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Iveagh, V.

  Ludlow, L.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Lyveden, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Cairns, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Monkswell, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Monson, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Addington, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Newton, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Atkinson. L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Craven, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Reay, L.

  Darnley, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Belper, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Devon, E.

  Blythswood, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

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

  Burghclere, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Burton, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Hardwood, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Davey, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Denman, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Desborough, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Morley, E.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Welby, L.

  Morton, E.

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

  Wolverton. L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Braye, L.

  Newcastle, D. [Teller]

  Colchester, L.

  Halifax. V [Teller.]

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Bristol, M.

  Llandaff, V.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  North, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Stanmore, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  London, L. Bp.

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

  Denbigh, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Feversham, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Teynham, L.

  VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved the insertion of a new sub-section setting up a parents' committee in connection with Clause 3 schools. He expressed the hope that it would be regarded as non-contentious, as it merely provided a machinery applicable to Clause 3 analogous to the parents' committee which had been agreed to in connection with schools under Clause 4.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 35, after the word 'morning' to insert the following new sub-section: (2) In all schools in which facilities are afforded under this section the parents of the children attending the school shall elect in accordance with regulations to be made for the purpose by the Board of Education four persons, some of whom may be women, who, together with one other person nominated by the owners, and one other person nominated by the local education authority, shall be known as the parents' committee. The parents' committee shall be responsible for, and have the control of, the religious instruction afforded under such facilities.—(Viscount Halifax.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have no objection to accepting the principle of the parents' committee in connection with the facilities given under Clause 3. There is only one point to which I wish to draw attention. Among those who are to be placed on the parents' committee is one person nominated by the local education authority. I do not exactly see what object there is in placing a representative of the local education authority upon this Committee which has only to settle the facilities teaching, with which the local authority is in no way concerned. I should certainly have imagined that it would be much better to confine the representation to parents and owners of the school.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I shall be perfectly prepared to accept that suggestion.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that in drafting this Amendment his noble friend had overlooked the fact that under it facilities could be claimed in purely council schools. He thought the proposal should be limited to Clause 3 schools. His noble friend evidently intended to deal with Clause 3 schools only, but the wording of the Amendment would include council schools as well as transferred schools, and he thought his noble friend should limit his Amendment to transferred schools under Clause 3.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid there was one point he hoped the Government would consider. He was glad the Lord-President of the Council had agreed to the principle of the parents' committee in regard to Clause 3 schools. He asked, however, whether as a result there would not be a sort of double management in a large number of schools. Under the local education authority there would be either a local education committee or a committee of managers for all these schools under Clauses 3 and 4, in addition to the parents' committee, and he suggested that it would be much better to enable the parents under Clause 15 to elect a certain number of the managers in each of these schools. There would then be parents' representation on the regular body of management, and no possible conflict could arise between the two bodies as might now very well happen.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I considered the suggestion which has been made, and it certainly occurred to me that if the body of managers are to have control over the religious education in the school there might be a majority of the managers managing the special education who did not belong to the denomination on whose behalf that instruction was being given. The only way that point could be met would be by having a denominational majority, which might, and in some cases undoubtedly would, remove a great deal of power from the local authority. I am afraid the difficulty seems almost insuperable.
  LORD BELPERagreed that considerable confusion would exist if, in addition to the local education authority, and the minor authorities with delegated powers, there were also boards of managers and parents' committees. In regard to Clause 4 schools, if those who spoke for the different denominations whose case that clause was intended to meet, considered that a parents' committee afforded the most convenient way of securing the control and regulation of the religious instruction in those schools, he thought there was not much to be said against it, but personally he had serious doubts whether a parents' committee would be the best body, because it would depend so very much on who the parents happened to be when they were elected

