Sitting of 29 October 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITION.
  OUGHTON, MATILDA.
  Petition of Matilda Oughton, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3725 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AUDIT OF COUNTY ACCOUNTS (IRELAND) (FEES).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 24th July; Mr. Jeremiah Mac-Veagh]; to lie upon the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Urban District Council of Wexford, and confirmed by the Lord-Lieutenant of

  669
  Ireland, fixing the Hours of Closing, for certain classes of Shops [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "showing the total Expenditure authorised for Works under the following Acts:—Telegraphs, Naval Works, Military Works, Land Registry, Public Building Expenses, Public Offices (Dublin) Site, Cunard Agreements; the sums expended to the 21st day of March, 1906; the sums to be expended in current fiscal year; and the sums remaining to be expended after the 31st day of March 1907."— (Mr. Rose.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Overcrowding of Telephone Operators at Halifax Post Office.
  MR. PARKER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will investigate the conditions under which the telephone operators at the Halifax Post Office are compelled to perform their duties, with a view to preventing the discomfort and danger to health resulting from overcrowding.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I shall have pleasure in inquiring into the matter, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Telegraphists and Sorting Duties.
  MR. PARKER: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that assurances were given by previous Postmasters General that telegraphists who entered the service previous to 1896 should not be compelled to perform the duty of letter sorting; and that experienced telegraphists at Halifax, with eighteen years service, are compelled to do letter sorting, whilst junior men from the sorting department are placed on duties attached to the telegraph office; and whether, in view of repeated official statements that the services in large towns are in course of being separated, he will explain the reasons for this action.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.): I am inquiring into this matter, and will give
  670
  the hon. Member an Answer as soon as possible.

  Estate Duty.
  MR. SEARS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state as to the case in which estate duty on £132,300 was paid in 1898 in respect of an estate successfully floated in 1900 with a capital of £450,000; whether a discharge was applied for under Section 11 of the Finance Act of 1894; and, if so, will he give the date of the certificate granted under that section.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) No application was made.

  Pay of Bombay Police.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether Bombay is the only province in India to which the increase of pay in the police department has not yet been extended; and whether, seeing that five lakhs were sanctioned last year and two and a half lakhs this year for that purpose, it will be possible to bring the new re-organisation scheme into force with effect from the 1st April, 1906, in Bombay, so far as relates to the European administration officers.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The new scale of pay was extended to the Bombay Presidency on the 31st August last, with effect from the 1st April, 1906.

  Sara Bridge Project.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received from India the report of a meeting held at Darjeeling on the 27th September to protest against the delay caused by his postpondement of the Sara bridge project, adopted by the Government in 1903, and the resolutions passed at the meeting; on what ground the execution of the project has been so long delayed; and when it is intended to carry it through.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have not received a Report of a meeting at Darjeeling on the subject of the Sara bridge project. The resolution adopted by the Secretary of State in 1904 was to defer a decision as to the best site for a bridge over the Ganges, in Bengal, until

  671
  further experience had been acquired of the direction of the traffic on the completion of certain lines then in progress. The question of the site to be adopted has not yet been settled, and I am unable to say when the bridge, which will be very costly and involves serious engineering considerations, will be undertaken.

  Promotions and Tranfers in the Indian Police Service.
  SIR SEYMOUR KINGTo ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received, through the Indian Government, memorials addressed to him by twelve European police officers in the Madras police force who complain of having been superseded, to the injury of their immediate and future prospects, by the importation from Burma of an official of junior standing; whether he has yet received any official information as to the reasons which led the Government of Madras to assign to the officer transferred from the Burma to the Madras police the particular place in the list allotted to him; whether it is proposed to relieve the grievances complained of in the Burma police, by further transfers of officers to other provinces; and, if so, whether due regard will be had in giving them appointments to the interests and prospects of those who are already on the lists in those provinces.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The memorials have not yet been received through the Government of India, and I am afraid that I can at present add nothing to the Answer given to the hon. Member on 14th May last.†

  Disposal of Sites and Buildings Connected with the Defence of London.
  R. GIBBS: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state his proposals with regard to disposing of the sites and buildings connected with the defences of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is presumed that the hon. Member refers to the mobilisation centres. A definite announcement as to the disposal
  2020; See (4) Debates, clvii, 344.
  672
  of the sites and buildings cannot yet be given, but it is proposed that some shall be sold and a few retained for stores.

  Motor Traffic—Petrol Smoke and Vegetation.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the flowers in Parliament Square facing Canning's statue, by which motors pass, have this season been killed, while the flowers in the rest of the square, by which motors do not pass, have not been affected; and can he say whether he has any official reports showing that petrol smoke was the cause of the flowers dying.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) There are no official reports on this subject, but the damage is believed to have arisen from the creosote fumes arising from the new wood paving.

  The "MacDonnell" Letters.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware if any official or other documents exist in connection with the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell as Under-Secretary; if so, whether he will lay copies of them upon the Table for the information of Members; if he can say whether the Under-Secretary is at liberty to publish any letters he may have on the subject without the authority of the Government; and, if not, will he grant him the necessary permission.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) There is no record in the Chief Secretary's office of any documents connected with the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell as Under-Secretary except those of a purely formal character. With any correspondence which may have taken place between Sir Antony MacDonnell and any member or members of the late Government, His Majesty's present Government have no connection or responsibility, and over it they have no control. Sir Antony MacDonnell has asked me to say on his behalf that he has no personal objection to the publication of the correspondence referred to, but he sees no reason why

  673
  he should take the initiative in publishing it, and he thinks that if his own letters are published all others relating to the matter should be published likewise.

  Rates for Piecework at Pimlico Clothing Factory.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any alterations are contemplated in the rates of payment for piecework at the Government Clothing Factory at Pimlico; and whether, in view of the known desire of the present Government to set an example to the community as model employers of labour, he is in a position to undertake that such alterations will not be reductions.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Alterations are constantly being made in the rates of pay for the different garments produced at the Royal Army Clothing Factory to ensure that all classes of work are fairly remunerated. I cannot, therefore, undertake that no reduction shall be made; but, as I said in answer to a Question last Thursday, † notice of any alteration of rates will be given, and full opportunity afforded to the workers to interview the representatives of the Government on the matter should they so desire.
  † See Cols. 406, 407.

  Coolie Labour in British Colonies.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will say when it is probable that he will lay upon the Table of the House the Return moved for in February last and ordered to be made as to the countries within the Empire where coolie labour is employed and the conditions regulating the same, and also regulating the housing of such coolies.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Several Colonies have not yet replied, but every effort will be made to complete the Return before the close of the session.

  Lord Selborne and the Swazis.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Under-Secretary of
  †See Cols. 406, 407.
  674
  State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House with respect to the statement made to the Swazis by the High Commissioner in September last, having reference to the establishment of direct Imperial control over their affairs, to their appeal for equitable settlement of disputed land questions, and to their claim to the revenue originally guaranteed for the maintenance of local native government.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Lord Selborne, when he met the paramount chief, the councillors, and people of the Swazi nation in September last, informed them that in the future he was to govern them in the name of the King as High Commissioner, and not as Governor of the Transvaal, and that their country would be governed by him as the King's own man, in the same way as he governs the countries of Khama and other chiefs in Bechuanaland. With regard to the Private Revenue Concession, which was cancelled on 16th February, 1905, Lord Selborne justified its cancellation on the ground that the King would now have to pay for the administration of the country, and that there was nothing to show in Swaziland for all the money which the paramount chiefs of Swaziland have received in times past. The amount due as having been collected between 1st November, 1899, and 16th February, 1905, has been converted into a Trust Fund, out of which the paramount chief will get £800 a year, in addition to a stipend of £1,000 a year from the Government. The question of land settlement stands over for the present.

  Transvaal Self-Government—Issue of Letters Patent.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the letters patent conferring responsible government on the white inhabitants of the Transvaal will be issued; and whether opportunity will be given to Parliament to consider the terms thereof before final confirmation.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) The House has already had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the principles of the Transvaal constitution, in accordance with which the letters patent are

  675
  being framed. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by debating the main question over again before the issue of the letters patent which will be expedited as much as possible. I cannot at the moment fix a precise date, but it is hoped they may issue during the month of November.

  Contract Labour in Portuguese Territory.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Report received from Consul Nightingale as to his recent visit to the Islands of San Thomé and Principé to inquire into the condition of contract labourers recruited for service therein, with other correspondence bearing on the recruitment of natives in Angola for that and other service in Portuguese territory; and whether he will inform the House as to action taken or contemplated by His Majesty's Government with a view to fulfilment of international obligations entered upon by the Portuguese Government as regards the suppression of slavery and slave trading.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) A Report from Consul Nightingale has been received, but it was not written in a form for publication, and it deals only with part of the question. I may say generally that the conclusion is that the labourers in San Thomé Principé are well treated, but it is doubtful whether the provisions for repatriation under the new regulations have hitherto been made effective. This and other information, which has been received or is expected soon, will be brought to the notice of the Portuguese Government, in the hope that they will take steps to remedy the evils that exist. When this has been done and a reply has been received I will see whether Papers can be laid.

