Sitting of 25 October 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  Petition from Ayr, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LABOUR TEST WORKERS (ENFRANCHISEMENT).
  Petition from Carlisle, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Ealing, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (OFFICERS) (EXCHANGE COMPENSATION).
  Return [presented 23rd October] to be printed. [No. 338.]
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council altering the Scale set out in the Second Schedule to the Act for the purpose of the levying of the Light Dues in pursuance of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the months of August and September, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACT, 1891.
  Copy presented, of Additional Regulation made by the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland-for the taking of Finger Prints and Measuring and Photographing of Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (VENTILATION).
  Copy presented, of Illustrations of Methods of Dust Extraction in Factories and Workshops, compiled by Commander Sir H. P. Freer-Smith, R.N. (late His Majesty's Superintending Inspector of Factories) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the Council of the City of Cardiff, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Homé Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Bootsollers' Shops within part of the Central Ward, within the Cathays, Park, Roath, and Adamstown (part of) Wards of the City [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copies presented, of two Orders made by the Council of the County of Glamorgan, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the Hours of Closing for Hairdressers' Shops within the Coedffrane Parish and Maesteg Urban District [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS (INCLUDEING TELEPHONES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 23rd February; Mr. Sydney Buxton]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 339.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Copy presented, of Note explaining the Repeal Schedule [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILLS (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL).
  Return ordered, "of Expenses incurred by the London County Council in promoting and opposing Bills in Parliament during the years1903, 1904,1905, and, as far as possible, 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper [H.L.]. No. 214, of Session 1903)."—Mr. Thornton.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish National Education Inspectors.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of framing new regulations for the position of inspector under the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, with a view to examinations by open competition in the future instead of the heretofore limited competitions governed by religious tests.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Appointments to inspectorships of national schools in Ireland rest with the Commissioners of National Education, who inform me that, under the system which has hitherto prevailed, inspectors have been appointed by limited competition amongst candidates nominated by the Commissioners, half of the staff consisting of Roman Catholics. Examinations for inspectorships have, however, been suspended for some years past, and the Commissioners have not yet made regulations for filling future vacancies beyond providing that teachers of exceptional ability and qualifications are eligible for appointment as sub-inspectors.

  Regent's Park Fence.
  SIR. SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that many of the residents round Regent's Park are adverse to the substitution of an iron spiked fence in place of the present one of oak timber, as being likely to destroy the present rural character of the park; and whether he will stop the work now in progress and allow the timber fence to remain as it is at present.

  393
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) I am aware that many of the residents round Regent's Park object to the substitution of an iron fence for the oak one. I regret that I am unable to stop the work arid allow the timber fence to remain, because it is in a state of decay and past, repair.

  Recruitment of Native Labour in South-East Africa.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Portuguese authorities for South-east Africa have declined to give the same facilities for recruiting native labour in their territories to the Robinson group of mines as are given to the Native Labour Association; and, if so, what stops His Majesty's Government are taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Unexpected delays of a renewed and protracted character have arisen in the settlement of this matter. But His Majesty's Government is now communicating directly with the Portuguese Government with a view to securing for the Robinson group of mines the necessary facilities.

  Orange River Colony Constitution.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have yet decided upon the form of constitution to be granted to the Orange River Colony, and when the nature of it will be made public.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The various important questions connected with the granting of a constitution to the Orange River Colony are now being considered in the light of the Report of the Ridgeway Committee which has lately been submitted to His Majesty's Government. No definite statement can be made as to the date of any declaration of policy, but Lord Elgin is not without hopes that this may take place before Parliament separates for the Christmas holiday.

  Alleged Immorality of Chinese Coolies in South Africa.
  MR. MACKARNESS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the
  394
  Colonies whether an inquiry has been held by the Transvaal Government into the allegations of immorality practised among the Chinese coolies in the gold mines; and, if so, when the results of that inquiry will be laid before tin House.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) A confidential inquiry has been held by the Transvaal Government. The Report has reached this country within the last few days, and the Secretary of State has not yet been able to give it the consideration it requires; and I am not able to say at present whether he will determine to lay it before the House.

  Glastonbury Abbey.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the projected sale of Giastonbury Abbey; an whether he can give the House an assurance that the question will be considered by his Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the matter is receiving my careful attention, the Acting Inspector o: Ancient Monuments having visited the Abbey on my behalf during the last few days.

  Rosyth.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he will be in a position to state the policy of the Government with regard to Rosyth.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I do not anticipate that I shall be in a position to make any statement on this subject during the present year.

  Cost of Insurance against Workmen's Compensation.
  MR. COCHRANE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now furnish the information promised by him showing what will be the estimated additional cost of insurance in the coal, ironstone, mining, engineering, shipbuilding, and textile industries respectively, resulting from the reduction of the qualifying period in Clause 1 of the Workmen's Compensation

  395
  Bill from fourteen to three days; and if he can also give the cost of reduction from fourteen to three days.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following are the estimates which have been put before me of the additional cost which would result, in the industries mentioned, from the reduction of the qualifying period of fourteen days to seven or three days; but various

  Reduction of 14 days to 3 days.

  Reduction of 14 days to 7 days.

  Coal mining

  25 to 38 per cent. (Not including increase in administrative expenses)

  12 to 17 per cent. (Not including increase in administrative expenses)

  Ironstone mining

  18 per cont.

  8 per cent.

  Engineering

  48 per cent.

  25 ½ per cent.

  Shipbuilding

  38¾ per cent.

  21½, per cent.

  Textile industries

  35* per cent.

  30* per cent.

  *The figures on which the estimate for the textile industry is based do not, I understand, include fatal accidents. If fatal accidents were included this estimate would, of course, be lessened.

  I may mention, as showing the varying nature of such estimates, that in the case of certain coalfields in one part of the country I have received an estimate according to which the increase in cost resulting from the reduction of fourteen days to three would be almost 80 per cent.

  Dock Regulations.
  MR. WILKIE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that as yet no adequate steps have been taken to confirm the dock regulations, with respect to ladders down ships holds, the unshipping of fore and afters, and the removal of deck winches from close up to ships combings where ladders are situated; and, if so, will he take the necessary steps to enforce the rule dealing with these questions; also when the necessary increase of the present staff of inspectors will be made in order to deal effectively with the regulations now in many cases ignored so far as the discharging and loading of vessels is concerned owing to the lack of supervision.
  reasons, in particular the great uncertainty existing as to the cost of the increased supervision which may be necessary and the difference between different branches of the same industry in respect of gravity and frequency of accidents, make it difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any trustworthy conclusions. Except where otherwise specified, they include the estimated increase in administrative expenses.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) As I pointed out to the hon. Member in Answer to a previous Question on the subject last May, See (4) Debates, clvi., 407. numbers 6 and 8 of the dock regulations, which are the regulations dealing with the points mentioned in the Question, do not, so far as they require structural alterations, come into force till 1st January, 1908. I have no power, therefore, before that date to compel the adoption of such alterations, though it is reported to me by the inspectors that material improvement has already been effected in regard to the matters in question. In accordance with the promise made by me, the staff is being strengthened with a view to ensuring better inspection of docks.

  Lyningham-with Filgrave School.
  MR. HERBERT: To ask the President of the board of Education whether he is aware that the Local Education Authority decided, in the early part of this year,
  †See (4) Debates, clvi., 407.

  397
  that the provided school at Lyningham with-Filgrave, in the county of Buckinghamshire, was unnecessary, and ought to be closed, and that the board of Education on 20th February, l906, concurred in that decision after considering all the circumstances of the case, including a petition from the inhabitants, and that the school was accordingly closed; whether he will explain why the board of Education has now reversed its decision and called upon the local authority to reopen the school, and has refused to receive a deputation from the local authority on the matter; whether he is aware that there are not more than a dozen children of school age in the village, and that there is an efficient provided school within a mile and a half; and whether there are any other facts conflicting with the decision of the local authority that the school cannot be efficiently or economically maintained.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The facts of the case are very much as stated in the Question. The decision of the board that the school must be reopened was chiefly based upon representations made to them as to the effect which the closure of small rural schools such as this would have upon the depopulation of rural areas, a consideration of which, I am sure, the hon. Member will readily admit the urgency and importance. At the same time I fully appreciate the considerations which have determined the action of the local authority, and I am having further inquiries made upon the spot with a view to finding some solution of the question.

  Cost of Railway Commissioners' Appeals.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the board of Trade whether he is aware that dissatisfaction has arisen amongst traders on account of the delay and expense attending an appeal to the Railway Commissioners; and whether he will consider the advisability of establishing a cheaper and more expeditious tribunal in connection with the Railway Department of the board of Trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which was given in a similar Question put by him on 9th July last.†
  † See (4) Debates, clx., 492.

  Railway and Shipping Transit Rates.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the board of Trade whether he is aware that the Railway Companies and Shipping Companies compel consignors of goods and live stock to sign an owner's risk rate which practically absolves the carrying companies from liability, and contracts the consignor outside the benefit of the Carriers Act unless an extra rate is paid: and whether he will inquire into this alleged grievance, and also the existing system of classification.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George): I am not aware that consignors of goods and live stock carried by rail and sea are, or can be, compelled to sign a risk note to the effect described by the hon. Member; but if he will furnish particulars I will consider them, as also any observations he may have to offer as to the classification of traffic.

  Kent Licensing Compensation Case.
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Kennedy in the test case of Ashby's Cobham Brewery Company v. The Inland Revenue ("The Crown" public house, Cobham, Kent), in which the amount of compensation under The Licensing Act, 1904, fixed by the Inland Revenue at £455, was altered and fixed at £1,497 10s.; and whether in view of the effect this will have upon licensing authorities in recommending licensed houses for extinction, His Majesty's Government will direct an appeal to be made to a higher court of justice to reverse this judgment.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The Answer to the first part of the Question s in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government do not propose to give directions for an appeal, as they are advised that as the law at present stands under the terms of The Licensing Act, 1904, an appeal could not succeed; but the matter is one which will not be left out of sight in connection with the proposals for legislation in regard to licensing which they have already undertaken to introduce.

  Officers for the Indian Army.
  MR. SEARS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the contemplated increase of British officers to Indian regiments, he will consider the desirability of placing some commissions in the Indian Army at the disposal of the War Office for distribution among subalterns serving in regiments stationed in Great Britain.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The question of opening the Indian Army to officers serving in British units in any quarter of the Empire is under consideration, and I am waiting for the opinion of the Government of India on it.

  Irish Estates Commissioners' Report.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the last published Report of the Estates Commissioners; and whether in view of the important points of policy dealt with therein, and the difference of opinion among the Commissioners, any opportunity will be given to this House, during the Autumn Sitting, of discussing the Report.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) My attention has been called to the Report in question. The Government are not aware that any necessity exists for a discussion of the contents of the Report during the present sittings, which are intended for bringing to completion the legislative business of the year. Any Question regarding the business of the House had better lie addressed to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was in consequence of special instructions issued by himself or with his authority, that the Estates Commissioners, in their Report upon the working of the Land Act of 1903, for the year ending 31st March, 1906, have expressed their views on questions of price and security in such a way as to discourage sales and create dissatisfaction in the minds of those who have already purchased their farms.
  (Answered by Mr. Bruce.) The Answer is in the negative, and I may add that, so
  400
  far as my information goes, there is no foundation for the suggestion that sales have been discouraged or dissatisfaction created among tenant-purchasers as the result of the Estates Commissioners' Report.

  Loans on Irish Land Purchase Agreements.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the total amount of the advances applied for in connection with purchase agreements lodged under the Land Act of 1903; the amount of advances sanctioned to date; the amount at present available for completing sales; and what further amount, if any, it is proposed to raise before the end of the present year.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The total amount of advances applied for up to 20th instant is, in round numbers, £45,000,000. The amount which has been sanctioned and advanced is £14,292,284. The amount immediately available for further advances is approximately £2,908,000. It is anticipated that this amount will be sufficient to moot advances up to the end of the present year.

  Purchase Agreement Delays.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the delay in sanctioning advances under the Land Act of 1903 in cases in which purchase agreements have been lodged is occasioning hardship to those concerned, and is likely to discourage sales and hinder the progress of land purchase; whether he can state how far this delay is due to insufficiency of funds in the hands of the Land Commission; and what steps are being taken to raise the money required.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the amount of advances applied for and not yet made is about £30,000,000. The amount at present available for advances is approximately £2,908,000, and the Estates Commissioners anticipate that this amount will have been utilised early in the coming year. I understand that the intention, when the Act was passed, was that not more than £5,000,000 should be

  401
  made available for land purchase during each of the first three years, and, as I have already pointed out, this amount has been exceeded. The delay in making advances has not be on due to the insufficiency of funds at the disposal of the Laud Commission, but rather to the extremely complicated nature of the operations connected with the sale and purchase of land, which has involved a great expenditure of time.

  Cavalry Regiment in Scotland.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER GRAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to deprive Scotland of the Cavalry regiment which has hitherto been quartered in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) This question is under consideration. The ultimate decision must depend, not on local considerations, but on requirements of training and efficiency which concern the Army as a whole. Whether arrangements can be made which will admit of Cavalry training at Edinburgh sufficient to comply with the high standard of to-day remains to be seen. The present decision turns simply on the fact that Piershill Barracks, the only available accommodation, are, from a sanitary point of view, no longer a proper place in which to house a cavalry regiment.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Officers' Debts.
  MR. BKLLAIRS (Lynn Regis): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the proposed Order in Council, of which notice has been given by the Privy Council Office with reference to naval officers' half-pay and retired pay being liable to abatement to meet mess debts or other similar debts or liabilities, is intended to cover any civil debts; and whether the Order in Council will clearly define the nature of the debts which the Admiralty are seeking power to pay out of the pensions or pay earned by naval officers.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, ): The Order in Council is sought in order to obtain power to recover debts of a semi-public nature, incurred under Service arrangements of which the Admiralty take official cognisance, and not ordinary civil debts. The Admiralty are advised that the terms used cannot be construed to bear a wider significance, and no necessity is therefore seen for a stricter definition than that contained in the memorial. The powers which it is sought to obtain are similar to those already possessed by the War Office in respect of regimental debts.

  H.M.S. "Montagu"
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, considering the abandonment of H.M.S. "Montagu," and the preparations and programmes of Foreign Powers, he has any announcement to make to the House with respect to the shipbuilding programme or naval policy of the Government, as stated by him in July last.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the negative.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Is it not intended to make any statement?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not as at present advised.
  MR. AUSTENCHAMBERLAINasked whether there was to be no opportunity of discussing this question, seeing that it had arisen subsequent to the passing of the Estimates.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The only announcement of the policy of the Admiralty subsequent to the passing of the Estimates is the policy affecting the Home Fleet, and it is not touched by this question.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the loss of the ship was subsequent to the discussion of the Estimates. The decision of the Government not to replace a lost ship was not in accordance with usual precedent, and the event had occurred subsequent to the discussion of the Estimates. In these circumstances, was the House not to have an opportunity of considering this matter?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not to my knowledge.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then I appeal to the Prime Minister.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The right hon. Gentleman speaks of "this matter," but gives a confused view of what the matter is. Is it a discussion on the whole naval policy of the Government?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, but the replacing of a vessel that has been lost.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think that an individual point of that kind is a matter which requires a special discussion.

  South African Stores Commission Report—Dismissal of Soldiers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the non-commissioned officers who have been dismissed the Army on the Report of the South African Stores Commission were first placed upon their trial, and afforded an opportunity of defending themselves; if they were warned by the Royal Commissioners that their answers would be used against them; if they have been deprived of the medals awarded them for service in the field; and, in such case, what authority there is for such procedure.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): This Question appears to rest on a misapprehension. The Question is one of discipline in which the Army Council have a large measure of discretion. As a matter of fact the utmost pains were taken not only to investigate fully each case, but to secure that the persons concerned had full opportunity of giving their own explanation. In every instance the officer, commissioned or non-commissioned, had placed before him by the Army Council the portion of the Report of the Royal Commission relating to his case for purposes of enabling him to make such statement as he desired as regards the questions in which he was involved. The merits of these statements were
  404
  carefully weighed in connection with the evidence before any decision was come to. The procedure by court-martial, oven if it had been appropriate, would have been inapplicable, because under Section 161 of the Army Act nearly all the offences were not cognisable by court-martial, as they were alleged to have taken place more than three years ago. The Act, in appointing the Royal Commission, did not excuse a witness from answering any question on the ground that the answer might incriminate him, nor on the other hand did it provide that cognisance should not be taken of the nature of his reply when his superior officer was estimating his conduct. No one has been dismissed the Army or otherwise dealt with excepting on evidence which appeared to the Secretary of State and the Army Council clear and distinct, and I am satisfied that what has been done has been done in accordance with the principles of justice, and that the benefit of any reasonable doubt has been given in every case. Art. 1256 (c) Pay Warrant prescribes that soldiers discharged the service for misconduct shall forfeit their medals.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the cases of men who have shown meritorious conduct in face of the enemy in the field? [Cries of "No."]
  MR. HALDANE: When the charge is one of taking money and where that has been established, it is our duty to proceed with severity in the interests of the Army and the nation. I may say that I have divided the cases into three categories—those where money was alleged to have been taken; those in which there was incompetence; and those where there was an honest mistake in judgment. The cases in the first category have been dealt with strictly. The persons coming in the second class have been relieved of their positions; but we felt that we ought to treat them leniently in other respects. As to the third class, where an honest mistake has been made in difficult circumstances, we have proceeded quite differently.
  MR. DALZIEL: Why was a distinction made between officers and privates—the officers being

  405
  allowed retiring allowances and the men being refused deferred pay?
  MR. HALDANE: No such distinction was made. Wherever an officer was found to have received money, he was dismissed from the Army without retired pay. The only officers who have not forfeited what they had earned in the shape of deferred pay are those against whom no charge of corruption was proved.
  MR. DALZIEL: Have not officers been asked to retire and been allowed a retiring allowance?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, where there was no allegation of corruption, but only a breach of regulations or incompetence. In no case has an officer touching money been allowed to keep his retiring allowance.
  MR. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that all the privates dismissed were guilty of corruption?
  MR. HALDANE: Every one of them.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the Royal Commission granted any certificates of indemnity in eases whore the witnesses gave full answers.
  MR. HALDANE: No doubt they did, but such certificates protect against criminal proceedings and have nothing to do with the duty of the Army Council to see that improper persons do not remain in the service of the Crown.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether any proceedings had been taken against the South African firms who engaged in this bribery.
  MR. HALDANE: Within a few hours of the issue of the Report I read it through, and within a few more hours I had mastered the evidence and communicated with the Treasury Solicitor. The whole of the papers were with the Treasury Solicitor in two days, with instructions from me to proceed with the utmost diligence. The Treasury Solicitor has the matter in hand, and the case is before the Law Officers of
  406
  the Crown both here and in South Africa. Every stop has been taken that could be taken. I can say no more than that I have done everything to bring everyone to justice, without dealing with the matter in a vindictive spirit on the one hand or with undue leniency on the other.
  In Answer to VISCOUNT VALENTIA (Oxford),
  MR. HALDANEsaid that any officer discharged for misconduct forfeited his pension. A court-martial was not possible in these cases because of the interval that had elapsed.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in the case of the men who have shown gallantry in the field? [Loud cries of "No, no."]

  Defence of London.
  *MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War at what date the building of the now dismantled forts around London was sanctioned, and what has been the total cost of these forts.
  MR. HALDANE: It is presumed that this Question refers to the mobilisation centres round London, some of which are in the form of redoubts. These were begun in 1889. Their total cost amounted to £160,700.

  Pimlico Army Clothing Factory.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an official intimation was conveyed to the women employed in the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico that a reduction in prices would take place equal in amount to a loss in the wages of the tailoresses of from 4s. to 5s. per week; if so, will he state why an official denial of the same has been allowed to be communicated to the Press; and whether the enforcement of the reduction named will be withheld till an interview has taken place between the representatives of the Government and the employees concerned.
  MR. HALDANE: No official intimation has been given to the workers in the Royal Army Clothing Factory that a reduction in prices would take place as

  407
  suggested in the Question. A fortnight's notice will be given of any reduction which it may be intended to make, and full opportunity will be given to the workers to interview the representatives of the Government on the matter.
  MR. SUMMERBELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire how such information was communicated to the Press? Was it done by any official of his Department?
  MR. HALDANE: I have no reason to think so, but I will inquire.

  Cowley Barracks Engineman.
  MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Henry Drake, formerly engineman in the barracks at Oxford, who, after serving the War Department for more than twenty-nine years, during which time he worked the machinery every day, Sundays included, without absence from duty for a single day through sickness or any other cause, was recently discharged both from his home and his employment with less than two weeks previous notice, and with no reason assigned; whether by the rules of the service such a man is entitled to any pension or superannuation, or only to consideration for a gratuity; and, whether, in view of this man's length of service and consistent good conduct as testified by five commanding officers under whom he served, and of the hardship he has suffered through the suddenness of his discharge, the question of giving him some adequate compensation by way of gratuity or otherwise will be considered.
  MR. HALDANE: Mr. Drake was employed as engineman at Cowley Barracks, Oxford, from the 9th January 1877 to the 13th instant. An engine-man's services being no longer required, Mr. Drake was given a fortnight's notice of discontinuance in accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Regulations for Civilian Subordinates. He bas been awarded a gratuity of £53 13s. 0d.

  Southern Nigeria—Hausa Grievances.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the
  408
  Colonies what answer has been sent to the petition of the Hausa population of the Colony of Lagos, Southern Nigeria, praying that they may not be evicted from their homes to make roam for a military recreation ground; and whether he is aware that the population referred to consists chiefly of ex-soldiers and the widows, wives, children, relatives, and descendants of soldiers of His Majesty, who have been in undisturbed possession of their present homes for forty-one years, and that there is ground for their fear that the Hausa Lands Ordinance of August 1906 will entail homelessness, destitution, and hardship on the old people who have spent many years in loyal service of the King and His Majesty's Government.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): It is understood that a petition of the tenor indicated has been handed to the Governor of Southern Nigeria for transmission to the Secretary of State; but it has not yet reached the Colonial Office. The matter has been very carefully considered and, with the arrangements which have been made for compensation, there is no reason to think that any one will suffer hardship through this removal which is necessary on sanitary grounds.

  Newfoundland.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Newfoundland Government was consulted and its adherence obtained to the provisional agreement entered into between His Majesty's Government and that of the United States with reference to the Newfoundland fisheries.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Newfoundland Government were, of course, consulted before any negotiations were begun and were fully informed of their progress at each stage. His Majesty's Government were not, however, so fortunate as to obtain their adherence to the provisional agreement which circumstances rendered necessary.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it not usual in the case of self-governing colonies to get their consent to provisional agreements?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Matters which affect the interpretation of Imperial treaties should form the subject of Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  Orange River Colony Juries.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the address of the Chief Justice of the Orange River Colony to the conference of magistrates assembled at Bloemfontein late in September, in which address the Chief Justice took occasion publicly to repudiate the allegations, to which the widest publicity had been given in the Press in this country, that juries in the Orange River Colony were biassed by racial prejudice, and particularly to his declaration that the statements on this subject were absolutely false from beginning to end, and that it was a gross libel on the jurymen of the Colony, who never in a single case in his experience or in the experience of Mr. Justice Fawkes or Mr. Justice Ward allowed nationality to interfere with their duty; and what action he proposes to take.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen the address of the Chief Justice of the Orange River Colony as reported in the Johannesburg Star of 25th September to which the lion. Member draws attention. No action on the part of the Secretary of State seems to be called for in the present circumstances by anonymous publication in newspapers or comment thereupon, but Lord Elgin has noted with satisfaction the testimony borne by the Bench to the impartiality and decorum of the jurymen of the Orange River Colony.

  British Indians in Natal.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any and, if so, what stops are being taken to promote the interests of British Indians resident in Natal, who, being ratepayers, desire the municipal franchise.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Natal Parliament has passed a Bill which debars those persons excluded from the Parliamentary franchise under Act 8 of 1896 from exercising the municipal franchise, unless
  410
  exempted from the operation of the Ace by an Order from the Governor in Council. The persons so debarred are persons who, not being of European origin, are natives or descendants in the male line of natives of countries which have not hitherto possessed elective representative institutions founded on the Parliamentary franchise. This Bill is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State.

  The Address to the Late Russian Duma.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was in consequence of any representations made by him, or at his instance, that the contemplated visit to Russia of a deputation, composed of Members of this House and others, to present an address to the late Russian Duma was abandoned; whether he has received any representations, verbal or otherwise, on behalf of the Russian Government on the subject; and, if so, what was the purport of those representations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The proposed deputation was quite independent of His Majesty's Government, and I can say nothing about it. The Russian Government wore aware of this, and made no official representations respecting it.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any representation to the Gentlemen who were to compose the deputation.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I regarded the deputation as quite independent of His Majesty's Government, and therefore I took no official action whatever in respect to it. If the hon. Gentleman desires to know more about the deputation I think it ought to be ascertained from the Members themselves.
  *MR. BYLESasked whether the British Ambassador had informed him that the address, signed by 300 Members of the House of Commons, had been welcomed with gratitude in all parts of Russia; and whether there was not evidence that the mere intention of presenting the address

  411
  had strengthened the good feeling of the people of Russia towards this country.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have not been associated with the deputation in any way, or with the address; and I have no official information in regard to it. I think it is desirable, when the Government have not been connected with a particular matter, that they should not be expected, save in exceptional circumstances, to express any opinion about it.

  The Eighty Club and Austro-Hungary.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs whether any written or other representations have been made to him either by the British Embassy in Vienna, or by the representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in England as to the recent official visit of a deputation of the Eighty Club to certain political organisations in Hungary.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative.

  Russia and the Aland Islands.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say whether Russian troops are still in occupation of the Aland Islands.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The latest information is to the effect that the Russian troops sent to the Aland Islands have been withdrawn, with the exception of two officers and fifteen men.

  Chinese Maritime Customs.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether the conditions under which the administration of the Imperial Chinese Maritime Customs were granted by China during the currency of the Chinese loans of 1896 and 1898 are being duly observed.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: When the loans of 1896 and 1898 wore raised, the Chinese Government undertook that the administration of the Maritime Customs should remain as then constituted during the currency of the loans. By the Imperial Edict of May 9th last, the
  412
  Customs administration was transferred from one Chinese Government Department to another, but this does not necessarily imply more than a change of form, and it has not so far made any difference to the administration of the Customs service by Sir R. Hart.

  Income Tax.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, at Bristol, on the 11th ultimo, regretting that nothing had been done by the Departmental Committee on Income Tax to remove the unsatisfactory features in the law and practice as they now exist, and expressing the opinion that the time has arrived when the whole of the Income Tax Acts should be reconsidered and codified; will he say whether he will give consideration to the views expressed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have received a copy of a resolution, passed at the meeting referred to, to the effect that the meeting was of opinion that the time had arrived when the whole of the Income Tax Acts should be reconsidered and codified, and I have replied that this expression of opinion should have my careful attention.

  Estate Duty Office.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the staff at the Estate Duty Office in Somerset House during the past six years; will, he explain why the staff, which numbered 194 in 1899–1900, when the revenue was £16,159,463, was increased each year until it reached 390 in the Estimates for 1906–7, the revenue for 1905–6 being only £14,880,616, and the average revenue for the six years £14,985,357; and will he explain why the staff has been more than doubled, notwithstanding that the work of the Department, as represented by revenue, has been diminished.
  MR. ASQUITH: The staff of the Estate Duty Office has been increased to the extent indicated because the board of Inland Revenue satisfied the Treasury that such

  413
  increase was necessary if the work of the Department was to lie performed with thoroughness and promptitude. It may be observed (1) that the amount of revenue collected is by no moans an exact measure of the amount of work to be performed; the general tendency of the yield of the Estate Duties is certainly not downwards, although it is true that 1899–1900 was a record year; and (2) that, although the numbers have been increased by 100 per cent., the increase of cost is only a trifle over 50 per cent.

  Motor Buses and Side Slips.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government board whether he is aware that motor buses in wet weather are not under the control of their drivers owing to side slips; and whether, under those circumstances, he proposes to withdraw the licences of these vehicles seeing the number of accidents caused therefrom, and the danger arising to the public.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I beg to answer this Question on behalf of my right hon. friend. I am aware that in certain states of the pavement due control over these vehicles can be exercised only by great care and skill on the part of the drivers on account of the tendency to side slip. Inventions are now being tried which it is hoped may provide a remedy or at any rate reduce the danger. I do not think it would be within the power of the Commissioner to withdraw all motor omnibus licences on the ground suggested. A general prohibition of the use of motor omnibuses would require the authority of Parliament.
  MR. MARKHAMasked whether no farther licences would be granted until the vehicles could be run under conditions of greater safety.
  *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the Department was now doing their utmost to secure greater safety. He was not prepared to say anything more at present.

  The Soap Combine.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether he has received information that 15-ounce packets of soap,
  414
  made up by firms in the Soap Trust in the form in which one-pound packets were formerly made, are being sold without any reduction in price; and whether, for the protection of the public, he will direct the attention of the inspectors of weights and measures to the matter.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have no official information on this subject and I do not gather that the packets are or ever were sold as one-pound packets. There would appear therefore to be no ground for any action on my part. I notice, however, in the Press this morning a statement to the effect that the manufacture of 15-ounce tablets have been abandoned and that the tablets are now being made of full one-pound weight.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYasked whether any of the soap used in the House of Commons was supplied by the Soap Trust.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid that the question of soap does not in any way come within the province of my Department.

  The German Gipsy Invasion.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if his attention has been called to the wanderings throughout Great Britain of a band of sixty German gipsies, admitted under his authority in the spring as desirable immigrants, and in defiance of the provisions of the Aliens Act; and if, having regard to the expense caused to local authorities by repelling their invasion and harrying them onwards, he will forthwith arrange for their deportation to the lands whence they came.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that some 300 German and other gipsies were allowed to land in Scotland in the spring of the present year, that they have since been wandering about the country to the annoyance and danger of every district in which they have stayed and causing considerable extra police expenditure in order to control their movements; and whether the Government proposes to take any steps

  415
  in order that these undesirable aliens shall be repatriated and a repetition of this grievance prevented in the future.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have already explained how a considerable number of alien gipsies—it is believed between seventy and eighty—landed in Scotland in the early part of this year. It is incorrect to say that they were admitted as desirable immigrants, and still more so to say that they were admitted in defiance of the Aliens Act. There was no question of admission. They came in small parties on non-immigrant ships, and the Aliens Act, therefore, imposed no restriction on their landing. I have also stated how I brought pressure to bear on the shipping company which was carrying these aliens, with the result of stopping their further arrival. As regards those now in the country, the Aliens Act gives me no power save as regards any individual case in which a certificate has been given by a Court under Section 3. One certificate recommending the expulsion of one of those aliens has been received.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked whether the alien gipsies were not now wandering about without ostensible means of subsistence, contrary to the provisions of the Aliens Act.
  *MR. GLADSTONEsaid his hon. friend must know quite well that this was not a question for the Home Office, but for any magistrate before whom the aliens might be brought.
  MR. MEYSEY-THOMPSONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider the question of introducing an Amendment of the Aliens Act so as to deal with this particular annoyance.
  MR. LUPTONasked if there was anything in connection with these gipsies which placed them outside the laws of Christian hospitality.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTasked if the local authorities would be recouped the expense they had been put to by these gipsies.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table particulars of the expenses incurred?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I will inquire into that.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has asked for and obtained a report of the refusal by the Thornbury Bench of Magistrates to grant a certificate for exemption from vaccination to Mr. Alfred Williams on 18th July last; and whether he will furnish a copy of such report; and what further action he proposes to take.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I communicated with the Justices in August last, and was informed that a certificate of exemption was refused because the Justices were not satisfied that the applicant conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of his child. In these circumstances I regret that I have no power to take any further action. It would be contrary to practice to give a copy of a letter from magistrates to the Secretary of State.

  Staple Hill Colliery.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a petition handed him from the inhabitants of Staple Hill and Mangots-field, Gloucestershire, setting forth the danger to life, limb, health, and property which is the result of the proceedings of the Staple Hill Colliery Company, Limited; and whether, having regard to the fact that the inhabitants of the neighbourhood have been excited by increasing fears of what may happen, and there is grave danger of a breach of the peace, he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to a prosecution if deemed necessary.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have had under consideration the petition referred to in the Question and have obtained a report from the Inspector of Mines as to the mining operations that are being carried on by this company. The proceedings of which complaint is made in the petition appear to be outside the jurisdiction possessed by me under the Mines Regulation Acts; but I am making further inquiries into the matter, and will communicate later with the hon. Member.

  Berne Convention and Yellow Phosphorus.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state on what grounds the British delegate to the Convention of Berne declined to sign the treaty prohibiting the use of yellow phosphorus in the manufacture of matches; whether this treaty has been signed by the representatives of France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands; and, if so, whether, in view of the risks involved in the handling of yellow phosphorus, His Majesty's Government will follow the example of those seven countries and adhere to the treaty.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The Convention prohibiting the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches was signed by the representatives of the countries mentioned in the Question. The grounds which led His Majesty's Government to instruct the delegates to abstain from signing the Convention do not admit of being stated within the compass of an Answer, but they will be fully explained in papers which I shall shortly lay upon the Table of the House.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the withdrawal of the British delegates from the International Labour Conference at Berne during the discussion of the proposed interdiction of white phosphorus in match factories; whether he gave orders for such withdrawal; and if not, what action, if any, he proposes to take to bring the views of his Department upon the subject before the nations represented at the Conference.
  *MR GLADSTONE: My hon. friend has been misinformed. The British delegates did not withdraw from the Conference when the proposal to prohibit the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches was under discussion. On the contrary, they stated fully the views of the British Government on the subject.

  Motor Car Traffic.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether his attention has been drawn
  418
  to a letter, dated 13th July, by the Commissioner of Police, in which this officer stated that, owing to the weight of public opinion, he intended to exercise more stringently his powers and to show less indulgence to owners of motor cars who broke the law in respect to petrol smoke, noise, and speed; whether he has at any time given the Commissioner of Police a discretional power in this matter; and, if not, will he instruct this officer that his duties are to administer the law as enacted by Parliament.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of: the letter referred to by the hon. Member. It seems to me that the Commissioner of Police is bound to administer such powers as he possesses with discretion, and that in the early days of motor cars defects might be condoned which if found at a later date to be avoidable would properly cause the withdrawal of the licence. I agree with Sir Edward Henry's view that the circumstances now call for a more stringent enforcement of the law.
  MR. MARKHAM: This Answer was given six months ago.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: No.
  MR. MARKHAM: Well, the letter was written six months ago.

  Traction Engine Traffic.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing numbers of traction engines pass through the streets of the metropolis at night, shaking the houses and disturbing the sleep of the people, he will say why the police do not prosecute the owners of such engines, seeing that Section 13 of the Locomotive Act of 186 enacts that no locomotive shall be used upon a highway as to cause a public nuisance.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It is not the practice of the police to take proceedings in the case of a nuisance of this kind. The matter is usually left to the persons aggrieved, or to their representatives, such as the be rough council, which has power to take action under the section referred to.

  Royal Commission on Vivisection.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Royal Commission on Vivisection is to be enlarged by the addition of one or more medical men who are known anti-vivisectionists; whether he has been approached by representatives of the anti-vivisection movement with a view to so enlarging the Commission; and whether it is the intention that the proceedings of the Commission shall be open to the public and the Press.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have received and considered a certain number of representations, but I do not propose to enlarge the Commission, which is, in my opinion, fairly constituted as regards all parties interested. It is for the Commission to decide whether their proceedings should be public, and they have, I see, informed the Press this morning that they have decided to sit in private, but to supply copies of the evidence from time to time to certain representative bodies interested in the inquiry.
  MR. O'GRADYasked whether it was not the fact that the majority of the Commissioners believed in vivisection.
  *MR. GLADSTONEreplied that out of ten Commissioners four, including two distinguished medical men, were suggested to him by anti-vivisection societies.
  MR. LUPTONasked whether it was not the case that there were three expert vivisectionists on the Commission, and no expert anti-vivisectionists at all?
  *MR. GLADSTONEreplied that he did not know what his hon. friend meant by "expert anti-vivisectionist," but in the constitution of the Commission great care i was taken to secure that all sides should be represented.
  MR. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the names of the Commissioners recommended by the Anti-Vivisection Society.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I cannot do that.

  The Case of Miss Pankhurst.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Home Secretary
  420
  whether his attention has been called to the case of Miss Pankhurst, who was on Wednesday sent to prison for fourteen days at Westminster Police Court for alleged disorderly conduct; and whether, seeing that the only evidence against her was the uncorroborated testimony of a single policeman, while three women who were called to give evidence for the defence contradicted the policeman's statements in every essential particular, he would give instructions for her immediate release.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have read in the papers what happened, and since receiving the hon. Gentleman's letter giving notice of the Question I have directed inquiries to be made as to the facts of the case.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEintimated that he would repeat the Question on Monday.

  Alleged Ill-treatment of Ship Apprentices.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the board of Trade whether he has now completed his inquiries into the complaint made to him that four lads who, by apprentice indentures, became apprentices to Messrs. Gibson and Clark, of Glasgow, and in July, 1905, joined the ship "The Pass of Killiecrankie," were on the voyage from Antwerp to Los Angelos treated with cruelty by the second officer, that proper medical attendance was not afforded, that sufficient and proper food was not supplied, that the captain neglected to properly supervise his under officers, that the log-book is defective, and that the master's reports are incorrect; and can he state what action the board of Trade is taking in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The case to which the hon. Member calls attention is still engaging the careful attention of the board of Trade; but as the ship "Pass of Killiecrankie" has not yet returned to this country, it has not yet been possible to obtain all the necessary information. The case has been referred to the Public Prosecutor, who will advise whether legal proceedings can be taken as soon as he is in a position to do so.

  Berlin Conference on Wireless Telegraphy.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when he will be able to lay a Report of the proceedings of the Berlin Conference on Wireless Telegraphy upon the Table of this House; and whether he will arrange to afford an opportunity for discussing the action of the representatives of His Majesty's Government at that Conference.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The Conference has not yet completed its labours, and I am not, therefore, in a position to answer the Question of the hon. Member. Perhaps he will repeat it at a later date.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Shall we have an opportunity of discussing this subject before the end of the session?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked for notice of the Question.