  253
  In a country school the parents might be the least qualified in a small parish to elect representatives for such a responsible duty as that of dealing with religious instruction. There might be many persons more qualified who were not at that particular moment parents of children in the school. An additional difficulty in regard to Clause 3 schools was that although facilities could be given when a certain number wished for religious instruction of a particular sort, there might be a good many others who desired religious instruction of another sort. Was the parents' committee to represent merely the majority? In that case the religious instruction would not be carried on to the satisfaction of the parents of all the children in the school. It was very difficult to contest the wish of those who asked for a parents' committee in connection with Clause 4 schools, but if they were going to appoint parents' committees for Clause 3 schools, for State-aided schools, and for Clause 5 schools as well, it would give rise to very great difficulty and confusion, and eventually some arrangement would have to be made by which the parents' committee should either form a sub-committee of the managers or in some way be a part of the board of managers.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYrecognised that there were considerable difficulties in providing a parents' committee in the case of Clause 3 schools, and he was not quite sure that the noble Viscount had thought out how it would work. There might be a case in which a large majority of the children were of Nonconformist parents, and in which, perhaps, a small minority had obtained Clause 3 facilities. Those facilities would be Church of England facilities, and yet under the Amendment they would be managed by a parents' committee elected by a majority of Nonconformists. He was not sure that the noble Viscount would like his Amendment so much as at first if he looked at it from that point of view.
  LORD DAVEYdid not know whether noble Lords had any experience of a parents' committee. He had for several years in his village, and he could not say that he ever obtained much assistance from them; they generally agreed with
  254
  "your Lordship." He looked upon it as a matter for the people who were interested in the giving of religious instruction to settle for themselves.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The next Amendment is a small one standing in my name for the purpose of making Sub-section (2) of Clause 3 read as follows: "No part of the expense of giving religious instruction of a special character under this section other than expenses involved in making the schoolhouse, so far as necessary, available for the purpose in the same manner as for other school purposes, shall be paid by the local education authority." At an earlier stage of the proceedings I promised to find words which would make it quite clear that the ordinary conduct of the school in the way of lighting, heating, and so on, was included in the charges to be paid by the local authority. Therefore I move to insert the words, "other than expenses involved in making the school-house, so far as necessary, available for the purpose in the same manner as for other school purposes."
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3 line 37, after the word "section" to insert the words "other than expenses involved, in making the schoolhouse, so far as necessary, available for the purpose in the game manner as for other school purposes"— (The Earl of Crewe.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD ASHBOURNE LORD ASHBOURNE, in moving the substitution of a new sub-section for subsection (3), said it was merely a question of a choice of words. His proposal brought in the element of the owner being satisfied, and the Lord-President of the Council would probably agree that it was a better form of words than that in the Bill and consent to its insertion.
  Amendment moved—
  "In pages 3 and 4, to leave out sub-section (3) and insert the following new subsection:—'If any question arises under this section between the owners of the schoolhouse and the local education authority, including any question as to the mode in which the facilities should be afforded, that quest ion shall be determined by the Board of Education.'"—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I make no objection to the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid that in moving the insertion of the new clause standing in his name, he would not make another speech, as he had already dealt with the subject.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause:—(1) If the parents of a reasonable number of children attending any public elementary school require facilities for their children of the same character as those to be afforded under Section 3 of this Act, and, in the opinion of the local education authority, those children cannot conveniently attend some other public elementary school in which facilities for religious instruction of the special character desired by the parents are afforded, the local education authority, without prejudice to any of their powers or duties under Section 3 of this Act, shall, so far as it is in their opinion reasonably practicable to do so, afford those facilities in the school within school hours accordingly. (2) No part of the expense of giving religious instruction of a special character under this section shall be paid by the local education authority."— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD, after apologising for intervening at the present state of the debate, said there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment. It left the hands of the local authority quite free, in which respect it compared very favourably with many of the Amendments which their Lordships had inserted. But his experience of schools, both in town and in country, led him to believe that there was much more to be said against the Amendment than for it as a practical working proposal. He was convinced that the administrative difficulties would be very great, and would lead to much confusion. He believed there was a great deal of force in the remarks of the Bishop of Birmingham with regard to the controversy and consequent bitterness which this Amendment, if passed, would introduce into many municipal elections. If for no other reason than that, the House would do well to hesitate before accepting the Amendment. Many of them were utterly weary of the sectarian bitterness which had been in the atmosphere for
  256
  the last four or five years, and he was afraid that this Amendment would lead to a great deal of that undesirable feeling in many of our large towns, certainly at election times, and possibly at other times also. He opposed the Amendment as well on other grounds. Most of their Lordships would recognise what a feeling would be aroused if the idea got abroad that Church people desired to capture the council schools. That idea had great vogue some years ago, and he feared this Amendment would give it a fresh lease of life. It was easy to argue that there was no such intention, but it was very difficult to persuade people with regard to intentions. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I said my say at an earlier hour in the evening on this Amendment, and we took a division which, although technically it only affected the harmless word "that," was really intended to apply to this Amendment. I quite admit, in view of the fact that an Amendment inserted on his Motion was struck out by the operation of the noble Marquess' new clause, the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford had every right to intervene at this stage, but I hope your Lordships will now agree to allow the Question to be put.
  On Question, "That the proposed new clause be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in the absence of Viscount Ridley, moved to insert after the word "application" in Clause 4, the words, "or in case of dispute with the applicants if the Board of Education are satisfied." Their Lordships would remember that in Committee they inserted in sub-section (2) an Amendment very much on the lines of that now proposed. Sub-section (2) dealt with' the case where extended facilities were to be withdrawn, and an appeal was given to the Board of Education, if there was a dispute between the local education authority and the owners as to the propriety of the withdrawal of the permission. At that time it was understood that a similar Amendment would, on Report, be moved in sub-section (1), and the proposal now put forward was to carry out that intention. There were