  Ordnance Survey Maps—Irish Work at Southampton.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset,
  676
  as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in connection with the ordnance survey in Ireland, a very large number of maps of one-inch scale and four-inch scale are being procured from Southampton; and whether work which could be more conveniently and economically done in Ireland has been transferred to Southampton.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The coloured editions of the one-inch and one quarter-inch maps are printed at Southampton, but no work has been transferred to Southampton which could be done more conveniently and economically in Ireland.

  Retiring Gratuity to Inspector of Taxes.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the amount of the gratuity granted to the late clerk, an inspector of taxes, who was compelled to retire after thirty-nine years service on account of reaching the age of sixty-two; and whether he will state what pension would have been awarded him had he been a Treasury official of the same service and at the same remuneration.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The amount of the gratuity was £78. I can give no reply to the hypothetical question contained in the second paragraph, beyond assuring the hon. Member that the mere fact of services in the Treasury would not have secured for this officer more favourable treatment than he has received.

  Alleged Infringement of the Building Act in the Camberwell New Road.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that certain tenants residing in Camberwell New Road received a peremptory notice to give up, without compensation or reduction of rent, the greater portion of their back gardens, under penalty of eviction; whether he is aware that blocks of buildings are being erected close to the backs of the existing

  677
  houses, almost to the exclusion of necessary light and air; and whether he will have this matter inquired into and reported upon by the local authority's surveyor.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have made inquiry on this subject, and am informed that it is the fact that the greater portion of the back gardens of the houses in question has been taken away and that a garage is being erected on the site. I understand that a clear space of about twenty feet from the back walk of the houses has been left, and that the district surveyor has been instructed by the Building Act Committee of the London County Council to report if any infringement of the Act takes place. The matter is not one with respect to which the Local Government Board have any jurisdiction.

  Saxmundham Water Scheme.
  MR. HAROLD PEARSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if the Report of the inquiry on the application of the Saxmundham Urban Council for power to borrow £5,200 for a water scheme, held on 31st July, is yet completed; and, if so, when it will be made public, and if not completed, what the cause of the delay has been.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The Report has been received and considered, and on the 25th instant I caused a letter to be addressed to the district council on the subject to which it relates.

  Unemployed Distress Committees and Government Grants.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board to which of the distress committees under the Unemployed Workmen's Act he had sent Circular No. 1, expressing the Board's willingness to consider an application for a grant out of the Parliamentary Vote of £200,000.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I will forward my hon. friend a list of the
  678
  distress committees to whom the circular has been sent.

  Inquest on C. H. Buck—Removal of Body to Bristol.
  MR. W. HOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the inquest held on 15th August last on Charles Henry Buck, who was drowned in the Bristol Channel and whose body was removed from his home at Pill to Bristol for the purpose of holding the inquest there; and whether he will take steps to prevent any such occurrence in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I find on inquiry that C. H. Buck was drowned in the River Avon, and that that river and its banks are within the limits of the city and county of Bristol. In these circumstances, the course followed in this case appears to be the only one permissible by law, and I have no authority to intervene.

  Conviction and Expulsion of Aliens.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant a Return stating how many aliens have been convicted in Metropolitan police courts, and for what offences, since the passing of the Aliens Act; how many have been recommended for deportation; and in how many cases such recommendation has been carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I can give full details as to the cases of aliens recommended for expulsion. They will be found set out in the table below. As regards the cases of aliens convicted in Metropolitan police courts I regret that the information is not available. It could only be obtained by prolonged inquiry and could not in any case be relied on as complete, even if confined to cases for which expulsion could be recommended.

  Expulsion Orders.

  Total Recommendations.

  Offences.

  Actions taken on Recommendations.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  8

  Concerned in keeping brothel.

  Living on proceeds of prostitution.

  Soliciting, importuning, &c.

  Concerned in keeping gaming houses.

  Wandering abroad, begging, &c.

  Larceny, &c.

  Assault or drunk and disorderly.

  Miscellaneous.

  Orders made.

  Orders refused.

  Aliens in prison awaiting order.

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  174

  55

  17

  15

  5

  32

  25

  10

  15

  126

  4

  43*

  City of London Courts

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  2

  —

  8

  —

  1

  * Does not include one case where the alien appealed against his conviction, was released on bail for the purpose of the appeal, and absconded.

  Regent's Park Fencing.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether in view of the feeling existing amongst residents in Regent's Park, he will replace the existing oak fencing with fencing of the same material instead of by iron railings; and whether he can give any estimate as to the approximate cost of upkeep per year with regard to painting and otherwise of oak fencing and iron railings.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The recent cost of upkeep of the oak fence has been £250 per annum as compared with an estimated cost of £20 per annum for iron fencing. The cost of replacing the whole fencing in oak as at present would be £12,000, and in iron £4,200. I regret that in these circumstances I do not see my way to renew the oak fencing.

  Rifle Shooting in Schools.
  MR. MADDISON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether the sanction he has given to the Kent County Council to give lessons in rifle shooting applies to all the schools under its jurisdiction; if not, whether he will give the names of the schools affected, with the ages of the children who are permitted to use rifles.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have nothing to add to the full reply which I gave this afternoon on this subject to the hon. Member for South Lanarkshire.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence which has taken place in reference to the teaching or the practice of rifle shooting in schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The full information, which I have given in reply to the Question put to me this afternoon by the hon. Member for South Lanark-shire, is all that I have in my possession, and no useful purpose would be served by laying upon the Table the very brief correspondence in which that matter was dealt with.

  The Madras Estates Land Bill.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India
  682
  whether the Madras Government proposes to refer the revised Estates Land Bill to district and divisional officers, to public bodies, and to experts before passing into law a measure to which many of those interested entertain strong objections.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The provisions of the Bill are still under discussion. I have no doubt that it is the intention of the Government of Madras to give all proper facilities for public criticism before the Bill is passed into law.

  Trade Routes between India and Tibet.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view to developing trade in general, and trade in particular between India and Tibet, the Government of India proposes to make the road to Chumbi fit for cart traffic or otherwise to improve the trade routes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Government of India have submitted no proposals as to the road to Chumbi or the improvement of the trade routes.

  Evicted Tenants in Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can supply a list giving the names and addresses of the evicted tenants in Queen's County, or their representatives, particulars of whose claims have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners; and also the number of those who have been reinstated or got other holdings.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the number of applications for reinstatement as evicted tenants in Queen's County is 211. The number restored, to the knowledge of the Commissioners, is thirty-nine, including two evicted tenants from whom applications were not received. The Commissioners do not think it feasible to furnish a list giving the names and addresses of applicants. The preparation of such a Return for each of the counties of Ireland would take up a considerable portion of the time of their staff, which is already fully occupied upon its regular duties, and the benefit to be derived from such a Return would be

  683
  quite incommensurate with the time and labour involved in its compilation.

  Football and Hurling Grounds in Phœnix Park.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Gaelic Athletic Association have applied to the Board of Works for football and hurling grounds in the Phœnix; Park, Dublin; and whether he can state why their request has not been complied with, in view of the fact that other clubs have received accommodation when required and requested.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I understand that it is not possible to allocate a greater area of the Phœnix Park for grounds for games than is now allocated. The apportionment of the area between different games is determined by the requirements of each, and the Commissioners of Public Works inform me that the area assigned for Gaelic football and hurling grounds is fully proportionate to the relative demand. Since last season an additional ground has been assigned to these games. If the hon. Member requires further particulars he will find them in the Answer given by me to a Question by the hon. Member for the North Division of Dublin on the 28th February last.†

  Marine Works at Innishlyre, County Mayo.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is yet in a position to state when the marine works will be commenced at Innishlyre, county Mayo; whether he is aware that the Under-Secretary for Ireland addressed a letter to the Mayo County Council on 10th March, 1903, informing them that it was proposed to construct, out of the money provided under the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, a harbour at Innish-lyre, near Westport, which was to cost £40,000, and that, as a condition of the the work being carried out, the county council should agree to raise a county fund for the repair and maintenance of the harbour; and whether, seeing that the county council passed a resolution, on 12th December, 1904, agreeing to raise
  † See (4) Debates, clii, 1146.
  684
  such fund, and sent it to the Lord-Lieutenant on 30th December, 1904, he can explain the delay in commencing the work, seeing that the county council agreed to carry out their part of the undertaking.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed that the facts are generally as stated in the first part of the Question, but it should also be added that it was a condition of the scheme that the Midland Great Western Railway Company should contribute towards the cost of a railway connecting their line with the proposed harbour at Innishlyre. I understand that the railway company withdrew from the scheme before the late Government left office, and the scheme was thereupon suspended. His Majesty's present Government have under consideration alternative schemes for the benefit of County Mayo, but the matter has not yet reached a stage at which I can make a definite statement on the subject.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Wages in the Royal Dockyards.
  SIR J. BAKER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state when he will be able to give detailed particulars respecting the division of the £60,000 allotted as additional wages amongst the employees of the Royal Dockyards.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): Detailed particulars will be published in ten days time.