  Betting in Post Offices.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to put down Amendments to the Street Betting Bill by which betting in post offices, whether by telegraph or otherwise, would be prohibited.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Betting by the Post Office staff is regarded as a serious offence, entailing liability to dismissal. I do not intend to put down any Amendments to the Street Betting Bill.

  Stoke-on-Trent Post Office.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has caused inquiry to be made into the accommodation provided for the staff and the performance of their duties at the Stoke-on-Trent Post Office; whether any report has been made as the result of such inquiry; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to meet the immediate needs of the locality.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A new office is to be provided at Stoke-on-Trent, and I am endeavouring to expedite the settlement of the case, for I know from personal observation how much they are required. It is essential that the office should be close to the railway station
  422
  and the negotiations with the railway company have unfortunately been somewhat protracted.

  Putrid Meat at Smithfield.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government board whether he is aware that between 19th July, 1906, and 13th September, 1906, 418 tons of meat were seized and condemned at Smithfield Market, 395 tons of which were described as putrid; what proportion of this meat came from the United States and the Argentine Republic respectively; what system of inspection is in operation at Smithfield Market; how many officials are engaged upon the work; and whether the inspections are made periodically or merely on the occasions of surprise visits.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the Question. Of the 418 tons of meat referred to, about 24 tons came from the United States and about 232 tons from the Argentine Republic. The inspecting staff at Smithfield Market consists of five inspectors under the direction of a chief inspector, and help is occasionally given by men not on the permanent staff. The market is divided into sections for purposes of inspection, and the inspector for the time being in charge of a given section makes systematic tours through the salesmen's stalls. For further information relative to the system of inspection I would refer the hon. Member to a Report made to the Local Government board by Dr. Buchanan, one of their medical inspectors, a copy of which I will send him.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any steps to prevent the importation into this country of putrid meat?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I hope the Bill now before the House may prevent a repetition of this and rectify deficiencies in the law as it now stands.

  Motor Car Speeds.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government board whether he has received, during the present year, any applications from

  423
  local authorities to reduce the speed of motor cars in their areas to ten miles an hour; and, if so, will he give the names of the authorities who have made such application, and if he has sanctioned the same.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have during the present year received applications of the kind referred to from three local authorities, viz., from the Carnarvonshire County Council as regards the roads in a part of the urban district of Llandudno, from the West Suffolk County Council as regards parts of roads in the urban district of Newmarket, and from the Essex County Council as regards the main roads in the urban district of Ilford. I have not felt able to comply with the first of these applications, at any rate to the extent proposed; the others are at present under consideration.

  Motor Fatalities.
  MR. MOLTENO: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the feeling which exists throughout the country in regard to the numerous fatal accidents caused by motor propelled vehicles; and whether His Majesty's Government have in contemplation the introduction of legislation at an early date with a view to restoring to all classes of the community the safe use of the public roads and highways.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: My right hon. friend has asked me to reply to this Question. The Royal Commission on Motor Cars have in their Report made various recommendations for the amendment of the Motor Car Acts. The recommendations are receiving my consideration, but it is not intended to propose legislation on the subject during the present session.

  The West Riding Appeal.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the President of the board of Education why the Government are appealing to the House of Lords against a decision of the Court of Appeal which declares the law to be in accordance with their own policy; whether the Act to which the decision applies is not superseded by legislation now before Parliament; what the appeal will cost the public; and in what form an Estimate for the expense
  424
  of this dilatory proceeding will come before the House.
  *MR. CLOUGH: I wish also to ask whether the Cockerton judgment was submitted to the review of the House of Lords; if not, and seeing that the board of Education then adapted its administration to the findings of that Court of Appeal, why did not the board of Education now adapt its administration to the recent findings in the Court of Appeal in the case of the West Riding judgment?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,: The Petition of Appeal has been lodged because of the practical difficulties of an administrative character occasioned by the decision of the Court of Appeal. Local authorities find themselves unable; to know what is their legal position in I respect of many important points, such as (a) whether they are bound to make any deduction in respect of religious instruction in the voluntary schools; (b) in respect of how many hours devoted to such instruction, and of what kind of instruction, such deduction should be made; (c) what personal liability they would individually be under in the payment of salaries under existing agreements; and so forth. These considerations appear to render a decision of the Final Court of Appeal obviously desirable in the interests alike of the local authorities; the teachers, and the public generally. It is a mistake to suppose that the decision in question will shortly be superseded by any legislation now before Parliament, since the whole of the year 1907, under the terms of the Government Bill, is a transition period during which the Act of 1902 will in very many places still be in operation. In reply to the third and fourth paragraphs of the Question, the question of costs is a matter entirely in the discretion of the Court. In so far as they may fall upon the Exchequer they are included in the ordinary law charges. It is public and common knowledge that the Cockerton judgment was not carried to the House of Lords. I do not know what reasons determined that decision, but my imagination is capable of suggesting some. In the Cockerton case all the judges—the two Judges in the Court of King's Bench and the three Judges in the Court of Appeal—

  425
  were unanimous, and consequently I can imagine that the Law Officers of the Crown did not think it needful to recommend an appeal to the House of Lords. In the West Riding case, however, the three Judges who heard the case in the first instance and one member of the Court of Appeal were all of one way of thinking, and two Judges of the Court of Appeal were of the other way of thinking; but the decision of the two Judges who wore members of the Court of Appeal very properly overruled the decision given by their four judicial brethren. In the face of a judicial disagreement like that, I see a distinction between the Cockerton judgment and the other case. The Cockerton case, no doubt, affected the board of Education and also the local authorities. As far as the board of Education is concerned, it was able to alter its administration, while in respect of the local authorities, the House came to their relief by passing a Bill to continuo and carry on the Cockerton schools. The West Riding decision affects the administration of education by the local authorities, and that is why we thought it well to relieve the state of anxiety by endeavouring to obtain a final decision.
  MR. PAULgave notice that he would move a Resolution protesting against this waste of public money on lawyers.

  Rifle Shooting in Schools.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the President of the board of Education whether his attention has been called to a statement of the Chairman of the Small Arms Company of Birmingham, that the adoption of a miniature rifle by the Government for use in schools had been notified and that the delivery of such rifles to the schools would commence shortly; and, if so, can he state on what conditions such rifles are to be supplied, whether on application from the school managers only, or whether such school managers will be compelled to accept such rifles and train the boys in warlike exercises; and whether it is proposed that military instruction is to form part of the curriculum of public elementary education.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no knowledge of any statement of the kind referred to
  426
  in the Question, and I can certainly state that so far as elementary schools are concerned, in regard to which the honourable Member asks me, I am quite j sure that no rifle, miniature or otherwise, has been adopted by the Government for use in such schools, nor any arrangements made for their delivery.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether such a permission to use rifles had been given in the case of secondary schools.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that he could not answer for what was being done by public school authorities.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked whether or not the board of Education had definitely sanctioned the use of rifles in elementary schools, and whether serious misadventures had not arisen through the use of rifles by boys, and at least one fatal accident.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that he was sorry to hear of a fatal accident, but such an accident had oven occurred in regard to chemical inquiries. There had been no general authority given to elementary schools to practise rifle shooting in any general terms. Permission had been given to the authorities under well-defined conditions in certain cases to allow children of a certain ago to be taught how to shoot. But rifle shooting, as it was carried out in these miniature ranges, was by no means a good form of physical exercise, and it was part of the terms that this practice in shooting should not interfere with the most important subject of the physical development of the children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: But the board of Education has sanctioned rifle shooting in elementary schools?
  MR. BIRRELL: Under certain conditions, yes.
  MR. REES: May I ask whether there is any objection in principle to teaching the use of the rifle subject to proper safeguards?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Any hon. Member can answer that Question for himself.
  MR KEIR HARDIE: Is the rifle instruction being paid for out of the public funds?
  MR. BIRRELL: So far as it is part of the public curriculum, it certainly is.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Well done.

  The Mall Improvement.
  MR CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether arrangements have been made, or negotiations are proceeding, between His Majesty's Office of Works and the London County Council, or other parties, as to providing the cost of removing the three houses at Charing Cross, the removal of which is necessary to complete the Charing Cross end of the Mall improvement; and whether he proposes that the cost of removing these houses shall be met wholly or partly by His Majesty's Government, the London County Council, or others.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the negative. In reply to the second paragraph I can only say that I am not making any proposals in the matter. I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject on 4th July.†
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken steps of any sort or kind to secure the removal of these houses?
  MR. HARCOURT: No Sir, I have not.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Do you not propose to?
  MR. HARCOURT: No, Sir.

  Regent's Park Fence.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the reason for the alteration of the fencing of Regent's Park, and to what extent such alteration is proposed to be carried; and whether it is possible to preserve the present fencing, and so avoid destroying a valued feature of the locality.
  †See (4) Debates, clx.,38.
  MR. HARCOURT: The timber fence is so decayed as to be past repair: it is only proposed at present to replace some 480 yards of it with iron fencing, it being impossible to erect a new oak fence except at very great expense.
  In answer to a further Question the right hon. Gentleman said that the best portions of the fence which had been removed were utilised for repairing the remainder of the fence.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable amount of feeling in the locality on this subject? Will he stay further operations until Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing it?
  MR. HARCOURT: When the work has been completed the people in the locality will be in a better position to express an opinion.
  LORD R. CECIL: Is Parliament to have no control over the matter?
  MR. HARCOURT: Parliament has control over my salary.

  The Stibbert Bequest.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what was the date upon which the British Government decided to refuse the bequest of the late Mr. Stibbert, of Florence, of his collection of art and other property to the British nation, the reasons for such refusal, and whether he will lay upon the Table of this House a copy of Mr. Stibbert's will, as well as of the correspondence on the subject of this bequest between His Majesty's Government, the Italian Government, the Municipality of Florence, and others.
  MR. HARCOURT: I have been asked to reply to this Question. The bequest was declined in August last, because it appeared to His Majesty's Government, on examination of the will, that they would have practically no power over the administration, under the conditions laid down by the testator, and would be involved in rather wide financial liabilities. Neither under the terms of the bequest, nor under the Italian law, could any part of the collection have been transferred to this country. The renunciation of the bequest by us

  429
  transfers it on exactly the same terms and conditions to the Commune of Florence, and therefore those desiring to see the collection will do so exactly as if we had been in nominal custody of it. I do not think it is necessary to lay Papers on the subject, but I will show the hon. Member and others interested any of them they may wish to see.

  Scottish Agricultural Holdings.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is now able to give information regarding the approximate number and total acreage of agricultural holdings in Scotland below £50 annual value.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): As the hon. Gentleman is aware, approximate information is, as I informed him on 1st August last, to be found by reference to: 1. Poor Rates (Scotland) Persons Assessed Return to House of Commons, dated 6th July. 1891. 2. Table VI of the Annual Returns of Acreage in the Agricultural Statistics, 1905. I have nothing to add to that information.

  Failure of the Irish Potato Crop.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the potato crop in the west of Ireland has been a failure this year; and, in view of that failure, if he will state what steps the Irish Government intend to take to relieve the distress that is certain to ensue.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): I regret to say that the crop has partially failed in some parts of the west of Ireland, but the extent of the failure has not yet been ascertained, and until it is more fully known and the amount of the distress likely to arise can be foreseen, no statement on the subject can with advantage be made. Exceptional distress does not at this moment exist, and if any should unhappily arise (as I fear in some places it will) that can hardly be before the end of the present year. The Government have been giving, and will, of course, continuo to give, the closest attention to the matter, and they are considering the action proper to be taken.

  Appointments of County Magistrates.
  MR. HENRY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if, in consideration of the unwillingness of lord-lieutenants of certain counties to further the appointments of county magistrates in order that the evil, of which the Lord Chancellor is aware, may be remedied as soon as possible, he will take further measures by which the necessary investigations as to the qualifications of persons recommended, and the appointments may be made without having recourse to the lord-lieutenants.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not the fact that the lord-lieutenants as a rule have shown any unwillingness to assist the Lord Chancellor in the matter referred to. On the contrary, they have furnished information in regard to persons recommended which; has been of great assistance. The position of Justice of the Peace involves judicial powers of an extended character and of great importance. The Lord Chancellor is responsible that none but suitable persons should be appointed, and considers that it is neither practicable nor desirable to dispense with the assistance which the lord-lieutenants have for the most part most cordially given.
  MR. BRACEasked what steps could be taken to get magistrates appointed in districts where the Bench was mostly Conservative.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know what the particular form is, but application ought to be made, I presume, to the Lord Chancellor, and the names submitted to him, when he will make such inquiries as he thinks necessary.
  MR. BRACE: We have done all that, and still have no satisfaction.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware of this fact—that the Lord Chancellor has devoted an infinity of time and labour to the investigation of this matter, which requires a certain amount of patient investigation.

  The Public Trustee Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what course it is proposed to pursue in order to carry out the announced intention of the Government to place the Public Trustee Bill upon the Statute book in the course of the present session.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a measure which seems very suitable for consideration by a Grand Committee, but no definite determination has yet been come to on the subject.

  The Alterations in the House.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will give facilities for the discussion of the Motion on the recent alterations in the House and the interference with Members' seats and privileges.†
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think that an opportunity should be given to the House for discussing this matter before we rise. My right hon. friend was mistaken in the impression which he conveyed that there would be a special Vote during these sittings. There will not be a special Vote, and I am considering in what form such an opportunity can best be provided. I take it that there will be no desire on the part of the House to discuss the question at great length, and that in the prospect of such an opportunity, daily Motions directed to the presence of strangers will be discontinued.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that important alterations were now going on and that one was made last night after this Motion was set down.
  †The Motion referred was in the following terms:—" That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report to the House upon the recent alterations in the House whereby an obstruction has been erected preventing Members using about ten seats to the right of Mr. Speaker, heretofore appropriated to the use of Members, and whereby strangers are being introduced into a portion of the House not hertofore used for such purpose; and, further, the recent alterations in the House to the right under the Gallery whereby Members' privileges of securing the introduction of strangers under the Gallery have been curtailed by one-half."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: They cannot be alterations affecting the general policy of the new arrangement of seats.

  PLURAL VOTING BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'seven,' and insert the word 'fifteen."—(Lord Robert Cecil.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid that the Bill was not a good one. As with another Bill before the House, it was class legislation, in that the rich man was favoured as compared with the working man—he referred to the Street Betting Bill. Here the well-to-do were at a disadvantage. What was the Amendment before the Committee? It was to defer the operation of the Act from 1907 to 1915. There was, he thought, one subject which would lie in order, and that was the constitutional aspects of the question. He did not think it could be denied by hon. Members of the House that the Bill made a great change, both in theory and practice, in our constitution. It abolished territorial representation. It said that a man should not have more than one vote because he owned property in several different districts. If that were so, let them look for a moment at the practice of other countries, where great constitutional change was contemplated by the Legislature. If they looked at the great republic across the Atlantic they saw that no great change could be made unless the central Legislature approved of that change by a two-thirds majority; and even that did not suffice, but all the Legislatures of the various states had to pass the change by a three-fourths majority. Hon. Members might well say, and perhaps truly, that the United States, though in theory, was not a democratic

  433
  country in practice. No one, however, would deny that it had a great amount of liberty. But let them look at another republic, one which, though perhaps not quite so much before the eyes of the world, had nevertheless an honourable history. He referred to the republic of Switzerland. No one would deny that the constitution there was not only democratic in theory——
  THE CHAIRMAN: What is or is not done in other countries has nothing to do with the Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid his argument, was intended to show that no change in the constitution of the country should be allowed to take place before an election; and his noble friend's Amendment, if carried, would enable that election to take place. He wanted to show from the constitution—[Cries of "No, no."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not in order.
  *MR. ASHLEYsaid his point was that they ought to defer the operation of the Act until 1915, because if it came into operation in 1907 the people of the country would not have an opportunity of saying whether they approved of the measure or not. The question of plural voting was not before the country at the last general election. The Government received a mandate in reference to Chinese Labour, but they had received no mandate as regarded plural voting. In his election campaign plural voting was never mentioned, and he thought his experience was the experience of the vast majority of the Members of the House. In view of these things he asked the Government to accept the Amendment and so enable the country at the next general election to say whether they approved of the Bill or not.
  LORD CASTLEREAGHdesired to associate himself with the noble Lord, for he also was of opinion that the measure should not come into force until 1915. It was not in accordance with the wishes of the country that the Bill should be passed through the House of Commons except in conjunction with a redistribution of seats. During
  434
  the debates upon the question the Opposition had been treated by the Government—he would not say in a discourteous manner, but the Government had certainly turned a deaf ear to every proposal that his side of the House had made He would venture to quote the words of a present Member of the Government and one whose authority would be respected on the opposite side of the House. These words were used by the Secretary of State for India some time ago—
  "The Government were unable to deal with plural voting in root and branch; to do so would necessitate dealing with the question of redistribution."
  He hoped the Members of the Government would seek the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, for he felt convinced that the Secretary of State for India would not have uttered those words unless they were really his opinion, an opinion which he had no idea of changing. He begged to support the Amendment.
  *SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he wished to support the Amendment, not because he desired to delay any just and fair alteration in our existing electoral system which might be shown to be necessary, but in order that the Government might have an opportunity of bringing forward a further measure to complete and perfect what they themselves were forced to admit was an incomplete measure, and so remove most of the objections which they on that side entertained towards the present Bill. He thought it might be taken that, subject to a few exceptions in favour of the Universities and other similar bodies, they on that side had no particular objection to the principle of what was known as "One man, one vote," provided that it was accompanied by such a re-distribution of electoral areas as would secure something like an equal value to each vote which was cast in any election. Plural votes were not the only or the greatest irregularities in our existing system, and they did not see why the Government should pick out and proceed to deal with this one irregularity, just because it told most "against their own side, whilst they left entirely untouched many much more glaring irregularities. As an instance of what he meant, he would like to ask which was the greater injustice: that a small town like Newry in Ireland with its 1,900

  435
  electors, should have the same representation in that House and the same voice in the settlement of the affairs of the nation as the Romford Division of Essex with its 45,000 electors or that land and property (which no one could say was over-represented in that House at the present time) should continue to have the same inadequate amount of representation which it now possessed until the whole thing could be put right? But to make the alteration which the present Bill proposed alone would only tend to accentuate and increase the present inequalities, for many of the smaller existing constituencies, like the county of Rutland with its 4,000 electors, would be rendered smaller still by having some of their present voters taken away from them, whilst some of the larger constituencies, such as the bordesley Division of Birmingham with its 16,000 electors, would not have any voters taken away from it, so would remain entirely as it was. He called attention to what a false and invidious position many Members of the present House of Commons would be placed in if this alteration were made. The constituencies which returned them would be entirely changed, and they would cease to represent those who elected them in any true sense of the term. He would only say in conclusion, that he wished the present Amendment to be passed in older that the Government might have time to introduce a further measure which would remedy the omissions of the present Bill and confer upon every householder what they themselves professed to desire he should have, namely, an equal voice in the management of the affairs of his country.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Blackpool was a genuine argument. It was thought to be advisable to postpone the date of the operation of this Bill from 1907 to 1915, in order that a general election might take place and the opinion of the country be taken upon this particular Bill. He himself was only concerned in endeavouring to shew the reason why the date of its operation should be changed. He believed the change would commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they themselves complained in the late Parliament that the then Government had no right to deal with any questions except those
  436
  connected with the settlement of the war in South Africa, because they had received no other mandate. In the last election there certainly was no mandate for a plural voting Bill. But there were other strong reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. First there was the reason adduced by his noble friend, that a Bill of this sort should not be brought in unless it was accompanied by redistribution. That was a very powerful reason. Then there were other anomalies, and if the Committee were going to make this very vital alteration in the franchise they should see not only that no other anomalies were created, but that as many anomalies in the present law were removed as possible, lie trusted, as there was to be a Report Stage, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to this Amendment.
  MR. EVELYN CECILappealed for more time to consider this Amendment, because to pass through the House legislation in this piecemeal way was not only unwise, but it would not in the long run attain the object the Government desired. He did not see that the argument as to anomalies applied at all. It was said that this Bill was brought in to remove an anomaly. Now an anomaly was a departure from the common rule, and the common rule in this country was that representation and taxation should go together.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that the question was whether this anomaly should come to an end in 1907 or 1915.
  MR. EVELYN CECILexplained that this Bill, far from removing an anomaly, was introducing one. It introduced the anomaly of representation without taxation. It was therefore very desirable that this Bill, if passed, should not come into force now, but that its operation should be put off in order to give time for a general Bill correcting anomalies from a broad standpoint. He could not see, if this legislation was proceeded with, that they would do anything else than create further anomalies instead of carrying out the object of the Government, which was said to be to reduce them.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that one

  437
  very obvious reason why the operation of this Bill should be postponed was that it ought to be accompanied by a Bill for redistribution, as it would be impossible to say what proportion of electors there would be in the various constituencies. Another important reason why it should not come into operation until a redistribution Bill was passed, was that there were a great number of serious anomalies in the present law which would have to be dealt with. If the Government proceeded in the proper course by means of various Bills to remove those anomalies, then it would be only reasonable that the whole of the alterations should come into operation at one time. Therefore it was desirable to postpone the operation of this Bill. The right hon.
  Gentleman scarcely appreciated the amount of work that would be required to be done before this Bill could be applied in the constituencies. The registers would require to be made up and dealt with. Two of the smallest constituencies in Liverpool, for instance, would have 25 per cent, and 30 per cent, respectively, of their voters taken from them. He did not see how the Bill could possibly come into operation at the date suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought a reasonable time should be given before it did come into force.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided. Ayes, 307; Noes, 89. (Division list No. 330.)

  AYES.

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

  Coats, SirT.Glen(Renfrew. W.)

  Gardner, Cel. Alan(Herford,S

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Agnew, George William

  Cooper, Rt. J.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. Herbert John

  Ambrose, Robert

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Asquith, Rt. Hn.HerbertHenry

  Cowan, W. H.

  Grant, Corrie

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cox, Harold

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Barker, John

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth

  Guest, Hon. Ivor (Churchill)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gulland, John W.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crombie, John William

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

  Beauchamp, E.

  Crooks, William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bell, Richard

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardy, George V. (Suffolk)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hart-Davies. T.

  Billson, Alfred

  Davies, Timothy (Fulhnm)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol. S.)

  Harwood, George

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Belany, William

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Boland, John

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Brace, William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Branch, James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Brigg, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henderson, J.M.(Aberdeen, W

  Brooke, Stopford

  Duckworth, James

  Henry, Charles S.

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

  Duffy, William J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Brunner, Sir JohnT.(Cheshire)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bryce, J.A. (Iverness Burghs)

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hogan, Michael

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas

  Elibank, Master of

  Hooper, A. G.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Erskine, David C.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Cairns, Thumbs

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hope, W. Bateman(SomersetN

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Carr-Gomm. H. W.

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Hudson, Walter

  Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Cawley, Frederick

  Ferens, T. R.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Charter, Frederick William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Charming. Francis Allston

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Jocaby, James Alfred

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. P. R.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Jenkins, J.

  Clough, W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swainsea

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Norman, Henry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Snowdon, P.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow.W.

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Grady, J.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lambert, George

  O' Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Langley, Batty

  O'Mara, James

  Summerbell, T.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tayler, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Leese, Sir JosephF. (Accrington)

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe,

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Paul, Herbert

  Thomas, SirA.(Glamorgan, E.

  Levy, Maurice

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Tomkinson, James

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lough, Thomas

  Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lundon, W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Verney, F. W.

  Lyell, Charles Henrv

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Vivian, Henry

  Maclean, Donald

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

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Price, RobertJohn(Norfolk, E.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Radford, G. H.

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

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Raphael, Hebert H.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Callum, JohnM.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  M'Crae, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Rees, J. D.

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Killop, W.

  Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

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

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Richardson, A.

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Whitbread, Howard

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Massie, J.

  Robinson, S.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Meagher, Michael

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Sir ThomasPalmer

  Menzies, Walter

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Runciman, Walter

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

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Morse, L. L.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Murnaghan, George

  Sears, J. E.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Murphy, John

  Seely, Major B.

  Murray, James

  Shackleton, David James

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

  Myer, Horatio

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.)

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Nicholls, George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.AlexSirF.

  Bowles, G. Stewart

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Collings Rt.Hn.J.(Birmingh'm

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bull, Sir William James

  Corbett, T. I. (Down, North)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Courthope, O. Loyd

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J. (CityLond.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cave, George

  Doughty, Sir George

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Duncan. Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Fell, Arthur

  440

  441

  Finch, Rt. Hon George H.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Forster, Henry William

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur(Ormskirk

  Haddock, George R.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Starkey, John R.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Staveley, Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hervey, F.W.F.(BuryS.Edmds

  Nicholson, Wm.G.(Petersfield)

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Parker, SirGilbert (Gravesend)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hills, J. W.

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Percy, Earl

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

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

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

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

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel

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

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Lord Robert Cecil and Sir Francis Lowe.

  Liddell, Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  *MR. H. H. MARKS*MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet) moved as an Amendment to insert after the words "the year nineteen hundred and seven," the words "or such later date as His Majesty in Council may determine." He claimed that this Amendment could not be characterised as one of a destructive nature. He submitted, indeed, that in the event of the measure passing into law it would tend to its smooth working. It had been claimed by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, that the measure possessed the quality of simplicity. Perhaps that might be true. One might go so far as to say that it was transparent, but whatever its simplicity, there seemed to be great difficulty in the way of defining exactly what sort of Bill it was. The Committee were assured that it was not an enfranchising Bill, they were also assured that it was not a disfranchising Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman had described it, to use his own words, as a machinery Bill. A machinery Bill it certainly was in one sense. It was a measure to help the political machine of one political party. How the Bill worked would depend, he thought, upon the treatment this Amendment might receive. While he did not call in question at all the earnestness and sincerity of the promoters of this Bill in their desire to establish a reform, he would remind them that there were some "reforms" that were to be achieved at too great cost and at too great mischief. They all knew the story of the wag who undertook to show bootmakers how to make a pair of shoes in less than five minutes. It was by cutting the tops off
  442
  a pair of boots. But that was a wasteful process, and it was the process which seemed to commend itself to the authors of this measure. Why did he ask that the Government should give the option proposed by the Amendment with respect to the date when the Act was to come into operation? Because in his opinion the Bill was bound to set up most complex machinery. It was bound to involve electoral and registration work in an amount of confusion and complication which he was sure its authors did not contemplate. An Order in Council would have to be prepared under Subsection 2 of Clause 1 of this Bill. Between now and the date when this measure came into operation in 1907 it was open to question whether the electors or political agents would have time to consider the difficult problems which might arise under the Bill. He wished to call attention to the fact that if the Bill passed as it now stood, and came into force on 1st September next, that was just at a time when the registration lists in the various constituencies were compiled. What would that involve in the registration agencies in the various constituencies? They knew already that there were extreme difficulties in the way of doing registration, work and they had heard for many years that it was the intention of the Liberal Government to simplify the work of registration. But would this Bill simplify the work? On the contrary, it would complicate it infinitely. Voters would have to put in a claim to vote in a particular constituency and establish a sort of clearing house as to voting rights. The details for carrying this out would not

  443
  only be of infinite complexity, but an entirely now branch of political work and organisation would have to be established. He submitted that to expect to start the whole of this new machinery and have it in working order between now and 1st September next was unreasonable. Why should not the Government consent to take an option of extending the date when the Act should come into operation by means of an Order in Council? Surely the Government did not anticipate that they were to be out of office before that date! Why should not the Order in Council extend the operative date beyond 1st September? Why should not the terms of the Order in Council have been laid on the Table of the House, and hon. Members would then have been able to judge what was to be done. If they had had the Order in Council before them it was conceivable that that document might have persuaded hon. Members as to the simplicity of the Bill. But in the absence of the Order, and in the absence of full explanations as to the operation of the Act, he submitted that it would be doing a rash thing to agree to this Bill, which he presumed would be passed, coining into operation on 1st September next. The time was too short and the matters to be considered were too important for that. If this Bill was to pass—as he assumed it would—it was as well that it should pass with the minimum of injustice and inconvenience to all concerned, It was for that reason that he moved the Amendment standing in his name in the hope that it would be adopted.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, alter the word 'seven," to insert the words 'or such later date as His Majesty in Council may determine'"—(Mr. H. H. Marks).
  Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
  MR. HARCOURTthought the hon. Member, on further consideration, would come to the conclusion that this Amendment was undesirable, not only from his point of view, but undeniably from the view of the Government. It was essential to give notice to the public when a particular Act of Parliament came into operation. That was, of course, for the general convenience. But if the
  444
  Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were adopted it would not only prove a great inconvenience, but would amount to something almost unconstitutional. The Legislature alone could decide when a law should come into force, and to take the power out of the hands of Parliament as to when a measure should come into force involved rather a serious constitutional question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not think that the account of the Amendment given by the right hon. Gentleman was accurate. It was not as if the Government were, in despite of Parliament, keeping to itself the time when this Act should come into force. What his hon. friend asked was that Parliament should leave to the Government a certain license in determining when the Act should come into operation. After all the Government were responsible to the House of Commons, and any delay on the part of the Government in bringing an Act into operation would be summarily put an end to by a majority of this House expressing its will thereon. An Order in Council was, no doubt, the act of the Executive—of the Ministers, and no abuse of it could possibly occur without its being brought before Parliament. So far as he could recollect there was no precedent for this particular form of delay.
  MR. H. H. MARKSsaid that there was a precedent.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, at all events, it was not the common way to leave a latitude or choice to the Government of the day in bringing an Act of Parliament into operation. On the other hand, this Bill was of an exceedingly complicated character, and where they had not before them the Order in Council, which would largely fill up the lacunœ left by the draftsman of the Bill, he thought that the Government should be given some latitude as to when the measure should come into operation Thy Amendment compelled nobody.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid that this was a measure which sought to disfranchise and not to enfranchise voters in more senses

  445
  than had occurred to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. If time were not given for the consideration of the details of the Bill a large number of His Majesty's subjects would find themselves in prison. He had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  *CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid that the remarks which had fallen from one of the hon. Members for the City of London in regard to the previous Amendment applied equally to this, because, during the last general election this particular measure was not before the country. At any rate it was not before a single Irish constituency. On that ground alone he supported the proposal that it was necessary that a certain latitude should be given to the Government, as to the time it was to come into force. He had several Amendments on the Paper which would come on for discussion later on, including one to exclude Ireland altogether from the operation of this measure; but it was imperative on him to support the present Amendment as strongly as he possibly could. In the North of Ireland they had been for some time asking for a Redistribution Bill, and the effect of the Amendment would be to give a chance for a Redistribution Bill to be introduced. He believed that this Bill might be taken alongside of a Redistribution Bill removing some very serious anomalies which existed at the present moment in the electoral law in the North of Ireland. He spoke in the interests of all sides and not in reference to either the South or North of the Boyne. It would be of the greatest advantage that this Bill should be placed in such a position, that if some of the truths which were well known as existing in regard to Ireland were brought home to His Majesty's Government, His Majesty in Council might in consequence postpone bringing this measure
  into force until a later date. He had very much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERhoped the Amendment would be accepted, or at any rate, if it was not accepted in the form in which it stood that they would have an intimation from the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill that he would extend the time beyond the date at which it now stood. He thought they must all admit that the discussion upon the Bill showed that there was going to be great difficulty in regard to its application. Under the Bill notice must be served before the 1st September, 1907, so that at the very outset there were only nine months of 1907 in which the various agents, both Liberal and Conservative, would have to give their instructions to electors to enable them to take advantage of the clause, otherwise by September all the plural voters would be disfranchised and would have no right to vote. Therefore he contended that even Liberal agents themselves would tell the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill that the complexity of the measure was so great that nine months was an insufficient time in which to schedule and index the plural voters and enable them to serve those voters with proper notices. If they were to pass this measure let them pass it in a shape cognisant with justice, and whilst the Amendment might be rather too wide, if the right hon. Gentleman would give them till the year 1908, he would be doing that which was right and just to those who were entitled to the plural vote.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 330. (Division List No. 331.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood,Rt.Hn.SirAlexF.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Chamberlain,RtHn. J. A. (Wore.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

  Ashley, W. W.

  Bull, Sir William James

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J. (CityLond.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Craik, Sir Henry

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

  Cave, George

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC.W.

  Dixon-Hartland,Sir FredDixon

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Duncan,Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Liddell, Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Fell, Arthur

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Starkey, John R.

  Forster, Henry William

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

  Haddock, George R.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Thomson, W Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent.Ashford

  Nicholson, Wm.G (Petersfield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Percy, Earl

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E. Howard

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

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

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel

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

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr H. H. Marks and Mr. Staveley-Hill.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork.N.E.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R R.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Agnew, George William

  Cleland, J. W.

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Ambrose, Robert

  Clough, W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Clynes, J. R.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Asquith, Rt. Hn.HerbertHenry

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

  Gardner, Col.Alan (Hereford,S.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Barker, John

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Gill, A. H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

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

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn. Herbert Jn.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Beauchamp, E

  Corbett,CH (Sussex, E.Grinst'd

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Beaumont, HnW.C. B.(Hexham

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Grant, Corrie

  Bell, Richard

  Cowan, W. H.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cox, Harold

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Benn, SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Gulland, John W.

  Benn,W (Tower H'mlets.S.Geo

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bertram, Julius

  Crombie, John William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Crooks, William

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Billson, Alfred

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Boland, John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harwood, George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brace, William

  Delany, William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Branch, James

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Brigg, John

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen,W.

  Brunner, Sir John T.(Cheshire)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bryce, Rt,Hn.James(Aberdeen

  Duckworth, James

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon. S)

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Duffy, William J.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Higham, John Sharp

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Edwards Clement (Denbigh)

  Hogan, Michael

  Buxton, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Byles, William Pollard

  Elibank, Master of

  Hooper, A. G.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Cameron, Robert

  Erskine, David C.

  Hope, W.Bateman (Somerset,N

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Carr-Gomm, H W

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Causton,RtHnRichard Knight

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Howard, Hon Geoffrey

  Cawley, Frederick

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Hudson, Walter

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ferens, T. R.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  448

  449

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Murnaghan, George

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

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Murray, James

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Jenkins, J.

  Myer, Horatio

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Jones,Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Snowden, P.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nicholls, George

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Joyce, Michael

  Norman, Henry

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanley, Hn. A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Steadman, W. C.

  Kelley, George D

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Kitson, Sir James

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stuart, James (Sutherland)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lamb, EdmundG.(Leominster

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Summerbell, T.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Grady, J.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lambert, George

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Langley, Batty

  O'Mara, James

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Tomkinson, James

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lever, A, Levy (Essex,Harwich

  Partington, Oswald

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lever, W. H.(Cheshire,Wirral

  Paul, Herbert

  Verney, F. W.

  Levy, Maurice

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Vivian, Henry

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

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

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Lough, Thomas

  Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lundon, W.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Pollard, Dr.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Cent.)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Macdonald, J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs

  Price,Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

  Ward, W.Dudley) Southampton

  Maclean, Donald

  Radford, G. H.

  Wardle, George J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  MacVeagh.Jeremiah (Down,S.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.).

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro.

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Callum, John M

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Crae, George

  Uses, J. D.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Whitbread, Howard

  M'Killop, W.

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

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

  Richardson, A.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Manfield, Harry (Northants.)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Markham. Arthur Basil

  Robertson, Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf 'rd

  Wiles, Thomas

  Marnham, F. J.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Robinson, S.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Massie, J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Masterman, C. F. O.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

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

  Meagher, Michael

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

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

  Menzies, Walter

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Rowlands, J.

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Runciman, Walter

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Winfrey, R.

  Montagu, E. S

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Morgan, J Lloyd(Carmarthen

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Sears, J. E.