  257
  three cases contemplated by the Bill of schools who would be in treaty with the local authority for extended facilities. First, existing schools that were not yet transferred; secondly, transferred schools; and, thirdly, transferred schools which obtained extended facilities but were not satisfied with the extent of those facilities. There was an appeal provided, though perhaps not a very adequate appeal, in the first and third cases, but not in the second case, the case of a transferred school which applied for extended facilities which wore not granted. That was a distinction which could not be defended. It was absolutely essential that there should be some appeal. The Lord President of the Council would probably say that inasmuch as Clause 4 had been made mandatory, no appeal was required. The Opposition did not admit that. No doubt in a case of pure discretion an appeal was even more necessary than in the present case, but there were in Clause 4 many conditions which had to be satisfied, which were more or loss matters of the judgment of the local education authority. That judgment might err, and there ought to be a remedy against the possibility of that error.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 13, after the word 'application,' to insert the words 'or in case of dispute with the applicants if the Commission are satisfied.'"—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is quite true, as the noble Marquess has said, that one of my arguments in reference to this Amendment is that by inserting the word "shall" you have made this clause mandatory, and it is clear that where the facilities are demanded the authority is open to a mandamus, if it refuses to give them. But this proposition of the noble Marquess is of rather a different character. All the other appeals are made by the owners, whereas this is made by the parent.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The owner is a possible applicant too.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: There is also this possibility to be considered, that an owner might transfer a school on ordinary Clause 3 terms, and get a rent for it. If, however, it is to be turned into a Clause 4 school he will cease to got any rent for
  258
  it. Therefore you are placing yourself in the possible position of having an owner who is quite content with Clause 3 facilities pulling one way, and a body of parents who want a Clause 4 school pulling another. That seems to mo to suggest a very awkward possibility. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has contemplated it, but it seems to me to be a departure from the principle upon which we have been going, that these matters were the concern of the owner, because the property of the school is transferred.
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," resolved in the affirmative.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that the Amendment he was about to propose was one upon which he and those with whom he usually acted Laid great stress. Their Lordships would remember that in Committee, on the Motion of Lord Jersey, an Amendment was carried enabling a bare majority instead of a four-fifths majority to decide the future conduct of the schools dealt with in this clause. The acceptance of that Amendment prevented Lord Camperdown from moving an Amendment similar to that he was about to submit to the House, namely, that the majority required before extended facilities were granted should be a two-thirds majority instead of four-fifths. If this Amendment were carried the subsection would read "That as the result of a ballot taken previously to the inquiry as to the wishes of the parents in accordance with this section, it appears that the parents of at least two-thirds of the children attending the school whose parents take part in the ballot desire those facilities." He thought that that was a fair proposal, and struck the happy mean between the four-fifths of the Government Bill and the bare majority of Lord Jersey's Amendment. They on the Opposition side of the House were not inclined to insist on the words of Lord Jersey's Amendment, because they agreed that in these denominational schools there should be a distinct predominance of parents of the children attending the school in favour of a denominational atmosphere. They recognised that, if a bare majority were sufficient, there would be constant fluctuations, and it would be