  Plymouth Fishermen's Grievances.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the First Lord has been drawn to the serious damage suffered by Plymouth drifters at the hands of French trawlers on Monday night last, resulting in a great loss of gear; and whether he will consider the possibility of giving effective protection to the Plymouth fishermen against a repetition of such attacks.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The attention of the Admiralty has already

  685
  been called to the incident, and inquiry is being made. The Admiralty are now in communication with the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade with regard to the question of protecting fishermen in these waters.

  Duke of York's School.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the question of the disposal of the site of the Duke of York's School has been considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee, and with what results?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,: This matter is still under the consideration of the Inter-Departmental Committee.

  The New Bayonet.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the pattern for the new bayonet to be issued to the troops has now been selected.
  MR. HALDANE: The pattern for the new bayonet has not yet been settled.

  Mauritius.
  MR. BOLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason for the increase in the strength of the Mauritius garrison which has been taking place during the last five years; what has been the amount paid for the purchase of land from private people for military purposes during that period; what has been the cost of the erection of new barracks in Mauritius; and can he state what has been the amount of local taxation levied in order to meet this additional military expenditure.
  MR. HALDANE: The establishment of the Mauritius garrison has been slightly reduced during the last few years, though the actual strength was somewhat depleted at the beginning of that period, owing to the war. The amount paid for purchase of land during the last five years was £4,024, and £124,050, was spent upon new barracks. As the colony pays a. fixed percentage of its revenue as a military contribution, no additional local taxation has been levied for military purposes.

  Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield.
  MR. BRANCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been yet come to as to raising the wages of labourers at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, to the level of the wages now paid to the same class at Woolwich.
  MR. HALDANE: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give a final decision in regard to this question, which is receiving consideration.

  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich—Discharges of Workmen.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men were employed by the Government at the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich on the 1st of January last, and how many are employed at the present time; and if the Government propose to make any further alteration in the number of the workmen employed there.
  MR. HALDANE: The number of men employed in the Ordnance Factories at Woolwich was 14,709 on the 30th December, 1905, and 13,775 on the 20th instant. I am afraid that further discharges will be necessary before the normal establishment of the factories is reached, but I hope that these will not be more than 150 or 200 men.

  India Frontier Defence—The Moplahs.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government of India has proposed the mustering out of the two battalions of Moplahs, on the ground that they return excessive sick rates; whether he is aware that such battalions of men from a climate of which excessive moisture and heat are the characteristics were removed, immediately after leaving Southern India to a North-West frontier station, the characteristics of the climate of which are extreme dryness and cold; whether at all recruiting centres in South India an agency is now engaged in dissuading men from enlisting, on the score of the treatment the Moplah battalions have received; whether South Indian regiments have participated in the increases in the number of officers allotted to North Indian regiments; and

  687
  whether, in view of the effect of returning discontented Moplah ex Sepoys to the Malabar distinct in which so many Moplah outbreaks have occurred, he will take steps to prevent the discouragement of recruiting in Southern India, in view of the fact that recruiting in the Punjab and Northern India is becoming more difficult and precarious.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): One of the two Moplah battalions was sent to Dera Ismail Khan with a view to training them for the Field Army and giving them Frontier experience. They were withdrawn after three months having broken down in health. No proposal has reached me fur the reduction of either of the battalions. I am not aware of any agency being engaged at recruiting centres in dissuading men from enlistment, and I do not know that any steps are required to prevent the discouragement of recruiting in Southern India. I have not yet received a Report as to the allotment of the officers provided Under the recent increase, but it is the intention of the Government of India to allot British officers proportionately to established native strength, which in the case of some Madras regiments has ecently been reduced.

  Petitions from Indian Natives.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that since the amended rules governing the presentation of memorials from aggrieved Indian natives have come into force, cases have occurred in which petitions have failed to reach the Secretary of State owing to technical objections on the part of the authorities, although the aggrieved person or persons have observed the necessary formal preliminaries; and, if so, whether he will issue instructions directing that in all cases in future where the necessary preliminaries have been complied with petitions shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State.
  MR. MORLEY: The rules relating to the presentation of memorials are perfectly accessible to the public, and a Return of memorials that have been withheld under them is furnished to me quarterly. I am not aware of any such cases as the hon. Member describes, but if he will give me
  688
  particulars of those which he has in mind, I will satisfy myself as to the reasons for which the memorials were withheld.

  Siem of the Cherra State.
  MR O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether representation has been made to him regarding the appointment of the present Siem of the Cherra State in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills District, pointing out that Lord Curzon, in making such appointment, violated the usual and traditional custom by which the clans and people of Cherra State considered, selected, and submitted to the proper authority for ratification the name of a successor to the Siemship who, in their judgment, was best fitted for the position; and whether, in view of the protest of the clans and people of the Cherra State, he will grant an investigation into the matter by an officer conversant with the language, manners, and customs of the people, with a view of remedying, if possible, the grievance complained of.
  MR. MORLEY: No memorials as to the Siemship of the Cherra State have been received by the Secretary of State through the Government of India since the statement made by my predecessor on 18th February, 1904, in reply to a similar Question. † As was then explained, the Government of India, having regard to precedents and to all the circumstances of the ease, were unable to approve the recommendation of the Chief Commissioner that the decision of the majority of the Durbar, at which only the twelve heads of the clans constituting the State were present, should be accepted, and ordered a popular election to be held at which Roba Singh was chosen unanimously. The Government then confirmed Roba Singh as chief. I see no sufficient reason for re-opening the question, which was very carefully considered both by the Government of India and the Secretary of State in Council.

  Opium Traffic with China.
  MR. BARRIE: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Down I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what steps the Government has taken to carry out the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons in favour
  † See (4) Debates, cxxx., 235–6.

  689
  of the abolition of the opium traffic between India and China.
  MR. MORLEY: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the Chinese Government are understood to be contemplating the issue of regulations for restricting the cultivation, import, and consumption of opium. His Majesty's Government have not received any communication on the subject from the Chinese Government; but, as I have already stated, they are prepared, when specific proposals are put before them by that Government, to consider them in a sympathetic spirit, and His Majesty's Minister has been instructed to make a communication to this effect to the Chinese Government.

  The Partition of Bengal.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to lay any Papers revealing the history of the agitation against the constitution of the new Province of Eastern Bengal and Assam, the origin of such agitation in Calcutta, the encouragement of such agitation in England, and the intentions of the Government in respect of the maintenance of the existing administrative arrangements.
  EARL PERCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the expediency of laying Papers relating to the resignation of Sir Joseph Bampfylde Fuller, recently Lieutenant-Governor of Eastern Bengal, with a view to dispelling any misconception to which that resignation may have given rise.
  MR. MORLEY: As regards the Question on the Paper, I consider it would be contrary in the highest degree to the public interest to present Papers such as the hon. Gentleman describes. As to the future, it has already been stated so often and so explicitly that His Majesty's Government look upon the partition of Bengal as a settled fact, that it appears superfluous to publish any further statement on the subject. In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, if he will ask for Papers I see no objection whatever in presenting to the House the Papers— not very voluminous—which immediately concern the resignation of Sir Bampfylde Fuller.
  *MR. REES: I have received Answers to the other Questions which I have on the Paper and will not trouble the right hon. Gentleman.

  Transvaal Elections.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can state what is the date fixed or the approximate date for the elections in the Transvaal.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): It is impossible to say more at present, but that it is hoped the voters roll may be completed in January, and that the elections may take place about the end of February.

  Newfoundland.
  SIR JOHN RANDLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether any, and, if so, what steps were taken to insure that the Government of Newfoundland should be informed as to the terms of the modus vivendi with the United States of America recently concluded prior to their acceptance; and on what date the first information of a definite character was conveyed to the Colony from the Colonial Office or other official sources.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The decision of His Majesty's Government that a modus vivendi was necessary, and their intention to make proposals to the United States Government for such an arrangement were communicated to the Colonial Government by telegram some days before the United States Government were informed. In the same telegram the Colonial Government were asked to give their views as to the form which the modus vivendi should take. No proposals were actually made to the United States Government until the reply of the Colonial Government had been received. Throughout the negotiations the Colonial Government were kept fully and promptly apprised by telegram; and His Majesty's Government answered no communication from the United States Government without first consulting the Colonial Government and endeavouring to obtain