  Morse, L. L.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Shackleton, David James

  *MR. CAVEsaid that what he proposed by the next Amendment on the Paper was that instead of providing that an elector should only vote in a selected constituency, he should not be allowed to vote in more
  450
  than one constituency during the same year. He proposed to do away with the whole of the complicated machinery of selecting a constituency, and to provide that a man entitled to vote in several places must vote in one place, and one

  451
  place only, during the same year. If a man made up his mind that he would vote in constituency A, and if a general election or a by-election occurred and he voted in that constituency, that would be his constituency for the year. If there was the least ground for suspecting a voter, the question could be put to him "Have you voted in any other constituency during the present year?" There were precedents for this proposal, a similar proposal having been made in a Bill brought in by Mr. Shaw Lefevre in 1892, and in the Bilk subsequently introduced by the Liberal Government of 1892. The same principle was now in force in county elections, whore a voter might make his own selection, and having done that he could not vote in any other constituency. The plan worked quite smoothly, and he did not see why it could not be carried out in this Bill. It had been said that there was a risk of a man with several votes losing them all under this Bill, and if hon. Members examined the question closely they would at once see that that was so. If a man was an occupier, he was often put upon the list of electors without his knowledge and without any initiative on his part. It was the overseers' duty to put him on the register. The ordinary elector, who was not very particular about his voting powers, did not often go through the list of electors, and a man might well be a plural voter without being conscious that he was guilty of that crime, and under this Bill as it stood such a man would lose his vote. Then again a voter might not know the date upon which he had to send in his notice and in that way he might very easily be disfranchised. Or he might not know where to send his notice to, and in that case too he might lose all his votes. The fact was that it ought not to rest with the voter to take the first step in the matter. Under the Bill as it stood many voters would be disfranchised, but if they accepted his Amendment there would be no need for the precautions which had been discussed in these debates. He ventured to suggest to the Committee that this was a very simple proposal and one which would get rid of many of the difficulties of the Bill. There was also a chance of votes being lost under the Bill in another way. For some reason which he did not understand a voter had to send
  452
  in his selection notice before the 1st September. The revision of the list of electors took place between the 8th September and the 12th October, so that this notice must be sent before the list of Parliamentary electors commenced to be revised. Surely that was a ridiculous state of things. Supposing a man was under the impression that he had a vote in constituencies A, B, and C, before the revision, and he sent in his selection notice and selected constituency A. The revising barrister might receive an objection from the Party agent and strike the name off altogether. In that case it would be too late for the voter to say that he would choose constituency B or C, and so the unfortunate man who had committed no crime known to the law would lose the whole of his three votes. Anything more unjust than that he could not conceive. If there was to be a selection, it ought not to be made before the revision, but after it, when the man knew upon which lists his name was to be found. He contended that his Amendment embodied an intelligible alternative to the Bill and one which would work smoothly. Some further amendment might be required later on in order to give his proposal full effect, but he trusted that he had made his meaning perfectly clear. He begged to more.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the words 'except in that' and insert the words 'in more than.'"—(Mr. Cave.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'except' stand part of the clause."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he perfectly understood the view taken by the hon. Member, and his main object was to get rid of selection. He thought that if they were going to leave a choice of qualifications to the voter they were bound to have some notification of where he was going to vote, and it was not much to ask him once a year, or, if he preferred it, once only in a life-time, to make a selection, and to write a short note, or fill up a form and send to the clerk. The hon. Member said that the proposal in the Amendment appeared in previous Bills, but it was exactly because that proposal appeared in those Bills and was met by such strong

  453
  opposition from people who understood the working of the register, that it had not been adopted in this case. They had, he thought, adopted a simpler and a fairer method. The hon. Member had referred to the suggestion that an elector might not know that he was a plural voter. He, however, thought it was impossible that any man should not know that he might be a plural voter. He could hardly believe that a man could have property which would qualify him for a vote without his being conscious of it. He might perhaps not know he had been put on the register. As to the suggestion that under sub-section 2 a plural voter would not be unable to send in his notice, if it would be a satisfaction to hon. Members, he would put in words to make it additionally clear that he could make a selection. An hon. Member had referred to the hardship of the plural voter's having to make this selection, but he had forgotten, he thought, that the ledger was compelled to make a claim, not once in his life but every year, and a lodger was presumably a man who knew much less about electoral law, and had much fewer facilities for making claims, than the man dealt with by this Bill. The hon. Member had again raised a point referred to yesterday, and to meet which his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that something should be done. It was the case of a man who, after having sent in his selection, was struck off the register. He must say that he assumed the plural voter would always select in the first instance the vote he was perfectly certain of. In accordance with the promise given, however, he thought he would be able to devise a clause to bring up on Report which would enable a man who had selected a qualification which he was ultimately deprived of to change his selection without any troublesome process. But the principle of selection was essential to the Bill and he must retain it.
  *SIR. CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had claimed for his plan among other things that it was simpler than a residential plan It might have certain advantages, but simplicity could not be claimed for it by anyone who knew our electoral system. The right hon. Gentleman thought that the plural
  454
  voter was a person who knew he was a plural voter and was known as such, but the majority—and he had tested the question very carefully by the registers of three adjoining counties—did not, in the agricultural parishes tested by him, answer to that description. Delicate researches would have to be made in order to find them out, and he would come to a proposal on the next Amendment by which he thought the difficulties would be diminished. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the voter would be certain to know in every case whether he was really qualified, and if he were not qualified he would be removed from the register. That was an ideal state.
  MR. HARCOURT: I said I thought any man would know whether he had any qualifications which might enable him to be put on the register.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he had mentioned the case of a gentleman who had sat in this House and who had only one legal qualification, though he was in possession of thirty-six or thirty-eight qualifications, none of which were legal, which he was not aware of. Cases, however, in which a man was on one register legally and on another illegally were common enough. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the plural voter would only have to write a letter to notify the clerk of his choice, and that the lodger voter had to do the same thing now. That, however, was not the case, though he used to do so. In order to save the lodger who had once established his claim from the necessity of re-claiming every year, what was known as the "old" lodger was invented, and only the "new" lodger now had to make his claim. The old lodger made a solemn declaration. In the great majority of revision courts the lodger claims were now allowed on evidence altogether different from that which formerly prevailed. Claims in general were in a vast number of cases made on behalf of the claimants and not by the claimants themselves. He must enter a caveat against the suggestion that the plural voter would do all the things that were required of him. There were many points requiring to be cleared up and on which they would have to press the Government very closely or else the Bill would break down in working. Only in one case had revising

  455
  barristers recently returned to the Letter practice, namely, the form of allowing the owner to select his polling place. Only two clashes could do that, namely, the owner and the policeman on duty. Unfortunately this power had occasionally been used by Party agents to make people vote at the wrong place, and so disfranchise them. Some revising barristers had insisted upon receiving a letter from the voter clearly stating his wishes.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that two blacks did not make a white, and the arguments put forward in defence of this Bill upon this point had been demolished by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and it was well known that the lodger had not to make any claim at all. The lodger was generally resident in one place only for a short time, and when the lodger vote was introduced there was some ground for insisting that he should make a claim. With regard to the question of qualification, the right hon. Gentleman had said that although a man who had two qualifications might not know he was on the register in both instances, it was impossible for him to know that he was not-qualified. He had himself two qualifications, or thought he had, and he was on the register for both. A general election came round and he went to vote in both places and he found in one of them that his name was not on the register, it having been removed without his knowledge. A year of two afterwards he went to a parochial election in the same constituency and he found that he was on the register for the local election and also upon the Parliamentary register, and it was quite possible under this Bill that in such a case he would have lost his vote altogether. That showed that there were cases where a man did not know whether he was actually one he register or whether he was qualified. The Amendment they were discussing was one that made for simplicity, and it did away with a very great hardship with regard to the penalty. He instanced the case of a plural voter who having made up his mind to select a certain district forgot to make his selection. If, under the impression that he had done so, he went to the place which he thought he had selected and asked for a voting paper, the clerk might say to him
  456
  "Have you another vote?" The elector would reply, "Yes, I have." The clerk would then reply, "But you are not starred." That voter would have committed an offence, because he would have asked for a voting paper in a constituency in which he was not starred, and it would be absolutely impossible that he had not acted knowingly. Consequently he would be liable to two years hard labour. If this Amendment were carried, all that would disappear. It would be absolutely unjust to compel a man who had made such a slight error as that to pay such a penalty as was provided under the Bill. There was no doubt that a great many voters would not give the necessary notice of selection, and if it was the desire that a good House of Commons should be chosen, and if it could not be shown that the voters be referred to were not fit to have a vote, the only course open to the Government was to accept this Amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthought the Committee would feel after the speeches which had been delivered that they had come to a very critical point in the discussion. The Amendment was concerned not with mitigating the principle of the Bill, but with the machinery by which the view of the Government was to be carried out. He did not think that any one who had heard the debate was likely to deny that the plan of his hon. and learned friend was incomparably more simple and was open to far fewer machinery objections than the plan of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman who had replied had not given a single reason why this plan should be considered inadmissible. What the Government had done was simply to defend their own plan, but that defence had been knocked to atoms by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean. It was said, in the first place, that no greater hardship was inflicted on the plural voter than was inflicted on the lodger voter. That, the Member for the Forest of Dean had pointed out, might be so according to the letter of the law, but was not necessarily so according to practice. Speaking broadly, the practice was not that described by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, who brought these facts before the

  457
  Committee did not express approval or disapproval of the general practice which now prevailed. He did not think the authority of the right hon. Gentleman could be challenged when he said that the practice did prevail. So much for the first part of the argument. Now they came to the second part of the argument of the Government in favour of their own proposal, which was that every man really knew, and always knew when he had alternative qualifications, and that therefore he was always in a position to make his selection, or to know that he must make a selection if he wanted to vote, and that he had no right to make complaint if the duty of making a selection was cast upon him. That argument had been met by the facts which had been brought forward showing that every man did not know when he was qualified as a voter in certain constituencies. The right hon. Baronet had gone the length of saying that in some cases it was impossible to find out, and that, as it were, no industry on the part of the voter could easily make him acquainted with the fact that he had a qualification to be placed on the register. Was that true or was it not? The Government had not met the contention of high authorities that it was a fact known from the actual practice of the electoral law that a man did not always know whether or not he had qualifications for the franchise in more than one constituency, and therefore, was not always in a position to make his selection of the place in which he wanted to vote. It was quite possible that a man, without the slightest knowledge on his own part, might find himself on the register of a constituency in which he had not the faintest idea he possessed the qualification for a vote. How, thon, could any man on going to the polling booth to vote say, in answer to the question of the presiding officer, that he had no qualification in any other constituency? If he should say so innocently it might turn out not to be true, and he would thereby expose himself to a penalty. But if the man said he did not know whether or not he was qualified elsewhere, what was the presiding officer to do? It was clear that, in such a case, under the Bill the presiding officer could not allow the vote. He asked in all seriousness, was the voter to be disfranchised because he had not this
  458
  knowledge as to his qualifications elsewhere, which no research on his part could enable him to possess?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said it was asked, why should not the plural voter be allowed to go to the polling booth without having previously indicated in any way in respect of which of his numerous qualifications he intended to vote? The answer was that it was in the public interest to have it known, when the register came into operation, how many of these people were going to vote in each constituency. The Bill proposed to lay upon the plural voter, as his right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had pointed out, a much lighter burden than the present law imposed upon the lodger. The lodger had to make a declaration; the plural voter had only to give notice. It was quite true that a lax practice had been allowed to prevail in regard to the lodger in most of the Revision Courts. But no amount of hugger-mugger on the part of the political agents, oven though it were sanctioned by the revising barrister, would get rid of the fact that it was contrary to the law to put a lodger on the register unless he had made a declaration. The Government had guarded, to the best of their ability, against any such laxity springing up in the case of plural voters by providing I that the notice of selection should be signed by the voter himself. The Leader; of the Opposition brought forward the; case of an unfortunate man who, without; any knowledge of his own, by the action of Providence, or the mistake of an overseer, had been endowed with a qualification in more than one constituency. He was very sceptical about the existence of such a class to any large extent in the community. No man was qualified to be put upon the register, which was prepared in September and came into operation on 1st January, unless his qualification had been matured from the 15th of the preceding July. It was impossible to suppose there were a considerable section of the community in possession of this matured qualification and yet ignorant of the fact that they did possess it. In his view, no one could have any difficulty in answering the question of the presiding officer in the polling booth, whether he was on the register of any other

  459
  constituency than that in which he proposed to vote. [Cries of "Supposing you do not know?"] In that case the answer would be "So far as I know I am not." Was it seriously contended that if such an answer were given the presiding officer would reject the vote? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] The Leader of the Opposition also advanced the argument that such a man would expose himself to the penalties provided. That could not be so.
  MR. RAWLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman read Clause 2, line 15?
  MR. ASQUITHsaid they would discuss that when they came to Clause 2, line 15. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think this was a serious point. The other objection stated by the Leader of the Opposition was that such a man would expose himself to the penalties provided. But that could not be so, because the only legal offence created by the section was that of knowingly acting in contravention of it, and the burden of proving active knowledge rested upon the prosecution. Therefore, in the case which the right hon. Gentleman had put, the penalty could not possibly be inflicted upon him.
  AN HON. MEMBER: He might be disfranchised.
  MR. ASQUITH: That was the outside of what might be inflicted upon him. Let them not be told that a man might be sentenced to two years imprisonment with hard labour because he had quite innocently voted in one constituency and did not know that he had a qualification in another. It must be admitted that there were practical difficulties connected with any process of selection that could be adopted; but, on the balance, he urged that the plan adopted by the Government, having regard to the interests of the community, was the most practical and the least inconvenient.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that in the case of a lodger a declaration was put in every year. But as regards other classes of voters assistant overseers could place names on the register, not only without any claim on the part of voters, but even against their wish.
  460
  There was another class of persons who were on the register without knowing it. He meant wandering agricultural labourers, thousands of whom, having got on the register, remained there because neither of the political Party agents knew anything about them. Many of them were unconscious pluralists.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that this clause would seriously affect a much larger number of people than the Government imagined. Instead of applying to rich men who possessed wide information, the Bill would deal hardly with poor men who had no opportunity of knowing how matters stood as regarded registration. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the worst that could happen to the plural voter was that he would be disfranchised. That might be the object of the Government; he thought it was, and it was because the Bill would attain that object that the hon. Member for Prestwich had supported the measure on the previous day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was not a hardship that people who had more than one qualification might be disqualified. That was a monstrous proposition. How were any of them to know on what register their names appeared? He might have had a qualification once, but he did not know, for example, whether the overseers had done their duty and removed his name from his service qualification in Downing Street. After all, he was not be und to make inquiries, and the fact that he had been on the register for the past five years might have passed from his recollection. There were countless cases in which without making inquiry they could not find out whether they were on the register or not, and so they would very likely lose their vote altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, who was one of the highest authorities on questions of this kind, had admitted that it would require in scores of instances the utmost care to trace voters on different registers. The whole of this difficulty would be removed by the Amendment. The solitary objection taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it would be inconvenient in many constituencies not to know how many people were going to vote; but they could not have accuracy of that kind in any case, because there

  461
  were men on the register who would not come and vote. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the voter himself. Surely some consideration ought to be given to him, and he should be allowed to choose the district in which he could vote for the candidate for whom lie had the most personal respect Let them take the casts of an elector, a member of the Liberal Party, having a qualification in Midlothian and also in London. Supposing he discovered immediately before an election that a man for whose political life work he had the highest respect had consented to stand for Midlothian, why should he be prevented from voting in Midlothian for the man who best represented his views? Accepting the principle of the Bill he maintained that the particular method of carrying it out which the Government had chosen inflicted unnecessary hardship on the plural voter, forced upon him a risk of losing his vote altogether, and restricted him in the choice of the Parliamentary candidates for whom he should vote.
  MR. WALLACEconsidered that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was no doubt right in saying that many of the electors who would come to the poll would not be able to answer the question of whether or not they had another vote. But whether that was so or not the point was not of importance, because the Party agents, the moment these registers were compiled, would carefully go through them mid find out those who had a double qualification, and serve them with a notice to that effect, with the result that unless they took the necessary steps they would be unable to exercise their votes in any other place whatever. That was the answer to the question which the right hon. Gentleman had put, and they all knew that the practical result would lie that every plural voter who had not made a declaration would find himself absolutely debarred from exercising the franchise. But it was said that this was a very small grievance and that, after all, as it affected a very few people, it was a case of de minimis, and therefore they need say nothing about it. He would like to give his right hon. friend the result of some of his practical experience, because for many years before he entered this
  462
  House it was his lot to act as a revising barrister. He could therefore tell his right hon. friend that this was not a question of a double qualification, but a question of being doubly registered. It a man was doubly registered he was a plural voter, whether he had a plural or double vote or not. In his own experience he knew of hundreds and thousand of people who, although they were put down as having a double qualification, had no qualification at all. He would tell his right hon. friend how it came about. This was a question which affected a very large number of poor as well as rich people. The working classes, who were constantly moving about in London, were frequently not aware of the fact that they had acquired a new qualification for a vote, and they were left on the register-in regard to their former residences. There were, as he had said, hundreds and thousands of these people, because no man was going to take the trouble to have his name removed from the list, his Party agent was not going to get him removed if he was sure of his vote, and it was only the opposing agent who, if he knew the facts, would do so. But if the latter did not discover the fact of his removal he remained upon the old register while he had acquired a now qualification. What was his position? Why, having got on the register for his now residence, that, according to this Bill, would disqualify him from voting in respect of his old abode. He had had no desire to intervene in the debate, but he felt it his duty to speak of the experience which he had had in these matters. He was not quite sure that the Amendment as it stood would meet the case, but speaking for himself personally and not as a politician he could not see the objection to leaving the elector to vote upon any qualification which existed, with this proviso, that if he voted twice he should be subject to the penalties of the Bill. It appeared to him to be the simplest question in the world. No man was likely to vote twice with the knowledge, which he would receive from the Party agent, that he would thereby subject himself to two years imprisonment. There was no advantage in pressing the present provisions of the Bill, and every object which

  463
  it was desired to accomplish could be gained by leaving that point open and thus avoiding all these practical difficulties which so many hon. Members had pointed out.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that everybody agreed that a plural voter who voted twice ought to be subject to penalties and be disfranchised. But if this Bill became an Act a man would be disfranchised not because he was a plural voter, but because he had a plural qualification, which would not be owing to his own fault, but because of the action of the revising banister, the election agent, or some other person connected with the registration. He therefore thought the Amendment ought to be accepted, unless the Government wished to pass a Bill not to do away with plural voting but to disfranchise certain people who happened to have a plural qualification.
  *MR. HORRIDGEsaid he personally felt very strongly the difficulties which had been pointed out in connection with the Government scheme. He had himself endeavoured to find a better plan, but he admitted that he could not do so, and after balancing the difficulties of the scheme of the Government and those of the plan suggested by the hon. Member for the Kingston Division he had come to the conclusion that that of the Government was the only workable one. He felt the difficulty of the persons who did not know that they had two qualifications, and he was sorry to say that he was very much in their position himself. He was, indeed, one of the persons whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather ridiculed as having any difficulty on the subject. He believed that if the Bill were amended in the spirit of the Amendment now before the Committee, it would in many instances be practically useless. It was idle to tell him that people would not commit a breach of the law because there was a penalty, unless that penalty could be enforced; and in nearly even-case it would be impossible to discover the duplicate voter and enforce the penalty. It was easy enough to have a machinery in be roughs, and even in divisions of counties, which would enable one to trace the duplicate voter, but it was impossible to have any such machinery in regard to
  464
  the whole of the United Kingdom. If the register was "starred" in regard to the places in which the elector was not entitled to vote, it was true it could be taken by the personating agents, and they could compare the lists. The hon. Member for Perth had said the penalty was sufficient to deter a man from voting twice. There was the agent to challenge the man who was going to give a duplicate vote, but how could that apply to the whole country? In many cases ardent politicians would vote in London one day, and the next week they would travel to John o' Greats to record another vote. Under no system applied to the United Kingdom could such plural voters be traced, and unless they had some scheme such as that which the Government proposed, under which a man made a selection beforehand, the Bill would be unworkable. As he understood it, the Bill, provided that a man with a duplicate qualification should indicate the constituency in which he desired to vote, and when a man came up to vote, if there was the necessary star against him in the register, the presiding officer knew that he had elected to vote in that division. If there was no star then he put the question. It might be that it would be better to go even farther, as he had indicated, and as had been mentioned by the right hon. Member in charge of the Bill, and "star" where a man was not entitled to vote, but at all events, the Bill went some length towards meeting the question, and, as he had shown, that was most desirable having regard to the whole of the Kingdom. The Bill enabled personation to be detected to some extent, and it was because he believed that if some precautions of this kind were not taken that a man would vote first in one place, and then in another, that he supported the proposals of the Government. He quite recognised the points made by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and saw that in whatever way they attacked this question there were difficulties, but he did not believe that a penalty, no matter how great it was, would prevent ardent politicians from voting in two places. There were difficulties in the way of every solution of the question, but he felt that the one proposed by the Government would be the most effective in achieving the

  465
  desired end. He felt that under the circumstances the Government proposal was the fairest.
  MR. J. WARDsaid it was not until he heard this discussion that he was aware that working men so easily got upon the voting register of the division in which they lived. The complaint that he had heard was of the great difficulty the working men had to get upon the register at all, and the almost insuperable difficulty of getting upon it unless they were resident a long time in one locality. He would require far more definite evidence than the assertion made this afternoon, before he was convinced that there were many plural voters among the working men. He ventured to point out that this Amendment was a trap, and some of the supporters of the Government seemed likely to fall into it. They did not appear to appreciate that this was an attempt to get behind what the Committee had decided on the previous day. What would happen would be that in the case of a by-election every out voter could choose the particular constituency as the selected place at which he should record his vote. The Amendment was a mere trick to get behind a previous decision of the Committee. They had only to look at it to see that at once. There was an alteration in the words, but in practice it was the same proposition as had been put before the Committee once before and rejected.
  *MR. NIELDsaid he was glad to be able to give a complete confirmation to what had been said by the hon. Member for Perth. The statement the hon. Member made to the Committee was absolutely true, that in large working class constituencies where workmen were moving constantly about as they did in the course of their work they wore frequently to be found to be registered in more than one district. He thought the simple way of dealing with this matter would be for the presiding officer to ask a man when he came up to register whether he had voted in any other constituency during the current year. The interval of time which was now taken up in turning up the register, or even the time taken by the presiding officer to impress the seal would be amply sufficient to ask the voter
  466
  if he had voted before. He could quite appreciate the fact, as stated by the hon. Member for East Manchester, with regard to the penalties not being sufficient to deter many enthusiastic politicians from voting in more than one place. He had heard of a constituency where the Liberals, early in the day, polled all the Conservative deads and absent and when those had been exhausted, proceeded to poll all their own deads and absent so that if by any chance a doubt was thrown upon the genuineness of the votes by one of the supposed absentee voters turning up later and claiming to vote, it was impossible to check or otherwise examine these votes, except by the expensive method of an election petition and a scrutiny. In practice, therefore, they had all those false votes adopted. In a case of that kind some protection was certainly needed. It was not the man who went, at the risk of a prosecution, from London to John of Groats to poll a second vote against whom protection was needed. There was another point: if a person had two qualifications it implied that he had more or less substantial interests in each district where he was qualified to vote. Why in a case of that kind should not he, perfectly honestly, exorcise an alternative vote provided that he did not claim to exercise the second vote upon the current years' register? To make a man select some months in advance would not only disfranchise him in the case instanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but also disfranchise him over and over again through the accident of not being able to get to the place where he had elected to vote on a particular day. He hoped for the sake of fairness the Government would consider whether or not, after all, they could not obtain their object by less drastic measures than those proposed in the sub-section now under discussion.
  MR. RAWLINSONexpressed the opinion that no sound argument had been adduced against the proposition of the hon. Member for Kingston. The hon. Member for East Manchester had made a speech to which he evidently saw the answer when halfway through. If his statement was correct, it was the most scathing indictment against the Bill that could possibly be conceived, because his contention was that, however severe the penalities

  467
  might be, men would risk their liberty for two years in order to record a vote in Manchester and other places as well as London at the time of an election. He did not think it was likely, but if it was true, how did the Bill deal with it? Let them assume that a plural voter had a vote in six constituencies. As the hon. Member for East Manchester had pointed oat, the only place at which he could be detected was the place at which he was entitled to vote; that if he polled at each of the other five places there was nothing to differentiate him from any other voter. That was a most scathing indictment of; the Bill, and the reason of it was obvious. The right hon. Gentleman, as well, in all probability, as those who drafted the Bill, had been misled by a knowledge of the principle of municipal voting where every place in which a man was not allowed to vote was starred, and the only place which was not -starred was that where he was allowed to vote. What was the argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer why this simple scheme should be chosen? The right hon. Gentleman had said it was necessary in the constituency at the beginning of the year to know the number of people who were likely to vote. That was the fallacy into which the hon. Member for East Manchester had been betrayed, in a different form. The plural voter with six votes would star himself in the constituency in which he elected to vote, but in the other five constituencies there was nothing to differentiate him from any other voter. And who was going to total up the available number of, voters in a particular constituency on the 1st of January? Even if some ardent politician did so, he would find nothing at all to differentiate the plural voter from anybody else. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider these matters and would bear in mind that the endeavour of the Committee was so to send this measure from this House as to carry out the straight forward principle which was in the mind of the Government, namely, to prevent people voting in more than one place during one election.
  MR. LYTTELTONconsidered the Committee was entitled to an answer, if not to the arguments adduced on the Opposition side, at any rate to the
  468
  arguments addressed to the Government by their own supporters. The hon. Member for Perth had stated from experience that hundreds and even thousands of working men might be upon a register without their knowledge, and no contradiction or attempt at contradiction to that statement had been made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that if a man was not able to answer the question as to whether he was on any other register he would be disfranchised; therefore the effect of this Bill in its present condition would be to disfranchise in a wholesale manner. The hon. Member for East Manchester had indicted the Bill most severely, and had pointed out that the only way to prevent the mischief at which it was aimed was that there should be a negative declaration, namely, that on the lists in respect of the places where the elector was not entitled to vote he should be marked "not entitled to vote." One would have imagined that the Bill would have contained some such provision. He would ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that disfranchisement would ensue in such a state of things as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Perth, and whether he contemplated leaving this Bill in such a condition that men of all classes might be disfranchised without any blame whatever attaching to them.
  MR. HARCOURThoped and believed the right hon. Gentleman had rather exaggerated the danger to a very small class. He could not believe there were hundreds and thousands of working men who were plural voters without their knowledge. But assuming a working man did not know he was a plural voter and said "no" in answer to the question that was put, and a ballot paper was issued to him, there was no doubt that the man-had unconsciously committed an offence-under this Bill. If it were subsequently-discovered that he had a duplicate qualification, somebody might wish to proceed against him, but he did not think that he could do so, because the man was absolutely protected by the word "knowingly." The plural voter would be known, because in every case, except where he was on the register for his residence, his address would appear on

  469
  the register, and the place would be different from that of the majority in that division. Therefore, although he was not starred, when he applied for a voting paper he would be a very proper person to whom to put the question. If, as he believed would happen in a great number of cases throughout the country, men selected to vote for their homes, it would be apparent in every other ease that they were plural voters.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought that the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in proving what was sufficiently obvious before, that anyone who was conspicuous would not vote more than once, but there were great numbers of people who would run no risk of detection in so doing. One of two things would happen. Either they would remain plural voters in spite of this Bill, or somebody would discover the fact, and then, although fully qualified, they would be disfranchised. Was the Government really going to leave the Bill in that position. What would be the result? In every closely-fought election it would become worth while, as it had never been worth while before, to have a scrutiny. The services of every available agent would be utilised in tracing men who had possibly not had their names removed from registers in other constituencies, and although their votes probably turned the election they might be disqualified on a scrutiny, and the real voice of the constituency vitiated, not because they were not entitled to a vote or because the Government wished them not to have a vote, but because the Government had blundered into a mess, to get out of which they had not the courage. That was not the end of the trouble. Hitherto in cases where the register had been sharply fought by political agents those agents had endeavoured to strike off anyone they knew to be an opponent. It would now be to their interest to keep him on. He would take his own case to illustrate his remarks. He had himself changed his residence, but all books of reference still gave his address as 11, Downing - street. The
  Liberal agents might tell the Home Secretary who now inhabited that house that it was useless for a Liberal to elect to vote in Westminster, and they would leave the register unamended. They would also say, "We will take care, if Mr. Austen Chamberlain goes to vote anywhere else and says he is not a plural voter, to let it be known he has committed an offence." Thus by the oversight of an overseer he would stand liable under this Bill to be sent to prison for two years hard labour, and, if he survived the sentence, he would be deprived of all civil rights for seven years. The right hon. Gentleman told him he need not be afraid because he must "knowingly" commit the offence; but yesterday the right hon. Gentleman told him that ignorance was no excuse in the eyes of the law, and he carried that doctrine to the point of saying that in a particular case he ought to be well informed of the provisions of some law because a relative of his took a part in the making of that law. If Judges and magistrates acted upon the principles of the right hon. Gentleman he did not think the word "knowingly" would give much protection. Why should a man be subjected to the worst penalties contained in the Bill, or even to such a penalty as disfranchisement, in connection with an offence against which he could not protect himself unless he went round to see that his name was removed from the voters' lists in places where he had had a vote? That was the obligation placed upon him.
  MR. HARCOURT: The obligation is to make a selection.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he first needed to know whether he had any cause to make a selection. Was every voter to send in a declaration on the chance of that being the case? The Government were needlessly, for the purpose they had in view, inflicting hardship upon men possessed of more than one qualification.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 343; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 332.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork N.E.)

  Agnew, George William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Abraham. William (Rhondda)

  Alden. Percy

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Duffy, William J.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kelley, George D.

  Barker, John

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Barnard, E. B.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Barnes, G. N.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lambert, George

  Beauchamp. E.

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamont, Norman

  Beaumont,Hn W.C.B.(Hexham

  Erskine, David C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Bell, Richard

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lehmann. R. C.

  Benn, SirS.Williams(Devonp'rt

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lever,A. Lew (Essex,Harwich

  Berridge. T. H. D

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bertram, Julius

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Levy, Maurice

  Bethell, J.H. (Essex Romford)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Waldon)

  Kerens, T. R.

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Billson, Alfred

  Flynn, James Chr'stopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Black,Arthur W.(Bedfordshire)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Boland, John

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Lupton, Arnold

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

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk B'gha

  Bower man, C. W.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford,S.)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Brace, William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maclean, Donald

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Gill, A. H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Branch, James

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn.Herbert Jn.

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal.E.

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

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Callum, John M.

  Bryce, Rt.Hn. James(Aberdeen

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  M'Crae, George

  Bryce, J.A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Killop, W.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Laren, Sir D. H. (Leicester)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Gulland, John W.

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

  Burke, E, Haviland-

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Buxton, Rt. Hn.SydneyCharles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mallet,Charles E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Manfield, Hairy (Northants)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hardy George A. (Suffo'k)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Campbell-Bannennan, Sir H.

  Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Marks, G.Croydon(Lavinteston)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marnham. F. J.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Channing, Arancis Allston

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Massie, J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Meagher, Michael

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

  Menzies, Walter

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Henry, Charles S.

  Micklem, Natlhaniel

  Celand. J. W.

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Clough, W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold. (Wycombe)

  Mond, A.

  Coats, SirT.Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hobart. Sir Robert

  Montagu, E. S.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Montgomery, H. G.

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

  Hodge, John

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Morgan, C. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Morgan. J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hope, W. Bateman (.Somerset)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox, Harold

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morrell, Philip

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Horridge, Thomas Gandner

  Morse, L. L.

  Cremer,William Randal

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Morton, Alphens Cleophas

  Crombie, John William

  Hudson, Walter

  Murnaghan, George

  Crooks, William

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Murphy, John

  Crossley, William J.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Murray, James

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Ilingworth, Percy H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Napier, T. B.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Nicholls, George

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

  Dickinson, W.H. (St.PancrasN.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Duckworth, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  472

  473

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wallace, Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Rowlands, J.

  Walsh, Stephen

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Runciman, Walter

  Walters, John Tudor

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds,S)

  O'Malley, William

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  O'Shaughness, P. J.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

  Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southamp'n

  Parker, James;(Halifax)

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wardle, George J

  Partington, Oswald

  Sears, J. E.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Paul, Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

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

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Shipman. Dr. John G.

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Whitbread, Howard

  Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Snowden, P.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Piekersgill, Edward Hare

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Radford, G. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Rees, J. D.

  Summerbell, T.

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Richards,Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverhampt'n

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Richardson,A.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesborough)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, A.)

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

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Tomkinson, James

  Winfrey, R.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Robertson, Rt, Hn. E. (Dundee

  Trevelyan, Charles Philipps

  Robertson, Sir G.Scott(Brad'rd

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Villiers, Ernest Amberst

  Robinson, S.

  Vivian, Henry

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wadsworth. J.

  Roes, Sir Thomas

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cory, Clifford John

  Long, Col.Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Court hope, G. Loyd

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craik, Sir Henry

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

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

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Nield, Herbert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Fell, Arthur

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

  Bull, Sir William James

  Forster, Henry William

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecelesall)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Haddock, George R.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)

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

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

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Starkey, John R.

  Coates, E. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Liddell, Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  474

  475

  Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  *SIR CHARLES DILKE*SIR CHARLES DILKE moved to insert after the word "except," in line 8, the words, "in a constituency in which he resides, or, in the event of his not residing in any of the constituencies in which he is registered, or of his residing in more than one constituency, then except." This proposal, he said, was entirely different from that which the Committee had just divided upon, though the arguments with regard to it followed the same line. Many of the difficulties had been anticipated in the speeches on the previous Amendment. A great many of the points which were material to the one debate were also material to the other. His proposal was as near to a residential proposal as they could come, in order to give effect to what the Government desired, namely, not to take away the vote from any person who had more than one vote at the present time. The difficulties of all the schemes came from the complexity of our franchise, and from the refusal of this country to consider a single and simple franchise. Almost every country in the world except our own had a simple franchise. Here there were seventeen well-known franchises, and as long as we piled one on the top of the other, these difficulties must continue. With one exception, involving a slight complication which he had guarded against, he proposed, by the Amendment, to make a man vote in the constituency where he resided. The elector would be automatically and effectively on the register there. Some people had several residences, and in these cases the provisions of the Bill would come into force in determining the constituency selected for the purpose of exercising the vote. "Residence," which was the feature of this Amendment, was not a vague word. It was used in a whole series of Acts of Parliament, it was the basis of a large number of the present franchises, and the exact sense of it had been decided by judgments in the Courts explaining the statutes in which it occurred. The exception which he had provided for by putting in words to cover it was the rare case of a man who was a plural voter and who had several qualifications, but no
  476
  residence in any of the places where he had a qualification. The plan he suggested was simple as compared with the complicated plan of the Bill. The objection to the application of the machinery of the Bill was the want of knowledge on the part of the county clerk. That official would have no machinery by which he would be enabled to know how to discharge the duties which the House seemed to think he ought to discharge. Now he came to a question, which he could state briefly. There had been, not an absolute promise of acceptance of the proposal, but a promise that consideration would be given to the proposal that the Bill should state exactly what the duties of the county clerk were really to be. Under the present registration laws claims which were supposed to be signed by the voter himself were rarely so signed. They wanted to know what the county clerk would have before him. The difficulties in connection with the working of the Bill would be greatly diminished by confining the operation of the measure to the smallest possible number of cases. If they had an automatic moans of selection covering the great majority of the cases, then the danger of the Bill would be much less. What lie suggested was that under the scheme in the Bill it would really be impossible to enforce the law. There had been in the debate a fair amount of admission of the truth of the facts alleged against the complexity of the Bill. His hon. friend the Member for Stoke seemed to have some doubts as to the way in which the working-class would be placed in a difficulty by the Bill. He could understand how these doubts arose. In the building and some other trades, as in the case also of some Nonconformist ministers, people were not long enough in one place to qualify. One point which had not been thoroughly brought out was that the county clerk had no means of obtaining information where the notice was of a character to leave him in doubt. That objection would be diminished to an enormous extent by the adoption of some automatic machinery of the kind he referred to. The notice sent to the county clerk might be such as to raise doubts as to the identification of the

  477
  voter. There were sometimes differences between a voter's description of himself and the description which appeared on the register. For example, there were many cases in which the addresses did not exactly tally, and many in which the Christian names slightly differed or contained one usually omitted. How in such eases was the county clerk going to be sure as to the person from whom he received a notice? There were often many voters of one name and address on the register. In an agricultural parish in his own division there were some voters who, much to their own offence, had to be distinguished by their nicknames. A man who had several residences was not the man as a rule in regard to whom these difficulties would arise. It had been suggested that those difficulties were unconsciously exaggerated by those who took part in the debates. He did not think the Committee quite realised the complexity of the work which our present franchise system involved, in respect of registration. There were a large number of cases of complexity disclosed by his examination in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire and Herefordshire parishes, and the danger was, that the county clerk, although written to about the choice of a constituency, would not take any action whatever where the matter was not clear. There were a great number of cases where sons had the same names as their fathers, although they might belong to two different political parties. He knew of two adjoining parishes in two counties where there were five duplicates on the register in which difficulties arose. The difficulty of sorting out these cases was exceedingly great. By the machinery of the Bill, as it existed in its present form, one of the greatest difficulties would be the cancelling of notice once given. There were 3,000 colliers freeholders in the division of Rhondda, and 200 out of these 3,000 worked in the Rhondda Valley of whom a few were on the register there, and if this Amendment was not carried these men would have to cancel their notice beforehand before they could give a vote. But if they gave a vote without notice he doubted whether any jury would convict them for personation. He admitted that this Amendment would require further machinery to carry it into effect. He had drawn Amendments to that end, but these would involve so much re-shaping
  478
  of the Bill that he doubted if it would be possible for the Government to agree to them. He could not take the responsibility of trying to force this Amendment on the Government on the present occasion, but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government as a whole, would give their minds to the endeavour to meet, in some way or another, the many difficulties which surrounded this question. He saw no way of doing that unless some such machinery of residence as he had suggested were adopted. County clerks and others responsible for the register would have to give a somewhat wooden interpretation of the law, but if the liberty proposed were given to them the difficulties to which he had referred might be overcame to a large extent.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'except' to insert the words 'in a constituency in which lie resides, or, in the event of his not residing in any of the constituencies in which he is registered, or of his residing in more than one constituency, then except' "—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that the right hon. Gentleman know very well that personally and in theory he did not differ from his view, and that he would wish to found the franchise entirely on residence. But the Government had decided, and had given him instructions that he was not to introduce a disfranchising Bill. They would not quibble over words, but the purpose of the Bill was not to abolish the property qualification. He had not done it because any man who opted in that way might exercise his property qualification. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, however, it was impossible to incorporate in this Bill, conceived as it was on a totally different plan.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that he would give every man one vote, and that the object of his Amendment was to enable a man at once to exercise his vote.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he had tried to be as tender as he could to the property owner while adhering to the definite object and principle of the Bill—that a

  479
  man should only vote in one place during the calendar year. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet that their great object should be to have as clean a register as possible. He admitted that this Bill might not secure that object, but he thought it made an approach to it. He did not understand the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman that a notice should be sent to the man himself. He had already promised to consider whether the notice should be changed to a declaration, although he did not know whether a declaration would confer any great gain. He had promised, however, to consider it.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question of working this matter through the revising barrister's court, or whether it could be done through the assistant overseers.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he could not do that, because the whole essence of this Bill was not to change the law in regard to registration. It was purely a question of typography and not of registration.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the work of indicating the voting place of a plural voter was at present done by the revising barrister.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he did not bring in the revising barrister at all. The revising barrister had no right to say where a plural voter should vote, or whether he should have a vote or not. The plural voter had a right to claim where he should vote, and the mark indicating where he should vote was put on by the printer. He understood from the right hon. Baronet that he wished for an expression of opinion on this subject, but it had nothing to do with the proposed Amendment.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that, although he did not wish to bind anybody else, he should not press the Amendment to a division, but if anybody else forced a division he should, of course, vote for his proposal. He pointed out, as to the work falling on the county clerk, that the only work of a similar kind carried out at present was done in the revision court under the eye of the public. The county clerk had neither the machinery nor the
  480
  knowledge imposed on the court of the revising barristers.
  *SIR BRAMPTON GURDONwas glad that this proposal had been brought forward, because the residential vote was what they had been asking for for years and years. He contended that a man should vote where he lived, and nowhere else, a system that would pave the way for the abolition of the period of qualification. It had always been a great grievance, that if a man moved from one constituency to another he lost his vote for the year. If we had this residential qualification the register might be made up like the census, and no man would be disfranchised by his change of residence. He should have more respect for the contention of hon. Members opposite if they were bold enough to claim that a man should have so many votes for so many acres of land, or so many votes for so many hundreds of pounds a year. That would be logical, but the present system under which men obtained plural qualifications in different parts of the country was not logical at all. According to our constitution a man should only have one vote, and he thought the cases in which the dual residence difficulty would come in would be very few indeed, while the cases which had been alluded to of the men who had qualifications all over the country and no residence, might be counted upon the fingers of one hand. He recognised the difficulties which had been referred to, and that it was impossible for his right hon. friend to press his Motion to a division. He did hope, however, that residential suffrage would some day be the law of land.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the interesting discussions on the last two Amendments had put the Committee in a considerable difficulty. The speech of the right hon. Baronet had lent great weight to a number of conclusions. No man in the House, and he doubted whether there was a man in the country, had been able to devote the time to acquire the minute knowledge which the light hon. Baronet had displayed in the course of the discussion. No man was a greater authority than the right hon. Baronet on these questions, and he confessed that the wealth of the detailed information he possessed as to minute