  259
  very difficult to decide what was a bare majority. There would be an ebbing and flowing of the tide, at one time above and another time below what might be called the extended facilities high-water mark. Therefore they agreed that the number of parents in favour of the denominational character of the school must be sufficient to be always in a large permanent majority. The Government proposed four-fifths, the Opposition two-thirds. The Opposition held that if the parents of two-thirds of the children wanted extended facilities that fraction was certainly a distinct predominance sufficiently marked to secure to the majority their rights. The fraction of two-thirds was not chosen at haphazard. It was a favourite fraction with trade unions, clubs, and other bodies when some far-reaching decision had to be taken, and he had been informed this evening that such a practical body as the London County Council required two-thirds of its members to be present and vote when a tramway was to be purchased. Noble Lords with whom he acted held that to allow a minority of one-fifth to trample on the consciences of four-fifths was playing fast and loose with the declaration of Mr. Birrell, that—
  "The Government intended, when they caused that clause to be drafted, that it should be a real, and in no sense an illusory clause."
  Without discussing the clause itself, he felt that unless some Amendment such as this were accepted, the words of Mr. Birrell would not be carried out, and the clause would be nothing less than illusory, he had almost said a sham. How could the Government maintain that it was a real clause when they would deny to the parents of eighty children their right to have their children taught their religion because the parents of twenty other children either objected, or were too lazy or apathetic to say they did not object. They held that two-thirds was sufficiently overwhelming to secure that denominational instruction which was really desired in the school. On the other hand, it did not give a small minority power to wreck the clause. They were anxious to protect the interests of the minority, but not at the expense of the interest of the vast majority. The second part of his Amendment had reference to the fact that in the Bill the parents who did not vote were to be counted as voting against extended facilities. His Amendment
  260
  simply provided that the majority should be the majority of those who had voted and not the majority of those actually on the register of the school. The novel method of procedure in the Bill would involve the peculiar result that the election would be decided, not by those who took part in the ballot, but by those did not. The Government argued that if the parent was so indifferent to the extended facilities as not to vote that fact ought not to be ignored. But could it be said that it was right that one indifferent parent should be equal to four who were not indifferent? He could not see by what reasoning such a position could be defended. The Government said they were endeavouring to make this clause a real clause, and he thought it might be made a real clause if his Amendments were accepted. But he was bound to say if the clause were allowed to remain in its present shape it would be found to be not only illusory but a sham. On these grounds he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words 'the majority' and insert the words 'at least two-thirds.' — (The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am afraid it is entirely impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment of the noble Marquess. I see that the noble Lord, Earl Jersey, who is responsible for the bare majority proposal, has put down an Amendment to the effect that the majority should be three-fourths, but without the proviso moved by the noble Marquess which confines the majority to those voting. But the noble Earl, for some reason best known to himself, does not proceed with his Amendment, and we have, therefore, to deal with that of the noble Marquess. I have no hesitation in saying that, as this matter stands on the proposition of the noble Marquess, I am not sure that, of the two, it would not be more reasonable to leave the decision to a bare majority. We say that if these schools are to have this particular privilege and atmosphere attaching to them, it must be for the predominance of the denominational character. Whether two-thirds asserts that character, or whether