  691
  their concurrence. The note from the United States Ambassador ratifying the arrangement embodied in the previous correspondence was telegraphed verbatim to the Government on the same date as it was written and received—viz., the 6th inst.
  SIR JOHN RANDLES: Then did not the Government succeed in obtaining the concurrence of the Colonial Government?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I said the other day we had not been fortunate enough to do so.
  LORD R. CECIL: When will Papers be laid?
  MR. CHURCHILL: Perhaps the noble Lord will address that Question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  Transvaal Duties on Spirits.
  MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under Article 16 of the Customs Union Convention provisionally agreed to by the South African Colonies, it is proposed in the Transvaal to substitute for the existing duty of 15s. per gallon on spirits a preferential duty of 7s. 6d. to 9s. per gallon on brandy manufactured within the Customs Union, including the cheap Cape brandy mainly relegated to the use of natives and coloured persons, while raising under Article 2 the general duty on spirits to 19s. per gallon: and that, in spite of the prohibition of the supply of drink to natives and coloured persons in the Transvaal under the law of 1902, there has been illicit sale of spirits to such persons, which illicit sale will be facilitated by the increased supply of cheap brandy owing to the lowered duty: and that the Witwatersrand Church Council, composed of representatives of all the Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Wesleyan Churches on the Rand, opposed the change when it was before the Legislative Council, which, however, carried it against the votes of all but one of the non-official members of the Legislative Council; and whether, seeing that the Church Council has now appealed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies to refuse his assent to this
  692
  part of the Customs Union Ordinance, he will take steps to secure that this alteration of the spirit duty shall not be made until after the grant of responsible government to the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, He has not seen fit to accede to the request of the Witwatersrand Church Council as he understands that in agreeing to the provisions of the Customs Convention which are in question, the Transvaal Government took note of the fact that, with similar provisions in the law of the Orange River Colony, prohibition had been effectively enforced on the natives, and that prohibition had been substantially effective in their own, Colony when spirits were still manufactured at the Hatherley Distillery. The position of the new Legislature is safeguarded by the fact that the arrangement can be determined at six months' notice, without prejudice to the remainder of the Customs Convention.
  In answer to a further Question, Mr. CHURCHILL said the position of the new Legislature was fully safeguarded.

  Mr. Bowman's Expulsion from Spain.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any Report from the British, Consul at Madrid concerning the arrest and expulsion from Spain of a British subject named Guy Bowman, who had gone to that country in pursuit of his calling as a journalist; and whether he proposes taking any action in connection therewith.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): His Majesty's Government have heard from His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid of the arrest of Mr. Bowman, upon whom papers were found addressed to Spanish anarchists, including one who was connected with the Madrid outrage. Mr. Bowman was to be conducted to the frontier in accordance with the Spanish Police Regulations, and His Majesty's Government do not intend to interfere with the action of the Spanish authorities.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether a copy of the papers alleged to have been found on Mr. Bowman had been asked for.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The incriminating papers have been seen by His Majesty's Vice-Consul.

  Great Britain, Russia and Persia.
  MR. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any agreement has been arrived at between His Majesty's Government and that of Russia in relation to Persia: and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the terms of such arrangement.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: No general agreement has been arrived at. The two Governments have discussed the events which have recently happened in Persia, with the object of avoiding any conflict of interest and of acting together when possible to preserve the status qua.

  Nickel Coinage.
  MR. W. R. REA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, it his attention had been drawn to the convenience resulting from the increasing use of nickel in the coinage of foreign countries; and whether he will consider the desirability of following this example by the issue of nickel coins of the value of a penny and twopence, either in substitution for or for use concurrently with the present bronze ones.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,: I have no evidence that the present coinage is regarded as other than satisfactory by the public generally, and in the absence of any general demand for an alteration I should not be prepared to take the responsibility of interfering with it.

  Inland Revenue.
  MR. SEARS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if his attention has been drawn to the work done in estate duty offices in England, Scotland, and Ireland, as represented by the revenue received per head of the staff employed; is he aware that in England the average annual amount of revenue dealt with
  694
  per head during the five years ending 1000–1 was £74,859; that, owing to the increase in the staff during the next five years the average per head dropped to £50,111, and to £40,436 for the year 1905–6; that the corresponding figures per head of staff in Scotland are £77,066, £70,083, and £66,210, and for Ireland £36,229, £29,312, and £25,433; will he give the reason for the difference in the amount of revenue dealt with per head in England and Ireland as compared with Scotland; and will he take these figures into his consideration, and not only prevent further increase in the staff, but adjust the staff to the requirements of the service.
  MR. ASQUITH: The figures quoted by the hon. Member are correct. A reply to a Question does not provide a suitable opportunity for dealing in detail with the causes of the higher apparent cost in proportion to the amount of revenue collected in England and Ireland as compared with Scotland, or the conclusions to be drawn from it,—matters which can only be adequately discussed in Committee of Supply.

  Prison Officers' Pay.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the measures he proposes to take, or has taken, in reference to the petition of the prison officers in His Majesty's local prisons, asking that they may be placed upon the same scale of pay as the officers of His Majesty's convict prisons.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have made proposals to the Treasury with a view to certain improvements in the position of these officers. I cannot yet make any further statement on this subject, but I hope to be able to do so shortly.

  Durham Prison Industries.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that ship cork fenders, made by prisoners in Durham Gaol, are being sold to firms outside at a price much below (2d. as against 2½d. per pound) what they can be

  695
  made outside by the blind people engaged in this work; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any action likely to minimise this competition and so enable the blind to make a living at this trade. The hon. Member explained that 2d. represented the retail price and 2½d. the net cost.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The manufacture of ship fenders for private customers is carried on to a small extent only in prisons, and the prison authorities regulate prices, so far as possible, so as to avoid interference with the outside market. I have no information as to the manufacture of these fenders by blind people, but as I have ahead informed my hon. friend privately, I shall be happy to consider, and if possible to remedy, any cases of hardship to them which may arise in the manner suggested, if he will kindly bring the particulars to my notice.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: The information is on the way.

  Imperial Stock and Share Exchange.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a circular issued by the Imperial Stock and Share Exchange, 19 and 21, Queen Victoria Street, London; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Public Acts relating to Lotteries and Gambling, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have seen the circular and have caused inquiry to be made. As at present advised I do not think proceedings could be successfully taken under the Acts referred to, but I am considering the matter further.

  The Expulsion of Aliens.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who pays the expenses of the return voyage of undesirable aliens who are refused permission to land in this country.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have no information on this point, and can only say that these expenses are not paid from public funds.

  Manners Colliery Explosion.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, seeing that Mr. A. H. Stokes, His Majesty's Inspector of Mines, in his Report for 1905, states that the disastrous explosion at the Manners colliery showed even a well-ventilated mine cannot be trusted with naked lights, he will say if any other of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines have reported to the Home Office the danger to life by the use of naked lights.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. The danger connected with the use of naked lights in mines which are subject to firedamp is one to which attention is frequently called by the Inspectors of Mines in their Reports.

  Coal Dust Explosions in Mines.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, seeing Messrs. Cunynghame and Atkinson have reported to His Majesty's Government that the Courriéres mine disaster was, in their opinion, due to a coal dust explosion without any evidence of gas being present, and that if an explosion from the same cause occurred in this country the loss of life might equal that at Courrières, he will say if he has taken any steps to get special rules established prohibiting the use of naked lights in all British mines.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: It would be impracticable to attempt to establish a special rule prohibiting the use of naked lights for every mine in the country. Special rules have to be proposed separately for each mine, and must have regard to "the particular state and circumstances" of the mine. If the owner objects to the rule proposed for his mine he has the right to take the matter to arbitration. It is by no means every mine in the country which is liable to a coal dust explosion, and in those that are so liable the mere prohibition of the use of naked lights alone would not be a sufficient protection. The question, however, whether the existing rules on the subject of the use of safety lamps require amendment, is included among those which have been referred by me

  697
  for the consideration of the Royal Com mission on Mines now sitting, and I would suggest that my hon. friend should address to that Commission any observations upon the subject which he may desire to make.
  MR. FENWICK: Is the light hon. Gentleman aware that there is no case on record at the Home Office where a coal dust explosion has been set up in any other manner than by shot firing? Will he introduce legislation dealing with shot firing in mines?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: That matter is now and has been for some time past under the consideration of the Royal Commission, and, of course, no legislation can be undertaken until we have received the Report of the Commissioners.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Is the question of the proper watering of dry dusty mines also under consideration?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.

  Outworkers and Particulars of Prices.
  MR. J. W. TAYLOR Durham,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie is aware that orders hitherto made under Section 116 of the Factory Act 1901, relating to particulars of rates of payment in home industries, leave it open to employers either to affix a list of prices or to supply the particulars of prices to each outworker; and whether, seeing that this system has enabled employers to pay different prices for the same class of work, thus facilitating the establishment of the lowest price paid as the sweating rate, he will consider the advisability of utilising the powers conferred by this section by requiring employers to both affix and supply such particulars.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: The employer has no such option in the case of out-workers as my hon. friend thinks. Particulars of prices have to be supplied to each outworker in writing. With regard to the suggestion he makes, I am advised that I should have no power, in an order extending the requirements of Section 116 of the Factory Act, to carry it out. The section itself, in its general
  698
  application, requires only a placard or a wages note, and not both; and in extending that requirement to other trades the only modifications that may be introduced are such as may be necessary to adapt the requirement to the circumstances of the particular trade.