  481
  points of procedure made the right hon. Gentleman, in his judgment, an absolute master of the subject. But the conclusion to be drawn from the discussion of the last two Amendments was that the Bill as at present framed was unworkable. The scheme of the Government might be carried out on lines suggested by his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Cave), because the Bill would be modified to the extent of leaving all the existing franchises, restricting the power of any individual to one vote at one election. He did not agree with the plan of the right hon. Baronet, because in the first place it wholly destroyed the University vote, and it could not be incorporated in the Government Bill without revolutionising its whole structure and practically making it a new measure. But the alternative presented in the last two Amendments had been rejected, and the Government plan was left. By the admission of every competent speaker on the Liberal side of the House it was an unworkable plan. It was a plan which the right hon. Gentleman had riddled from top to bottom, and it was impossible to believe that the system they were about to adopt was a workable system. The hon. Member for North Norfolk had said that he welcomed the suggestion because he was in favour of giving a man a vote for the place in which he resided and for nothing else. By his own admission, however, it would be years before that was carried out. He dissented from the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and ventured to point out to him that he himself had recognised that it could not be grafted on to the policy of the Government, and admitted that the plan of the Government was not a plan that could be worked at all. Was not that an extraordinary position for the Committee to find itself in after two days discussion upon this Bill, when they had not penetrated very far into its machinery and had no knowledge of that part of the machinery which was to be made public in the hitherto unpublished Order in Council. The present position was that the Government would not take the workable plan which could be drafted on to their Bill and which had been suggested in the Amendment; they could not take the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, because it would destroy the Bill from top to bottom;
  482
  and they were left with a plan of their own, which their own best supporters, and those who know most about the registration law, declared to be impossible in practice, as well as capable of working great injustice in the way of disfranchising perfectly competent electors and possibly bringing them within reach of the criminal law. That was an impossible situation. The Government must feel that they could hardly successfully proceed with the measure. The right hon. Gentleman in charge must feel that he had embarked on an impossible task; that he had undertaken to do that which could not be done, and which, at any rate, the Bill did not do. It was a waste of Parliamentary time to proceed with the consideration of a measure which its friends admitted no alteration could make a practicable and workable Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDthought that Members on both sides of the House would regret that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not seen his way to lend a more sympathetic ear to the suggestions made to him. Had the right hon. Raronet pressed this Motion to a division, he should have supported him. Experience had shown that in all large towns people were continually moving out and residing in the suburbs at some considerable distance from their places of business. The result was that that class of duplicate voters tended largely to increase. The Amendment which had been moved with such lucidity by the right hon. Baronet at all events provided a remedy for the difficulty which arose with regard to them. It might not be the best remedy, but it was, at least, one remedy. The effect of the Bill as it stood would be that this increasing class of duplicate voters, if they did not send in their notice of selection, would be disfranchised. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite scarcely seemed to realise that fact.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURcalled attention to the fact that there wore not forty Members present.
  House counted, and forty Members being found present—
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD,continuing, said his sympathy was not so much with those duplicate voters, who were keen politicians. Those gentlemen would be taken care of, and their claims sent in. His sympathy was with that large class who were not active politicians, who would forget or neglect to fill up these notices. There were upwards of 2,000 of these duplicate voters in a constituency which he had in his mind, and he was confident that at least half of them, not being keen and active politicians, would, through not filling up and sending in these notices, be disfranchised and lose their votes altogether. It was a monstrous proposition that a man should be disfranchised and deprived of his vote altogether in this way, when a man, qualified to vote only in one place, required to send in no notice at all. He contended that so long as the Bill was left in its present shape, and they were met with the position he had described, so long it would not be possible to introduce into it any reasonable Amendment to make it workable. He believed that this Amendment, which was to be withdrawn, would have done something to meet the difficulty, and he very much regretted that the right hon. Baronet had not pressed it to a division.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid they must regard the Amendment as the best of a bad thing. He was so convinced that this Bill would be a disfranchising measure that he preferred to accept the Amendment sooner than let the Bill go through in the way evidently intended by the Government, without any Amendment of any sort or kind.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the conduct of Ministers during the very powerful and eloquent speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He thought it was unprecedented that the Treasury Bench should have been practically deserted. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had fled from the attack of the Leader of the Opposition and left a subordinate Minister in his place. The Bill had been absolutely riddled by the criticism directed against it, both on the Opposition and on the Ministerial side, and in view of the
  484
  extraordinary conduct of the front Government Bench he moved to report progress. It was little short of a scandal that there should not have been a single Cabinet Minister left in charge of the Bill.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,)said it would be within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, and particularly of that of the Leader of the Opposition, that there was usually a paucity of attendance, oven on the front Ministerial Bench, during the dinner hour. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. friend in charge of the Bill, who it was generally acknowledged had met the Committee in a spirit of great assiduity and courtesy, would be back in a few minutes.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid everybody must recognise that a Minister, however zealous, must dine, and the strain of conducting a great Bill, as he himself knew, was very considerable, especially when it was carried on day after day. It was impossible under such circumstances to expect any Minister to sit there the whole time, nor would it be necessary if the Ministers who had been replying to the criticisms had come to some arrangement—as was made for instance that very evening between his hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire and himself—so that both should not be absent from the House at the same time. He need hardly say that he had no personal feeling in the matter, but it was the fact that he made a speech twenty minutes ago based on the very important debate which had just preceded it, pointing out the impossible position into which the Government had got themselves, and the impracticability of their scheme. He was sure no discourtesy was meant towards him, but it certainly showed want of organisation on the Treasury Bench or the necessity for some improvement in the rules of the House. It was not proper that the Treasury Bench should at any time be left deprived of those in charge of the measure.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid that Mr. Massingham, writing a short time ago in the Daily News, had described

  485
  the present House of Commons as the most strenuous that had ever been elected, and that it was determined to work at all cost. Yet on this Bill, which was one of the most important Bills of the session, there was only one Member of the Government on the Treasury Bench, and only three supporters behind. One of their supporters in a recent speech in the country said the Government ought to be congratulated for the number of Bills they succeeded in getting through Parliament during the earlier part of the session, and that they were largely enabled to do so because the Government and the Liberal Party did not hesitate to legislate during the dinner hour. If the Liberal Party, and especially the Government, wished to live up to the representation of being the most strenuous Government of modern times it would be as well if more than one Member of the Government could be present when the Leader of the Opposition was making an important speech on an Amendment to an important Bill. He sincerely hoped the Committee would accept the Motion to report progress.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he should not have thought it was necessary to deal with a Motion to report progress, on the ground that a Minister was merely mortal.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Motion was not proposed because of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, against whom they had no cause of complaint, but because a most elaborate and convincing speech was delivered by the Leader of the Opposition whilst the only occupant of the front Ministerial Bench was an Under-Secretary, and there were only three Members behind to support him.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he was only mortal, and had found it necessary to leave the House for a short time. If he had known the Leader of the Opposition was going to speak he would have remained at whatever inconvenience. To say that his colleague, who had been rightly described as an Under-Secretary— that was no disgraco—was not associated with him in regard to the Bill merely because he had not taken part in debate was incorrect. The right hon. Gentleman had been associated with him from
  486
  the first, and had equal knowledge with, in fact he believed superior knowledge to, himself of the details of the Bill. He could not allow for a moment a reflection for which there was no ground to be made against a right hon. Gentleman whose name was on the back of the Bill.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was sure nothing could have been further from his hon. friend's intention than to reflect on the competency of the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman who had had charge of the Bill would have felt a liberty in dealing with Amendments, and a power of accepting suggestions, that did not belong to somebody who was neither a Cabinet Minister nor the Minister directly in charge of the Bill. Had the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill or the Chancellor of the Exchequer been in the House when the Leader of the Opposition spoke, he could not conceive that the speech would have been allowed to pass without reply. He thought this incident illustrated the unsatisfactory character of the change abolishing the regular dinner hour. The House was not more industrious because it had no dinner hour. They worked no more hours. All the change did was to allow hon. Members to go home earlier. It simply meant that the Minister in charge of a Bill, who would be present during the whole of the discussion if he were allowed half an hour for his dinner, was now away for half an hour during the discussion, and was not therefore able to answer the criticisms made in his absence.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that a most destructive, damaging criticism had been made of the Bill, and there had been no attempt to meet it. It must be clear to everybody that it was time the Government recast the Bill or put down some Amendments in order to meet this damaging criticism. Under the circumstances it would be in the best interest of all parties, and in the interests of the Bill itself, that this Motion should be accepted. The Government ought to have time to take the whole situation into consideration.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL, in supporting the Motion, said that all this trouble would not have

  487
  arisen if the Committee knew when the Order in Council was likely to be laid on the Table; it was perfectly clear it would be bettor for the Government to state when that would be done.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT,in asking leave to withdraw the Motion, said that in making it he had been influenced by the feelings natural to one who had heard the powerful speech of the Leader of the Opposition, and had seen that only one person on the Treasury Bench and three or four supporters of the Government appeared to listen to it.
  MR. J. WARDsaid the grievance was not all on one side. Never during the evening had there been more than seven on the Opposition Benches.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: We are more than seven now.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Motion was made because, when an important speech was delivered, there did not appear to be any Minister present who had authority to deal with the Bill, and what other Members of the House were present was not to the point. All the Opposition asked for was——
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORrising to a point of order, asked whether arguments were not being unduly repeated, and whether the rules of the House did not come into operation to put an end to such repetition.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANsaid he had been under the impression that the Motion was to be withdrawn, and that the matter would accordingly terminate. There had been some repetition by the last speaker, but he hoped the matter might terminate reasonably.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would not have spoken again but for the interruption of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. He had merely intended to express the hope that the Government would be able so to organise the dining arrangements that one of the Ministers in practical charge of a Bill should be in attendance in the House when important speeches were made.
  MR. BRIDGEMANconsidered that the Leader of the Opposition had been treated in an insulting manner, and hoped the Motion would not be withdraw). The Chancellor of the Exchequer came in behind the Chair, saw the Leader of the Opposition speaking, saw that there was no Cabinet Minister on the Treasury Bench, and then went out. Under the circumstances he was sorry that the hon. Member proposed to withdraw his Motion.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsupported the Amendment. In his own constituency there were more than 5,000 voters who would be affected by this Bill, and of that number at least one half wore electors who took no particular side in politics, but were influenced on the questions of the day as they arose. Under the Bill as it stood those voter would undoubtedly be disfranchised, for it was absolutely impossible for an agent to take sufficient interest in them to put in their claims before an election came on. This Amendment distinctly protected those people by saying that they were to be on the list of voters where they had their place of abode. It was perfectly true that the University was to be put on one side, but he preferred the interests of a borough constituency even to those of a University. He totally objected to the wholesale disfranchisement which this Bill would effect.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN moved to insert in line 11, after "Act," the words "or in which he is registered as a voter in respect of his place of abode." He hoped that this was an Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would find himself able to accept. The right hon. Gentleman had refused to accept a large number of Amendments on the ground that they challenged the principle of the Bill. This Amendment did not challenge the principle of the Bill. It followed the established precedent in the case of borough voters who had more than one qualification in the same

  489
  borough, and, therefore, he looked for a benevolent attitude towards it on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. The object of the Amendment was obvious. It was to prevent wholesale disfranchisement of voters who neglected to select. In the case of voters in boroughs who had more than one qualification they had only to exercise the power of selection if they desired to vote in some place other than that in which they resided. If they were content to vote in the constituency where they had their place of abode they were automatically placed on the register. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to apply that principle to this Bill. Not being a lawyer or a draughtsman he was aware that the words of his Amendment might not be sufficient to cover the purpose he had in view, but if the right hon. Gentleman accepted the proposal the words necessary to meet the case could be found by the right hon. Gentleman, who had the assistance of skilled draughtsmen. His proposal, which was absolutely just, would prevent the disfranchisement of those people who either had no knowledge of a second qualification, or had not taken the trouble to serve the necessary notices.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'or in which he is registered as a voter in respect of his place of abode.'"— (Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. HARCOURTasked whether the word "or" in the Amendment meant "and."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied in the negative. He had consulted a legal friend as to whether a voter could possibly vote in both constituencies. His legal friend said that the voter could not. If that raised a difficulty he would gladly add to the Amendment "but not in both."
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he merely wanted to clear away that difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would destroy the necessity for selection —a question which the Committee had already decided on the previous Amendment. By this Amendment the right
  490
  hon. Gentleman would not compel a voter to make a selection, and if the voter did not make a selection he must then vote in the constituency where he had his place of abode. It was obvious that as long as a man remained in his house he could vote on that residence qualification whether he resided in Worcestershire or whether he were in the unfortunate condition of the right hon. Gentleman of having a residence in London. The Amendment was directed entirely in favour of those who had the advantage of many residences. The Amendment meant that there should be a class distinction drawn between those people who had not influence or money, and those who in the counties or boroughs had a number of residential qualifications. He insisted that the Amendment ran counter to the principle of the Bill. Why should the revising barrister have to decide what was a permanent residence? When they tried to work the matter out, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see that his Amendment was one which could not be accepted.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he was not trying to secure more than one vote for one man, but only that if that man failed in time to make a selection he should not on that account be disfranchised. In other words, he contended that a man with more than one qualification should not be placed in a worse position than a man with only one qualification, who was not required to do anything. Even in the case of a lodger, although the law said that the lodger must make application every year to be placed on the register, he was retained on the register, as a rule, unless someone objected. The right hon. Gentleman had complained that if they gave a vote to the occupier for every residence he possessed that man might have an unlimited number of votes; but, would the right hon. Gentleman accept the principle that if a man did not specially claim to be put on the register of a particular constituency, he should have the right to vote in the place where his principal residence and homo was? He was quite willing, although he had taken the words of his Amendment from the Registration Act of 1883, to add words which would make it perfectly clear that a man should only

  491
  vote once. What he wanted was that a special disability should not be imposed on a man who had more than one residence.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid that it was absolutely impossible to accept the Amendment, which would run counter to the principle of the Bill. It would completely destroy the necessity of selection, which he regarded as of great importance.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the principle of the Amendment. Did he contend that no one was to be entitled to vote unless he took the trouble to ask to lie placed on the register? If that were so, they must put some compulsion on every man to demand the right to vote. There was no justification whatever for enacting that a man who had two qualifications, if he did not make a selection as to where he would vote, should have no vote at all. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Amendment would be perfectly unworkable, but he did not see how it would be more unworkable than the procedure to obtain a lodger vote, Really, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to think that in some way or other they on that side of the House were trying to get an advantage. Nothing of the kind. The Amendment of his right hon. friend amounted to this, that a man had a right to a vote without making a special claim to it. The refusal of the Amendment was absolutely indefensible.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he could not see how the acceptance of this Amendment would in any way injure the principle of the Bill, and no good argument had been brought forward against it.
  MR. DUNNsaid that this was an exceedingly dangerous Amendment, for whatever might be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in moving it, it would prove of considerable advantage to the plural voter. It was quite clear that by the Amendment when an election came on a plural voter would have a choice as to which constituency he should vote.
  492
  The intention of the mover might have been to get away from it, but the result was to give a double vote to the plural voter, and such a course was dangerous in the eyes of those who desired to see these anomalies done away with.
  *MR. ROBERT PEARCEsaid that during the last thirty years he had been engaged in making and using voting lists in almost every capacity, and he thought that further consideration should be given to the selection by the plural voter in an automatic way. In the City of London it would be found that far more than half the persons on the list had only business premises in the City but had a residence outside it. The registration officers, the overseers, and the revising barristers would, in spite of the fact that there were two qualifications, be obliged to put a person carrying on business in the City on the City List. The name of the person would, however, also appear on the lists of voters for the place in which he resided. By reference to the City list one should be able to know whether he had a vote for the City or not. The consequence of the proposed system would be that when an election took place everybody concerned would have to go through the list, and compare it with other lists and would have to strike out perhaps three-quarters of the names as being those of persons not qualified to vote. That would lead to great confusion, and omitting liverymen the list of voters would resolve itself into a mere list of the caretakers who had charge of the premises. At election times when people wore expected to vote for "Balfour" and "Banbury," they would not look out for qualifications which would interfere with their doing so. It seemed to him that the Government could hit upon a plan, though not by the words of the Amendment, by which the lists should still be conclusive. Whenever the address of the residence differed from that of the qualifying premises, a man would not be entitled to vote, and by omitting or marking that name they would get, if not a perfect list, an approximately perfect list which would be useful on the day of election and not a list which would be misleading. It was possible to have such a list in every constituency all over the country. He hoped that the

  493
  Government, after the suggestions from that side of the House, would endeavour to secure some automatic mode of selection, so that at times of elections it would be known who was entitled to vote.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid hon. Members opposite had put a meaning into the Amendment which it did not bear. It struck at the root of the difference which existed between the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and hon. Members on both sides of the House, because it was obvious that a large portion of the Committee were desirous of making it perfectly clear that a man, simply because he had a plural qualification, whether through defect of political organisation or any other cause, was not to be disfranchised altogether. He thought that the Amendment put it as clearly as it possibly could be put, that where a man happened to work in one place and to reside in another, and failed through absence from home or other cause to make a selection as to where he would vote, he should be put on the list in regard to his place of abode and would in any event find himself on the register and able to vote. He maintained that the Bill should be so worded that a man having a qualification in two places should not, because one or the other political organisation was inefficient, or because the clerk of the council was inefficient, lose his vote. They desired that every person, whether rich or poor, should be treated exactly alike, and if a man was entitled to two or three votes he should be assured that when an election came round that, neither through his own fault nor through the fault of other people, he would be debarred from going to the poll to record his vote. He thought it was very clear, from the voices that had been heard from the other side of the House as well as from that side, that some Amendment of this kind was necessary. The Amendment might possibly require some alteration in terms, but he hoped the Government would give an assurance that they would introduce something upon the Report stage to give the voter the protection which had been asked for.
  *MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that so far as he was aware
  494
  the Londoners' point of view had not been put in regard to this Amendment. The Londoner was not in the position of the man who lived in a large provincial town. He ordinarily worked in one place and lived in another, and was entitled to a vote in one or the other or both of the places with which he was associated. Under the obligation which this Bill would create, the Londoner would be in a still greater fog than at present, and whether he was an employer or a workman who lived in one place and worked in another, he ought not to find that by some oversight on his part, or on the part of the officials of the local authorities concerned, he was deprived of his vote, and not only deprived of his vote, but subjected to penalties and imprisonment if he voted without knowing that he was bound to make a selection. He believed he reflected the views of all Parties when he said it was the wish and desire of the House that every man in the country who was entitled to a vote should be able to record that vote. He therefore hoped his right hon. friend in charge of the Bill would either accept the Amendment or give an undertaking that at a later stage words should be inserted in the Bill, to ensure that a man should be entitled, notwithstanding his neglect to select under this Bill, to vote in the district in which he resided. An hon. Member had said it was a little difficult to realise why if the motives supposed to animate the authors of this Bill did really animate them, the right hon. Gentleman should resist the Amendment before the Committee, or not give some assurance that the Bill would be amended in the spirit of the Amendment. The essential object of the Bill was to prevent a man voting more than once in one election. All that this Amendment would do would be to bring this result about, that if a man failed to make a selection he would not thereby be disfranchised. If the object of this Bill was to disfranchise as many persons as possible, then the opposition to this Amendment could be understood, but if its object was what it purported to be, then the Amendment had every claim to sympathetic consideration even of the most earnest advocate of the Bill. The adoption of such an Amendment would have the effect of enabling a man to be placed

  495
  automatically on the register of the district in which he resided. The saving thus effected in money and labour, the uncertainty and anxiety to many in this country no one in the House could fail to realise. Everyone knew how difficult it was to persuade people to make their claims. If that was so now, how much more difficult would it be to make them select the district in which they should vote.
  *MR. COURTHOPEcomplained that the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall had inaccurately read the section to which this Amendment was moved and also the Amendment. If hon. Members would read the section and the Amendment in conjunction it would be found abundantly clear that the second alternative provided by the Amendment would not have any effect unless the plural voter had failed to make a selection It only applied in that one contingency. If he had made a selection, he had made it for good and had to abide by it for the year. If he had failed to make it, then the Amendment said he still had a right to that qualification which his residence gave him. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill was honest in his statement that this was not to be a Bill for disfranchisement, then he could not refuse this Amendment. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this matter, and would admit that this Amendment would not damage the principle of the Bill in any degree whatsoever. If the right hon. Gentleman did not make that admission, the only conclusion they could come to was that he was not honest in his statement that the Bill was not intended to be a disfranchisement Bill.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTYsaid that if this Bill had been accompanied by a measure of redistribution he would have been an ardent supporter of it. Having admitted that, he could not understand why the Government did not endeavour to make the Bill just to all people alike. Surely the fact that a person happened to be on the register for five or six different places because he had either property or business interests in those places, should not be a disqualification, but rather a qualification for a vote. If he had only one
  496
  qualification he would be placed upon the register without any difficulty, but if he had six qualifications then he had to select where he would vote, and if he did not make the selection, he was to be disqualified altogether from voting. Surely that was a wrong principle. It must appeal to the common sense of hon. Members opposite that if a man did not select he should at all events have the same qualification as that possessed by the man who only had a vote at the place where he resided. He regretted very much that the Law Officers of the Crown were not assisting the right hon. Gentleman with this Bill. He believed that the Solicitor-General, if he were assisting, such was his love of justice and his knowledge of what was right, would at once admit that the Government ought to accept this Amendment. But they had had no advice from the Law Officers of the Crown. He believed that the description of this Bill as a Liberal Registration Agents' Bill was a correct one. It seemed to him that there was someone behind the Chair pulling the strings with regard to the measure. Why should they not have a simple measure requiring that every voter should be on the register for the place of his abode? Whilst every man should have one vote, and no more, he ought not to have any less. The Bill as it stood would deprive thousands of individuals whose life was given to commerce or other pursuits, and who did not care much about politics on one side or the other, of the protection of the law if they had not selected one place in which to vote. That protection was given to the working man who could vote in the place in which he resided, whereas the merchant could not do so unless he made some arrangement previously.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that as Members opposite would not deign to reply, being apparently inebriated with the exuberance of their own taciturnity, he proposed, as the Law Officers had been compelled to take no part in the discussion, to answer the speech of his hon. friend who had just spoken. His hon. friend seemed to think this was a Bill to put an end to plural voting. It was nothing of the kind. This was a Bill to amend the criminal law. The preamble did not say a word about plural voting. It was a Bill to impose a penalty on a Parliamentary

  497
  voter registered in more than one constituency who voted in any constituency except that selected for the purpose. He might he perfectly bona fide, but the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that there was not criminal law enough, and although a man was only voting in one constituency, the right hon. Gentleman was determined he should be made a felon unless he made a selection. Before branding such a man as a felon, they ought at least to give him the vote that he ordinarily ought to have, namely, a vote for the residence he occupied. Unless he had served a notice, however, he was disfranchised oven as regarded the abode in which he was living. A more monstrous proposition was never put before the House of Commons, and when hon. Members opposite described this as a Bill merely to prevent plural voting, it was merely a dishonest pretence. Lot them face the facts. The Bill had boon truly described as a Liberal Election Agents' Bill. A man who was abroad serving his country at the time when he ought to be serving his notice, might come home to find, when an election took place, that though he had a residence in the constituency he was disqualified. What, also, was to be said of the man who recovered from sickness to find that he had been deprived of his vote? He supposed one could not say in Parliament all that had occurred to one to say in describing this Bill. But he hoped he was not going beyond Parliamentary language when he said that this was a mean and scurrilous attempt to deprive
  political opponents of the franchise, and the Bill was not the Bill of a statesman but that of a sneak.
  MR. HARCOURTsaid he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman was not able to bring to the consideration of the Bill his own inebriate taciturnity and so save himself from the regrets which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel in the morning. The right hon. Gentleman had charged him with thinking that there was not criminal law enough. He had never felt until that moment that they might have criminal lawyers too much. The right hon. Gentleman had said this was a Liberal Election Agents' Bill. He had chosen a bad day to make that statement when an hon. Member most experienced in registration and electoral law had stated that it was quite unsuited to agents' purposes. He would only say on this Amendment that he did not think they were asking too much of the plural voter that he should once in the course of his life make a selection. Under the Bill as it stood every man had eight months in which he might make his selection, and he had already determined to make a further concession, which would meet the case of persons absent abroad on any duty and those who might be sick at home or elsewhere.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 81; Noes, 326. (Division List No. 333.)

  AYES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Hills, J. W.

  Arkwright. John Stanhope

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ashley, W. W.

  Coates, K. Feetham(Lewisham)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. N.

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn.A.J.(CityLond

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Beach, Hn.MichaelHugh Hicks

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

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

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Doughty, Sir George

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cave, George

  Haddock, George R.

  Nicholson, Wm. G.(Petersfield)

  Cavendish, Rt, Hn.Victor C.W.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Nield, Herbert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pease, HerbertPike (Darlington

  Percy, Earl

  Smith.F. E. (Liverpool.Walton

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

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

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Starkey, John R.

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

  Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel

  Staveley-Hill, Henry-(Staff'sh.

  Roberts, S.(Sheffield,Ecclesall)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Turnour, Viscount

  NOES.

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

  Cooper, G. J.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

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

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Agnew, George William

  Cory, Clifford John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Alden, Percy

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cowan, W. H.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cox, Harold

  Henry, Charles S.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cremer, William Randal

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

  Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Crombie, John William

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Crooks, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hodge, John

  Barker, John

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hogan, Michael

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hope,W.Bateman (Somerset.N

  Barnes, G. N.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Beauchamp, E.

  Delany, William

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  Beaumont, HnW.C.B.(Hexham

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Bell, Richard

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Dickinson, W.H. (St.PancrasN.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Benn, SirJ. WiIliams(Devonp'rt

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Benn, W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Berridge. T. H. D.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bertram, Julius

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Duckworth, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Johnson, John (Gateshead

  Billson, Alfred

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Boland, John

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

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

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Joyce, Michael

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Elibank, Master of

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Brace, William

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Erskine, David C.

  Kelley, George D.

  Branch, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Brigg, John

  Evans, Samuel T.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

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

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Kitson, Sir James

  Bryce, Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bryce, J.A.(InvernessBurghs)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lambert, George

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Freeman, Thomas-Freeman

  Lamont, Norman

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Byles, William Pollard

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gladstone, Rt.Hon. Herbert J.

  Lover, W. H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Grant, Corrie

  Lloyd-George Rt. Hon. David

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gulland. John W.

  Lough, Thomas

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lundon, W.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  Lupton, Arnold

  Clough, W.

  Harcourt, Right Hon. Lewis

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Coats,SirT.Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hardie, J.Keir(MerthvrTydvil

  Lynch, H. B.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Harvey, A. G.C. (Rochdale)

  Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

  Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Maclean, Donald

  500

  501

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Paul, Herbert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  M'Crae, Goorge

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Killop, W.

  Pearson, SirW. D. (Colchester)

  Summerbell, T.

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

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

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

  Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Piokersgill, Edward Hare

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Price, C.E.(Edinburgh,Central)

  Tomkinson, James

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Radford, G. H.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Verney, F. W.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Vivian, Henry

  Massie, J.

  Rees, J. D.

  Wadsworth, J.

  Meagher, Michael

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Menzies, Walter

  Richards, Thos (W Monm'th)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Richardson, A.

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

  Mond, A.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wardle, George J.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Roberts, G H. (Norwich)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay L.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Roberts, John H. (Donbighs)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Robertson, Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Morgan, G. Hay. (Cornwall)

  Robertson, SirG,Scott(Bradfrd

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Morrell, Philip

  Robinson, S.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Murnaghan, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Murphy, John

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Murray, James

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Myer, Horatio

  Rowlands. J.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Runciman, Walter

  Wiles, Thomas

  Napier, T. B.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Nicholls, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Williamson, A.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Schwann, SirC.E.(Manchester)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Shackleton, David James

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Winfrey, R.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Snowdon, P.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  O'Malley, William

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Peace.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  On the figures being announced by the Chairman,
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid: On a point of order. I was in the "Aye" lobby at the division, and when I came through the door I found that the tellers had gone. I spoke to the clerk and told him that my name had not boon recorded on the list, and he said he would try to find the tellers. I have reported it to the tellers on the other side, and I wish to know whether my vote can be recorded.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the tellers agree, certainly the hon. Member's name will be added.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I told the tellers that I had seen everybody go through. I did not see the hon. Baronet.
  MR. RAWLINSON MR. RAWLINSON moved an Amendment to provide that the penalties attaching to any one knowingly acting in contravention of the clause should only be incurred if he acted corruptly

  503
  This Amendment would merely carry out what he understood was the intention of the Government. There could not be the slightest harm in adding the words "corruptly and." If the words were added there would then be no doubt that it would not be an offence for a person innocently and unintentionally to demand a vote in contravention of the words of the section. There was the ambiguity which had been referred to by hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the meaning of the words in the clause which ran "and if a person knowingly acts in contravention of this section, he shall be guilty of personation." Therefore, as the clause stood, a person who innocently demanded a vote in one constituency while holding a qualification in another might be held to be guilty of personation if by inadvertence he had not sent notice to the county clerk in order to be properly entered on the register. But a voter in such a case would not be acting corruptly. He could not believe that the Government intended that a person who was not acting corruptly should be punished under this Act.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'person,' to insert the words 'corruptly and.'"—(Mr, Rawlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not think there would be any advantage in inserting these words. In fact the hon. and learned Gentleman might take it from him that there was no word more difficult of definition in law than the word "corruptly." The word "knowingly" was quite sufficient, and he could not see what possible purpose would be served by the addition of the words of the Amendment.
  LORD R. CECILsaid the Government had put this somewhat drastic provision in the Bill merely
  504
  because it was following existing legislation. It was quite true that the existing statutes were not very differently worded from what was proposed to be enacted by this clause, but the Courts had held that in order that the offence should be complete the action must be corrupt. That was held in the Stepney Case—the only case decided on this point at all. He quite agreed that there was a certain ambiguity about the word "corruptly." It had received a great deal of consideration by the Judges, and although the sense of the word was indefinite it had a fairly well-known sense in the legislation on this subject. It meant that a man who claimed a vote not only knew that he was not entitled to vote, but that he had the corrupt intention to cheat the legislature and to cheat the opponent of the candidate whom he supported. He wished to point out that by the clause as it stood if a man merely knew that he had a vote elsewhere.—[Dissent from the GOVERNMENT Benches.] Well, they were agreed that it was presumed that a man know the law, and that if lie had property in another constituency which would give him a vote, he could not exercise that vote except in that constituency in which he was "starred." If the Government did not want to make the Act more drastic than the existing law they should insert the word "corruptly" or some word to indicate a dishonest intention on the part of a man to steal a vote. Personally, he did not feel very much moved by the action of the Government in proposing this legislation; but he strongly urged them to reconsider this matter of drafting, and if they did that they would agree with him that the word "corruptly" should be inserted in this clause.
  SIR FREDERIC BANBURYsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the language in the Amendment had very little meaning. No one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman what certain words meant, and there were no words in the English language which

  505
  could raise a clearer meaning than the word "corruptly." Unless some such word were inserted in the clause very considerable hardship would be imposed on many people in this country. Why should not the two eminent lawyers on the Government Bench be able to devise a word instead of "corruptly" which would be understood by the Law Lords on a final appeal to the House of Lords? This was not a Party question. Nobody wished to convict a man unjustly, and what he wanted was that when this Bill passed into law it should not operate detrimentally to an innocent man. They had seen within the last few years what might occur through careless legislation in this House. As instances of the evils of legislating in a hurry he would quote the Taff Vale decision and the West Riding judgment. There was not a single Member who sat in the last Parliament who would not admit that what the lawyers said they had said was not what they meant to say. They should not put themselves in the position of being subjected to any such experience again.
  THE SOLICITOR-CENERAL (Sir W. ROBSON)said it had been suggested that they should insert the word "corruptly," but the gist of the matter was that according to the Judges an act was done "corruptly" if it was done knowingly in contravention to the law. That was to say that the person who did the act knowingly intended to break the law. That was the best definition of the word "corruptly" that he could find, and the question of whether a man acted corruptly was one for the jury. Therefore a man who gave an improper vote would not be liable to the penalties of the Act unless he did so knowingly in contravention of that section. It must be found that he knew the law and determined to break it. That was electoral corruption, and it was, therefore, unnecessary to insert the word "corruptly" in the clause.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that if he agreed to the hon. and learned Member's
  506
  construction of the word "knowingly" he should say that an Amendment of the clause was not necessary. But he did not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would on consideration think that his definition of what would be held to be "knowingly" was accurate. Everybody must be assumed to know the law, and up till then he had never heard that it could be a defence for a man to say that he did not know the law. Supposing a man knew that he had two qualifications and that he did not serve the notice. Supposing that he did not know that it was necessary under the law to serve that notice, would he not be liable to conviction? They assumed that everybody knew those franchise laws, whereas he did not suppose there was one in a hundred who knew anything about them, and if a man did not serve the notice he was bound to be, and must be, convicted if prosecuted. It was no use for him to say he did not know the law. If he could avoid conviction by saying so the clause would be quite illusory, because then in every case a man might say he did not know the law and would escape conviction. If the word "corruptly" were put in it would make no difference, and he should advise his hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment because no such argument in regard to the word "knowingly" would hold water in a law Court. He himself had an Amendment down which was intended to deal with the real offence, viz., that of a man trying to vote twice, and it was important to define what this offence was. A man came forward and the officer at the polling booth under this Bill had a right to ask him "Are you registered in any other constituency?" If so he did not get a vote. He must answer the question put to him before he voted, and the very answer which he gave under the provisions of an Act of Parliament might prove the case against him if he were proceeded against criminally. Such a provision was excessively unfair, because not only did they obtain an

  507
  admission from the man that he had two votes, but that he knew that he had two votes when he came into the booth. They could not be too careful in inserting words of this character which defined the offence which they wished to punish, so that a man should only be punished if he voted or wished to vote twice when he knew that the law only allowed him to vote once. A man ought not to be made a felon unless it was shown that he had an intention to defeat the Act.
  MR. PAULsaid he was a layman and therefore, according to the noble Lord, he was not entitled to take any part in the discussion.
  LORD R. CECILremarked that he did not say that laymen were incompetent to take part in the discussion. He should not like to say that the hon. Member for Northampton was incompetent to take part in any discussion. What he said was that laymen when they discussed points of law were more technical than lawyers.
  MR. PAUL,continuing, said that if he were to take the right hon. Gentleman's umbrella there was not a judge on the Bench—not oven Mr. Justice Grantham— who would not hold that he had taken it designedly and corruptly. ["Order."]
  VISCOUNT TURNOURwished to know whether it was in order to mention
  in debate the name of one of His Majesty's Judges in the way of attack.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to make an attack upon one of His Majesty's Judges.
  MR. PAUL,who was received with cries of "withdraw," said he was not attacking any Judge. He thought that if he were to take the right hon. Gentleman's umbrella knowingly, there was no Judge who would not hold he had taken it designedly and corruptly.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has named a particular Judge, and I think he ought to withdraw.
  MR. PAUL: If you say that, Sir, I express my regret for having introduced the name.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that if the hon. Gentleman took his umbrella, which he hoped he would not, merely to shelter himself home on a rainy night, and intended to return it next day, no jury would convict; but if he took it to annex it permanently, there would be a question for the jury, and that was the question the Committee were now discussing.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80; Noes, 330. (Division List No. 334.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt.Hn.SirAlexF

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

  Ashley, W. W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Doughty, Sir George

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J.(CityLond.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Dnncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cave, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC. W.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Beach, Hn. MichaelHughHicks

  Chamberlain, Rt.HnJ. A. (Worc

  Forster, Henry William

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hills, J. W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nield, Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E (Chiehester)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W

  Percy, Earl

  Thomson, W. Mitchell.(Lanark

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lambton, Hon. FrederickWm.

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecelesall

  Turnour, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Rothschild,Hon. Lionel Walter

  Walker, Col.W. H.(Lancashire)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool,Walton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Lord Robert Cecil.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Starkey, John R.

  NOES.

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

  Cleland. J. W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Clough, W.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Coats, SirT. Glen(Renfrew, W.

  Gulland, John W.

  Agnew, George William

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Alden, Percy

  Collins. SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hall, Frederick

  Ambrose, Robert

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A,

  Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Asquith, Rt.Hn. HerbertHenry

  Cory, Clifford John

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cox, Harold

  Harwood, George

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemonth)

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Barker, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Haworth, Arthiir A.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Crombie, John William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Barnes, G. N.

  Crossley, William J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B(Hexham

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bell, Richard

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Henry, Charles S.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon. S.)

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Benn, SirJ. Williams (Devonp'rt

  Delany, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bonn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S.Geo

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bertram, Julius

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

  Hogan, Michael

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Billson, Alfred

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

  Duckworth, James

  Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

  Boland, John

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

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

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Hudson, Walter

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Branch, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Brigg, John

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Bryce, Rt.Hn.James (Aberdeen

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Buckmastcr, Stanley O.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jowett, F. W.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Byles, William Poliard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Cairns, Thomas

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Kelley, George D.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gill, A. H.

  Lambert, George

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn

  Lamont, Norman

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  510

  511

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Lehmann, R. C.

  O'Doherty, Philip.

  Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Har'ch

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

  Steadman, W. C.

  Lever, W.H.(Cheshire, Wirral)

  O'Malley, William.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Levy, Maurice

  O'Mara, James

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lough, Thomas

  Partington, Oswald

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lundon, W.

  Paul, Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Summerbell, T.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Macdonald,J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Maclean, Donald

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Philipps, Col.Ivor (S'thampton

  Tomkinson, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down,S.)

  Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Torrance, Sir. A. M.

  MacVoigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

  Philipps, Owen C (Pembroke)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Callum, John M.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare-

  Verney, K. W.

  M'Crae, George

  Pollard, Dr.

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  M'Killop, W.

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

  Vivian, Henry

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

  Radford, G. H.

  Wadsworth, J.

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

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Walters, John Tudor

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

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

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Rees, J. D.

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Ward, W.Dudley(Southampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Wardle, George J.

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

  Richards,T.F. (Wolverhampt'n

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Richardson,A.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Mason, A, K. W. (Coventry)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Massie, J.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Waterlow. D. S.

  Meagher, Michael

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Menzies, Walter

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Robertson, Rt, Hn. E.(Dundee)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Mond, A.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Robinson, S.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Montagu, E. S.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Mooney, J. J.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wiles, Thomas

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Rose, Charles Day

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Morrell, Philip

  Rowlands, J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Morton, Alphens Cleophas

  Runciman, Walter

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Murnaghan, George

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Murphy, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Williamson, A.

  Murray, James

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  Myer, Horatio

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Napier, T. B.

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Nownes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Sears, J. E.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Nicholls, George

  Shacklcton, David James

  Winfrey, R.

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

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

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Nolan, Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Simon, John Allsebrook

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

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Nuttall, Harry

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Snowden, P.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put,
  512
  pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at one minute before Eleven o'clock.

VISCOUNT MOLESWORTH.
Ordered, That the Report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on Tuesday last, that the right of the Viscount Molesworth to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such Report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
The Viscount Bridport sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl Ashburnham took the Oath.

PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; of inhabitants, rate-payers, parents, or teachers in the following districts or parishes: Wansford; St. Dunstans; Shalstone; Skipwith; Stoke St. Milburgh; Willian; Thorner and Scarcroft; Clevedon; Llanyre and Llanfihangel; Pontefract (Rural Deanery); Uplowman; Nantmel; West Camel; Wardington; Blockley; Smeeth; Hurst; Bonnington; Willesborough; Silian; Newtown Linford; Kirk Ella, West Ella; Willerby; Colwinstone; Pewsey; Nailsea; Menheiniot; Hazelwood; Iffley; Diocese of Salisbury (Board of Finance); Pontefract; Sibbertoft; Aston botterell; Kingsworth; Kingsworth; Gildersome; Gildersome; Denstone; Denstone; Catworth; Long Marston; Epperstone; Chapel Allerton; Barnet; Abbess Roding: Milton; Redbank; Whatley; Yerbeston and Loveston; Bardsey; Old Romney and Midley; Detling; Wapling and Codrington (2); Lower Halston: Sapiston; Sapiston; Mattersey; Headon-in-Upton; Horton; Llangoran: Peny-clawdd; Ludgershall; Connah's Quay; Wood Green and Hornsey; Shepton Mallet; Bromfield; Hatherden; Stanton
  294
  Lacy; Muswell Hill: Chorlesbury; St. Leonards; Ellesborough; Weston Turville; Wendover; Hawridge; Wandsworth Common; Frant; Loddington; Sutton-on-the Hill; East Retford; Hol-brook; Compton; Hawley; Nassington; Yarwell; Derby City; Stubton; Askham Bryan; Farnborough; Haggerston (St. Chad's); Swavesey; Farncombe; Blackburn (Christ Church); Addington; West Mailing; West Mailing; Charlyinch; Canterbury (Holy Cross and St. Peters); Burton Agnes; Burton Agnes; Bowstreet; Lower Hardres; Hornsey(Holy Innocents); Shepton Montague; Glasbury; Lower Crumpsall; Raglan; Netherfield; Great Waltham; Great Waltham; Tubney; Coniston Cold; Credenhill; Nunnington; Nunnington; Swainswick; Swainswick; Llantarnum; Shamley Green; North-borough; Holmwood; Taunton; Kirk-stall; Ludgershall; Farnborough; Weston-super-Mare; Bowes; Offham; Britwell Prior; Chelsea (Christ Church); Syerston; East Stoke; Screveton; Marnham; Grassthorpe; Weston; Weston; Longford; Everton; Potternewton; Midsomer Norton; Midsomer Norton; Carlton le Moorland; Ruckinge; Kew-stoke; Croft; Chester (Holy Trinity); Blackwell; Dinder; Hallaton; Leeds (Camp Road Church); Caunton; Beverley Minster; Godalming; Earls Court (St. Matthias); Earls Court (St. Matthias); Thorpe; Manston; Aston Abbots; Canterbury (St. Dunstans); Lathbury; Canterbury (St. Mary, Bredin); Long Benton; Crofton; Astwood and Hard-mead; Rockingham; Denver; Patrick Brompton; Alkborough; New Wortley; Benson; Easby; Bapchild; Rodmersham; Upper Armley; Llandog; Wakefield; Coatham; Darwen; Weston; Tunbridge Wells (St. Barnabas); Frome (Selwood Parish Church); Frome (Selwood); Diddlebury; West Kirby; Ince; Birstall; Byford and Mansel Gamage; Middlesbro; Frome; Highclere; Wood-ford Bridge; Leeds (All Souls); Little Oakley; Miserden; Fitz; Woodhouse; Tremadoc; Lympsham; Dorset; Cock-field; Bedford, St. Cuthberts; Bedford, St. Peter; Bedford, St. Martin; Haslington; Orwell; Conington; Linton; Witchford; Cambridge, St. Andrew Great; Anington; Great Saxham; Wynnington; Alwalton; Aldham; Woburn; Great Cornard; Eaton Bray; Conington; East Hatley; Hartford; Hadleigh; Croydon cum Clapton; Haddenham;

  295
  Keysoe; Shelton; Isleham; Bottisham; Guilden Morden; Thurston; Newton; Weston Colville; Caxton; Horringer; Litlington; Eversholt; Bedford, St. Peter; Dunton; Great and Little Abbington; Little Ouse; Leighton Bromswold; Woodside; Tilbrook; Hulcote and Salford; Graveley; Swaffham Prior; Stanton; Cavendish; Bures; Milton Ernest; Sandy; Willingham; Fletton; Knotting; Hassett; Barton Mills; Bedford, St. Pauls; Kings Ripton; Woodstone; Horseheath; Wimpole; Sudbury, All Saints; Thorney; Impington; Leavenheath; Chettisham; Clifton; Brent Eleigh; Cambridge, St. Phillips; Wentworth; Hinxton; Great Staughton; Freckenham; Exning; Houghton; Whetstead; Waresley; Sauston; Abbotsley; Great Bradley; Stradishall; Niston; Icklingham; Henlow; Great Gidding; Longstone; Euston; Hinxton; Little Stukeley; Water Newton; Luton, Christ Church; Woolpit; Gravenhurst; Witcham; Isleham; Whaddon; Elveden; Wicken; Brampton; Leverington; Willingham; Potton; Higham Green; Little Bradley; Gransden; Parson Drove; Great Shelford; Cambridge, St. Edwards; Cambridge, St. Peters; Snailwell; Manea; West Wickham; Bradfield, St. Clare; Studham; Odell; Little Staughton; Cambridge, Holy Trinity; Little Walding-field; Cranfield; Newton; Yelling; Elm; Chesterton; Eynesbury; Cockayne Hatley; Hundon; Bury; Ramsey, St. Mary; Egginton; Slowlangtoft; Glatton; Stansfield; Ickworth; Bedford, St. John; Childesley; Haddon; Wiston; Nayland; Wixoe; Clapham; Swineshead; Yielden; Flitton; Cheveley; Caddington; Offord D'arcy; Tadlow; Stow Longa; Pampisford; Cambridge, Holy Sepulchre; Hargrave; Horningsey; Bromham; Offord Cluny; Hatley, St. George; Elsworth; Duxford; Great Fakenham; Worlington; Sapiston; Bassingbourne; Ixworth; Hemingford Abbots; Bourn; Holwell; Goldingham; Little Thulow; Papworth, St. Agnes; Cambridge, St. Matthew; Eaton Socon; Cambridge, St. Paul; Pondsbridge; Biddenham; Drinkstone; Ravensden; Silsoe; Benwick; Hemingford Grey; Cambridge, St. Giles and St. Peter; Biggleswade; St. Michael, Cambridge; Kimbolton; Cambridge, St. Phillips; Doddington; Shefford; Trumpington; Stapleford; Kennett; Stansfield; Har-
  296
  test; Upper Stondon; Westoning; Whittlesey; Lakenheath; Shillington; Cambridge (All Saints); Ailesey; Stow cum Quy; Spaldwich; Luton (St. Matthew); Great Barford; Stetchworth; Ridley cum Fenton; Fordham; Chesterton (St. Andrew); Great Catworth; Mildenhall; Eyeworth; Ramsey; Brinkley; Renhold; Great Saxham; Risby; Oakington; Flitton; Badwell Ash; Walsham-le-Willows; Abbington; Dounham; Fen Ditton; Milchbourne; Over; Houghton Conquest; Stotfold; Hamerton; Hatley (St. George); Clophill; Abbots Ripton; Lidlington; Cople; Gidding; Millbrook; Kennett; Wooton; Hardwicke; Buckworth; Mard (St. Winduda); Felsham; Longstone; Cambridge (St. Barnabas); Ickleton; Leighton Buzzard; Clare; March; Thorpo Morieux; Bildeston; Molesworth; Lindsay; Wisbech (St. Mary); Dalham; Old Warden; Bedford (St. Mary); Wilburton; Little Shelford; Diddington; Hitcham; Stilton; Wilshamstead; Riseley; Cambridge (All Saints); Dunstable; Luton (St. Mary); Castle Camps; boxford; Hildersham; Lode Hadleigh; Wyton; Bartlow; Cambridge (St. Matthew; Rural Deanery of St. Albans; Quorn; Thringstone; Lyddington; Caldecott; Lydbury North; Chillenden; Great Casterton; Willesborough; Hurst; Smeeth; Newtown Lynford; Archdeaconry of Ludlow. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; of trustees of Church of England schools in the Diocese of York. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (EDUCATION BILL, 1906).
  Note explaining the Repeal Schedule.
  IRISH LAND OMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Returns for the months of August and September, 1906.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (VENTILATION).
  Illustrations of methods of dust extraction in factories and workshops,

  297
  compiled by Commander Sir H. S. Freer-Smith, R.N. (late His Majesty's Superintending Inspector of Factories).

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3724. Persia (Trade of Khorassan for 1905–1906).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Orders made by the councils of the following county and city, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain classes of shops within their respective districts—
  County of Glamorgan (within the Coedffranc Parish and Maestag Urban District respectively;
  City of Cardiff—

  (i.) Within the Cathay's, Park, Roath, and Adamsdown (part of) wards of the city.

  (ii.) Parts of the Central Ward of the city.

  PENAL SERVITUDE ACT, 1891.
  Additional regulation made by the Lord-Lieutenant, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, for the taking of finger prints and measuring and photographing of prisoners.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) ACT, 1898.
  Order in Council altering the scale set out in the second schedule to the Act for the purpose of the levying of the light dues in pursuance of the Act.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Earl of Crewe.)
  *LORD STANMORE,who had given notice, on the Motion that the House
  298
  should now resolve itself into Committe, to move—
  "That the consideration of this Bill in Committee be deferred until the effect of the Education Act, 1902, as regards the liability of local education authorities to defray the cost of religious instruction in schools not provided by them has been finally determined by a judgment of this House in the case of the King versus the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, now pending on appeal,"
  said: My Lords, when I first undertook to bring forward the Motion which stands in my name to-day the circumstances were not exactly the same as they are now. At that time the long delay of His Majesty's Government in bringing forward an appeal in the case of the West Riding judgment led to the general belief that it was not intended to bring forward an appeal at all. Since then the appeal has been made, and I assumed that the resolution of His Majesty's Government to do this would necessarily involve some delay in taking the Committee stage of the Bill in this House. It did not occur to me as possible that the idea could be entertained of carrying on pari passu a debate in this House and a judicial inquiry into the effect of the provisions of the existing Act. I therefore expected that I should not be called upon to make any such Motion. I was advised, however, to keep it on the Paper. Well, His Majesty's Government have taken that course which seemed to me impossible, and they are apparently supported in it both by the Leaders of the Opposition and, as I understand, by the right rev. Prelates. That is a great array of authority. I cannot say that I am myself convinced that the objections to proceeding with the Bill——
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon for interrupting him. I think he is under a misapprehension. I should like to ask upon what he relies for the statement hat His Majesty's Government were supported by the front Opposition Bench in proceeding with the Bill.
  *LORD STANMORE: I relied upon the fact that when the statement was made by the Leader of the House as to the Government's intentions no remark and no challenge of any kind was made by the noble Marquess or by any noble Lord on that side of the House. That was my chief ground for the statement,

  299
  though I have others, of which the noble Marquess cannot be unaware. However that may be, I think that the objections to the course proposed to be taken are grave. The answers to those objections appear to me to be wholly inadequate. The first and most plausible reason assigned for going on with the Bill in spite of the appeal is that the matter which comes before the Court of Appeal is one which does not very largely concern the Bill now before the House. Even if that were true, I do not think it would be a sufficient reason, for I hold that this House has a right, when it is called upon practically to reverse an Act which it passed two years before, to be in full possession of the real meaning of the Act which it is called upon to destroy. It is not only its right but its duty that it should be so. An Act gravely passed by this House and generally adopted should not be repealed or practically set aside for reasons which may turn out to be not well founded. We ought to know what an Act is and what it does before we proceed to its destruction. I cannot agree that the matter is unimportant in itself, or that it does not affect, and largely affect, the consideration of the Bill in Committee. We have been told in this House that the opposition to the Act of 1902, and the prejudice against that Act, largely contributed to swell the majority which placed His Majesty's present Government in power. Now, how far that is the case I do not intend to inquire, but this I do say, and I do not think it can be denied, that in so far as that opposition to the Act of 1902 had an effect on the General Election of 1906, it was chiefly and mainly due to the belief on the part of those so opposing it that the Act enacted what those who objected to it considered to be grave injustice. It has now been judicially decided, and the decision may be confirmed when this judgment has been given—that there was no such grievance at all. In that case half of the opposition to the Act of 1902 falls; and if that opposition so falls, it is quite on the cards that the Act of 1902, relieved from the principal cause of objection to it, may still be found a good foundation on which to frame a really lasting and satisfactory Education Bill— which the Bill row before us, I fear, can never be. So thinking, I should wish to pause before voting on the first clause.
  300
  If the judgment of the Appeal Court be affirmed, I should vote against it in the hope of a settlement under the existing system. If the judgment be reversed, I should vote for the clause with Amendments, feeling that a now law was inevitable. The main objection to my Motion is that the appeal does not affect the Bill, but others are also advanced.
  We are told that if we delay the judgment we may perhaps wreck the Bill. Well, my Lords, I have no wish to wreck the Bill. I wish to amend it; but I do not think that we must make the wreckage of the Bill the test and line by which we are to guide our conscience. It has been declared in this House by many— and I believe it is felt by a majority— that certain great Amendments are required in this Bill if it is to go through. Are we to consider as our prime object whether the Bill will be wrecked if they be rejected—as rejected they may be— in another place? Then I have been told, and strangely enough, from both sides of the House, that there is a tactical advantage in the course which it is proposed to pursue. My Lords, I suspect clever moves for the sake of a tactical advantage. They often succeed at the moment: they carry you through a momentary difficulty; but almost invariably, as experience shows, they come back in an unpleasant manner upon those who have made them. I say that in my mind, and I think in the mind of many of your Lordships, the reasons for pressing on in haste are inadequate, and I believe there are many Members of this House—there is certainly a very large body in the country —holding the opinion that I do as to the impolicy of proceeding until a judgment has been given.
  But there is the fact that His Majesty's Government, and, as I understand, though my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition seemed to disclaim the charge, the majority of the Opposition and of the right rev. Prelates are all agreed that it is desirable to go on immediately without waiting. Well, my Lords, that is your responsibility. Some noble Lords have whispered that they agreed with me that we ought not to go on, but that they would throw the responsibility on the Government. No, my Lords, you cannot do that. You might do it if the Government was in possession of a great majority in this House. As things

  301
  are it is not with the Government but with the House itself that the responsibility must rest. The House seems inclined, so far as I can judge from indications which have reached me, to take that responsibility, and in the face of a foregone conclusion I do not think I am justified in taking up the time of the House by pressing the Motion standing in my name. I therefore propose, unless some Member of your Lordships' House to whose opinion I should feel bound to defer should express a contrary view, to withdraw the Motion and to content myself in the belief that I have discharged my duty by expressing, as I do now express, my deep regret that the House should be committed to a step which it appears to me will either prevent noble and learned Lords from taking part in the debate which is to come on of matters relating to that subject, or else will lead to the grotesque and unseemly spectacle of noble and learned Lords sitting here in the evening as legislators, and if on the Government side of the House perhaps denouncing the wrongs done by the Act of 1902, and then sitting in the morning in their capacity as Judges to consider whether any grievance at all exists.
  That is not only in itself undesirable, but there lies in it a danger of the whole of the judicial privileges of the House being viewed unfavourably outside That would be, in my opinion, one of the greatest calamities that could befall the country; but, at the same time, it cannot be denied that logically there are objections to connecting judicial with legislative functions. It would be an evil day if their severance were demanded in the case of this great Court of Appeal. I therefore wish, before sitting down, to express my deep regret that your Lordships are committed to a course which is hardly respectful to the House in its judicial, capacity, which I think is fraught with some danger to the judicial establishment of the House, and which shows an impatient haste which does not usually characterise the proceedings of this assembly.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I trust the noble Lord who has just sat down will not think me wanting in respect towards him, and I hope your Lordships will not think me wanting in respect to
  302
  you, if I do not follow him in the able arguments which he has just placed before us. There are many persons in this House and elsewhere who will feel that there is much force in some of the arguments which the noble Lord has used, but I would rather leave it to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council to make such answer to the noble Lord as he may think the noble Lord is entitled to.
  I think no surprise can be felt that there should be some debate upon the Motion to go into Committee on the Education Bill, because some time has elapsed since the Bill was last before your Lordships, and it may be convenient that some of the most important points should be brought again clearly before the House. In what I may call the smoke of the artillery of the religious controversy many points seem to me to have been overlooked which deserve the attention of your Lordships as administrators and as legislators. I am anxious that it should be fully understood, both by our opponents and by the great public outside, that this Bill cannot simply be debated as a question between the Church and Dissent, and I protest in the strongest degree against the view which has been too generally expressed out of doors that in this House are to be found simply defenders of the Church. We sit here as legislators and not as Churchmen. Because we oppose this Bill, and intend to do what we can to amend it, we are not going to be branded as sectarians or sacerdotalists, or by any of the other epithets which have been so lavishly bestowed upon us outside.
  There are questions outside the theological controversy, to some of which I am anxious to call the attention of your Lordships. As I have said, we have to consider this Bill, and to amend it if possible, not only in regard to the education given in Church schools, but also in regard to the education which is given in provided schools. If it is claimed that in deference to fervent Nonconformity a revolution is to take place in all the voluntary schools of the country, surely it is not too much for us to claim as legislators that we should look at the whole area of the education of the country and at what is being done in the provided schools as well as in the voluntary schools. The provided schools cannot claim that in

  303
  what is to be a national settlement, in what is put forward as a great measure, they are to be exempt from criticism or amendment. This great body of schools, with which the voluntary schools are to be incorporated, cannot claim to be free from the hand of Parliament. Let it be therefore understood that this Bill extends beyond the voluntary schools; it is a Bill dealing also with provided schools, and it deals, further, with many matters not only touching voluntary schools and provided schools, but other educational questions in the country.
  The verdict of the country is in the main against secularism. The country has pronounced against secularism, and I believe the great bulk of noble Lords opposite and the great bulk of the Members of the other House are against secularism. Therefore Anglicans, Nonconformists, and all denominations may unite and be prepared to make some sacrifice to resist this danger of secularism. My personal opinion is certainly this, that we must carry such Amendments as may be necessary in the Bill, that we must not limit them to the voluntary schools, but must take a survey of the whole of the schools of the country, and see that such arrangements are made that secularism shall not invade any class of schools. Surely noble Lords opposite will be with us in this, that if it should be proved—I do not say it can —that in provided schools there is an increasing tendency towards secularism, precautions should be taken, while we are engaged in this great controversy, that such a thing may not occur.
  I will not trouble your Lordships with observations upon many of the extremely important questions in the Bill. I will not touch upon the question of trusts, except to say that it does appear to me extraordinary that the most recent trusts are not spared. Even trusts established within the last three or four years are to be dealt with without any deference to the wishes of those who have created them. In my own neighbourhood a beloved vicar died, and his parishioners wished to erect a memorial. What form did that memorial take? It took the form of a Church school, and that school was erected by the late vicar's parishioners as a memorial to him and to his Church work. Now that school
  304
  is to be taken away and its religious character destroyed, and after two or three years the memorial to the vicar is to be swept away.
  I will say nothing upon the important question of the compulsory attendance of children except this, that if a concession is made, as I am sure it will be, in that respect, it will not be a concession simply to the Church; it will be a concession to many religiously-minded people outside the Church. There is a general desire that the children should be compelled to attend, and therefore if there is ever to be a debit and credit struck I should not count that as a concession. I will not touch upon the question of the prohibition of teachers to give religious instruction except to say this, that there appeared to me to be among the speakers on the Government side in the House of Commons a considerable belief that it could be arranged that the teachers should be able to teach without infringing the great principle involved in the imposition of tests. I hope that something will be done in that direction. Nor will I speak of the four-fifths clause and the special facilities of all kinds, except to call attention to a shabby addition to the special facilities clause. It was introduced, I think, on Report after some concession had been made, and it is to the effect that where these facilities are given no rent is to be charged for the use of the school-house by the local authority. I call that a shabby little addition to make to an important clause. If there is justice in the clause, why impose this penalty? I wish that these facilities had been given with more cordiality. Then there is the question as to what rent is to be paid. All these are important questions which will no doubt be dealt with, possibly to-night, but certainly in Committee.
  I desire to-night to call special attention to some of the distinct administrative effects of Clause 1. I do not know whether the Government have congratulated their draughtsman upon its wording, but I think that the form chosen will involve them in more endless confusion than they could possibly have foreseen. What is the form of that clause? The clause provides that—"No school shall be recognised as a public elementary school unless it is a provided school." The clause will work out in this way—

  305
  "No voluntary school shall continue to exist unless the local authority chooses that it shall exist." That is the full effect of the clause. Clause 1 establishes public control, and I hope that in its working that control will be real and not bureaucratic; that power will not be centred in a few men at a great distance, who will manage the schools without popular local control.
  Public control is not always popular control. The country has insisted upon public control. Let that be accepted. For my part I accept it to the full. It is the decision of the country. Accepting public control as the will of the nation, it seems to be assumed that the form of control in the Bill is the only form of control that could be given. You might have changed the boards of management. In place of the four foundation managers and the two elected managers you might have had three and three, or you might have appointed the whole of the managers, and in that way give full public control. Besides that, you might have applied to the voluntary schools some of the same clauses as have been applied to provided schools, and they might have continued, not as voluntary schools, but as a separate class, if you like, of provided schools. But, instead of that, the alternatives of incorporation or extinction are presented. That is the choice that is given them. Very well, then, what follows? You make the school a provided school. Do you not by that immensely strengthen our contention that we are to deal with provided schools as well as voluntary schools? You yourselves choose to call them provided schools. Well, then, we shall claim to deal with the whole class of provided schools. We shall not consent that the transferred schools, the transformed schools, or whatever title you are going to give them, are to remain a separate entity grouped inside the provided schools but not of them. I say, therefore, that by the form you have chosen you have strengthened our claim.
  Why have you chosen this form? It is possibly for the sake of uniformity and in order to have one class of school only—the provided school. But the uniformity thus secured is no real uniformity, because you will continue to
  306
  have four if not five different classes of schools, and this is a uniformity for which you sacrifice the form of Clause 1 and put it in a way which will land you in great confusion with your sub-divisions of provided schools. What schools will remain? There will be the old orthodox provided schools; there will be the modified, transformed, transferred, ordinary facilities provided schools; there will be the four-fifths facilities provided schools; and there will be the State-aided schools. I believe there may be another class of schools constituted under Clause 9 by some appeal to the Commission. You will have all these various classes. Where, then, is the national system and the uniformity for which sacrifices are to be made and the whole system of education revolutionised?
  It is a curious thing that in the whole of this long Bill there is only one mention of foundation managers, except in the small print of the schedule, and but for a reference to an obscure corner of the schedule you would not know what had become of the existing managers. I am a humble foundation manager of a rural school myself, and I searched the Bill to see where I stood. The foundation managers are to have nothing to say in any of the arguments and arrangements of the local authorities. They are out of it. No account whatever is taken of the foundation managers or the subscribers; the men who have devoted themselves to the development of the schools are not even to be consulted. Urban and rural schools are to be dealt with separately. In the urban schools the local authorities may, if they think fit, appoint managers. Will they do so? In all cases they do not. I believe that in one instance in the East End of London a borough council has given notice to quit to the foundation managers who had brought up the school to an extremely high state of efficiency, and the local authority will deal with it themselves. I ask noble Lords who are familiar with local administration, Is it desirable to place too much in the hands of the civic authority as compared with the school authority, and will that authority be as competent to conduct management as a local body which has been long in touch with the parents and children in the locality?

  307
  I turn to the rural schools. In rural schools the existing foundation managers are to be swept away and new managers will take their place. It is highly probable that a great many of the persons who will compose the new boards will be those who composed the old boards. But has the interregnum been considered by His Majesty's Government? It will be more than a year before the new managers will be appointed, and before we, the existing managers, die. During that time who are to be responsible for the expenses of structural repairs? Suppose a roof falls in. Who is to pay for it? Are the old managers to go round and collect subscriptions from the parishioners, from denominationalists, for repairs of schools that are to be handed over to a local authority, without any indemnity or consideration given in respect of such expenses? Your Lordships would not be entitled to move an Amendment providing that in such a case the local authority would be bound to make good the expense incurred, but I think it is a matter which I may fairly recommend to the notice of His Majesty's Government.
  With reference to the management of rural schools, the question of the appointment and dismissal of teachers is of the greatest interest, together with the powers to be given or taken away. One of the powers which is incidentally taken away from the local managers by Clause 1, without anybody having apparently noticed it or mentioned it, is the power of appointing and dismissing teachers. At present, subject to certain assent, they have the exclusive right of appointing and dismissing teachers, but by the school becoming a provided school that power is indirectly taken away. What I ask is, Are the local authorities to have all the power of appointing and dismissing teachers without any kind of reference to the local managers or the parents or anyone else? That is a dangerous power, especially when, as often happens in the country, the local authorities do no know the special needs of a particular school. What influence will the managers have over a master so appointed? I will assume that in many cases, overworked as they are, the local education authorities put their backs into this question and do their utmost to provide
  308
  the best masters. What is the position of the managers in regard to those masters? What influence are the managers to have over a master so appointed? He is the servant of the local authority, to whom they have nothing whatever to say. Excellent and talented as are the great body of teachers they have a powerful organisation—the National Union of Teachers—of which account must be taken. That organisation will suffer little interference from the local managers.
  In the very interesting and somewhat obscure clause in which delegation is proposed the selection of the headmaster is reserved. Why are the smaller authorities to be deprived of this power so intimately affecting the government of the schools? I trust that an Amendment will be inserted on this point. There are a number of other duties which the managers ought to be able to perform and for which some control over the master is almost necessary. The master is not only to teach. There are matters of ventilation and sanitation, questions of the manners of the children, and the question of whether they are ruled with a kindly or a cruel hand. In all these matters it is the men on the spot who ought to be able to deal with the master and control him. I do not say that they should have complete control, but they should have at all events some control. I know a case myself where the head teacher told the correspondent of the foundation managers on a question of ventilation that he had better mind his own business. That is the attitude which may be taken up generally in a great many schools.
  Why are the managers restricted in so many matters of administration over which they ought to have control? I believe the motive is suspicion of the parson. It is believed that local management leads to parsonic influence. That is the reason why there is reluctance to give powers to local managers. It is thought that the one idea of parsons in the country is to proselytise. That is a travesty of the truth. It is an absurdity. That the parsons rightly take a great interest in the schools is the fact, and I trust it always will be the fact, and I hope that in the arrangements

  309
  that will be made there will be no suspicion of him. It is said that the Act of 1902 placed additional power in the hands of the parson. As a matter of fact, the parson was dethroned by the Act of 1902, which put an end to what was described as one-man administration. I will give my own case. On my board of managers there is a parson who acts as correspondent, there is myself, and there are the local butcher, the owner of the village shop, and two farmers. Two of the managers have children in the school; they know every child who attends the school and they take an interest in it. The Government need not be afraid of the parson. He has already been checked in that way, if check were necessary. I was asked the question, "Shall we parsons not be swept away? "I replied," Certainly not. When the new foundation managers are formed, the local authorities at a distance will have to come to you and ask you to be on the board because you will probably be the only man who can thread his way through the endless labyrinthian intricacies of the Code and act as correspondent."
  Noble Lords may not know the enormous labour which is put upon the correspondent of a local school; this labour is undertaken frequently by the parson, and I think it would be very difficult in many cases to have it done without his assistance. Those of your Lordships who have schools of your own will recognise that these questions of administration cannot be brushed aside, and we would do well in this House not to allow ourselves to be carried away by theological controversy and omit from our purview questions which I maintain will deeply affect the education of rural England in the future.
  I now leave the position of the rural schools and come to the general position in which the voluntary schools will find themselves when the Bill becomes an Act and they are taken over; and here I return to a point on which I but slightly touched at the commencement of my remarks, namely, whether they will be taken over by the local authorities or not and what their position will be. I said it was either incorporation or extinction. If they are not taken over what is their
  310
  position? We know that they will get neither State-aid nor rate-aid. They will be absolutely in the hands of the local authority. Therefore the Bill must be very narrowly scrutinised with a view of deciding whether they are likely to be taken over. I believe that in a great many counties they will be taken over by wise county councils, which will make as generous terms with them as possible. I have no fear whatever of the general attitude towards them in that case.
  But in towns the position is different. I have heard it said that in towns the temptation to take them over would be so strong that they are certain to be taken over, because otherwise new schools would have to he built. But there is a real danger that in small towns municipal ambition and particular views of what constitutes good administration will prompt the councils to decline to take over many schools, although they are structurally fit and perfectly adequate for the purpose for which they were built. At present there is no power to compel the councils to take over the schools. It is perfectly open to them to decide whether they will take them over or not. A town council might say, "Here we have ten schools and ten headmasters and a great many assistant teachers. We will, by grouping the schools, dismissing a great proportion of unnecessary staff, and getting the schools together under two or three headmasters, save the money to pay the interest on the schools we are going to build." That is a contingency which has got to be faced, and in such a case a whole number of voluntary schools might disappear, and disappear not on account of any hostility to the Church or cantankerousness on the part of the local authorities, but because they have different views as to administration. I believe, my Lords, that you cannot resist, the argument that power must be given in the Bill to compel the local authorities to take over schools structurally fit. If you do not see to that voluntary schools will be entirely at the mercy of the local authorities and they may then vanish wholesale.
  Every loophole left to the local authorities to force the voluntary schools into their hands strengthens the case that in the provided schools care must be

  311
  taken to secure facilities for religious instruction. I am sure that a great portion of the people of the country would never stand the unfairness of meting out to Church people a different measure of justice from that given to Nonconformists, who are content with the Cowper-Temple Clause. If, as is certain under the Bill, a vast number of Church children are forced into the provided schools, it is our bounden duty to see that the religious instruction given to them in provided schools is adequate to their needs and meets the just expectations of the parents. It has been said over and over again that Cowper-Temple teaching ought to satisfy the parents. But it does not satisfy the vast number of Churchmen, and, that being so, why should something that they are not satisfied with be forced upon them? This is a comparatively small point, but as showing the absurdity of your system of provided schools embracing a number of schools under different management, you may have as a provided school a school which has ordinary facilities on two days in the week. What is the local authority going to serve out to that school in the way of religious instruction during the remaining three days? Are they to have three days of Cowper-Templeism patched on to two days of denominationalism? I do not think that has received any consideration at all, and it strengthens my argument that you must get uniformity in the provided schools.
  I have no objection myself to a great deal of the Cowper-Temple teaching. The Return which was moved for by the most rev. Primate, and which is before the House, shows what is done under the Cowper-Temple Clause, the pains taken and the intelligence put into the syllabus by the local authorities in many cases. But it also shows the carelessness of other local authorities. There are in the Return sad pages which tell you that there are a number of schools in which no religious instruction at all is given. There are a great many others where there is no inspection and where no authority at all over religious instruction exists. Much of the Cowper-Temple teaching is good, but at the same time there is a great deal of it that is bad
  312
  and tending almost to secularism. There are cases in which the word Christian is struck out, and where the Apostles Creed is not taught.
  So little in my public life have I been what is called a sacerdotalist or narrow-minded sectarian that I took a great part in opening -the Universities to Dissenters in former days. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be suspected of being prejudiced if I denounce this Bill in many of its provisions. I was a party to the Act of 1870, but that was an Act to supplement and not to supplant the voluntary school system. Now we have a Bill which is to supplant the voluntary schools. We have to look the matter carefully in the face and to see that, while we are supplanting the voluntary schools and making them into provided schools, the provided schools shall be of such a character that Church children can be sent to them with confidence and without fear of their being trained less religiously than hitherto.
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords. I think the House on both sides will feel that the noble Viscount who has just sat down has earned our gratitude for calling attention to a part of this great subject which has often been overlooked. I share, I am afraid, nearly all the apprehensions to which the noble Viscount has given expression. The peril is grave and the apprehensions are widespread that the result of this Bill if passed into law as it stands, notwithstanding some amendment, may be to substitute a bureaucratic system of control—not from headquarters in London, but from headquarters in county towns—over schools which have hitherto been able to secure for their practical working and government the best attention of the picked men of a neighbourhood. The system proposed will certainly not evoke the same enthusiasm on the part of the local managers as the present system. That danger is already apparent under the existing law, and is likely to be aggravated very greatly by the Bill. The fault does not lie with the efficient and capable men who, on behalf of the county councils, are called upon to do the work. The fault lies with the

  313
  system, which has a tendency to withdraw these matters from those on whose shoulders local responsibility ought to lie and to place it on the shoulders of men who have not, at all events, the same local interest and enthusiasm.
  My Lords, we feel grave difficulty in undertaking the task of making Amendments to this Bill, but we mean to try. Of this I am certain, that we could do no worse service to the Government than to allow the Bill to become law as it stands. I am convinced that in a few months' time those who were called upon to administer the law under this Bill would be forcing their representatives in both Houses to move for administrative changes which would be absolutely necessary if the work of education throughout the country is to be carried forward as it should be. Therefore, amendment of some kind is necessary, if only on administrative grounds. But apart from that we are strengthened in the responsibility of amending the Bill by the nature—I say the nature deliberately rather than the number—of the petitions that have come to us on this subject. I presented to your Lordships to-night 475 petitions from different parishes, with 60,298 signatures, and, if any one of your Lordships will examine them, he will be struck, I am certain, by the kind of persons who sign them and by the contrast they present to petitions sometimes presented to both Houses of Parliament, got up by societies for partisan purposes.
  In addition to the petitions I have presented to-night there have been, I think, 485 petitions already sent in, and to them I believe I may apply the same description as I have applied to those I have been able more carefully to examine myself. But, apart from that, I desire to call particular attention to a petition presented to-night by me from trustees, the men on whom lies the responsibility of trusteeship for the elementary schools in this country to-day. I have presented to-night one portion of a petition, the rest of which is I know on its way to me, from 137 schools in one diocese alone, the trustees of which distinctly come to your Lordships with
  314
  this request. What they say is virtually this—
  "We want to go on discharging in such measure as may be possible, the responsibilities that have been laid on our shoulders."
  and they ask (to quote their own words) that they be not—
  "Forbidden to discharge their responsibilities as trustees."
  As have said before, I do not regard trusteeships of that sort as in all their details of so sacrosanct a character that, when need calls for it, Parliament ought not to be able to make the alterations that are necessary, especially when such alterations are desired by the trustees themselves. But the conditions preliminary to making these alterations must surely be, if the trust be a modern one, either that of real necessity or of proved misdemeanour or wrong-doing in the discharge of the trust. Now so far as I am aware there has been no endeavour whatever to show that this change is either in the strict sense of the word necessary, or that there has been any failure to discharge aright the trust imposed upon those men in the period during which they held the trust. As the noble Viscount has reminded your Lordships, many of the trusts are of quite modern date, within the last few years, drawn and discharged by living men, and quite obviously these trusts ought to be interfered with as little as possible, and certainly as cautiously as possible. A petition such as that seems to me to be entitled to far more than merely the ordinary consideration given to such documents when they are handed in, as they are sometimes, wholesale, because it is the deliberate request of men who are puzzled by finding themselves face to face with the probable inability to discharge the trust which they have deliberately undertaken, while at the same time they are ready to go on discharging it, and up to this time have done so in a perfectly satisfactory manner.
  Our further need for going into Committee and amending this Bill is that a great part of it has never been explained to us at all. There are clauses in this Bill the purport of which I, who