  261
  it requires three-fourths, is a matter on which each side has its own opinion. It is no use arguing the matter. "Predominant" is not a technical term, and you cannot say it applies to one more than the other. But we do not consider that a school which has one-third of an entirely different complexion is the kind of school to which we desire these facilities to apply. If the second Amendment is debated, there is nothing to show that the school can hold the children of parents who do not share the denominational view. In a school of 100 children, you may have the parents of seventy not voting at all, and of the remaining thirty, twenty voting for the facilities and ten against. How can it be said that the parents of those twenty children represent the parents of the majority of the children in the school? Greatly as I object to the proposition that the bare majority should have this exceptional power, I should prefer it to the two-thirds proposal, if the proportion is to be of the parents voting. If the noble Marquess' Amendment wore carried it might happen, especially in rural districts, that for some reason or other these schools would obtain facilities, although only a small minority of the parents desired them.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid the House would have listened, he thought, with some surprise to the speech which the noble Earl had just made. As was frequently the case, this House was now discussing two Amendments at the same time, and it was quite possible that they might wish to accept one and not the other. He would confine himself to the one which had been put from the Chair. He was one of those who voted against the "bare majority" in the Committee, preferring, as he did, the other proportion, but the Amendment to substitute two-thirds for "bare majority" could not be moved, because he was told it was not possible to do it in that way. Notice was at once given that the question would be raised at this stage of the Bill. He thought, therefore, it was not at all unreasonable that this Amendment should be brought to the notice of the House. It seemed to him that it would be going nearer to the wishes of the Government to take a larger proportion, whether it was three-fourths or two-thirds, and had it not been for the
  262
  speech of the noble Earl he should have suggested that three-fourths was the proper proportion to take. It seemed to him that the Amendment would be reasonable and fair, and it would show a disposition on the part of the House, he would not say altogether to meet the views of the Government, but to have a move adequate proportion. He supported the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is perfectly clear that though there may be some who would prefer three-fourths to a bare majority, we cannot accept the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKfelt bound to say that he and many others felt that there was the barest element of justice in the Amendment of the noble Marquess on the Front Opposition Bench, but they realised equally with the majority of those voting that it was to a certain extent a fusion of their ideas and that they must accept it. The noble Earl opposite had thrown an entirely false aspect over the matter when he said it was uncertain whether those voting wished for a denominational school. That was the initial injustice of the whole procedure. They were dealing with a school which was a denominational school; built for the children of a particular denomination; supported for years at the cost of great, anxiety and great sacrifice by the denomination; and the children of the denomination were to be driven from it by the parents of a minority of the children of a different denomination which the law had compelled the denomination owning the school to admit into its school. Who would permit such a thing in his club? They were now putting forward a proposition that a minority might insist upon and compel a change in an institution built for one purpose and kept for that purpose for many years. The only thing that could make such a provision tolerable would be the proposition that the people concerned should at least be compelled to vote. It seemed to him that a great revolution was being brought about in the schools. It was the denominational school that was being struck at. The whole character of the schools was to be altered by a minority who did not agree with the denomination

  263
  for which the schools were built. All he could say was that he and those who agreed with him came with many regrets to the conclusion that they could not but accept the proposition put forward by the noble Marquess and they would be obliged to divide the House upon it if the "two-thirds" proposition could not be accepted. He believed that, that proposition did make it possible for him and those who agreed with him, though with a great strain, to accept this proposition.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid he entirely concurred with what had fallen from the noble Duke. They thought that here they were holding out an olive branch. With great effort they had brought themselves to agree to a bare majority, and they thought that that was going to be the basis of peace. It was with great disappointment that they had heard the declaration of the noble Earl. They did not intend to press the bare majority. If it was a case of those voting they were prepared to accept the two-thirds majority. Beyond this it was impossible for them to go.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the House must discuss this question as a whole and not make two bites at a cherry. Clause 4 was to apply to certain schools which were so exceptional in their character that, although they were to be run at the public expense, they were also to have an exclusive and denominational character. He reminded the noble Earl that this would not apply only to schools in populous places, but that it might apply to one single school in a parish. Many Amendments had been placed upon the Paper showing that it was intended to knock out all provision for alternative accommodation, and all he wanted to do before the vote was taken, was to show how illusory this proposition was. Before a school could be taken out of what might be called the common law of schools, it must be shown that a majority of the parents desired it. The fact of people not coming for these facilities showed that they did not desire them. Three-quarters of the people voting would be a very large poll, but two-thirds of that three-fourths would not be a majority of the parents of the children in the school. The noble Mar-
  264
  quess had pointed out that the rules of the county council required when a tramway was to be purchased that two-thirds of the council must be present and vote. But a majority of two-thirds of two-thirds would be less than a majority, because it would only be four-ninths of the whole. At these polls no one would expect to get a larger number of parents than used to vote at contested school board elections in the past. At contested school board elections as a rule less than half the people entitled went to the poll. It was far better, from his point of view, that there should be a bare majority of the whole than a majority of two-thirds of a flexible number which would be far less than a majority of the whole.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid that as he had attempted to move this Amendment he might perhaps be allowed to say that he quite agreed with the noble Duke and Lord Stanley that these two Amendments must be taken together. It was suggested by the noble Marquess that the majority should be two-thirds of those who voted. Although he himself was quite prepared to vote for a two-thirds majority, he certainly was not prepared to vote for a two-thirds majority of those who voted. It might happen that only a very small number voted, and then the majority of two-thirds of those who voted would not represent the desires of the parents. Two-thirds of a bare majority appeared to him to be quite an insufficient majority. He did not care whether it was a two-thirds or a three-quarters majority, but it must be of the whole and not of those who voted.
  LORD DAVEYsaid the case was even stronger than his noble friend had put it. It was not two-thirds of the parents, but the parents of two-thirds of the children. Their Lordships were aware that some parents had two children, some three, some four, and it was quite conceivable that in the school two - thirds of the children might be the children of a minority of the parents. It could hardly be suggested that a minority of the parents ought to determine the character of the school. The same objection applied to the original proposal of the Government. He did not think this proposal was satisfactory. He quite agreed that under the original