  Commissioners of Sewers.
  MR. GODFREY BARING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been drawn to the constitution of courts or boards of commissioners of sewers who possess and exercise extensive powers of spending money and levying rates without any control, and without publishing any accounts; and whether he will take into consideration the desirability of promoting legislation to abolish such commissioners, and to confer such of their powers and duties as may seem desirable upon district or county councils.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN-BURNS,): My attention has boon drawn to the constitution of these bodies. The matter was considered by a Select Committee of the House of Lords in 1877, and has from time to time come before Parliament. There would be serious difficulties in the way of such a transfer of powers and duties as is suggested in the Question, and I understand that the Royal Commission on Erosion of the Coasts have before them the circumstances of these bodies where they exercise powers on or near to the sea coast. It would be necessary for me to communicate with my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries before any promise of legislation on the subject could be given, and at present it does not appear to me that the time would be opportune for proposing legislation.

  Lord de Ramsey and the Allotment Holders.
  MR. BOULTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that 800 men have been turned out of their allotments by Lord de Ramsey on his estates in Huntingdonshire, and that the urban district council has refused to put into operation its compulsory powers under the Local

  699
  Government Act, 1894; and what steps the Local Government Board have taken or intend to take to procure land for the men who have been deprived of their holdings.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. TREVELYAN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that the urban district council at Ramsey, in Huntingdonshire, have refused to apply for compulsory powers to enable them to provide allotments for the 800 men who last January got notice to quit their allotments from Lord de Ramsey, and that eleven out of the twelve members of the council are tenants of Lord de Ramsey; and whether the Local Government" Board as an independent authority will use its influence to secure land on reasonable terms for the dispossessed men.
  MR. NICHOLLS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that 800 allotment holders on the Ramsey Estate in Huntingdonshire have received from Lord de Ramsey notice to quit their holdings; that the Ramsey Urban Council have not applied for compulsory powers to enable them to provide allotments for these men; that by the taking away of these allotments the men are robbed of one of the most effectual means of preventing the rural labourer from overcrowding the labour market in the large towns; that their eviction will make thousands of allotment holders in other parts of the country now feel insecure; and that nearly the whole of the members of the urban council are Lord de Ramsey's tenants; and, if so, I whether the Local Government Board are taking any steps to help these men to secure suitable land for allotments.
  MR. WINFREY: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will hold an immediate local inquiry into the circumstances under which the 800 allotment holders in the district of Ramsey have been turned out of their holdings by Lord de Ramsey, and the failure of the district council to supply them with land on fair and reasonable terms.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer together this and the three other Questions on the Paper relating to the same subject. I am aware that Lord de Ramsey has given, notice to 800 allotment holders on his estates in Huntingdonshire to relinquish their allotments, and that the Ramsey Urban District Council have declined to apply for powers to hire land compulsorily for allotment purposes. I have no authority to direct an inquiry of the kind suggested by my hon. friend the Member for South-west Norfolk, nor am I empowered to procure land for the men who have lost their holdings. The matter is one which rests with the district council, or, upon their default, with the county council. I have, however, not yet been informed by either of these councils of the reasons why they have not thought fit to exercise their powers under the Allotments Acts in the present case, and I am in communication with them on the subject. I may add that I have expressed my willingness to confer on the urban district council the power of hiring land compulsorily for allotments if the necessary application is made to me for the purpose.

  Register of Paupers.
  MR. W. HOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many boards of guardians have consented and how many have refused to keep the register referred to in the Board's Circular of 18th September last.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received communications from about 300 boards of guardians on the subject of the suggested register of paupers, from which it appears that in about 140 cases the guardians have not adopted the suggestion that a register should be kept. I understand that in some instances the Return, for the purpose of which the register was intended, can be prepared from the existing records, and I am considering what arrangements should be made to secure that the Return shall be furnished in other cases where objection is raised to the keeping of the register.

  The West Riding Judgment.
  SIR HENRY CRAIK: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in view of the decision of

  701
  the Government to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of the King v. the West Hiding of Yorkshire County Council, he can make any statement for the guidance of local education authorities as to the continuance of payments for the provision of religious instruction in non-provided schools.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The difficulty which the local education authorities feel in this matter appears to arise out of the doubt whether payments of the kind referred to in the Question will be disallowed by the district auditors. The expenditure which comes before the auditors at the audits now being held relates to the financial year ended 31st March—i.e., before the decision of the Court of Appeal was given. The Local Government Board are sanctioning this expenditure under the Local Authorities' (Expenses) Act, where application is made to them for the purpose, if no objection is raised by ratepayers at the audit. No disallowance can then be made. Where ratepayers object at the audit to the expenditure, the Board think that the matter had better stand over until the decision of the House of Lords has been given. Expenditure during the present financial year will not come before the auditors until after 31st March next, and presumably, therefore, after the decision of the House of Lords has been obtained. It is premature to consider now what course should be taken after that decision, but I may say that there will be no desire on the part of the Government that members of local authorities should suffer personally for bona fide expenditure incurred before the decision is given.

  Poplar Schools at Hutton.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the total amount of money which has been spent by the Poplar Board of Guardians upon the erection of schools at Hutton, Essex, including provision of fittings and furniture; and what number of children the schools are intended to accommodate.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: As I have stated in reply to previous Questions, the total amount sanctioned in respect of the pro-
  702
  vision of these schools, including the cost of the site, is £156,545. I am not able to state the exact amount which has been spent on them. The schools are intended to accommodate 621 children.

  Islington Borough Treasurer.
  MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has I been called to the fact that the Islington Board of Guardians are precluded from stipulating with their bankers for payment of interest on their monthly balances if such balance at any time falls below £2,500; and whether he will take steps-to enable the guardians to stipulate for interest on their actual balance without any minimum limit.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The treasurer of the Islington Board of Guardians was appointed without salary, and was not bound to allow any interest on the balances of the moneys of the guardians in his hands. I understand that in fact he allows interest on the daily balances exceeding £2,500. The interest on any sum below this amount must be regarded as remuneration for the discharge of his duties, and the arrangement could not be altered without his consent.

  Trade Combination.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that great combinations of capital, or price rings, or both, have been formed in connection with the manufacture of iron and steel, tobacco, soap, sewing-cotton, wall-paper, cement, and other products, with the result that monopolies or quasi-mono-polies have been created and prices raised against the consumer; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to establish public competition with the monopolists or to-secure public control of the monopolised trades.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I have heard of the existence of combinations of manufacturers of a number of articles including those mentioned in the Question of my hon. friend. The Board of Trade are fully

  703
  alive to the importance of the matter, but I am not at present prepared to introduce legislation on the subject.

  Salisbury Railway Disaster.
  MR. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the action of the London and South Western Railway Company in reducing the guard of the train in the Salisbury disaster to the position of ticket collector, at a loss of wages of 6s. 6d. per week, as a direct result of the Report of the Board of Trade inspector; and whether he will make inquiry into the general practice and responsibility of guards in regard to the speed of trains.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My attention lad not previously been drawn to the matter referred to, which appears to be one within the discretion of the railway company. An inquiry as suggested does not appear to be necessary or likely to serve any useful purpose.

  London and North Western Railway Pension Fund.
  MR.. WARDLE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the new pension fund which the London and North Western Railway Company propose to institute for their locomotive staff, which fund is being made a test of employment; and, if not, whether he will make full inquiry in reference thereto.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: My attention had not been previously called to this matter, but I have communicated a copy of the hon. Member's Question to the railway company for their observations.

  Compulsory School Attendance.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether there is any foreign country or British colony in which compulsory education begins at so early an age as five.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): I am unable to answer for the school laws of all foreign countries in the world, but so far as I can learn from information easily available compulsory
  704
  attendance, where there is any, begins at a later age than five.

  School Attendance in Rural Districts.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration that school attendance in rural districts should not be compulsory till the age of six, or possibly seven, and should be discouraged, if not absolutely prohibited under five; and whether he proposes to take any steps to give effect to this recommendation.
  MR. BIRRELL: As at present advised the Government have no intention of prohibiting the attendance of children under five years of age in rural districts. The question of requiring the attendance of such children or not rests with the option of the local education authorities.
  MR. HAROLD COX: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will discourage local authorities from permitting children under five to attend school?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am rather shy of any interference with local authorities.