  315
  have necessarily given a good deal of attention to this subject, certainly do not at present understand at all, and so far as I am aware nobody else does either. The authors of the clauses, perhaps, understand them, but circumstances—I will not put it any stronger than that—have rendered it impossible to explain elsewhere what is the way in which one or other such particular clause is to operate.
  I believe we are face to face now with a difficulty which is not entirely novel, but which is at all events unexampled on the scale on which it now arises. It is quite true to say that in the legislation of some years ago there were clauses closured, or guillotined, or which, owing to circumstances in the other House, were not much explained or adequately discussed; but I think I am right in saying that there was not one of such clauses which was not capable of receiving, and which did not receive in this House the full, adequate, and effective discussion which it had not been possible, from whatever reason, to give to it in the other House. But the clauses of this Bill upon which that fate has fallen are the clauses which deal with finance; and I look forward with some anxiety, as do many in the country, to the exposition which may some day have to be given by his Majesty's advisers, because it is the fact that it is now proposed to enact as part of the Statute law of England a series of clauses which were guillotined without discussion in the other House, and will be ruled out of discussion in this House on the ground of privilege, and will then go to the world as clauses which have been agreed upon after full deliberation by the Commons as well as the Lords.
  It does seem to me a grave and serious difficulty, quite apart from the question of what the clauses themselves contain, that there are, indisputably as far as I can understand, large portions of this Bill, which it would, in accordance with the ordinary rule, be impossible for your Lordships, I will not say to discuss, but to discuss with such effectiveness as results in amendment. And if it be true that part of those are clauses which we do not understand—which were not explained in the House of Commons—I say constitutionally that is a very grave aspect in the history of what we are trying to do. Take,
  316
  for example, the clause which deals with the expenditure of a million of money. Does anybody know what is to be done with the money? We are told it is to be in the discretion of the board of Education. The board, one would suppose, would be able to give some indication of the sort of way in which it is to be expended, but at present there is literally none whatever. The only explanation was that a portion of it would be expended for the payment of the Commissioners who were to serve under the Act—that was given by the Minister for Education in the other House—but his attention having been called to the facts, he was obliged to say that this was an entire mistake, that money could not be given under the clause to that particular purpose, and that funds would have to be supplied for that particular purpose from elsewhere.
  Then with regard to rent, which we have again and again been reminded inside and outside of Parliament, especially outside, is the way in which compensation is to be given to us, or the way in which things are to be made straight for us where difficulties exist; we have had, as far as I know, not a hint as to the probable way in which that is to be assessed, or anything to guide us as to what we are to expect, as to the manner in which that solatium, if it be one, is to be afforded to us.
  But there are other clauses which were explained for the most part before they were actually introduced into the other House, or at all events before discussion took place, clauses which I would ask your Lordships to compare with the explanations thus given in order to see how far the promises made correspond with the text of the clauses as they now stand in the Bill.
  Here is one example of what I mean. When the important Clause 4 with its extended facilities was first foreshadowed, there was a deputation from denominational managers, their representatives, and friends, to the Minister for Education to ask him how they were to secure that under such a clause a teacher would be likely to be appointed who was in sympathy with the objects of the school, and who would give the old spirit and tone to the school under the new

  317
  conditions. The answer given, in part, was this—
  "Clause 4 may require strengthening, but the intention of the clause really is that the schools which come within its conditions should be carried on just as they are now. That is the plain English intention of the clause.… The intention of the clause certainly is that the teachers should remain the same as they are; those who are most qualified to give the particular religious instruction which hitherto has been given in the school."
  Now there are two meanings to the word "intention." It may mean the pious hope of those who framed this clause, and I have not a doubt that it was and is the pious hope of the framers that that will be the result. But there is no difficulty in making that hope into an assurance by putting something down which will show that that intention is going to be practically carried out by the provisions of the Bill. It seems to me that, unless the intention is to pass from the region of pious hope into the region of fact, it is one of those things which, however well-intentioned, are calculated to have, or to have had, an extremely deceptive effect, because that is the kind of statement which allayed the anxieties of those who were troubled or distressed about this matter. They were referred 1o that statement, and told that that was what is going to happen, when they entertained fears that the local authority might appoint anybody they liked to take charge of a school of that character. That does seem to me to be one of those explanations given beforehand which we have a right to have embodied in the Bill as presented to us.
  Another case There was the further question about the teacher giving the religious teaching, and in the House of Commons before that clause was passed, questions were asked, and pressure brought to bear, as to the method by which it would be in any way secured that the teacher giving the religious instruction should be a suitable person to do so.
  The Answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on behalf of the Government, was—
  "The first question was, whether it would be a matter of contract between the local authority and the teacher they were employing to give this religious instruction. It would; and they would see that they got a good teacher.….The third question was—
  318
  Supposing a teacher had been employed to give this religious teaching, and a contract was made, and after that the teacher changed his mind and would not give the teaching, what would the local authority do? Well, they would get rid of him, and they would get a man who would fulfil his contract."
  Nothing could be clearer—I will not say more satisfactory, because I do not think it was. But when we turn to the Bill, the provision is not there. Explanations of that kind, which went far to allay anxiety are not found embodied in the Bill as actually presented to us.
  The Bill comes to your Lordships with that kind of introduction and explanation on the part of the promoters, but its con tents show nothing of the sort. Therefore I feel we have a justification for saying not merely that we ought to amend the Bill, but that we ought really to look for Amendments of that kind to come from the Government Bench. Those declarations, as I have said, had an enormous effect in allaying anxiety, and, unless they are to be regarded as worthless, we have the right to ask that the Bill, before it leaves your Lordships House— I would venture to hope before its clauses are actually proposed from the Government Bench—should correspond with the kind of descriptions which were given when it was explained in the House of Commons. I have not seen the Amendments which his Majesty's Government I are going to propose on these clauses. I look forward with the keenest interest to their introduction, because I cannot suppose for a moment that they will not answer to the description I have given.
  Then, again, the statement was made again and again as to the facilities that were proposed in the Bill being practically compulsory. They are not practically compulsory at all. The local education authority may refuse to take over a school at all if they so inclined. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with the facts in the northern towns of England—and perhaps in some southern towns—know that, whether it was due to the municipal rivalry to which the noble Viscount referred or to some other cause, there is place after place where the school boards have overbuilt themselves, and where there is now abundant vacant space in their schools. Now it may frequently happen that in

  319
  the immediate neighbourhood of such schools there may stand a small Church school, admirable in its character, which was built by the self-sacrifice of those who preferred to send their children where they might receive the religious instruction they desired for them. There is, as far as I understand, absolutely nothing to prevent the local authority from saying: "We do not intend to take over that school. We intend simply to take the children into our school, where there is plenty of room,"
  Is that what the country intended -when they voted for such general changes as are said to have been authorised by the late General Election? I do not think that was the kind of thing contemplated or intended. Nay, further, I do not think that that was contemplated or desired by the promoters of the Bill; but intentions are one thing and the wording of the Bill is another. We must have the thing put straight, and in black and white, if the intentions of which we have heard a good deal are to be made effective. It is not enough for it to be said: "Certainly, they can do that if they like, but Mr, Birrell hopes they will not." That is really what we are thrown back upon, and against that I feel we have a right to object. A great deal has been said, and rightly said, of Clause 4 and the provisions which it contains for the recognition, in its proper place, of the denominational element in our educational system. We have heard again and again, when we have pointed out the difficulties of such schools as I referred to just now, that they would come under Clause 4. I hope they will, but I do not see the slightest reason for saying that they must, and I see nothing in the Bill that will give any power to those who are responsible for those schools necessarily to bring them under it.
  Everything depends on the local authority's will and wish in the matter. I believe as fully as any of your Lordships in the desire and power of most of the local education authorities throughout the country to deal fairly and justly in this matter. We owe a debt to our local authorities, and I should be the last to say that they would be likely in ordinary cases to make a mess of this matter. But everybody
  320
  who has looked into the facts of the last six months knows that there are loca education authorities who have an animus or prejudice in this matter, and it is not improbable that, after the elections which will now take place, when controvery is keen on this subject, there may be more local authorities acting with animus or bitterness than there are to-day. We have a right, therefore, to ask Parliament to make such provision as shall secure those whom we want to protect from the possible unfairness on a huge and most disastrous scale of a local education authority which happens not to take a large-minded or fair view of this matter.
  It is perfectly possible in the case of Clause 4 schools for the local education authority, subject to an appeal, which I think I can show is somewhat visionary, to make conditions of requirement for coming under the clause such as it is impossible for the school to comply with. I am not going into that now; but when the time comes I think I shall be able to show that so cumbrous and so complicated are the conditions that have to be met before a school can get the extended facilities that the clause will require a great deal of amendment before it can carry out the intentions, the perfectly honest and clear intentions, as I believe, of those who have proposed this arrangement. These are points, quite easy to multiply, on which the Bill needs to be amended to bring it into harmony with the genuine promises and declarations that have been made by its promoters.
  There are besides a large number of perfectly general statements that have been made by members of the Government, both in the House of Commons and outside its walls, of the desire of the Government that the religious spirit, the religious teaching of an elementary kind, shall go on in all the schools of the country, that no confiscation or anything approaching it shall take place, but that all shall be absolutely fair, even to minorities, whom we are told must always suffer, and further, that the denominational idea shall, within its proper place and within the purview of this Bill, be maintained. But to give real effect to those declarations it is absolutely certain that large, definite,

  321
  and clear Amendments must be proposed. Some of them, I hope, will come from the Government, and, if not they must come from other quarters of the House.
  We on the Episcopal Bench shall undoubtedly propose some such Amendments, and shall be prepared to support others of which notice has already been given, and which seem to give effect to what we believe to be right principles. What I desire to emphasise beforehand is that these Amendments, which I for one—I must only speak for myself— shall either propose or support, are coherent with one another, part of a definite scheme, and that they are not in any sense what can be called wrecking Amendments of a mischievous kind. They are not meant, as some Amendments are sometimes meant, to knock a hole into the bottom of the Bill so that it may sink. That is not my plan or purpose or idea in the Amendments for which I am either wholly responsible or am going to support. They are, on the contrary, Amendments designed to carry out with such fairness as is practicable and possible within the limits of the Bill the principles which we believe to be sound and right in this matter. They are meant either to give effect to the distinct declarations which the Government have made and which, as I think, they have failed to give effect to in this Bill, or else to do what is palpably and admittedly fair and just and right all round.
  In my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill I laid down three or four large principles for which we feel absolutely bound to contend. We think that something must be definitely said which shall secure that in regard to all the schools of the country we may not merely hope that they shall not be secularised, but that secularised they cannot be. I am certain that this is in accord with the feelings of the country, and I can see no reason at all why such a provision, if you like rather as a demonstration than as a possibility of enforcement in all its details, should not stand in the forefront of the Bill as something which is giving effect to the repeated declarations that the Bill is not to have, and is not in-
  322
  tended to have, a secularising character at all.
  We further feel that the teaching of elementary religion in our schools must, wherever possible, be given by teachers qualified and trained for that purpose, teachers who, in a literal sense, mean what they say. I have no sort of wish, nor have those who propose Amendments of that class, to reimpose what can be described as denominational tests upon Civil Servants as such, and it is absolutely misleading to put it in that way. We have no desire to impose on Civil Servants, as such, tests either denominational or even religious in their character. I am most eager to protect the conscientious men who shrink, to their honour be it said, from any action which would seem like endeavouring to obtain promotion in their profession by saying they believe something they do not believe. Those men are entitled to the highest honour and respect, and we ought to do all that is reasonable and proper to safeguard those men's interests.
  But, while we have every desire to help and to protect and safeguard from loss, as far as we may, the honest and often highly religious-minded men who take that view, we feel that it should be made a practical impossibility for education authorities to impose the duty of giving religious teaching upon people about whose qualification to give such teaching they have no power to make inquiry. We must render it absolutely clear that any local education authority which laid down a rule that no inquiry should be permissible as to the qualifications of the man part of whose duty it is to give religious teaching would be acting in a way contrary to the provisions of the Bill. What we desire to do is to make it perfectly easy for the honest and conscientious men to withdraw from the giving of that religious teaching, and, on the other hand, to secure that the local education authority shall make such inquiry as may be thought necessary as regards the person to whom that special and most difficult and responsible duty is given by the authority. And we must protest against any endeavour to muzzle and silence by force, by positive enactment, the teachers in those schools

  323
  where denominational teaching is, by the Bill, going to be given, who are eager to give it, who have been trained specially to give it, and who can give it without interfering in the least with the ordinary work or discipline of the school. To say that such men and women as those are to be compulsorily silenced from doing that which they are specially qualified and have been specially trained to do seems to me to be simple tyranny, and that tyranny I, for one, intend to resist.
  The next point is that definite religious teaching must be accessible wherever possible to those children whose parents desire it for them. The Minister for Education has more than once said words like those—
  "I have secured access to undenominational teaching everywhere for children of Nonconformists."
  That is perfectly right. I am very glad he has done so; I desire to support it in every possible way, and I think it is the very thing we desire to see embodied, if possible, in the provisions of an Act of Parliament. We welcome and will support it in every way. But we must ask for a corresponding right on the other side, that those who desire denominational teaching for their children shall also have access to that teaching in all parts of the country. One limb seems to require the other limb if the corporate body is to stand; and that is one of the Amendments which will be required to make this a satisfactory provision. We must ask for some further recognition in this Bill of the work of those who have with infinite self-sacrifice, care, and devotion built up denominational schools in our great towns alongside the board schools for those who desire their children to receive that kind of religious teaching rather than the other. Unless you are going to belie all that has been said about confiscation you must recognise the output of money as well as the devotion, which is of more value, which has been bestowed upon these schools during recent years. We must make it impossible for the local education authorities to render these gifts inoperative. To do less than that would be, as it seems to me, to belie every principle of public honour to which we have been pledged in the story of Parliamentary government.
  324
  In dealing with this Bill we have a difficult and dispiriting task. I think the position in which this House stands is something like the position of a great consulting surgeon or doctor to whom a patient has been brought after he has been handled by other practitioners in different conditions elsewhere—a patient, for instance who has been treated on the battlefield in the midst of noise and strife and difficulty, which rendered the quiet treatment which he ought to have had impossible. With delicate organs shattered or wounded, with limbs perhaps broken and twisted, the patient is brought to another authority, to a quieter atmosphere, and in different surroundings to have himself attended to and, if possible, set straight. The task imposed upon such a consulting surgeon or physician is a very difficult one. He can only make the best of a bad job. He will not, when he has done, be able to say the thing is satisfactorily done or that the medical treatment which the patient has received is the medical treatment which he ought to have had all through. It will not be a triumphant result. All he can do is to make the best of a somewhat bad business. The proposals which this Bill contains are not ours now, and they will not be ours when we have amended them. We cannot regard them, even when amended, as those for which we are to take full responsibility. We do as well as we can to amend what seems to us to be gravely amiss with the measure which comes to us. Unless some such Amendments are made we shall consider what steps we ought finally to take when the moment for such consideration arises. We all remember Wordsworth's poem about
  "The maid whom there were none to praise,
  And very few to love."
  I think that is the position in which the Bill stands at the present moment. I hear of none who praise it except somewhat superficially, and I hear of no one who pretends to love the Bill as it at present stands. But we will do our best to bring it into conformity with common fairness and practicable workableness, and with the promises—I lay stress on that—and undertakings of the Government.
  I apologise for detaining your Lordships twice as long as I meant to, but I

  325
  desire to say one concluding word. The: Bishops who sit in. this House are sometimes represented as sitting here with the duty upon them, so to speak, of fighting for our own hand and doing what if desirable simply in the interests of the Church. So far as I am concerned, and I am certain I speak for others, that is very far from my thoughts upon an evening such as this. I have no right, perhaps, to speak for others; but for myself I hold my place in this House, as I consider, not primarily for the protection of Church interests, but primarily for setting forward as much as in me lies the social, moral, and religious welfare of the English people. I am thinking not of Church children in Church schools, or of Church children in board schools, but of all the little children in the elementary schools of England, and of our desire that Christian training should be secured for them in the best way that it possibly can be. Ours is the widest outlook, with as I believe, the widest possibilities and results. I am looking far beyond the interests of our Church, dearly as I cherish them, absolutely as I desire to protect them.
  We do not have in this House—I wish we had—the presence of the leaders of the Nonconformist ministry. No one would welcome them more cordially within these walls than I should. But in their absence I should like to feel that we can in some degree discharge on their behalf the responsibilities for which, as Christian men, they care most. Like us they have at heart primarily and in the main the religious upbringing of the children of the English people, and I should like to think that they had entrusted to us to some extent the fighting of their battle. We are trying to fight for them to the uttermost. We want to go forward not for promoting the interests either of Church or of chapel as such, but with the single object that the little children entrusted to the schools may be Christianly as well as virtuously brought up. We are trying to set that forward. Such has been my aim ever since I have had the honour of a seat in your Lord ships' House, and it is especially my aim and purpose now with regard to those children. It has been so from the first, and certainly it will continue to be my endeavour as long as I retain my place in the Parliament of the country.
  *LORD EVERSLEY: My Lords, I feel very sorry to find myself in conflict with the noble Viscount who spoke last but one upon a Bill of this character. I can not but recollect, the many times in past years that we were shoulder to shoulder supporting measures of great importance and of a similar character affecting questions of religious equality. My noble friend has of late years fallen into other company, I will not say worse company, but he is no longer, it appears to me, actuated by the same enthusiasm which used to animate him in the past. He has changed considerably since the time when he fathered that important measure dealing with University tests. It seems to me that the Bill now before the House is very much of the same character as that which dealt with University tests. It provides the same security for the children of the poor as that Bill provided for the sons of the rich — namely, it provides that there shall be absolute religious equality in the schools between Nonconformists and Church people, and that there shall be no tests in respect of the teachers.
  I listened with some interest to ascertain whether the noble Viscount really opposed the Bill or not, and his speech left me completely in doubt upon the subject. I could not but recollect the speech which was made not many weeks ago by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition at Nottingham, a speech in which he said that the Unionist Party were not opposed to the principle of public control or to the principle of the abolition of tests, and that they did not intend to run Church against Chapel. By that last expression I assume he meant that the Unionist Party are in favour of absolute equality between Church people and Nonconformists, but I failed to follow whether the noble Viscount agreed with the noble Marquess, whether he really is in favour of the main principles of the Bill as defined by the noble Marquess, or whether he is not.
  The noble Viscount occupied the greater part of his speech in dealing with important questions, but still they were questions of detail and not really vital to the principle of the Bill. He said a great deal about the managers of these transferred schools, and the inexpediency of centralising too much in the education authorities of the counties. I for my part

  327
  am very much disposed to agree with him on that point. I think the tendency has been to centralise too much in the county authorities, but that is a defect which has been brought about mainly by the Act of 1902; and I think the noble Viscount failed to point out that there is a clause in this Bill which endeavours to minimise that and to reduce it greatly. I refer to the power given to local authorities to break up their areas into smaller districts with a view to not having such enormous areas to deal with. I hope for my part that great effect will be given to that clause.
  Then, again, I did not quite understand whether my noble friend, who at the conclusion of his speech spoke of the extreme anxiety of Church parents for the religious education of their children, recognises what has been done by the Bill in that direction. And as so much confusion has arisen upon that point, and so many misrepresentations have been made in different parts of the country upon it, I hope the House will permit me to say a few words in explanation of the method adopted in the Bill of securing religious instruction. It is still stated in many places that the Bill absolutely fails to secure religious education to the children. That is an entire misapprehension. The Bill enables managers of schools which are about to be transferred to make it a condition of the transfer, in the first place, that there shall be undenominational education for all children in the school, and, in the second place, that there shall be doctrinal instruction in the transferred Church schools for the children of Church parents who desire it. It does seem to me that the clause gives full security that there shall be religious education in the future.
  I have been told that many people are still under the impression that it will be entirely at the discretion of the local authority to what extent undenominational education shall be given. That is not so. I believe I am right in saying that it would be competent, when the managers transferred a Church school to the local authority, to make it a condition that a particular syllabus of undenominational education should be carried out, What I imagine will happen will be this. When the Bill is passed into law the bishop of the diocese in which the transferred school exists will advise the managers as
  328
  to their power under this clause, and as to the particular religious syllabus which they ought to insist upon. That will be the case in every part of the country. That being so, it does seem to me that the securities given for religious education in the transferred schools is ample and complete.
  Then my noble friend went on to speak of the desire of the parents for religious instruction for the children in the schools. I think myself that a good deal of exaggeration takes place on that point. I have no doubt whatever that the great bulk of parents in rural districts, and generally throughout the country, are in favour of religious instruction, but they do not desire, as a rule, doctrinal instruction. My own belief is that the great bulk of parents, especially in rural districts, are abundantly satisfied with undenominational education and with Bible teaching, and do not desire to have more specific doctrinal teaching for their children.
  I may remind the House that a great change has taken place in this respect in late years. In my early days there was practically little doctrinal education in the elementary schools. Education, generally speaking, was undenominational. The schoolmasters then gave nearly the whole of the religious instruction, and it was only rarely that the clergy entered the school for that purpose. But a great change has taken place in late years, mainly owing, I think, to the influence of the High Church Party. Greater efforts have been made by the clergy for the purpose of enforcing doctrinal education. The result has been that the clergy as a rule, or certainly a majority of the clergy, enter the schools twice a week, and sometimes three times a week, for the purpose of giving doctrinal education. In this way the grievance of Nonconformists has been greatly intensified, because they find that their children cannot go to these Church schools without having to submit to being taught the doctrines of a religion in which they do not believe.
  I think myself that the parents of Church children have also some reason to complain of what has taken place. In many parts of the country the clergy are of a very strenuous, conscientious, and active character, believing that Bible teaching alone is

  329
  insufficient and even mischievous and injurious, and probably many of them agree with the noble Viscount opposite, Viscount Halifax, who in a recent speech at the Church Congress told his audience that in his opinion the principles of the Reformation ought to be repented of in tears and ashes. In my belief there are many Church parents who do not wish that their children shall be instructed by clergymen of this character, and who would willingly, if it were possible, withdraw their children from religious instruction of this kind. In my belief, protection for the children of Church people is almost as necessary as it is for the children of Nonconformists, and one great merit of this Bill is that it gives that protection. In future, although there will be undenominational education in the transferred Church schools for all, education of a special character in the doctrines of the Church will be given only to those children whose parents desire it, and therefore the parents of Church children who object to the doctrines which are taught by the clergymen in the school will have an opportunity of withdrawing their children from that instruction.
  Turning now to the speech of the most rev. Primate, I congratulate him upon the general moderation and tone of it. It seemed to me to be a considerable advance upon his speech on the Second Reading. Much of the earlier part of his speech I could take no exception to. I do not think that we could find any fault with him for saying that those parts of the Bill which have not been discussed in the other House should be fully discussed in this House, or when he contends that any promises which have been made by the Government, and which in his view the Bill does not fully carry out, should be thoroughly examined and the Bill brought into harmony with them. But he went on, in the latter part of his speech, to propound certain alterations which he considered would be necessary, and they seemed to me to go very far beyond the general scope of the Bill, and to be of the character of the drastic Amendments which he promised us on the Second Reading.
  I think there is no very great fear of drastic Amendments. I look back upon legislation of the same kind for a great many years past, and I remember many
  330
  cases in which drastic Amendments were inserted by your Lordships and were rejected by the other House, and when the Bills came back to this House those Amendments were not insisted upon. My belief is that the promise of drastic Amendments has often been used by sagacious and able Leaders of the House in order to induce their supporters not to divide against the Bill on Second Reading, and when the drastic Amendments are carried through this House and go back to the other House, and are there rejected, they are not insisted upon by your Lordships. The fact is, that whatever reasons there may be for not opposing a Bill on Second Reading they are equally good for not insisting upon drastic Amendments when they are sent back by the other House. I recollect a great number of measures passed by the House of Commons by large majorities, and affecting the Church especially, to which the whole Bench of Bishops were opposed, as originally introduced. Among them were such measures as those for the abolition of the Church Rate and University Tests, Irish Church Disestablishment and the reformation of the burial laws. The course of all those Bills has been the same. They were carried by enormous majorities in the House of Commons; they came up to this House, where the majority of noble Lords were very much against them, but they did not think it desirable to vote against the Second Reading. Drastic Amendments were inserted here, and the measures were returned to your Lordships' House by the House of Commons with the Amendments objected to, and the Bills eventually passed with little or no alteration.
  But of all the measures which I have alluded to the one which is best worthy of the consideration of your Lordships was the measure for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, for I think it presents a very complete analogy to the procedure in connection with the present Bill, and points out what is likely to occur at future stages of this Bill. Your Lordships will probably recollect that the measure for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church passed the House of Commons by an enormous majority. It had been the subject of an appeal to the country; it came up to this House backed by the

  331
  verdict of the country and by an enormous majority in the House of Commons. Your Lordships had the previous year rejected by an overwhelming majority a measure of a suspensory character involving the same principle, and it was very well known that a great majority of your Lordships, including the whole of the occupants of the Episcopal Bench, were against the principle of that Bill.
  The then Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Tait, who was a man of very wide statesmanship, probably the greatest statesman who has occupied the chair of St. Augustine in the last 200 years, made a speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. He spoke in terms of which I was very much reminded by the speech of the present Archbishop of Canterbury on the Second Reading of this Bill He pointed out the grave objections to the Bill, but said he thought it would be more prudent on the part of their Lordships to read the Bill a second time. He promised, however, that there should be drastic Amendments in Committee. Those drastic Amendments were moved in Committee, and they converted the Bill into something very different from what it originally was. They incorporated the principle of concurrent endowment and saved a greater part of the temporalities of the Irish Church. The Bill then went back to the House of Commons and these Amendments were at once rejected, at the instance of Mr. Gladstone in a powerful speech, in which he spoke of your Lordships as living up in a balloon. I very well recollect the speech. The Bill came back again to the House of Lords, and at that stage a consultation took place between Lord Cairns, the Archbishop, and Lord Granville, and an arrangement was come to. I believe that arrangement was due to wise statesmanship on the part of the Archbishop and of the other men concerned, but the result of it all was that the measure passed with very small Amendments. The greater part of the drastic Amendments were withdrawn, and the Bill was formally agreed to very much as it had been originally introduced, with this exception, that one million more in money was saved for the Irish Church, which I think was a very small price paid for peace and quiet and for the settlement of a great question.
  332
  Well, my Lords, I cannot but think that the course of events in connection with this Bill will be very much such as I have described in the case of the Irish Disestablishment Bill. Your Lordships have heard that drastic Amendments are likely to be moved. The Bishop of Manchester has published a series of Amendments which in his opinion ought to be carried, and he said of these drastic Amendments that he hoped the result would be the same as that of an overdose of chloroform, and that the Bill would receive its quietus in a very short time. I do not think that will be quite the character of the Amendments which will be moved by the Archbishop of Canterbury. At the same time, judging from his speech to-night and the speech he made on the Second Reading, they will be sufficiently wide, and I have not the smallest doubt that when the Bill goes back to the House of Commons those Amendments, if carried by your Lordships—and no doubt your Lordships will be able to carry what Amendments you like—will be rejected. Then will come the real point of the difficulty, namely, whether an arrangment can be arrived at between the Leaders of the two Parties. There will be, no doubt, a meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, and one or two Ministers from this side of the House, and they will discuss whether an arrangement can lie come to. It will then be seen what is the maximum which the one can give, and the minimum which the other will receive, and I hope it may be possible for an arrangement to be arrived at. For my part when that strenuous moment of settlement arrives I cannot believe that statesmen of the ability of the noble Marquess opposite and the Archbishop of Canterbury will be so unwise as to force their craft to windward against the heavy gale of public opinion. My belief is that the Bill will ultimately pass with some modicum of Amendment, and that it will be found after a time—as in the case of the other Bills to which I have referred affecting the Church, against which so much opposition was raised at the moment— that none of the prophecies of ruin to the Church of England will be realised. The Bill will not injure but will benefit the Church of England, because it will

  333
  dissociate the Church from a system which in the minds of vast numbers of the people is connected with the sense of injury and wrong.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord who had just sat down, will, I am sure, not consider me guilty of any discourtesy if I do not follow him over the whole of his arguments with regard to the Act disestablishing the Irish Church, for I cannot see any analogy between the Irish Church question and that now before your Lordships. I feel that it is a great advantage that we should have this debate on the Motion to go into Committee. The importance of the present debate cannot be overrated, because the measure before us has not been adequately considered in another place. I doubt if there has ever been a Bill of such importance come up to your Lordships after such an inadequate discussion in the other House. The clauses not fully discussed in the other House, or not discussed at all, must be considered by your Lordships, and, if necessary, amended.
  The more the Bill is examined the more, I am convinced, will your Lordships be impressed with the necessity of obtaining from members of His Majesty's Government fuller explanations than have been given in the other House, where there have been inconsistencies between the speeches in its support as well as in the clauses themselves. Therefore, I venture to say your Lordships are entering upon a most important duty, not only to yourselves but to the country, in insisting upon a full discussion of these various clauses. I attribute the confusion that has arisen to bad drafting and to the anomalies in the machinery.
  I propose to-night to draw attention to some other inconsistencies and anomalies, and I hope I shall receive from noble Lords opposite some definite reply which will materially assist us in framing Amendments, which are exceedingly difficult to frame at present. In the first place, the clauses are not self-contained. The same subject matter is spread over different clauses of the Bill, and the rules of the other House have prevented their discussion in relation one to another. This was notably the case in regard to the facilities clauses, on
  334
  which there has been no general discussion, Amendments to one being ruled out of order when they touched the subject matter of another towards which it was closely related. There were many vital points dealt with in Clauses 7 and 8 in connection with facilities which were not discussed in the House of Commons when the question was raised on Clause 3. The result of the clauses not being self-contained was that a general Amendment moved to Clause 3, dealing with facilities, was ruled out of order inasmuch as it could be considered at a later period when Clauses 7 and 8 were reached, but when Clauses 7 and 8 were taken the discussion was confined to the specific points raised in these clauses.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): May I ask the noble Marquess to what point in Clauses 7 and 8 he alludes? Clause 7 refers to compulsory attendance and Clause 8 to teachers. Perhaps the noble Marquess means Clauses 4 and 5?
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: No, I mean Clauses 7 and 8. There was no general discussion on the question of facilities, and therefore I would like to ask the noble Earl opposite to explain what the views of His Majesty's Government are with regard to facilities. Then I would like to ask how we are to reconcile the different opinions expressed by members of His Majesty's Government with regard to certain other details of the measure. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons it was claimed on behalf of the Government that they had at their back the mandate of the country. I have heard that statement also made in your Lordships' House, and while to a certain extent I do not deny it I should like to have an answer to one or two questions. I should like to ask, had His Majesty's Government any mandate from the country to introduce Clause 1, which abolishes at one fell swoop 14,000 denominational schools, which were built and endowed by their founders for the purpose of promoting denominational religious education? I venture to say they had not. I contend that the country does not expect these 14,000 schools to be abolished by Clause 1, and it will therefore be our duty to deal with this question when we reach it in Committee.

  335
  His Majesty's Government have declared that they received from the country a mandate for popular control and the abolition of tests for teachers. I am not prepared to say that there was not a certain kind of mandate on the question of popular control, and, perhaps, for the abolition of tests for teachers; but if they had a mandate on those points, why have they not carried it out? Mr. Asquith, speaking on 10th May, declared that as regards the education question the remedy for the grievances was to be found, in the opinion of the majority of the electors—
  "In the adoption of the two principles which are called popular control and the abolition of tests."
  I do not in the least challenge that statement, but on the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman said that popular control in an effective sense involved the transfer—
  "Of the management and direction of every elementary school which depends on the State for support from a private to a public authority."
  But on the Third Reading Mr. Asquith said that if this Bill passed into law—
  "Every public elementary school—by which, of course, I mean every school maintained both out of the rates and the taxes—will become a provided school, and be under the exclusive management and control of a representative public authority."
  Thus, on the Second Reading public control was to be applied to every State-supported school, and on the Third Reading it is applied to schools both State-supported and rate-maintained. Mr. Asquith's speeches are a little difficult to reconcile, and perhaps the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council will be able to enlighten us upon them. Then, again, Mr. Birrell declared on the First Reading of the Bill that there should be no contracting out of public control. I do not criticise the views of Mr. Birrell and Mr. Asquith, but I think your Lordships will allow that there is a certain amount of discrepancy between the speeches of members of the Government and the clauses of the Bill as it stands, and I would ask the noble Earl the Lord President if he will explain those discrepancies.
  Then as to the question of no tests for teachers. How have the Government carried out the mandate of the country with regard to that? How are we
  336
  to reconcile the clauses in the Bill with the mandate received or with the speeches made by leading members of the Government? Another question upon which explanation is required from the Government is that of the granting of compulsory facilities, a matter which Mr. Birrell pathetically confessed during the Committee stage of the Bill was "in a tangle." Mr. Birrell, in introducing the Bill, said—
  "In those schools dealt with in Clause 2, on two days a week, if it is stipulated for and demanded by the parents, special denominational teaching of some kind shall be given at the expense of those demanding it, but not by the teacher nor in compulsory hours. Thus far the facilities or opportunities I have spoken of have been of a compulsory character. When demanded and when required the authorities must grant them."
  When the Bill is examined, however, it is found that this pledge is not fulfilled. The local education authorities are only bound to allow facilities in a transferred school—
  "if it had been made a condition of any arrangement"
  for the use of the school. On the Committee stage of the Bill it was pointed out that there was no obligation on the local authority to take over the schools or to grant facilities, and Amendments were moved to secure this, and to put Clauses 2 and 3 into accordance with the speeches of members of the Government. But when Mr. Birrell's reciprocal obligation clause was introduced it mot with scant favour from his own Party, and was rejected by 327 votes to seventy-eight, the division affording the unique spectacle of the Government whips telling against the Government clause. I sincerely hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will definitely explain how the Government reconcile all these discrepancies. It seems evident that the Bill, despite its importance, has not been prepared with sufficient care.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: My Lords, we were told by the noble Marquess who has just sat down that the House of Lords, in passing the Second Reading of the Bill, has accepted its principle. That principle has been explained by the Minister in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons to be undenominationalism. That is the principle which underlies this Bill, and, therefore, any Amendments that are introduced with

  337
  the intention of converting the Bill, which is undenominational, into a denominational measure will conflict with its principle, which has already been accepted by your Lordships' House.
  Some of the Amendments on the Paper are undoubtedly of a wrecking character. They will emasculate the Bill, they will change its whole scope and character, and, therefore, they have no chance of being accepted by His Majesty's Government, although they may be forced upon the Government by this House. The right rev. Primate, who spoke, if I may be allowed to say so, with that wisdom and moderation and common-sense which the country has learned to expect from him, and which it never expects in vain, indicated that he did not intend to move any wrecking Amendments, and certainly the line he mapped out may possibly in some respects improve the Bill, but he has not yet put his Amendments upon the Paper. Other Amendments, however, have been put down, and if they are persisted in they must inevitably change the whole character of the Bill, and, therefore, they cannot possibly be accepted by the Government.
  My noble friend who has just sat down pleaded that this Bill had not been considered sufficiently and with adequate care in the other House. I think that if he had occupied himself, as I have done during the last month, in reading in Hansard the entire debates in the House of Commons, he would not say that the Bill had not been sufficiently considered. The arguments on every aspect of the Bill were brought forward again and again, and I do not think that the Bill requires amendment in your Lordships' House on the ground that it was inadequately considered in the other House. This Bill is an honest and sincere attempt on the part of the Government to introduce peace into our schools, but I am afraid that their appeals for peace have fallen on deaf ears. I think that as long as religious controversy is mixed up with educational questions there can be no peace. In fact, it seems to me that the advancing wave of education must always be marked with a surf of sectarian strife, and, that being so, there is no chance of peace while religious controversy is mixed up with educational questions.
  338
  But, for all that, the State desires to see peace, and nobody can question that the paramount idea in the minds of the English people at the last election was to arrive at some satisfactory compromise under which justice should be done to everybody. I think that is the desire of the English people, but I am afraid— I do not say this with any disrespect —that Churchmen are almost constitutionally, I will not say incapable, but certainly averse to compromise. Therefore, it is proverbially difficult to arrange a compromise where Churchmen are concerned. It was this attitude on the part of Churchmen that was responsible for the Act of 1902. They had the power in those days, but they pressed their advantage too far and carried things with too high a hand, and it was because they did that in 1902 that your Lordships are now discussing this Bill in 1906. Had they acted in the hour of their power with greater moderation, had they paid more attention to the protests of their opponents, had they approached the question in a more conciliatory spirit, either this Bill would never have been introduced or it would have assumed an entirely different character. By pressing their powers too far they made a settlement that could not stand, and, therefore, the present Government had to take up the matter, and I trust that their settlement will be followed by a more fortunate result.
  I said that the country desired a compromise. A compromise is a settlement of difficulties by mutual concessions, and the question is what concessions are the Opposition prepared to make in your Lordships' House. I think it was the Marquess of Londonderry who said that nobody was pleased with this Bill, that nobody had a good word to say for it. I think the noble Marquess was really going too far. But the fact that nobody is pleased with the Bill is one of the best things that could be said in its favour. It shows that it is not framed too much in the interests of any sect, any church, or any class. It shows that it has tried to hold the balance even; but now that it has entered your Lordship's House it may be said, without any stretch of imagination, to be passing through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, where it will encounter many and great dangers, but, nevertheless, I

  339
  trust it will emerge safely on the other side, though it may possibly receive some knocks on the way and lose a limb or two.
  It will be a great misfortune if the Bill does not survive. It is a compromise between the two extremities —secularism on the one hand and denominationalism on the other. The country has clearly pronounced against the denominational solution of this question. The denominational solution was proposed in 1902. That solution has been finally rejected by the country. Some other solution must be found. The other solution was secularism. I think all who have studied this question must know there is a good deal to be said for secularism. It is the only logical solution. As a matter of fact, the State is not at all bound to teach religion; it is only bound to give secular instruction to the children. Religion is, and ought to be, a matter for parents, and I believe if the Government had adopted the secular solution their Bill could hardly have been opposed with greater acrimony and vigour than has this Bill. Lord Beaconsfield, who had a knack of seeing further ahead than most people, once said that the time would come when the State would only have to provide secular education, and when all religious education would have to be provided by religious bodies. We have not come to that point yet. That solution has been rejected by the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority, and I think we can all congratulate ourselves on the fact. But, if you reject the denominational solution on the one hand, and the secular solution on the other, surely there only remains the undenominational solution, which is that now contained in this Bill.
  An expression was used by one speaker, that this Bill as it stands will alienate the children from the Church of England, and that her interests under it will be materially injured. I cannot believe that to be so. I believe the Church of England exaggerates the result of this Bill. If she is that great and influential body I believe her to be, if she has that hold on the people which I believe her to have, the Church of England has very little indeed to fear from this Bill. The noble Marquess opposite said that 14,000
  340
  schools would be withdrawn from the Church of England.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I said would be abolished.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: The noble Marquess makes his case worse. I do not think the schools are going to be abolished; they are going to be transferred. But if they are transferred, my noble friend must remember they are transferred under conditions, and one of those conditions is that facilities have to be given in the schools. Denominational teaching will be given in those 14,000 schools for two days in the week, while hitherto it has only been the custom to give the Church Catechism and so on during two days in the week. Again, of those 14,000 schools at least 25 per cent.— some put it at 50 per cent.—will become four-fifths schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May become.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: It is admitted that some of them will be four-fifths schools, and nobody has put the number lower than 25 per cent. In those four-fifths schools no change whatever will be made. The case, therefore, is really not so bad as the noble Marquess made out. I believe that the Church of England, with her powerful organisation and far-reaching influence, will have just as much to say in the training and education of the children under this Bill as she has had hitherto. May I ask what it is that is really underneath all the Amendments on the Paper? What is it that the Opposition are really striving for? You are striving for this, that every child in the country that is receiving denominational education should continue to receive that denominational education to the same extent, to the same degree, given by the same people and in the same way and the same form as hitherto; that practically there should be no change whatever made in substance or in essence in the teaching which the children have received hitherto in voluntary schools; that the privileges of the Church in the schools should remain absolutely intact, and although you admit popular control in theory, in practice it would be nothing but a shadow. That is