  265
  proposal of the Bill it was to be the parents of four-fifths of the children, and this Amendment suggested the parents of two-thirds of the children, but the clause must be looked at as it was proposed to be left. When it was found that it was not to be two-thirds of the parents of the children, but the parents of two-thirds of the children, counting only those parents who voted, he left the matter to a better arithmetician than himself to determine what the result would be.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I quite agree that the size of the fraction is not a matter of great importance, as between two-thirds and three-fourths, it is a question of degree. I prefer two-thirds, and I shall vote for that fraction. But on the other question as to whether it should be two-thirds of those who vote or of the total number of the parents, I am bound to say that, with every desire to understand the arguments by which it is suggested that it should be two-thirds of the total number, I am quite unable to put myself in the mental position of the noble Lords who put that solution to us. What is the case which the Lord President of the Council put just now? The noble Lord said you might have 100 parents of whom seventy were too lazy to vote, and the decision, therefore, would remain with the thirty. The noble Lord thought that was a ridiculous result and one which could not be contemplated. But after
  all, what is the issue which these people have to determine? The suggestion is that a condition of things which has existed for a long time, encouraged by private benefactors, and recognised by the Government, is to be suddenly and Completely changed. Is it not fair in that case to conclude that if a large number of the parents abstain from voting, their abstention may be regarded as an indication that they are on the whole content with things as they are? I can conceive their being counted as opponents to the change and I can conceive their being counted as neutral, but I cannot conceive how they can be counted as advocates of the change., Therefore, although I regret to find myself differing from the Earl of Camper-down, with whom I generally agree, I am bound to say that in my opinion the balance of the argument is in favour of those who vote, and I shall record my vote in that way.
  On Question, "That the words 'the majority' stand part of the Bill," resolved in the negative.
  Words proposed inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 4, line 17, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'whose parents take part in the ballot.'"—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, "That those words be there inserted," their Lordships divided: —Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 47.

  CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

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

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Devonshire, D.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Grafton, D.

  Eldon, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Newcastle, D.

  Feversham, E.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Fortescue, E.

  Bridport, V.

  Wellington, D.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Cobham, V.

  Haddington, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Halsbury, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Bath, M.

  Harewood, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Bristol, M.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Camden, M.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Winchester, M.

  Morley, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Morton, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Abingdon, E.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Brownlow, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Cairns, E.

  Plymouth, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Cathcart, E.

  Powis, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Saint Germains, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Denbigh, E.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Devon, E.

  Stamford, 13.

  Addington, L.

  Digby, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Dunboyne, L.

  Newton, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Barrymore, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Seaton, L.

  Belper, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Blythswood, L.

  Glenesk, L.

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

  Braye, L.

  Harris, L.

  Burton, L.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Ventry, L.

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Kintore, E. (E. Kintore.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Lawrence, L. [Teller.]

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Leith of Pyvie, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Monson, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Davey, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Pirrie, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Reay, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Rendel, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Sandhurst, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Headley, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Brassey, L

  Kinnaird, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Burghclere, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Welby, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.