  Rifle Shooting by School Boys.
  MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether the rifle shooting in the Kent board school was experimental; if so, what will be the cost of the experiment; and whether he has it in contemplation to make rifle practice universal in our national schools.
  MR. SNOWDEN: May I also ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state under what authority permission has been given by the Department to the Kent Education Committee to include instruction in rifle shooting in the school curriculum during ordinary school hours and at the public expense; if he will state if the Board has sanctioned the syllabuses submitted for such teaching for the schools at Eynsford and Shoreham; if this application from the Kent Education Committee is the first of the kind received by the Board of Education: and, if not, what other such applications have been before

  705
  the Board, and with what result in each case.
  MR. BIRRELL: The case in which the question of instruction in rifle shooting in a public elementary school first came before me was that of an undenominational British school at Bushey in Hertfordshire (not in Kent) in March last. My own personal view, and the advisers of my Department have advised me in the same sense, is that it is not desirable that rifle shooting should be included in the time-table of public elementary schools, since it is unsuitable for children of the ages likely to be found in these schools, and is not in itself a good means of physical exercise. But as, in the particular case before me, both the county authority and local persons closely conversant with the circumstances of the school were strongly desirous that the instructions should be given, I decided not to give a direct prohibition from the first, but to permit an experiment to be made for a time, and after closely watching it, to give a definite decision on the point at the end of the school year now current. I attached careful conditions to the experiment and in particular (a) that it should not encroach upon the time required for proper physical exorcises, (b) that it should be restricted to boys of proper physique and to boys who have reached the age of twelve years, and (c) that a special syllabus, shewing the nature of the teaching, should be submitted to and approved by the Board. The manager of the Bushey School estimated that the cost of the experiment would be £20 in the one year, and there is an annual income from endowment which will be much more than sufficient to meet this expenditure. As I have said, the sanction given in the Hertfordshire case was strictly experimental and provisional, and pending a report on its results in the Hertfordshire case, I had not the smallest intentions of extending it elsewhere. I find, however, that by some misunderstanding of my intention in this respect a provisional consent to a similar experiment, subject to the submission of a satisfactory syllabus, has been given by letter in the case of four other schools, viz., Hay ward's Heath, St. Wilfrid's National School in East Sussex, Overbury National School in Worcestershire, Shoreham Council School and
  706
  Eynsford National School in Kent. These are the only other applications which I have received in regard to rifle shooting. I am sorry that any extension of my permission in the Bushey case should, have taken place, but the House may rest assured that no further permission of any sort or kind will be given.
  MR. J. WARD: In either of these cases were the parents of these children consulted before the order was given?
  MR. BIRRELL: In no case is any child to be allowed to practice rifle shooting unless the consent has been first obtained of the parents.
  MR. PAUL: Would not bows and arrows be more suitable to the tender age of these young warriors?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Very clever that.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Ireland not only are the children, but the grown up men, forbidden to make use of firearms?
  MR. ROWLANDS: Seeing that the consent has been given inadvertently, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to go on and not wait for the experience obtained at Bushey?
  MR. BIRRELL: Having regard to the letter written by the persons in my Department it would not be fair to withhold the permission that they were certainly justified in giving. But the experiment will be confined to these places only.
  MR. ROWLANDS: What is the opinion of these parents? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great difference of opinion with regard to the experiment and that many parents object?
  MR. BIRRELL: Such parents would not of course allow their children to receive the instruction.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May we take it that until the authorities have made a scrutiny of the

  707
  system in these five cases it will be no good for other local authorities to apply for any further sanction in these circumstances?
  MR. BIRRELL: None whatever.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: In the event of the experiment at Bushey turning out a success, will the right hon. Gentleman give permission for rifle practice in other schools?
  MR. BIRRELL: That depends on the report I receive from my own educational authorities.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report on the Table of the House?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am perfectly content to do that.
  MR. CREMER: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Education whether rifle-shooting is regarded by the Board of Education as a necessary part of physical training, or whether the Board considers it necessary for the purpose of national defence; and whether he is aware of any new danger confronting this country, rendering necessary increased preparations for defence, or whether the Board of Education is to become a preparatory training authority and auxiliary of the Army.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not regard rifle shooting in elementary schools as a necessary part of physical training. I do not consider it necessary for the purpose of national defence. I am not aware of any new danger threatening this country nor, while I am President, will the Board of Education become a preparatory training authority and auxiliary of the Army.

  The Hobhouse Inquiry.
  SIR GEORGE NEWNES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a member of the Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to investigate the question of wages of Post Office servants, presented himself at the Swansea Post Office and asked to inspect the buildings; that, in view of the fact that
  708
  in London and elsewhere representative men from the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association accompanied members of the Select Committee during the inspection of offices as well as departmental officials, the local committee of the Postal Telegraph Clerks' Association asked the postmaster of Swansea for the same facilities, which they were refused; and whether, seeing that they were afterwards reprimanded for making the request, he will inquire into the circumstances and state if the reprimand has been entered on the official records to the detriment of the men.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): the matter in question was brought to my attention, and I inquired into it. There is no official record to the prejudice of the officers in question.

  Margate Postal Arrangements.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state why the late fee for letters posted after the final clearing of the box at 9.45 p.m., at the chief post office at Margate, has been abolished; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to re-establish it.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: There has never been any late fee posting at Margate in connection with the present night mail despatch. Prior to 1899, when the hour for posting was changed from 8.12 p.m. to 9.45 p.m., there was a late fee collection at 8.40 p.m., but there has been none since.

  Postal Facilities in the West Indies.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that grave inconvenience is being caused in the northern islands of the West Indies owing to the lack of adequate postal facilities; and whether he will endeavour to secure these at an early date.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A contract was recently concluded by the Crown Agents for the Colonies providing for a regular monthly mail service to the northern islands of the West Indies from Barbados; and I have not been made aware that the service, which has not been arranged by the Post Office, is found

  709
  to be inadequate by the West Indian communities. Mails for these islands are as a matter of fact despatched fortnightly from the United Kingdom to Barbados for onward transmission by any opportunity which may arise in addition to those afforded by the inter-colonial packets under the contract referred to.

  Burwell Estate, Cambridgeshire.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, how many labourers employed by the drown on the Harwell Estate in Cambridgeshire have been discharged from their employment in connection with the scheme for converting the estate into small holdings; the length of service of each of them on that property; how many of them have been re-housed; how many of them have been compensated for their loss of employment and the loss of their homes.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Crown farm at Burwell, comprising 917 acres, which was in hand, has been let on lease for twenty-one years to my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket. He has sub-let it to fifty-nine small holders who are now settled on the land. The number of labourers who received notice was thirty-nine, eight of whom had worked on the farm for over twenty years, two between fifteen and twenty years, four between ten and fifteen years, twelve between five and ten years, and thirteen under five years. A sum of £389 has been paid by my hon. friend to these men as compensation, in accordance with a scheme drawn up by the Office of Woods, and based on length of service. A considerable number of the men were at once taken on by the new tenants, and all the others have now found other employment in the neighbourhood. There are fourteen cottages on the farm, which were occupied by twenty-two of the labourers. The occupants of nine of these cottages have had to leave their cottages, but they have found other accommodation in the neighbourhood, and the cost of their removal has been paid. The remainder have been allowed to remain, and it is unlikely that they will be disturbed at all. I may add that I am informed by my hon. friend that every labourer on the estate was given an opportunity of taking
  710
  a portion of the land, and that although he only entertained applications from those who lived in Burwell or the immediate neighbourhood it has been quite impossible to satisfy all their demands.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: Does the £389 comprise the whole amount of compensation to be divided among the thirty-nine labourers and their families who have been disturbed?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I may say that the hon. Member for New-market has acted in a most generous way in agreeing to provide all compensation provided for on the scheme drawn up by the Office of Woods and Forests. He left the matter entirely to that body.
  MR. H. H. MARKS: The hon. Baronet has not answered my Question.
  LORD TURNOUR: Is it proposed to carry out any more wholesale evictions on Crown Lands?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: There have been no wholesale evictions.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: How many of the dispossessed labourers were settled on the newly created holdings?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEYasked for notice of that Question.

  The Official Debates.
  *MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he will state the reason why, in the official reports of the proceedings of the Houses of Parliament, the speeches of Members of the Upper House are invariably reported in the first person, whereas this, with few exceptions, is not the practice in reporting the proceedings of this House: whether the speeches of Members of the Upper House are reported verbatim, and if so, what is the extra cost involved; and whether steps will be taken to have a similar method adopted in the Upper House to that which exists in this House.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): I regret that I can add nothing to the Answer which I gave the

  711
  hon. Member to the same Question on the 30th July last.†

  King's Park, Stirling.
  *MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government have yet come to a decision with regard to the feuing for building purposes of a portion of the King's Park and Knot, Stirling.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Question is still under consideration.
  *MR. MORTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an advertisement appeared in a Scottish paper on Saturday offering, what seemed to be the site referred to, for feuing?
  MR. MCKENNA: The matter is not vet settled and is still under consideration.

  The National Gallery.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been directed to the fact that a number of photographic firms have established stalls for the sale of reproductions of national pictures on the ground floor of the National Gallery; and if he can state what rent is paid by those firms?
  MR. MCKENNA: In three cases the trustees and director of the National Gallery have authorised the sale of photographs of pictures in the collection in the outer Hall of the Gallery. No rent is paid for this permission.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is not a source of revenue being overlooked?
  MR. MCKENNA: This is primarily a matter for the Trustees of the National Gallery. I will consult them about it however.

  Rex v. Blackler.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received the Report of the proceedings in the case of Rex v. Blackler, what action he proposes to take to recompense the defendant for the loss he has suffered in consequence of these proceedings; and whether he will lay
  † See (4) Debates, clxii, 408.
  712
  upon the Table the correspondence which has passed between the Solicitor to the Treasury and the parties concerned in this case.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): I may call the attention of the hon. Member to the answer I gave in July last.‡ This defendant was acquitted after being tried by a jury, although he had been committed to take his trial by the unanimous order of a bench of nine magistrates. A claim for compensation has been received by the Treasury, who have come to the conclusion that it cannot be entertained. With regard to the production of the correspondence to the Director of Public Prosecutions, such correspondence has always been held to be strictly privileged, and in my opinion it is exceedingly important in the public interest that it should retain that character. I am not therefore prepared to advise that it be laid.