  341
  really what the Opposition are contending for. If the Amendments on the Paper are carried, or if only half of them are carried, there will be practically no change whatever in the religious instruction given in the schools. They cannot expect that, and some compromise at all events must be arrived at.
  It is impossible to maintain the position which the Church of England has taken up unless you can prove three paradoxes. These paradoxes are very prominent in nearly all the speeches made about this Bill. The first paradox is that the people of England, though a religious people, are not to be trusted to maintain religion in their schools; the second paradox is that religion is the same thing as dogma; and the third paradox is that Christianity cannot possibly be taught by simple Christian teaching. Now, those three paradoxes are maintained in all their integrity by the opponents of the Bill, who say there is no security for religious teaching. That rests with the people of this country. If they are determined not to have it, it is impossible to resist their wishes; but they have shown plainly that they do intend to have religious teaching, and religious teaching they will have. It is said on the one hand, there is no security that we shall have religious teaching and that we cannot trust the local bodies. On the other hand it is said, give all the powers to the parents and they will take care there is religious teaching in the schools. The local bodies are composed of parents, and I believe they are thoroughly just, upright, conscientious men, who have the interests of the children at heart.
  You cannot have it both ways. Either the parents are to be trusted or they are not to be trusted. The parents will not save you on the one hand and destroy religious teaching on the other. There is no real fear that religious teaching will be discontinued in our schools. The trouble is that when you talk of religious teaching, what is often meant is denominational teaching. Plain Bible teaching has been described as municipal religion. I think nobody who has studied the syllabuses that have been issued will say that municipal religion is a bad imitation of the real thing. Those syllabuses have been drawn up by men of piety and integrity and wisdom. In fact, I think nobody has come forward since
  342
  the publication of these syllabuses to find fault with them. The religion taught under these syllabuses is a religion that must undoubtedly have the effect upon the mind of the child which all religious teaching ought to have. But that is not enough apparently. You confuse religion with dogma. The two things are entirely different. Dogmatic teaching is not the same thing as religious teaching, and religious teaching is not the same thing as dogmatic teaching. Lord Robert Cecil, in the House of Commons, referred to certain doctrines as
  "dogmas over which Europe has been fighting for hundreds of years."
  It seems to me an amazing thing that noble Lords and others should cling so to the necessity of giving this dogmatic instruction to children when their minds cannot possibly receive it. What is the use of teaching children dogmas which Europe has been fighting over for hundreds of years? Plain Bible teaching is the teaching most fitted for children, and it is, to my mind, a strange thing that the members of the Church of England are not satisfied with that teaching.
  I now come to the third paradox, and here I must again quote Lord Robert Cecil, who made a most astonishing statement during the debate on the Education Bill. He said—
  "The morality of the Sermon on the Mount would be, I believe, accepted by almost every person in this country as part of their religious belief, but it is grotesque to tell me that it is fundamental Christianity. I say I regard such teaching as that as absolutely worthless from the point of view of Christianity, absolutely worthless, and I know that I speak with the full assent of a large proportion of the members of the Church of England."
  I should like to ask the most rev. Primate whether that represents his view, whether in his view the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is absolutely worthless from the point of view of Christianity, and whether he thinks that the statement is correct that when Lord Robert Cecil enunciated that view he spoke with the full assent of a large proportion of the members of the Church of England. It seems to me that if the members of the Church of England take up that view and oppose the Bill on the ground that the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount is absolutely worthless, it is a position which will do the Church of England more

  343
  harm than it will do the Bill. The statement that the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, which contains the very essence of the spirit of Christianity, which embodies the highest doctrines in the world and has ennobled millions of lives — the statement that such teaching is worthless is one that is almost revolting to read.
  The truth is that those who talk in that way are taking up the Catholic position. They forget that the Church of England is a Protestant Church, and as a Protestant Church it is built upon the Bible and rests upon the Bible. It is said, Why do you pay such respect to the consciences of the Jews and the Roman Catholics when you do not pay respect to the consciences of members of the Church of England? The position is entirely different. You cannot expect Jews to accept teaching which involves belief in Christianity, and as to Roman Catholics, it cannot be expected that they can be satisfied with simple Bible teaching which they regard as imperfect, and which is actively and fundamentally hostile to Roman Catholic ideas. The position of Protestants in this matter is a totally different one from the position of Roman Catholics. Therefore, it seems to me that in order to oppose this Bill successfully and to make out that it does a great injustice you have to prove these three paradoxes.
  I doubt if you can convince the country that serious injury is done to the Church of England when it clearly understands what facilities are given to those who belong to the Church of England for continuing Church of England instruction in the transferred schools. If you think of the children themselves rather than of the interests of the Church, there can be no possible objection to make to the facilities now offered. The Cowper-Temple Clause has been in operation thirty-six years and has proved a great success. A generation has grown up since that clause was first established, and nobody can deny that children trained under that teaching in the board schools have turned out good citizens and capable of fulfilling their duties in every respect to the State. There is not one jot or tittle of evidence to prove that children brought up in Church schools are any better than the children brought up and trained
  344
  in schools where the religious instruction has been under the Cowper-Temple clause. Therefore, the case against such teaching to my mind falls to the ground. I will read the advice given the Church of England by an eminent Churchman, and I recommend it to your notice. He said—
  "The Church of England ought to constitute itself the champion exponent of that fundamental Christianity which is common to Protestants, and which commends itself to the general acceptance of the English nation."
  If the members of the Church of England adopted that principle, I am sure they would allow this measure to pass. This Bill is really an honest and sincere attempt to solve a most difficult problem and settle a great controversy, and it is the measure which has the best chance of producing a satisfactory solution, for it does justice to all and shows favour to none.
  *LORD BARNARD: My Lords, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence for a brief period while I draw your attention to one aspect of this Bill which I do not think has yet received the attention it deserves: I refer to the effect which it will have upon the law of charitable trusts. This is rather an intricate and technical subject, and perhaps, therefore, I should explain to your Lordships why, under the circumstances, I am so bold as to venture to intrude my views upon the subject. Some of your Lordships may be aware that for a period of over ten years I was engaged as an official in the Charity Commission, and during those ten years it was my daily business, except during vacation time, year in and year out, to deal with the law of charitable trusts; and unless a man is devoid entirely of intelligence he cannot pursue one occupation for ten whole years without being, at any rate to a certain extent, saturated with ideas upon the subject, and, in this case, obtaining technical knowledge of the principles underlying the laws relating to charitable trusts and their administration in this country and the history of those principles. The question has been very little referred to in the course of the debates on this Bill, either in this or in the other House, or even in the country. I gather—and this is from my own personal and official knowledge, —that people, although they have a deep and vital interest in charitable trusts,

  345
  are, as a rule, not very conversant with the law on the subject.
  Will your Lordships bear with me for one moment while I deal, as briefly as possible, with the principles of the law? Ever since the time of the Reformation, from after the dissolution of the religious houses, trusts for charitable purposes began to be created and to come into operation, and from that time to this those trusts have always received special favour at the hands of the Courts, at the hands of the Legislature, and at the hands of the administrative departments of the State. Your Lordships are familiar, I doubt not, with the general nature of a trust; but may I add to your knowledge the fact that a charitable trust is in law a trust for certain public purposes? Those purposes were originally defined in an Act passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which still is the governing Act, and all charities are now public charities or not by analogy with that Act of Parliament.
  I have said that charities are particularly favoured by the Courts and by the country at large. I think it is very desirable that they should be so, because they are to a very large extent, though not absolutely, for the benefit of the poorer classes of the community. The purposes for which they exist are very largely for the benefit of the poor; therefore it naturally follows that anything that tends to impair the security of charitable trusts must be to the disadvantage of the poorer classes. A private trust, as your Lordships know very well, must be carried out literally, and the same applies to a charitable trust.
  The most rev. Primate stated this afternoon that he does not consider a charitable trust absolutely sacrosanct. Neither does the law. The law, in its favour to charitable trusts, has always provided a means whereby such trusts can be adapted to the needs and exigencies of the day without in any way destroying them. That was always done, and is done at the present day, by means of what are technically known as "schemes." About the middle of the last century it was a very expensive matter to go to the Courts to obtain a scheme for the appointment of trustees or the alteration of the trusts of a charity; but through the efforts of one of the
  346
  predecessors of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Henry, Lord Brougham—through his efforts, extending over the best part of half a century, the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853 was eventually passed. That Act transferred to the Charity Commissioners a great many of the powers previously vested in the Courts, and simplified the machinery by which the Courts could deal with more important cases. That was a great step in advance, but it made no alteration in the principles on which the law governing these charities was founded.
  The principle upon which charitable trusts are altered is no doubt familiar to many of your Lordships by the old Norman French word cy-près. I have referred to-day, and on two or three previous occasions, in the Library of your Lordships' House to two books which contain so explicit and so clear a statement of the law on the subject that I think it is only due to your Lordships that I should mention them. One is a book the authority of which all noble and learned Lords will recognise; it is a book which I myself was obliged to read before I was called to the Bar, viz., Snell's "Principles of Equity." That book contains the clearest and most specific statement of what is a charitable trust, the nature of the circumstances under which it may be altered, and what the doctrine of cy-près is. The other book, which has been well known to me ever since I first entered the Charity Commission, is equally clear, viz., Tudor's "Law of Charitable Trusts." I am particularly familiar with that book, as I had the honour of assisting to edit one edition of it. Shortly speaking, the principle laid down in those books, adopted by the Courts, and recognised by the Legislature, is this; that where an intention has been expressed, when a trust has been created for a charitable purpose, the Courts and the Legislature will as nearly as possible—cy-près—carry out the intention of the donor or founder.
  But what we do find is proposed in this Bill? In sub-section (2) of Clause 2 there is what I must venture to describe, judging from my own experience on the subject, as one of the most far-reaching propositions on this particular subject that it has over been my lot to come across; in fact, never since the statute of Queen Elizabeth has such a proposal been laid before Parliament It is that

  347
  trustees of certain charitable trusts therein referred to should be at liberty to make any arrangements they think fit without any reference whatever to the trusts by which they are bound. I leave it to your Lordships to judge whether such a proceeding as that is conducive to the welfare of the public. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, on the Second Reading of this Bill referred to this subject, and a reference was made to that part of his speech by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I have this afternoon referred to the words used by the Leader of the House on that occasion, and it is quite clear to me that the noble Marquess had not in his mind when he was speaking sub-section (2) of Clause 2; he was thinking only of the provision which occurs later in the Bill for the establishment of a Commission—it is now Clause 9. That convinces me that even so important a person as the Leader of this House does not entirely grasp the effect which this Bill will have on the system of charitable trusts. Therefore I venture, with all the earnestness which I can bring to bear on the subject, to ask not only this House, but more especially His Majesty's Government, to reconsider these clauses of the Bill, particularly the clause to which I have just referred, and to see if it is not their duty to make some alteration, so as to prevent any breach in the continuity of the practice which has been so long adopted and so well established in this country.
  There are not a very large number of people acquainted with this subject, or with its intricacies; at any rate, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, I know only one other noble Lord, and that is Lord Colchester, who was for a time in the Charity Commission, though only concerned with one branch of the subject. I suppose that many great equity lawyers have more or less acquaintance with the subject, but since the establishment of the Charity Commissioners, to which I have already referred, these matters have been very largely withdrawn from the Courts, except in very rare eases, which are dealt with by the official generally known as "the Attorney General's devil." There are not many members of the Bar, I suspect, who are very familiar with this particular topic, and we know that the Attorney-
  348
  General's "devils" are, as a rule, preferred to seats on the Bench, so that their mouths, in connection with such matters as these, are stopped.
  I shall consider it my duty, unless some Amendments are proposed by His Majesty's Government, to endeavour to induce your Lordships in Committee to make some alteration in the provisions of the Bill in regard to this particular topic, to bring it more into harmony with the practice which has prevailed in this country for so many years, and I shall feel no hesitation in doing so, because I consider, as I stated just now, that it is the interests of the people, and especially of the lower classes, that are at stake.
  I should very deeply regret, and I am sure your Lordships would regret, any action on the part of Parliament which would tend to impair the benefits which the humbler classes of His Majesty's subjects in England and Wales obtain from charitable trusts, even if those advantages were to be impaired for what I am sure noble Lords opposite will excuse me for saying I cannot but consider a purely political party purpose. There is no doubt whatever that His Majesty's Government have found themselves in a very difficult position. I do not know, and I do not think anybody knows —certainly it is not officially known in this House—what proportion of schools are subject to charitable trusts. I believe from what one has heard in the country that inquiries were recently instituted by the board of Education as to the tenure of elementary schools, but the result of those inquiries, if there were any, has never been communicated to this House. Therefore we are really not in a position to deal with the question of schoolhouses subject to charitable trusts until such further information is vouchsafed to us. To my own certain knowledge, however, and to the knowledge of many of your Lordships, an enormous number of the public elementary schools of the country are held upon trust for the purpose of the instruction of the children of the poorer classes in the doctrine and principles of the Church of England. Again to my own knowledge, these deeds vary very widely; they are not all drawn on one model; there is no binding rule about them at all.
  There is another subject in connection with those deeds to which I should like

  349
  to refer, and that is an Act of Parliament which, as far as I know, appears to have been overlooked in the preparation of this Bill; I refer to the Schools Sites Act of, I think, 1841. That Act provides that a site for a school may be conveyed to the incumbent and churchwardens of any parish for the purposes of a school for that parish. The definition clause later in the Bill—and we must consider definitions in dealing with this subsection, because the word "owner" is there used— apparently altogether overlooks the fact that there are two bodies interested in the ownership of these elementary schools. There is, in the first place, the incumbent and churchwardens in whom is vested the legal estate, and they hold the site upon trust to permit it to be used by a body of managers whose qualifications are stated in the deed, and who must generally be members of the Church of England. I should like to know, and I hope we shall be told from the Treasury Bench, what is meant by "owners." Does it mean the incumbent and churchwardens in whom the bare legal estate is vested? Does it mean the managers who manage the school? Or does it mean both of these bodies in combination? That is merely one of the many little difficulties which must arise in the consideration of this particular question.
  Then let me refer, for one moment, to Clause 9 and the following clause of the Bill. These clauses set up a Commission, which it is proposed should deal, as I consider in the proper way—by means of a scheme—with the trusts of all those schools which do not enter into any arrangement with the local education authority. I may remark that in this case I consider the provisions of the Bill to a certain extent satisfactory, inasmuch as it is proscribed that in making such schemes the Commission should act in accordance with the principles followed by the High Court in exorcising, as the successors of the Court of Chancery, the ordinary jurisdiction as to charities inherent in that Court. If the Commission acts on those principles I shall have no fear but that charities which the donors and benefactors intended to be for the promotion of Church of England education will be preserved for that object.
  But I would ask His Majesty's Government one other question. Assuming that
  350
  the Bill were passed exactly in the form in which it now stands, and that a school subject to a charitable trust were to make one of these arrangements, I want to know whether His Majesty's Government intend—and here I may remark that I cordially agree with the most rev. Primate who stated earlier in the debate that what we want is to have the intentions of the Government written in the Bill—do they intend that those schools should be taken over from the present managers free of all expense, or do they intend that rent or other equivalent is to be paid for them? That is a vital question. I will assume for one moment that they intend that a rent should be paid. I do not quite know to which of the two bodies I have named the rent should be paid, but I would ask His Majesty's Government where in the Bill they have provided for the allocation of those moneys. They are charitable moneys subject to charitable trusts. What is to be done with them? How are they to be applied? I think that this and many similar questions require some explanation, and, if I mistake not, the Bill will require considerable amendment on this particular point. Far be it from me to suggest that any improper motive or any purely political motives have swayed the draughtsman of this Bill. At the same time, in so far as it deals with this particular question, I think the Bill fails lamentably to preserve intact the rights of citizens.
  May I, in conclusion, venture to ask your Lordships to bear in mind what the result of such an innovation as is here proposed will be? I have often heard that Englishmen do not compare favourably with the people of other nations in the benefactions which they give for public purposes. I do not agree with the statement myself, from the intimate acquaintance I have had with the matter at the Charity Commission; but whether it is so or not, I ask your Lordships to consider what will be the result of establishing a precedent such as this, which is bound to be quoted on future occasions, that, when occasion requires, the wishes and intentions of founders and benefactors may be set at naught by Parliament. In a small way I have myself been the founder of a charity for the benefit of the sick poor in a town in the Midlands of England. I do not know that I should

  351
  be best pleased if I thought that on some future occasion, perhaps even in my own lifetime, it might be said that the charity would be more usefully applied if it was devoted to some totally different object— say to municipal football, or something of the kind. I beg your Lordships to pause and consider very carefully what the effect of the proposal made in this Bill will be, not only in connection with the schools, but also in regard to charities and to donors and benefactors at large. My own impression is that it will very largely stop the flow of generosity and seriously injure the classes who benefit by that generosity. The noble Viscount (Viscount Goschen) has already alluded to this subject, and that brings me to the fact that under recent legislation—the Endowed Schools Act, for instance— empowering the Charity Commissioners and the Endowed Schools Commissioners to deal with certain charities, charities of recent creation were especially excepted, except with the consent of the governing body.
  I should like also to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact stated in the textbooks to which I have alluded, that there are two circumstances, and two circumstances only, which justify the trusts of charitable property being authoritatively diverted to something different. One is that the original purpose is "impracticable," and the other that it is "inexpedient." Perhaps the best known case under the first of these heads is that of a charity administered by the Ironmongers Company in the City of London—a charity for the relief of Barbary captives. We all know that there are now no Barbary captives; therefore it is impracticable to carry out such a purpose, and a scheme for something different is necessary. Even in that case the Court attempted to carry out the trust cy-près, for they examined the will of the benefactor, and, finding that he had left the bulk of his property for educational purposes, they concluded that had he been alive and realised that this part of his charity could not be carried out, he would probably have given the whole to educational purposes, and they acted accordingly. There are many such cases. But I ask your Lordships to consider these two questions, in the first place, is it "impracticable" at the present day to give instruction in
  352
  Church of England doctrine to the children of the poorer classes; and, in the second place, is it "inexpedient" as a matter of public policy to do so? I venture to leave those points with the greatest confidence to the consideration of your Lordships.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of adding anything to the very interesting and clear remarks on the subject of trusts which have just been addressed to you by the noble Lord behind me. I am sure that what he has said well requires the attention of the House, but certainly I am not competent to add anything on a subject so technical as that which he has introduced. There is, however, another question which has attracted very little attention in Parliament, but which is of the greatest possible interest to those who have to administer education in the country. The particular clause to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention is now Clause 15, dealing with the delegation powers of the county councils.
  The career of the clause has already been somewhat remarkable. A clause which called itself a delegation clause, but which to my mind could hardly deserve that description, was introduced to the other House with the Bill and read a second time. It gave every minor authority, oven the parish council, power to require the county council to give them power with regard to the management of education in their own districts. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that the County Councils Association, whose opinion I wish to represent, took very strong objection to that clause, feeling that it would largely interfere with the proper carrying out of their duties and cripple them very largely in the administration of education. I readily recognise that our views, and the views of others, were speedily adopted by His Majesty's Government, for that clause was withdrawn in the other House before it was ever discussed. On that withdrawal there was another clause—a rather suggestive clause—brought forward by a private Member, the career of which was equally short. That clause was, I think, withdrawn on the same day that it was introduced to the notice of the Committee in the other House. Finally, the Minister for Education undertook to introduce a

  353
  clause dealing with the subject, and it is that clause which we now have in the Bill, but neither in the other House nor in this House has it received the attention of which it is worthy, nor has there been any discussion of it on the part of those who have practical knowledge of the matter with which it deals.
  With regard to this delegation clause lot me say at once that I do not, in speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, nor in expressing my own views, take the least exception to the principle of devolution. I recognise that there must be very great advantages in any proposal which will allow county councils to delegate their powers to minor authorities under conditions which will ensure efficiency and economy of management on the part of those local authorities. It is obvious that with the immense amount of detail with which the county councils have at present to deal, it must be a relief to them to feel secure that they can safely delegate some of their powers to local authorities who will be more on the spot and who can deal with matters according to the wishes of their neighbours. In addition to that, I think it is of the utmost importance that the county councils in carrying out their duties should be able to induce the best men in the different localities to interest themselves in the cause of education, and in the management of education locally. That object is not likely to be achieved unless you give those who are to take an interest in education some power, and thus induce them to give up time to a work in which they can be of very great assistance to the county councils.
  But the point I wish to emphasise is that the clause as it stands, in the opinion of the County Councils Association, and with the assent of the great majority of the representatives of the county councils, does not fulfil the conditions they would like to see in regard to a clause of this description. I do not think I can do bettor than quote a resolution passed by the County Councils Association more than three months ago, before the present clause was introduced into the Bill. The resolution is to the following effect—
  "That the Council desire to express their strong opinion that no delegation clause is likely to work satisfactorily which does not allow the county council authority to constitute district committees without restriction in the
  354
  manner best suited to the circumstances of the particular county."
  No one can have heard the discussion by the representatives of different county councils without feeling strongly how very varied are the circumstances and conditions of the different counties in which this work of education has to be carried on, and that if you are going to impose stringent and fixed regulations as to the manner in which these committees are to be constituted you will in many cases prevent the assistance of the very best men and the men conversant with education whom it is the desire of all those in the country who take an interest in education to got to assist them in their work. What we feel is that the greatest possible latitude should be left to the county councils in this matter. I recognise that the broad conditions laid down in this clause may be very desirable in a large number of local districts. The clause practically says that these bodies are to be representative bodies in some form or other, either elected by the ratepayers or representing the minor local authorities. I fully recognise that direct representation has the greatest possible advantages, that with bodies elected by the ratepayers you have at all events the feeling that at their backs are the wishes and feelings of the ratepayers themselves. But while I feel fully that, whatever form the clause may take, eventually these conditions will be largely made use of in the election of the local education authorities, the point I wish especially to bring to the notice of the House and of the Government is whether, if there are places, and I have no doubt there are, where you will not get an efficient education authority in that way, they should be tied and bound to elect a committee in this particular manner. There may be many alternative modes of electing bodies suitable for having certain powers with regard to education. It is clear, to begin with, that it is highly desirable to enlist the assistance of those who take a real interest in the work of education, and in many of the districts, especially small scattered country districts, it is very doubtful whether you would get that by a system which compelled these bodies to be formed by direct election.
  Let me take two or three cases. I am not sure what it is contemplated by the Government the position of the managers

  355
  under this clause will be. There is a section which gives full power to the county councils to do away with managers altogether. Viscount Goschen spoke earlier in the debate of his fear that managers were going to be done away with altogether, especially in urban districts. This sub-section, if made use of, would allow county councils to do away with managers in every district, whether urban or rural. I know it is an optional clause, but at the same time, as we have had no explanation with regard to it, and practically no discussion upon it, I would venture to ask the Government what they conceive will be the manner in which this clause will be carried out, and whether they contemplate that this power will be largely made use of to do away with managers altogether. I can quite understand that in urban districts that may be possible and desirable, and that where you have two or three schools, or a group of schools, which may be managed by the urban district or by representatives of the urban district, with good educationists upon the committee, there would be very little left for the managers to do; but I very much doubt whether in scattered country districts, those who are interested in particular schools would at all like to feel that every power was taken away from them and handed over to a body, even a minor authority, on which they might be represented, or handed over without any regard to their opinions whatever. If managers are to be kept up in the country districts I venture to think that in any scheme of devolution, no better body could be constituted than one representing the managers of every parish in the district in which that minor body is to be constituted. In most parishes there is someone who takes an interest in education and finds his way on to the managing body, and if you have a body representing the managers of the different schools, I venture to think that such a body would be not only more in touch with the schools themselves, but much more efficient than any elected body would be, for the purpose of undertaking such duties as may be handed over to them by the county councils. In the clause as it stands such a scheme would not be possible, because the managers are not looked upon as a body who could be represented, but I think it
  356
  would be a very great misfortune if an educational authority of that sort could not be constituted.
  Then take another question. Your Lordships may be aware that in many counties the power given in the Act of 1902 has been made use of to constitute delegation bodies to assist the county councils in the management of education. In some cases they have had delegated to them powers connected with primary education; in others, they have had thrown in the local management of secondary education. In many cases they have been working with great satisfaction to the district and to all the people concerned, and they have appointed clerks and officers to work under them. What is to be the position of such bodies if these new bodies are to be constituted under the clause to which I am referring? One of two things must happen to them; either they must be abolished and make way for a body possibly less efficient than themselves and not so popular in the district for which they have to act, or you will have two bodies working side by side with overlapping powers, a state of things which cannot possible go on for any length of time.
  These are only two points to which I have called your attention. Many criticisms might be passed on the clause as it stands, but I do not wish at this stage to refer to details. I should like to recognise that in sub-section (2) of the clause a very desirable power is given to county councils, viz., that when they delegate duties to one of these representative bodies, the expenses of those duties, if carried out, should be borne by the particular district. That, I think, will have a very wholesome effect in ensuring more economical, or, at all events, less extravagant management than might otherwise be the case, and the attention of the ratepayers in the district will be called to the fact if the management is extravagant, so that they may take care that they very soon have a different set of gentlemen on the education committee to manage their affairs.
  I should like also to refer to sub-section (3), which lays down that the powers of these different bodies are to be uniform. I doubt very much whether that clause will encourage the granting of delegation

  357
  powers. It is clear that if the powers are to be uniform, they will be governed by the amount of power which can be entrusted to the least competent authority in the county. No doubt those delegation powers must be tentative to a large degree, but the development of the system will be retarded if it is not possible to give to the best education committees or representative bodies larger powers than could be entrusted to one of whose efficiency there was great doubt.
  I have ventured to bring forward these points because the question has been so little discussed before, and I thought it would be convenient that the views of so important a body as the County Councils Association should be heard before the Committee stage was embarked upon. I can assure the House and the Government that the views of the Association are not governed by any political sympathies whatever. The views which I have ventured to put forward as representing the opinions of the representatives of county councils in the country are equally shared by many gentlemen who are supporters of His Majesty's Government. I do not think that on this subject there is any difference of opinion on the ground of party politics. We sincerely believe that if you are to have a clause which will work satisfactorily in the way of delegating to minor authorities some of the powers which county councils will be glad to get rid of, it is most important that very great latitude should be given to the councils in deciding what is the best constitution to suit the needs of the particular districts, varying so greatly as they do in the different counties. I shall have some Amendments to propose in Committee, which I hope, when the time comes, will receive much support; I hope the Government will recognise the spirit in which those Amendments will be put forward, and, at all events, do something to second us in our desire that these delegation powers should be made as workable as possible, and that the clause should be so framed as to give wide powers to the county councils to settle the conditions under which these bodies should be constituted.
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): My Lords, after the long and varied discussion which we have had, f think it would be hardly respectful to your Lordships if some Member of His Majesty's Government did not intervene in the discussion. We met this afternoon, I think, largely with a sort of understanding in the air that advantage was to be taken of this preliminary discussion, on going into Committee, to raise some of those points which perhaps had received, owing to inevitable reasons, not quite sufficient attention in the debate on the Second Reading. I allude, borrowing the phrase of the noble Viscount who practically initiated this discussion, to what may be called the administrative aspects of the Bill.
  I am sure that I express the feeling of all my colleagues when I say that to us at least this discussion has already been very satisfactory; because it has, I think, by this time entirely relieved us of any real necessity of replying very fully to a charge which was made, I know, quite bona fide, but still, I think rather unjustly, during the debate on the Second Reading—that this Bill was a Bill simply concerned with the religious difficulty—that it was simply a Bill concerned with an attempt, more or less successful according to the aspect from which each individual speaker looked at it, to regulate the respective rights, and to remedy the different grievances, of various religious bodies—bodies called Church and chapel. This discussion has undoubtedly brought out the fact that there are very large and important administrative aspects of this Bill. Some of them, no doubt, as the noble Viscount showed, or tried to show, are be und up with the working of the earlier clauses of the Bill, which deal with what is popularly called the religious difficulty, but others are in the later clauses of the Bill, such as those which have been touched upon in the interesting speech of my noble friend Lord Belper, and which have no connection, by any possible imagination, with the religious difficulty.
  I myself would have wished that it might have been possible—but probably it

  359
  was impossible—to have kept the religious difficulty out of this question this evening altogether, as no doubt most of us in our hearts intended that it should be. But the religious difficulty is rather like that famous head of King Charles I, which we know in "David Copperfield" somehow or other always got introduced, whether he liked it or not, into the wise advice whïch Mr. Dick used to convey to Miss Trotwood in regard to the education of David Copperfield. We are discussing the education not of one boy, like Mr. Dick and Miss Trotwood, but of the future generations of the children of this country, and it certainly would appear that, much as we try to do so, even in a calm discussion like that of this evening, King Charles I.'s head, in the shape of the religious difficulty, gets into the discussion whether we like it or not. I must say that if I wanted a conspicuous instance of this, I should find it at once in the speech of the noble Viscount who initiated this discussion; because he started by saying that his speech was going to be strictly administrative, and we were all delighted to hear that; but he had not proceeded five minutes before King Charles I's. head appeared, and it appeared again and again throughout the speech. We had the insinuation, no doubt perfectly sincerely made, that some of the clauses of this Bill, even in regard to such a colourless matter as delegation, were in some manner animated by the fear which the Radical had of the parson. That shows how very difficult indeed it is in this matter to keep out the religious difficulty even if you desire to do so. Therefore I am not going to make any rash pledge that I shall be perfectly successful myself in keeping it out, because with the illustrious examples before me of those who have tried and failed, I feel that I might try and fail also. But I can assuredly say that I shall do my utmost to keep it out, and to follow some, it not all, of those complicated points which have been raised by various noble Lords in the discussion; though I would, if I may, put in this caveat—that all those points are essentially Committee points, and that we might, I think, take our stand, if we chose, upon strict Parliamentary precedent, and say that we admit that, most, or indeed all of those points are fair subjects for dis-
  360
  cussion and for difference of opinion, but that we could discuss them a great deal better if we had before us on the Paper the Amendments of noble Lords opposite, and of right rev. Prelates, and could come to close quarters, with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair. But as they have been raised at this stage, I shall try to deal with them, though my task is an arduous one, because these points are all very complicated, and involve many points in many Acts of Parliament. I shall, however, try to say a few words upon some of them.
  The noble Viscount rather disappointed us in one way. We were under the impression that he was going to give us the benefit of his unrivalled knowledge of finance, but, except upon very minor and small points, he almost gave the go-by to the larger financial aspects of the Bill—possibly (I desire if I can to adopt that explanation)— thinking that a very able and interesting speech made upon the Second Reading of the Bill by the Marquess of Huntly sufficiently covered the ground.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: That was not my reason. My reason was that I could not possibly understand them on this point. There is no material for discussion of finance in the Bill.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: I was about to say with regard to the speech of the noble Lord whose name I have mentioned that I am glad to have this opportunity of stating what I know was felt by my noble friend the Lord President as well as by others—that we all realised at the time that that speech was unfortunately driven into a corner by the numerous speeches dealing with more exciting aspects of the question; but we desired then, as we desire now, to acknowledge that that speech was a very important contribution to the debate, hnd whatever the noble Viscount may aave felt, I think the noble Marquess to whom I allude certainly felt that there was a great deal in the Bill which was quite capable of accurate and full discussion, and it was for that reason that he brought his views before the House.

  361
  One of the points which the noble Viscount raised was in regard to the question of rent, and the noble Lord opposite, Lord Barnard, followed on the same lines, asking what was proposed to be done by this Bill in regard to the rent of the schools under the arrangements which are to be made under Section 2. He asked, would there be any rent; how much would it be; what would become of the rent after it had been paid; how would it be dealt with by the owners and trustees who would receive it? He seemed to think that those questions were very difficult to answer, and that there ought to have been in any case some clear statement in the Bill—clearer than any he could find. Really I cannot see where the difficulty is. Here are two bodies of people—one the owners and trustees of certain schools, reasonable and rational men, and the other the local education authority—who are to make certain arrangements in regard to the rent of certain buildings. What greater difficulty is there in these bodies arriving at a fair agreement in regard to the rental of these schools than has been experienced by the county education authorities during the last few years, all over England, in arriving at a similar agreement in regard to the rental of the houses of the schoolmasters, which were left, as I thought unjustly, by the Act of 1902 to be the property of the managers of the denominational schools, and in regard to which, in nine cases out of ten, agreements had to be made for the county authority to pay a rental? What has happened? Simply this. The county surveyor has been sent down to make a report as to the value of the building, he has reported to the county education authority, and the matter, so far as I know—and I have had some experience—has always been settled without any great difficulty, because the question is approached by gentlemen with knowledge of property in their own localities, and the rental is fixed in that manner. There will be a similar state of things in regard to the rental of these schools. The officials of the county council will be sent down to make a report as to the fair rental for the school buildings.
  362
  Then I am asked what will become of the rental afterwards. There again I see no difficulty whatever. The money will be handed over to the persons entitled by law to receive it—namely, the owners under the existing trusts. If the existing trusts are of such a nature as to enable them, without any further question, to apply that money in a proper manner, they will so apply it; and if, on the other hand, they find that their trusts are not sufficient, it will then be their be under duty, and they will be compelled by other people to do it if they fail—but I am not suggesting that they will—to go to the Charity Commissioners, and to get a scheme for the application of the money so received. That is all under existing Acts of Parliament incorporated in this Bill, and in the Act of 1902, the machinery of which is perfectly familiar to a great number of noble Lords in this House.
  Then I am asked, also, as to another question bearing upon, this matter. What is to happen in regard to ordinary facilities in the case of those voluntary schools—those non-provided schools, as they now are—especially where there are trusts, in regard to the possibility of giving certain kinds of religions instruction, either in harmony with the Cowper-Temple clause or coming within the definition of ordinary facilities, or giving both? It was suggested by the noble Viscount, as I understand, that the Bill was very vague, if not altogether silent, upon this question. If the noble Viscount will look at sub-section (5) of Section 2, he will find that this matter, which was raised in the House of Commons, and which I admit was not fully dealt with in the original Bill, is wholly covered by the sub-section to which I have alluded. It will be a matter of arrangement, so that facilities and the Cowper-Temple teaching can, if necessary, both be given in these circumstances.
  Then the noble Viscount, again sailing near the edge of this question, said— "Look at the sorrowful position of the unfortunate owners and trustees, in any case during the coming year. Possibly when all those arrangements are made, hard though it be to imagine it, no great injustice will be done. But just think of next year! If this Bill passes, what a

  363
  sorrowful position a large body of denominational trustees will be in, with the dark future in front of them and the gloomy past behind them, still in occupation of their schools. What are they to do," he asked, almost in tones of indignation, "if they think the roof is going to tumble down or if they have to put in a new floor; who is going to pay for it?" I have the answer to the noble Viscount. I think he has forgotten, not a little clause in this Bill, but a very important sub-section buried away in one of the schedules of the Act of 1902. Has he forgotten that one of the most contentious subjects, a matter which was fought hard here on the floor of this House, and which in the House of Commons, where I then sat, we fought to the last, was as to the justice of allowing considerable sums of money, which represented the balances due, at the time of the passing of the Act, to the voluntary schools, to be paid over to them for the benefit of their structural fund—not merely to pay the existing current debts of the school for the last school year, but to be handed over to them, if there was a balance after the payment of any outstanding liabilities, and not only to be handed over to them, but handed over to the Voluntary Church Schools Association, so that all these funds should be pooled in every county? What was the excuse given us? There was only one, and that was these very structural expenses upon which the noble Viscount says they will not have a single penny to spend.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: All that money is spent already.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: Oh! is it spent already?
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: At the direction of the inspectors.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: The noble Viscount says that. He may speak from the experience of one particular county.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: No, no.
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I know a county where it has not been spent, and
  364
  in any case the money was given for that purpose. There were large sums, and I have never been able to get a Return in regard to the matter. I asked in the House of Commons, during the debates on the Education Bill, whether we were ever to have a full Return of these sums, but it was never given. Therefore, whether or not these sums have all been spent in some counties and not in others, my answer to the question of the noble Viscount is perfectly simple. When he asks, "How is the roof to be paid for next year under the regime of this present Government?" my reply is, "Out of the moneyshanded over to these schools under the regime of the late Government." I hope I have, in any case upon this question, given a reply which will be satisfactory to the noble Viscount.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: No, certainly not.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: I have shown that, although he has forgotten it, he is in possession of large sums of money which he evidently has overlooked.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: They do not exist; they are not there.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: Now, my Lords, I do not think I would be justified in taking up your time with a detailed reply to what was said by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Barnard) in regard to the general rights of Parliament to interfere with trusts, I, of course, desire to acknowledge his great ability, and the experience which he has had in these matters. There is nobody, either in this or in the other House of Parliament, who can speak with greater knowledge upon this question. But after all, the matter was discussed upon the Second Reading of the Bill. We were told that this was another, and a most extreme, instance of the reckless conduct of Liberal Governments in interfering with trusts. I had to reply to that argument then, and I can only say briefly that we have heard these arguments before, that they are invariably brought forward every time any Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, attempts to deal with trusts, and I think I might in any case

  365
  express the hope that in that matter I have the noble Viscount on my side, because I may remind him that he was our protagonist and champion in the struggle for the abolition of University collegiate tests, and that in the House of Commons he was made the object of exactly the same attacks as those with which we are met to-day.
  I now come to the speech of my noble friend who has just addressed the House. It is probably unnecessary that I should tell him that any argument, any request, any suggestion brought forward by the County Councils Association is one of which individually I must speak with the greatest respect. It has been my good fortune for many years to sit on that body with my noble friend and many other noble Lords whom I see in the House, and I can certainly say on behalf of the Government that we recognise the advantage which we have in this House in the presence of so many of those who have taken an active part in the work of the association, and in the work of the counties as chairmen, and that we hope, when we get into Committee, that we shall have the advantage of their assistance, especially in regard to these non-controversial questions
  My noble friend has said with perfect truth that the fortunes of Clause 15 have been varied. The clause has, no doubt, assumed quite a different shape from that which it originally took, and it passed also through an intermediate stage; but I hope my noble friend will allow me to point out that that little piece of history is in itself a proof of how anxious the Government have been to knock this clause into a reasonable shape. We all know that this question of devolution is one of the most difficult in the whole of the Bill. Probably nobody would have blamed the Government very much if they had said: "The Bill deals with so many and such complicated questions that devolution must stand over for another year." But they were anxious to make this Bill a large and comprehensive measure, and knowing, as they did, that there was a very strong feeling in the country generally, shared in by the county councils themselves, that a certain amount of devolution was necessary, they de-
  366
  cided to tackle the question, although they knew full well that they were marching into a sort of administrative hornets' nest, as the result indeed showed. In this clause the Government has had to try to piece together two things which it is difficult to piece together. They have had to secure the great advantages which have undoubtedly flowed to education from having bodies like the councils of boroughs and of counties operating over an area large in point of acreage and population, and, on the other hand, by a skilful system of devolution to minor authorities they have had to try to check the destruction of local interest which, to a certain extent, has been going on, especially in our rural districts, in the smaller areas of government. When the Government began to examine this question, they found, after hearing the views of many persons, that there was a great deal of difference of opinion as to what the devolution area and the devolution authority ought to be. There were some—I take for example the county of Northampton, in regard to which I have often had the advantage of hearing the views of the noble Lord whose absence we all regret so much—I mean Lord Spencer; I believe that in the county of Northampton they have very considerable confidence in their rural councils. In other counties they have greater confidence in the smaller area— in the parish council for example, which they think is still nearer to the people, and undoubtedly it is far nearer to the parents of the children than the rural council. In other counties—in the county of Somerset, for instance, it was put forward by Mr. Henry Hobhouse that it would be a desirable thing to have an even greater latitude, and to compose committees, or delegation bodies, not necessarily from any one particular area or one particular set of people, but taken from a wider area of selection. That being so, the ultimate decision of the Government was that they would, as far as possible, leave each county within certain limits to make its own scheme, their conclusion being, after hearing these various views, that the circumstances of one county were not necessarily those of another. Therefore my noble friend and I are so far on common ground, and all that we have really to work out is

  367
  the application of that principle; we are not disputing as to the principle itself.
  What I understand is that my noble friend will place upon the Paper certain Amendments which will perhaps carry further those views which, as I have said, have already been adopted by the Government, It would be impossible, of course, for me, or indeed for the Government, to-night to say how far we could accept those Amendments, until we have actually seen them; but I can certainly say in regard to what fell from the noble Viscount, and to a certain extent from my noble friend opposite, in regard to managers, that there again, on the point of principle, there is no difference between us, because they both urged the granting of powers to the managers on the ground that the managers were exceedingly near and close locally to the parents of the children attending the schools. That, as I have said, it is the wish of the Government to recognise, and it is of course to be borne in mind—and here I am furnishing the noble Viscount with an argument—that when the process, much dreaded by him, of turning all these schools into provided schools has been carried out, the managers of the schools will all, in a way, he representatives of public local authorities, because they will not be appointed by owners or parents, but they will be appointed, under the Act of 1902, partly by the county councils, partly by the borough councils in the case of boroughs, and partly, in the counties, by representatives of the parish.
  Then we were asked to explain rather more fully what we meant in regard to this question of managers by one of the sub-sections at the end of Clause 15— sub-section (8). I think the noble Viscount said that this was the only place in the Bill where he could find any mention of the managers.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Except in the Schedule.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: This is subsection (8), I think. The meaning of that sub-section is simply this. We recognise that there may be some counties which will take the area of the parish council as the education area. There will be a parish council in most of those
  368
  parishes, and it occurred to the Government that it would be rather absurd if, in a comparatively small parish, there were two bodies, very likely almost the same people, both concerned with the management of the same school, and that therefore it should be possible, in the case of a comparatively small parish, where there is a parish council, that the parish council itself should be capable of being constituted managers of the school. That is all the clause means. No doubt, theoretically, it applies elsewhere, but as a matter of practice it would be almost impossible to apply the clause except in a rural parish. The words no doubt used are—
  "Managers appointed under Section 6 of the Act, 1902,"
  and I am quite aware that that section covers be roughs as well as parishes; but I think if the noble Viscount, with his great experience, will look at the clause he will see that the object and meaning are perfectly plain. If, however, it is necessary to make even clearer the meaning which I have explained, there will be no difficulty in moving words to effect that object in Committee. But the clause itself fully meets the wishes of the noble Viscount, because it recognises that it will be desirable in many cases to have a body of local managers, whether through the parish council or somebody else, representing those persons who are nearest to the interests, and have the greatest knowledge, of the children who are actually attending the school.
  The noble Viscount said also that he regretted that we had involved this Bill in a great amount of confusion by the importation of no less than five classes of schools. It is true, if you analyse the Bill very closely, that there will be five classes of schools under the administration of the county council; but I must remind the noble Viscount and noble Lords opposite that, if these different classes of schools exist, they have been brought into operation one by one in order to make an honest attempt to meet, so far as we can, the wishes of noble Lords opposite and of right rev. Prelates, in regard to the maintenance of a certain kind of religious education. Therefore I shall be a little disappointed

  369
  if, in these debates, we are to have these works which I think ought to be counted to us by noble Lords opposite for righteousness, taken up and cast in our teeth, because in reality they do not represent our abstract desires in the matter; our abstract desires would be limited to the application of Clause 1.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My noble friend has not caught my point. My point was that the Bill was so drawn that it was necessary to introduce these different classes of schools, whereas the whole thing might have been remedied by making one uniform system for the provided schools giving the necessary facilities for parents. If that were done the whole of these difficulties would vanish.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: I am inclined to think that if the noble Viscount were to try to work out that scheme into a Bill, he would probably find that there were almost as many varieties of schools as under our Bill. It is very easy to lay down a general proposition, and to say it is all quite plain and simple, and it is not for me to set my limited experience against the great experience of the noble Viscount; but I think the plan that he has explained will immediately suggest to those who have had experience of educational administration an immense confusion of all kinds of varied administration and varied schools.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: One administration.
  *LORD FITZMAURICE: Be that as it may, we shall attempt in Committee to justify these proposals, and it will, I think, be for noble Lords opposite to put their Amendments on the Paper and show us their hand. The most rev. Prelate, in a speech which, like all his speeches, was of the greatest moderation of form and partly so in substance, said he almost hoped that before, we went into Committee the Government would have put down some Amendments. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that we are going to do anything of the kind. We appear without fear with this Bill which has come up from another place. We think we can justify it. We believe
  370
  that we have a great majority of the people of this country behind it, and behind the Government that brought it in. At the same time, there will be every desire to meet noble Lords and right rev. Prelates so far as possible. But there is one observation, and one observation only, in regard to the controversial aspects of this question, which I shall venture to make. I admitted a moment ago the moderation, both of form and of substance, of the speech of the most rev. Primate. But at the end of that speech there was an observation which I confess filled me with some little alarm. I am not certain that I understood it—I hope I misunderstood it; but so far as I understood it, it was that, going considerably beyond what he said on Second Reading, he expressed the opinion that there ought to be what I think he called reciprocity between the existing provided schools and the non-provided schools which are now to become what have been called in these debates transferred schools, and that if it is fair to bring Cowper-Temple teaching to any extent into the present non-provided schools, there ought to be reciprocity, and that ordinary facilities should be capable of being put into the existing provided schools. That suggestion has often been made; therefore I was not altogether unprepared for it, but I am bound to say that that would be striking a blow at the Bill in a vital point. I am sure if noble Lords will refer to the debates which took place elsewhere, and in the country at large, they will see that there is hardly anything which is more strongly held by Liberal and by Nonconformist opinion than that, whatever else may happen, whether this Bill passes or whether it does not, no stone shall be touched, and no hand shall be laid, upon the old school board schools, the present county council schools, which have been raised and paid for by the money of the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country, and are their property and in their possession.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: The noble Lord who has just spoken has closed his speech with a very remarkable and significant statement — that although the voluntary schools may be swept away or their existence imperilled without

  371
  a word, the provided schools are to be treated as so sacred that they are to be regarded as the Ark of the Covenant which nobody must criticise, discuss, or seek to amend. I never heard a more extraordinary statement. The noble Lord commenced his speech by expressing his surprise at the introduction of the religious difficulty. Did your Lordships ever hear anything more astounding? If there was no religious difficulty, would there be any Bill? Will not the Bill be a hopeless and miserable failure if it leaves the religious difficulty in a state of worse confusion than when you put your hands to paper?
  The noble Lord dealt, with an ingenuity at which I was not surprised, with some of the topics, not the largest ones, that have been introduced into the debate this evening; but when he might have applied himself to dealing with the larger questions which have been thrown out for discussion—some of the suggestions in the speech of the most rev. Primate, or put forward by the noble Viscount—I would have expected to hear some words indicating a desire on the part of the Government to consider those topics in Committee with an open mind, and an anxiety to meet them, as far as possible, by fair Amendments and in a fair spirit. But there was not one single syllable indicating a desire to compromise, or to meet difficulties in any reasonable way.
  The noble Lord said, in reference to the most rev. Primate's speech: "Let him come into the open, and put his Amendments on the Paper." I have no doubt, whatever, from what was said by the most rev. Primate, that he will put his Amendments on the Paper, and that Amendments will be brought forward by noble Lords in other parts of the House; and I have no doubt that the noble Lord the President of the Council will consider and discuss them with the fairness which he always evidences in his proceedings in this House. But surely the obligation to place Amendments on the Paper is not all one sided. Surely, having regard to what took place in the House of Commons, and to Mr. Birrell's numerous statements as to what he hoped, and expected, and intended, but did not actually do, through the Bill,
  372
  we have a right to expect that the Government will present their Amendments, that they must have Amendments that are ready, and that they will themselves come into the open and show that they are not only people with most splendid intentions, but they know how to carry out those intentions, by putting into the Bill apt words which cannot be misconstrued, forgotten, or explained away. I have no doubt this is a topic which will be mentioned repeatedly as the discussion proceeds. It will be impossible for the Government to fold their hands and say that they alone of the people in this House are not to present Amendments. Everyone knows that the Bill teems with points of attack, that it abounds in positions that indicate the necessity of Amendment, and that if it is not copiously amended it will be un-telligible if passed into law, and must be doomed to complete failure.
  No one can suggest that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has indicated the slightest desire to retard the consideration of every aspect of this Bill. When it was suggested, two or three nights ago, by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that he desired that the appeal in the West Biding case should proceed without any regard to, or interference with, the proceedings on this Bill, my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition indicated no dissent, leaving the Government to adopt their own course and not taking any part at all which would indicate the slightest desire whatever to retard the progress of the Government's procedure as to what they thought the best way of carrying on their business and bringing this matter fully and completely before Parliament.
  I cannot think that, the interval of two or three months which has elapsed from the time the House adjourned for the recess has been spent in vain. We were invited by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, in his closing speech before the adjournment, to carefully road and consider this Bill, and I think most of us have had ample opportunity of so doing; I know I have myself, and I am sure a great many of your Lordships have also. We have had abundant opportunity of reading also a vast amount of literature on this question, and of meeting a great many very intelligent "men in the street," who are able

  373
  to tell us their opinion, and how the question strikes them. I believe myself that this time of intercourse with our fellow citizens has been fruitful in instruction. I do not think the Bill has stood the test of criticism, examination, or time. Every criticism that I heard made on the Second Reading of this Bill has been confirmed and strengthened during the time which has elapsed, by the progress and development of opinion. I do not wish to impute anything to the Government, because it is best always to impute as good motives as you reasonably can; but if the Government wore given their choice as to what they would like to happen to this Bill, I believe the course which they would most dread to face, and most dislike to adopt, would be that of passing the Bill into law forthwith as it stands now, unamended and with all its imperfections. I think if that were proposed now, the noble Marquess opposite would hold up his hands in pious attitude, and say, "Save us from our friends! "
  I commence with an observation that is really a matter by which any legislative proposal of this magnitude, complexity, and importance has a right to be judged. It has not a vestige of the principle of either settlement or finality. It disturbs, I admit not illegitimately, a previous settlement, because certain changes were deemed right and fair; but if you disturb a pre-existing settlement, it should be with a view to establishing something in its place that would be regarded as a better settlement, or at all events a settlement with some principle of finality. If this Bill passed in its present shape, it is quite obvious that there would not be any chance of finality in it. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Grimthorpe, said that the Bill was conceived in a spirit of compromise. What did he mean by the word "compromise"? Whore is the compromise? If compromising is taking all on one side, and giving nothing to the other, he is right; but if the word is to be taken in the ordinary sense, no one except a person who thought he was addressing a lunatic asylum would venture to adopt any such phrase.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: I may say that the compromise was between secularism on the one side and denominationalism on the other.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: The word "compromise" was the word on which the noble Lord placed his principal reliance, and it struck me that it was a very extraordinary statement, and one that did not bear any examination from any ordinary standpoint. The conception of the Bill, I think the noble Lord said, was that it should be on undenominational lines. Be it so. And there was to be one class of schools that was to carry out that conception. That broke down the very minute it was sought to be applied. Instead of there being one class of schools all entirely undenominational, the very necessity of the thing required the Government to proceed to re-manufacture the first clause in four or five clauses that followed after; and we find that instead of there being one single class of schools there are four or five classes, and that the principle of undenominationalism had to be practically put aside again from the necessity of things, and that the principle of donominationalism, that is, definite religious teaching, had to be recognised in Sections 3 and 4.
  The fourth clause, which has been so much attacked, is an interesting and in a sense a valuable clause. It is valuable because it shows that the simplest elements of justice require that denominationalism must be recognised, and that something should be done to meet the legitimate claims of those who believe in the religion that they profess. More than that, it recognises the rights of parents to be considered in reference to that tremendously important matter. Having made these recognitions, it is obvious, on reading the clause, that it is to the last degree partial and unfair. Let there be equality all round. What is justice for one, let it be justice for all. But this Clause 4, which is a strange piece of drafting, is not just, fair, or workable. I have no right to make constitutional suggestions, but I almost wish that our constitutional arrangements would enable the draftsman of a great Bill like this to be made a sessional Peer. I think it would be an infinite comfort if we could have him introduced for the session—I think one session would be enough for him—so that he could hear his work discussed, and be asked to explain what is meant by the extraordinary adjustments of language and clauses.

  375
  I have said that the Bill is partial and unjust. Is it not so? It is brought in to endeavour to satisfy the Roman Catholics and the Jews. That is a perfectly legitimate purpose. They have every claim to be satisfied. They have every right to have their legitimate wants met. Mr. Morley, speaking some months ago (I was greatly struck by his words, but I am not quite sure that he would use them now, in the light of subsequent discussions, although he might, because he is an honest and upright politician), said that the clause was framed to meet the needs and the desires of non-Protestants. What did he mean? That the Roman Catholics were entitled to consideration because they were non-Protestants; that the Jews wore entitled to consideration for the same reason; but that the Church of England and any Protestants that desired special facilities might come in at the tail as well as they could. It was said by Mr. Birrell that he did not intend to damage the Church or its interests. I am sure that the words of Mr. Birrell, he being an honourable gentleman, are entitled to acceptance. It was not intended to damage those interests, but was it intended to ignore them, or to forget them? Were they realised? Did he ever try to appreciate the standpoint of the Church? Is it not obvious to anyone who reads the Bill that the Church, and the interests of millions who belong to it, were all put aside or treated as of no account? Several other classes were considered and dealt with, but no account was taken of the largest class in the country. It was right and just, the argument of Mr. Morley goes, to consider the claims of the Roman Catholics, because their conscientious feelings require it. It was right and just to consider the claims of the Jews for the same reason. I ask, then, in the name of fairplay and common justice, why are not the conscientious views and conclusions of the members of the great Church of England also to be borne in mind? I can see no answer to that, except it be this—that what was good enough for Dr. Clifford was good enough for them. I can see no other possible way of defending it.
  Four things stand out conspicuously plain after all the discussion of these months. The country will have no secularism. It demands and insists upon
  376
  religious education; that that religious education should be given in school hours, that it is to be given by competent and convinced teachers, and that the wishes of the parents are to be had some regard to. Ono would almost say that these were maxims of common sense. I would like to hear the Government say how they regard those propositions, which to us are so obvious. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Hereford has, I believe, adopted every one of these four points, and I believe others also. Although he is in favour of the Bill, and anxious to support it, he mentions these and other Amendments as being necessary. Surely we are entitled, either by Amendments on the Paper, or by adequate speech in your Lordships' House on this stage of the Bill, to be told how the Government regard these important matters.
  This is not the time to discuss the details, but there are two broad facts that have struck my mind in reading the Bill. In my opinion—and I have read this Bill in the closest way more than once—the existence of voluntary schools is in deadly peril under the clauses of the Bill. It is not a Bill for translating them into ordinary provided schools. Nothing of the kind. If this Bill passes it prescribes a charter under which the voluntary schools of the country may be extinguished, some of them, it may be, gradually; but a machinery—potent, even omnipotent— is provided, under which the voluntary schools of the country are placed, first in deadly peril and then may be bled to death.
  I again come to the intentions of Mr. Birrell. I speak of him with all respect, entirely believing in the sincerity which animates his expressions of opinion. But no one can deny the legal construction of the Bill, by which these voluntary schools are handed over, bound neck and heels to the action of the local authority; the local education authority may refuse to take over all or some of them, and those that are left out will die. Mr. Birrell said that that was not his intention, that he intended that all suitable schools should be taken over, and that all fair-minded councils would take over all the schools that were suitable structurally and otherwise. I hope, and I would like to expect, that that would be so, but it is not in the Bill. Being a

  377
  plain man with a legal training, I am glad to found myself on a more acute ecclesiastical mind. The most rev. Primate pointed out that nothing could le more agreeable than the good wishes and benevolent designs of Mr. Birrell, but they are not in the Bill. What is in the Bill is this: that the local education authorities need only take over the voluntary schools where they desire to do so. What a foundation to rest on! It is a mere quicksand. You put all the voluntary schools, which have done so much in history and in reality, on which generations in the past and millions in the present are spending thousands of pounds—you put them all outside the protection of the Act of Parliament, hanging on the words of a Minister, words which are liable to lie forgotten no matter how honourable the Minister may be, and you refuse to put one syllable into the Act to enable people to say, "These are the wishes and intentions of Parliament, stated in the terms of the statute, which would otherwise expose us to the danger of destruction." This is a real danger. Viscount Goschen put the matter with admirable force. I hate making personal charges, and I will not make any. But the local education authorities vary; some of them are good; some of them, may be, too good, and they might have a notion in their minds that they had a more excellent way for the education of the country than taking over these voluntary schools, which, to their minds, have nothing to recommend thorn ignoring their history and the religious teaching and the memories of those who founded them, spent their money upon them, and died in the hope that they would always give the education they desired. These local education authorities might, it may be, think that they could give bettor education in larger and grander buildings, better organised, better co-ordinated; they might think they could do the work better by a system of centralisation; they might have no sympathy with the cause of religious education; they might have their own fads to carry out; and you would be thus leaning for the protection of the voluntary schools upon local authorities that were absolutely free to do what they liked, to follow out every whim that passed through their minds; and thus it might be that though many of them—I hope very many
  378
  of them—would be anxious to act according to the kindly and benevolent hopes of Mr. Birrell, there might be others who would leave thousands of these schools out in the cold to die and be forgotten, with no statute to appeal to.
  Why appeal to the Government to put down Amendments dealing with this question? The answer is this. In order that these schools should not be left in a position of real peril. It is not fair; it is not just; it is un-English. It is reasonable that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should ask noble Lords to come forward and place their Amendments on the Paper, to come out into the open and show their hands. But let the Government show their hand. Do they moan to leave these schools at the mere beck of the local education authority, without putting a line or comma into the Bill that can give thorn legal protection and duration? Do they mean to leave them to the accident of every change of mind that each election may bring about, fought, it may be, on educational or religious grounds? Again I say it is not reasonable or just. I think the Government should come forward, and by apt words or reasonable Amendments show us that they do not intend these consequences to follow.
  There is one other point I wish to mention; it is in reference to the special facilities. Really that clause, if it wore not such a tremendously grave thing, dealing with such serious and important topics, touching us all so nearly, would be ludicrous in its—I cannot call it cunning drafting, but in its curious, mixed-up, involved and incomprehensible drafting. There are a lot of fanciful conditions. "Fanciful" is the kindest word I can use. Mr. Birrell said himself that in order to got the special facilities these schools had to run the gauntlet of very severe provisions. Why should they run any such gauntlet to got that right? I am not going to discuss the clause now. But what reason is there for supporting the restriction of these special facilities, under all the circumstances, to an urban district of 5,000 population? Is there either logic or sense for it? May not every single reason that would induce you to give these special facilities exist equally outside an urban district? May

  379
  there not be the same reasons as to population, the same second school, the same need of providing everything? Why have you got in your mind this fetish limiting the facilities to the urban districts? The four-fifths clause is really a conundrum. You might as well take any other figure, instead of bluntly and frankly saying that in a district where the other conditions were satisfied and the majority of parents desired it they should be entitled to get those special facilities. Is it much to ask or much to give special facilities to parents to teach their children their own religion if the majority of them desire it? That is a very grave and serious matter to consider.
  Then there is no appeal that can be regarded as satisfactory. There is no appeal at all on the earlier point I made as to saving the school from destruction if the local education authority will not take it over. On that large and vital point there is no appeal whatever, good or bad. As to special facilities, there is an appeal to the board of Education. And what may lie the result of that appeal? One of the results — and if the Bill remained as it is I think it might become the favourite result—would be to turn the school into a State-aided school. I can understand the temptation to work that plan. The local education authority would be greatly tempted to say—
  "Put them off the rates, and make it a State-aided school, thus fleeing as of all trouble and difficulty."
  That is one of the points the Government will have very seriously to explain in Committee. This introduction of the State-aided school was entirely the creation of the Governmental genius, and they seem proud of it, because they put in immediately afterwards, that if twenty parents are dissatisfied about the special facilities there may be an appeal to the board of Education. And what is to happen then? Not that the board of Education is to put the matter right, but if they find that the parents are right, and that the facilities are inadequate and unreasonable, the school is to become a State-aided school. Can you conceive anything more marvellous in drafting than that? The parents complain that the facilities are not given fairly and reasonably. On appeal the Board of
  380
  Education find that the complaints are justified. But they do not try to set the matter right. They take the school off the rates and make it a State aided school!
  There is only one other matter to which will refer, and that is the question of charitable trusts, to which Lord Barnard so clearly and forcibly alluded. I do not think the noble Lord opposite much cared about grappling with the question; he played with the fringe of it gravely, but still——
  LORD FITZMAURICE: I spoke very fully on that point in the debate on the Second Reading, and I said that I did not think I should be justified in repeating my arguments on the present occasion.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: I had the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord on the Second Reading, when he discussed everything in the fullest way, but I was confining myself to to-day, and I only want to make a couple of observations in reference to it. This clause is extremely strange. It hands over charitable trusts to the absolute mercy of the trustees. I do not say they may betray their trust, but they may be unmindful of its importance and the need of carrying it out, and they may hand it over without check or stint to the local education authority. That is certainly not in accordance with the existing law. Unless there is some tremendous public interest behind to justify it it would be a monstrous change to introduce. Bear in mind, too, that as the noble Viscount (Viscount Goschen) pointed out, it can be applied to trusts which were created only two or three years ago, when thousands upon thousands of pounds were spent in the belief that these charitable trusts would be administered according to the then state of the law. It is true that a Commission is called into existence to deal with the charitable trusts which have not been handed over by the trustees. One would think it would have been more reasonable to enable an appeal to be taken to the Commission by anyone dissatisfied with the action of the trustees. I am not satisfied about the powers that are given, but I will not discuss them now. In some particulars the powers

  381
  are too wide, in others they are too narrow; I say nothing as to the personnel of the Commission. I believe it is entitled to all the approval that has been expressed in reference to it.
  At this late hour, my Lords, I would not be justified in occupying more of your time. The Bill requires the closest possible examination, Reading through it once or twice will not got one to the bottom of its meanings, no matter what advantages your Lordships may have in the way of technical practice in reading such documents. It is not an easy Bill to understand or to follow, and to balance the clauses one against another. In many particulars as framed and un-amended it is unjust and unworkable; it merits, and I am sure it will receive at your Lordships' hands, a searching, jealous, and, I trust, very acute examination.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, at this late hour, if I consulted my own inclination, I should be disposed to leave matters as they are, but I fear I should scarcely be acquitted of discourtesy to noble Lords opposite if I were not to make just a few observations in reply to what has fallen from speakers on that side of the House. I re-echo what fell from my noble friend behind me, and from the noble Viscount who spoke second in this debate, as to the advantage which the House has gained from holding this discussion. Even those who, like my noble friend Lord Grimthorpe, have devoted the entir eperiod of the recess to a study of this subject will feel that a discussion of this kind does something to clarify their ideas, and to concentrate their attention on the more important points of the Bill.
  First of all, it is right that I should say a word with reference to the Motion which was placed on the Paper by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, in relation to a possible postponement of this subject. The appeal which the board of Education has made from the Court of Appeal to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity was, as my noble friend the Leader of the House stated, taken purely on administrative grounds. It was found as the autumn wont on that the local authorities were placed in a position of great confusion and difficulty by the judgment of the Court of
  382
  Appeal. Individual members of educational authorities found themselves in a position which might lead to their incurring serious personal liability. It was obvious that it was our duty to remove that uncertainty as soon as the necessity was impressed upon us, and therefore we lost no time in appealing. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches seemed to imagine that in not postponing the discussion of this Bill we were actuated by some mysterious motive.
  LORD STANMORE: No.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Well, the noble Lord spoke of some tactical advantage. I do not know what communication may have passed between him and others, but certainly no communications whatever, so far as I know, passed between this Bench and himself which could have led him to think that any tactical advantage was involved. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite see any tactical advantage in that action. We see no tactical advantage, or the contrary, to ourselves in going on; and when the noble Lord spoke of the danger of wrecking the Bill which might be involved by postponement again, I do not know what his authority was for that statement. It is undoubtedly true that, in view of the uncertainty which must exist as to when the appeal to your Lordships' House can be finally decided, an indefinite delay would take place, and it might have happened that we should not have been able to proceed with this measure until an extremely inconvenient time. I can conceive that we might have been carried on into next year. That would have been exceedingly inconvenient, but it is by no means the same thing as saying that the Bill would have been wrecked.
  I desire before leaving this subject fully to acknowledge the attitude taken by the noble Lords opposite in leaving us to use the best judgment we can in reference to proceeding with the Bill. We decided to proceed because we believe that the discussion on the Bill will not be seriously, or indeed at all materially, hampered or interfered with by the fact that this judgment is under review. There is a common impression existing, I daresay, mainly in the minds of those

  383
  who have read neither the judgment of the Court of Appeal nor the Bill, that there is some close connection between the two. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches, of course, is not in that position. It certainly does seem to me that the judgment has no real bearing upon this Bill in the sense of affecting our proceedings in the matter. I think it is quite possible for us to carry on this discussion regarding the decision of the Court of Appeal as not having come to hand, and I see no reason why, in the course of this discussion, it should be even mentioned.
  I now pass to one or two matters arising out of the debate Many of the remarks of the noble Viscount who spoke second have been dealt with by my noble friend behind me. There is only one to which I wish to allude. The noble Viscount spoke of both sides of the House as being combined against the possible advance of secularism, and he seemed to hint that it might be the case that in the council schools of this country a tendency to secularism was at any rate increasing. I do not know on what authority the noble Viscount made that statement. So far as I know there is no foundation for it, and I do think that the Return of the county syllabuses which was placed in the hands of your Lordships in the summer would certainly lead us to a contrary conclusion. As I said at the time, and I say again, I was agreeably surprised at the extent to which real religious instruction is given in council schools, and I hope and believe that the fears expressed by the noble Viscount have no real foundation in fact.
  I pass to one or two observations made by the most rev. Primate. He spoke of the great number of petitions that he had kindly refrained from laying on the Table but which he had brought to your Lordships' House. Their number does not surprise me, for it is common knowledge that a very considerable fooling has been aroused among Churchmen, particularly Churchmen of a certain school, in reference to some of the provisions of this measure. But the most rev. Primate mentioned one petition signed by a number of trustees of voluntary schools in which they asked not to be "forbidden" to carry out their trust. Well, my Lords, that word seems to me to convey a very great inaccuracy. No-
  384
  body forbids them to carry out their trust. What may be done under the Bill is to cease to supply them with funds to carry out their trust. That appears to me to be an entirely different matter, and it is hardly a correct use of the English language to say that in any sense they are forbidden to carry out their trust because public money is not forthcoming for the purpose.
  Then the most rev. Primate said a word about the financial provisions of the Bill, and complained that they had not been sufficiently explained. I am afraid I passed lightly over them in my Second Beading speech. I wearied your Lordships then for nearly two hours, and it was impossible to deal at length with all the points in the Bill. I did, however, two days ago state, as clearly as I am able, in reply to a question from the noble Lord opposite, what the position is with regard to the disposition and allocation of the £1,000,000 provided under the Bill, and I notice that another noble friend of mine has a Question on the Paper on the some subject to which I shall be happy to give an Answer on Monday.
  The most rev. Primate intimated that there were certain discrepancies between statements which had been made by those who were able to speak with authority about this Bill and the words in the Bill itself, and the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry, made a similar complaint. The most rev. Primate first accused us of inconsistency with regard to Clause 4. He stated that Mr. Birrell had, as indeed he did, stated that it was the intention of the clause that religious teaching should in those schools be carried on as heretofore. It is exceedingly difficult, of course, to be sure that one places the same construction on a phrase as another may place on it. We know how difficult it is, from the case which has been the subject of part of the discussion to-night, to speak clearly even in an Act of Parliament, but certainly when my right hon. friend stated that that was the intention of the clause I took him to mean, and I should have thought most people would have taken him to mean, to express the hope that that would be the effect of the clause. I certainly cannot admit that my right hon. friend in making that statement gave any pledge or promise whatever that the

  385
  appointment of the teacher would remain in the hands of the denomination.
  Then the most rev. Primate quoted a phrase which was used by my hon. friend Mr. Lough in the House of Commons, with regard to the teacher who was not qualified to give religious instruction. My hon. friend used a colloquial phrase, to the effect that the teacher would be "got rid of." It was explained, either the same night or the following night, that my hon. friend's colloquial phrase had been misunderstood. What he intended to convey was not that the teacher would be dismissed, but that he would be so far dismissed that he would not have to give the religious instruction, which would be given by someone else. The third discrepency to which the most rev. Primate alluded was that which has become well known in another place under the title of the "gap" in Clause 2,—that is to say, that although facilities have to be given in the schools that are taken over there is not an absolute assurance that a school will be taken over. Therefore, in stating that schools would receive facilities there is no doubt to be borne in mind the possibility that the school may not be taken over at all. The history of what occurred in another place is well known to noble Lords opposite. It was stated by my right hon. friend, and stated with perfect truth, that the local authorities might say, and would say, "We are obliged to take over the schools, but a considerable number of people are entitled to say 'Our schools shall not be taken.'" And that, in the view of the local authorities, would not represent fair play as between the two parties. The result of that is what is known as the bilateral scheme—that is to say, if those representing the owners were willing to have it provided that the school should be handed over, we in our turn were willing to provide that the school must be taken. That offer was not accepted in another place. Whether noble Lords would be disposed to accept it here I cannot say, but the circumstances are perfectly well known, and I really do not think the most rev. Primate has any great cause of complaint of us as to the manner in which we have dealt with that question.
  I am afraid I must beg to be excused, so far as this evening is concerned,
  386
  from replying categorically to a great number of questions which were put to me by the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry. These are all matters relating to individual clauses which, in my judgment, would be better dealt with as they arise in Committee. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, dealt at considerable length—at what I venture to call Committee length—with Clause 4. I hope he, too, will excuse me if I do not attempt at this hour to argue the case for Clause 4 as it stands. I merely wish to make this observation. The noble and learned Lord quoted a remark of my right hon. friend Mr. Morley, to the effect that it was intended to meet the case of non-Protestant churches, and he agreed, I think, that it met the case of the Roman Catholic Church, though we have had some complaints that it does not entirely do so.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: I said it had been stated that it was intended to meet the case of the Roman Catholic Church.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord spoke with some approval of it.
  *LORD ASHBOURNE: I spoke only as to the benevolence of the intention.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I accept that as the only word of approbation we received from the noble and learned Lord in the course of his speech. He implied that it was no use at all to the Church of England. I think my right hon. friend was quite accurate in what he said. It is meant to be of use, and I think will be of use, to the Church of England so far as the Church of England is non-Protestant. My impression was that the Church of England was a Protestant Church and other things too, but, so far as it is non-Protestant, and so far as Anglicans are unwilling to receive the ordinary Protestant teaching which they can receive in the provided schools, and are not content with the minor facilities, I have no doubt that in a considerable number of cases Clause 4 will serve the needs of certain members of the Church of England who dislike and repudiate the title of Protestant. Then the noble and learned Lord said he could not do us a greater disservice than to help us pass

  387
  the Bill as it stands. I do not advise the noble and learned Lord to be too sure of that. Will he try us? I hope we shall see some evidence of his willingness to allow the Bill to pass as it stands when we go through the various clauses in Committee.
  I have no desire at this stage to discuss the debatable points of the Bill further, but there are two phrases which have often been used in the course of this discussion upon which I think it might be well to get a clear understanding so far as we can of our meaning. I refer to the two phrases "public control" and "no test for teachers." The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition stated, I think, in his speech at Nottingham, that he was in favour of these two principles, and the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, in his speech en the Second Heading, made the same observation. And most gratifying observations to us they were. But perhaps it is important, before we show the complete exultation we would desire on hearing those statements, to know that what we mean by public control and by the absence of religious tests is the same as is meant by noble Lords opposite.
  The noble Duke on the Cross Benches, the Duke of Devonshire, has an idea of his own upon popular control. He stated, in his exceedingly weighty speech on the Second Reading, that in his opinion the Act of 1902 was not a contravention of the principle of public control. That is to say, that in leaving the voluntary schools with four denominational managers against two appointed by the ratepayers, the principle of popular control was not contravened. That is a revival of a statement made by the noble Duke in the course of the debates in 1902. I remember various passages that took place between him and the noble Earl Lord Rosebery, and also, I think, between him and myself on this very point during the debates in 1902. The noble Duke's argument was this, that, so far as the ratepayers were concerned, they were represented by two managers; of the others, one might be considered to represent the subscribers and the local interest, and the remaining three, or at any rate two, must be taken as representing the State, because they were appointed under Parliamentary sanction by those who, for the time being, were His
  388
  Majesty's advisers. At that time I took the opportunity of pointing out that, if that was so, it was obviously right that those two or three managers should go out with the Government.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have no doubt that the noble Earl is quoting me correctly, but I must say I do not recognise my argument.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think if the noble Duke will do me the favour of referring to the debate he will see that I am not misquoting him in any way. His argument was that the State, as represented by His Majesty's advisers for the time being, wanted denominational instruction in the schools, and the only way they could get it was by appointing these people to represent them. I am bound to say I thought at the time that the argument showed a most amazing dialectic subtlety, and I am not surprised at this distance of time that the noble Duke has not carried it with him. But I am sure that if he will refer to the debate and read his own speech he will see that I am not misquoting him in the slightest degree. I merely mention this statement for the purpose of saying that if that is the real public control which noble Lords opposite think sufficient we cannot agree with them, and that we therefore cannot understand the words in the same sense.
  The only other point on which I have to say a word is that of religious tests, to which noble Lords opposite declare themselves equally opposed, and I hope I may be allowed to say in speaking of this subject that the most rev. Primate displayed, if possible, even more than his usual fairness of mind in dealing with it. In the debate on the Second Reading the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, said he could not see the difference between a test and a qualification, and that if a qualification to teach a subject was demanded, it was the same thing as applying a test. It seems to me that that is an argument which cannot be sustained. What is the definition of a test in this connection? It seems to me that a test is applied when an applicant for an appointment is asked what his religious views are, and the obtaining of the appointment depends upon the reply which he gives.

  389
  I might mention a possible parallel case. Supposing I desired to obtain a tenant for a farm. If, after having made the usual inquiries as to his fanning capabilities and his possession of sufficient capital, I then proceeded to ask him if he hold Liberal opinions, I should not attempt to conceal from myself that I was applying a political test. I might, of course, say that I considered it a necessary qualification for anybody who held a farm on my estate to be able to spread the Liberal faith in his parish. It would be a thing which I should have a perfect legal right to do although I think it would be a monstrously foolish thing to do. But I should not attempt to conceal from myself that I was applying a test. Consequently if noble Lords imagine that it is possible in any way before a teacher is appointed to find out whether he is a communicant of the Church of England, whether he is a Roman Catholic, or whether he is an Agnostic, and to make his appointment or non-appointment depend on his answer, if they think it is possible to do that without applying a test we differ from them in toto.
  I can only conclude by saying that any Amendments which noble Lords place on the Paper will receive the closest attention from His Majesty's Government, and we shall weigh them with the respect which is due to Amendments emanating from the high quarters from which they come. Noble Lords may not think we have succeeded, but in drafting this Bill we have been actuated by a desire to do justice to all parties. It is hardly necessary, I think, for us to deny any intention of taking away any of the reasonable rights of the Church of England. I can only say of myself what I should say with equal confidence of my right hon. friend Mr. Birrell, that anything like intolerance or bigotry or the spirit of persecution is equally distasteful to us in whatever garb it appears. But I would add this, that in dealing with these Amendments we cannot agree to abandon the principles which we believe are held in this matter by the very great majority of our fellow countrymen, and which we have endeavoured as best we can to translate into legislation in a Bill which is coining again before your Lordships on Monday.
  On Question, Motion to go into Committee agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Moved, That the House do resume— (The Marquess of Ripon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.