  Prosecutions under the Corrupt Practices Act.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the report of the proceedings in the case of Rex v. Fowler, what action he proposes to take to recompense Fowler for the injury and loss he has suffered by these proceedings; whether he will lay upon the Table of this House the correspondence in the matter which has passed, between the Solicitor to the Treasury and the Liberal election agent named Huckley; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prosecute any persons connected with this case for perjury.
  I beg also to ask Mr. Attorney-General how many prosecutions have been instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for alleged offences against the Corrupt Practices Acts at the late general election; whether in any case the accused was alleged to have acted in the interests of a Liberal candidate; whether any of the prosecutions were successful; and whether any, and, if so, how many prosecutions of a similar character are pending.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that in the case referred to in the first Question there vas a mass of evidence given on both
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxii, 1333.

  713
  sides, and the magistrates accepted that for the defence and dismissed the prosecution. The correspondence could not be produced as it was of a privileged character. As to the second Question, he was informed that six prosecutions had been instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions for alleged offences against the Corrupt Practices Acts at the late general election, and that only in one case had the prosecution been attended with success. It was a very difficult matter to prosecute successfully in cases involving political feeling. He rather thought the Question cast some reflection on the Public Prosecutor; he would therefore like to say that immediately after the general election he gave instructions for prosecutions to be instituted in all cases where there was substantial evidence so as to vindicate the law. That had been done with the result he had mentioned. It was asked in how many of the cases the accused had acted in the interest of the Liberal candidates. His answer to that was that the Public Prosecutor was not a person who interested himself in the politics of the persons concerned.
  LORD R. CECIL: May I ask whether in point of fact the prosecution in the case referred to in my Question was not abandoned practically at the dictation of Counsel for the Treasury? Did he not practically invite the magistrates to dismiss the case?
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I believe he took the view that his case had practically broken down.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Is it the habit of the Treasury Solicitor to employ Radical election agents to collect evidence for the Treasury in these cases?
  SIR JOHN WALTON: The Public Prosecutor docs not concern himself with the politics of the gentlemen he employs, and I certainly have no such concern.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: But is it not a fact that the Radical election agent who assisted the hon. Member for Reigate was employed by the Treasury with a full knowledge of his occupation?
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I have no knowledge of that.
  LORD R. CECIL: May I as a matter of personal explanation say I did not intend to cast the slightest reflection on the Public Prosecutor?

  An Alleged Political Eviction.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked the Attorney-General a Question of which he had given private notice — namely, whether his attention had been called to the action of a house agent and King's tax collector at Old Ford and Bow, who had given his tenant notice to quit for exhibiting a board in his front garden advocating the claims of a Labour candidate at an approaching borough council election, and what action it was proposed to take to prevent this form of intimidation being continued.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: The conduct the hon. Member complains of, however regrettable it may be, does not, I fear, constitute any breach of the statutes relating to corruption. A throat in connection with the giving of a vote might infringe the Corrupt Practices Act; but I am not aware of any provision by which it becomes a breach of the law for a landlord to threaten a tenant with eviction for exhibiting a political placard. The hon. Member only gave notice of his Question a short time ago. I will consider the matter further. If a breach of the law has been committed, I will see that the necessary steps are taken.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that as the election would take place on Thursday he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

  Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Act
  MR. MENZIES: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the application of the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Act, 1900, is causing, in its incidence, annoyance and discontent amongst small feuars in Scotland who were not aware that they could be made, under this Act, liable to this assessment; that, on at least one estate in Scotland, leaseholders who hold building leases are being assessed on the full value of their improvements, which does not appear to have been contemplated in the Bill; and whether he can give any date upon which the Government will bring forward a Bill to relieve the

  715
  country altogether from this mediæval imposition.
  I beg also to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that small feuars and leaseholders who have been forced to pay assessments under the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Act, 1900, have apparently no mutual rights of ownership, as valued rent heritors have, over these manses and churches which their payments have helped to build; that the valued rent heritors, in fact, claim the whole ownership, and allocate all the seats entirely amongst themselves; and whether he intends to take any steps in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): My attention has already been drawn to the state of opinion described by my hon. friend, and as he is aware, a Return has been ordered by the House and is now under preparation, showing the Ecclesiastical Assessments levied for these purposes during the ten years ending 15th May, 1905. The relations of small feuars and leaseholders to valued rent heritors is stated in my hon. friend's second Question with substantial accuracy. I can at present name no such date as is suggested, but I shall be glad to have any further information such as is offered by my hon. friend in the second portion of his first Question.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can inform the House of the progress made by the Estates Commissioners in the reinstatement of the evicted tenants up to the present date; what are the causes of the practical breakdown of the Land Act of 1903 in this vital matter; and what steps the Government propose to take to remove these obstacles to a settlement of the Irish Land Question.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,: Applications to the number of 5,912 have been received from evicted tenants or their representatives. Of these applications, 1,047 have been finally dealt with, 505 having been rejected as untenable, while the evicted tenants were restored
  716
  in the remaining 542 cases. Of these 542 tenants, 381 were restored by the landlords on the sale of their estates under the Land Purchase Act, the tenants being, inmost cases, assisted by grants from the Estates Commissioners for the equipment of their farms. The balance of 161 tenants have been either restored by the Estates Commissioners on their old holdings on purchase of the estates, or placed in new holdings provided for them. Under the former regulations, the Estates Commissioners were not allowed to negotiate with owners of untenanted land for the purchase of it with the view to providing farms for evicted tenants, and they were also prohibited from proposing the reinstatement of evicted tenants on a holding unless the estate on which the holding was situated had itself been proposed for sale. Both these restrictions were removed by the regulations of 13th February, 1906, and subsequently, in May last, the Estates Commissioners were given a special staff of six inspectors for the purpose of promoting this work. Since that date the inspectors have inquired into applications from 1,285 evicted tenants. Of these, 272 cases have been rejected; in 444 cases the landlord refused to allow the inspectors to visit the lands; in 242 cases the present occupants of the evicted holdings were unwilling to vacate them, some having purchased under the Land Purchase Act; in 100 cases terms have been proposed for the restoration of the tenants, and in eighty-six cases the tenants have been reinstated. In the balance further inquiries are being made. I do not consider that the Act has practically broken down, but its operation has no doubt been much slower than was expected, partly owing to the impediments interposed, until the beginning of the present year, by the regulations then withdrawn, and partly to the following causes, viz: (1) The unwillingness of tenants who hold evicted farms to relinquish them in favour of the former holders. (2) The difficulty of finding, especially in Ulster and Munster, untenanted land which the owner will consent to sell. (3) Local opposition which is sometimes offered to the introduction of strangers. Local public opinion might do much to remove this obstacle. (4) Objection taken by landlords in whose hands evicted farms are to the giving up of those farms for the

  717
  reinstatement of evicted tenants. Those are the main results that have so far emerged from the inquiries now in progress, which it must lie remembered are in the nature of preliminary investigations to ascertain wherein the obstacles really lie. Those inquiries are being energetically prosecuted in the same way, and it is intended to obtain additions to the staff so as to deal with the remaining cases if possible within the next six months. Until the whole of the evidence is before the Government, and until the administrative measures taken and capable of being taken by the Estates Commissioners have matured, I am not in a position to state whether further legislation upon the matter will be necessary, but that aspect of the Question will continue to receive the most careful attention of the Irish Government.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously mean to convey that one cause of the delay is the fact that the Commissioners are engaged in preliminary investigations, although the Act has been in operation for three years?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir. I mean to convey that since the restrictions in operation in February have been removed it has been necessary to approach the subject in a much more systematic and complete manner than hitherto, and the time occupied by those investigations has necessarily delayed the progress of reinstatement. But we look upon these investigations, which are nearly at an end, as work of permanent value, and of great service in enabling the process of reinstatement to proceed more rapidly.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: This is a matter of such extraordinary and vital importance, affecting, as it does, questions of law and order as well as of land settlement, that I must ask the leave of the House to move the adjournment.

  Telegraph Offices at Irish Tidal Ports.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can state at what, if any British tidal ports he has recently curtailed the hours during which the post offices are open for telegraphic and other public business; if he can likewise state at what Irish tidal ports he has recently curtailed public postal facilities;
  718
  on what grounds, if any, has this change been made; in cases where such change has been made, have the local municipal or harbour authorities been consulted; if not, will he state on what information he has acted; and whether in view of the fact that in certain cases whore such changes have been made the local authorities allege that serious inconveniences have arisen, without any compensating advantage to the Revenue or any one, he will put himself in communication with such authorities, with a view to ascertaining the exact facts in the matter and remedying the inconvenience which is alleged to have arisen.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It has recently been decided to close the post offices at Newry, Dundalk, and Drogheda at 8 p.m. instead of 10 p.m. the Returns of counter transactions which were taken for some long time prior to this decision, showed that the amount of business transacted at the counters of these offices after 8 p.m. was insignificant, and not sufficient to warrant the expense of keeping the offices open to an exceptionally late hour, or of imposing the late hours on the staff. Telegrams can, of course, still be sent after 8 p.m. on payment of the usual late fees, and I cannot find that the curtailment of postal facilities has caused, or is likely to cause, any practical inconvenience, and there seems to be no sufficient grounds for granting facilities to the towns in question which are denied to other towns of equal or greater importance.
  MR. MOONEY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive representations from Irish local authorities on the subject.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Yes, but the decision was based on the records of the transactions.
  MR. MOONEY: On ex parte statements.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, on the official records.

  The South African Committee of Inquiry.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he will lay upon

  719
  the Table of the House the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the self-government proposals sent to the South African Colonies in the summer of this year.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The mission of the Committee sent to South Africa was essentially of a confidential character, and the Report deals not only with the Transvaal Constitution, but with that of the Orange River Colony. His Majesty's Government do not propose to consider the question of its publication until after the latter Constitution has been determined and declared to Parliament.

  Wireless Telegraphy.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask a Question of which I had given private notice— namely, whether the British delegates at the international conference on wireless telegraphy in Berlin are empowered to sign a binding agreement on the part of this country, or whether opportunities for discussion in Parliament will first be given.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The delegates at this conference are acting under instructions from His Majesty's Government, and any convention agreed to will be reserved for subsequent ratification. I can say nothing at present as to the discussions in Parliament.

IRISH EVICTED TENANTS— ADJOURNMENT.
MR. JOHN REDMOND,Member for Waterford, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the failure of the Irish Government and the Estate Commissioners to carry out the intentions and policy of Parliament by the restoration of Irish evicted tenants to their homes, as disclosed in the Report of the Estate Commissioners and in the statement of the Chief Secretary;" and, the pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order
720
No. 10, until a quarter past Eight this evening.

PLURAL VOTING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
*VISOOUNT CASTLEREAGH*VISOOUNT CASTLEREAGH(Maidstone) moved an Amendment to Clause 1 to provide that a voter should merely be required to cause to be delivered in the form prescribed by Order in Council, his notice of selection, and should not, according to the original drafting of the Bill be called upon personally to send that notice. The noble Lord said that as far as he understood at the present time there was no provision in the Bill as to how notice should be sent. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill what the position of the voter was when a notice had been sent but had not been received. This appeared to him to be a very important Question, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would enlighten them. If a voter voted under such circumstances would he be a criminal? His Amendment would remove one of the ambiguities with which, to his mind, the Bill at the present time was full. The words he proposed would relieve the voter of a great many difficulties and would also strengthen the Bill.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, to leave out the word 'send' and to insert the words 'cause to be delivered in a form to be prescribed by Order in Council made under this Act.'"—(Viscount Castlereagh.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,)replied that he did not think the Amendment of the noble Lord was necessary, inasmuch as a provision would be made in the Order in Council by which a receipt would be sent to the voter notified by the clerk. He was quite sure the noble Lord would not wish to cause unnecessary trouble to the voter notified. He (Mr. Harcourt) would certainly be unwilling to accept the Amendment.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that his noble friend's Amendment suggested that the obligation should not be laid upon the voter to send in his own notice, but the clerk should cause the notice to be sent in on the form prescribed. Was it to be optional for the voter either to send his notice or cause it to be sent? There was no Party question involved in this matter; both sides of the Committee were anxious to know how the machinery of the Bill would operate. This obligation imposed upon a voter, however, was a very serious matter, for it was an obligation which many would be very unwilling to undertake. A claimant himself knew very little of the means by which his vote was obtained. Under this Bill, in future, if a man made his own claim he would be liable to a penalty, but the Amendment of his noble friend would remove this difficulty.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid there were really two points before the Committee — the one referred to by his right hon. friend and the other referred to by his noble friend. The only one which had been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply was whether the notice of selection should be in the form prescribed by Order in Council, or whether the person sending the notification might send it in any form he liked. The second point was as to whether the whole thing could be carried out by agents or organisers, or whether the labour, responsibility, and care required should rest on the shoulders of each individual voter. He thought it would be better for the Committee to restrict themselves to the first point, and postpone the consideration of the second point till a later Amendment was moved.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had stated that a receipt would be sent to the voter for the notification of selection. If a man sent notice and received no receipt, would he come within the purview of the Act?
MR. HARCOURTsaid that on this particular point he had given to the voter the greatest amount of latitude. He thought it would be a pity to tie him down in any way, or to subject him to any inconvenience.
VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*THE CHAIRMAN: In regard to all the proposals to insert words after "send," I think the whole point of how the notice is to be sent or delivered should be taken together. I mean that these various Amendments overlap one another, and it is impossible to debate one without infringing on the others.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG(Down, E.) moved an Amendment to provide that a person desiring to select a constituency would have the option to send "or cause to be sent" a notice of his selection. He explained that this Amendment would be necessary in view of another which he proposed to move at a later stage, to leave out the words "signed by him." In connection with this particular matter they had to consider the object which the measure was intended to carry out. He understood from what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that the real object of the Bill was to prevent anyone from exercising the franchise more than once. According to the wording of the Bill it was necessary that the voter in making his selection of a constituency should send a notice "signed by himself" intimating the particular property or residence in respect of which he desired to vote. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that a very large number of electors in this country would be prohibited from exercising the franchise if this clause was carried as it stood, because whether, as was the case at the present time, a very large amount of the work of registration was done by political associations, or whether the work was done by the individual, the onus here rested upon each, plural voter to decide for himself and to sign with his own hand the paper notifying the constituency selected. Those who had most votes would be those who engaged solicitors to look after their various affairs and especially the matters with regard to their property. He held that it would be a great hardship that those voters should be obliged to exercise this nomination personally, and not be

723
in a position to do so through their own trusted agents who had been conducting their affairs in the past. Another serious point arose in connection with constituencies where the balance of power was very narrow. He had in his mind's eye constituencies where twenty, forty, or fifty votes generally turned the election one way or another. This clause as it stood lent itself in these cases to very grave abuse by anyone who cared to simply fill up a notice paper in the name of a voter and have his name put in the register in respect of property which he held in a constituency. The notice being a forgery, the voter might at an election time ask for a voting paper in another constituency and immediately become subject to the serious penalties set out in the Bill. In many instances men of the humbler class who were not accustomed to the placing of their names on the register would find themselves in the peculiar position of having all at once to take up this matter of selection and signing with their own hand the notice of selection. By making the alterations which he proposed in the wording of the clause they would enable the voter who had two or more qualifications to exercise the power of selection through his solicitor or some other person authorise to act on his behalf. A voter might be seriously ill, or away travelling abroad, and if the clause were amended as proposed his instructions could be carried out by his agent. Supposing the clause stood in its present form, a very large number of electors would be deprived of the power of exercising their votes at an election. It was not the voters who could be chased hither and thither by one Party or another at election times who would be affected in the way he had indicated, but those who were outside the dictation of either of the Parties—those whom one was anxious to retain on the register. The Committee knew how very varied were the questions which came to he discussed at election times, and it was the man who did not follow the Party hacks whose voice was most necessary for the solving of these questions. It was those men who did not desire to press themselves to the forefront of political affairs, but were always ready to come forward and vote when an election took place, and to give an un-
724
biassed record of the feeling of the country who would be prevented from voting by not having attended themselves to the selection of a constituency.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, after the word 'semi,' to insert the words 'cause to be sent.'"— (Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. A. J. BALFOURraised a point of order. Two quite distinct questions had been raised by this Amendment. One was as to the form or shape in which the notification was to be given, and the other whether the notice was to be sent by post or otherwise. But by the suggestion of the Chairman these two questions could not be discussed separately; the lion. Gentleman treated them as more or less one question. There was another 'point, viz.: whether the sending of the notice, must be done by the individual action of the voter himself or by an agent? All he asked was whether, under the Tiding from the Chair, there could be a general discussion on these questions? The hitter question was raised in a very precise form by an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.
*THE CHAIRMANconfessed that the suggestion he had thrown out was under a misapprehension; but he would try and make the present situation perfectly clear. He thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was going to deal with the matter of how the notice was to be sent; but he had not dealt with that question at all. He had associated with the Amendment actually moved a subsequent consequential Amendment which involved the question of agency. The Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University seemed to him to raise a very similar point to that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had introduced. If the discussion were to follow the line taken by the hon. and gallant Member it would not be possible to allow a further discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Dublin University.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that the ruling of the Chairman was perfectly clear, but the result would be that if his hon. and gallant friend pressed the discussion of his Amendment and his consequential Amendment, the Committee could not discuss the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, although it raised a broader question than that of the hon. and gallant Member.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that the actual point raised by the hon. and gallant Member in what he stated was his consequential Amendment was really not necessary, on the principle qui facit per alium facit per se, because it was included in the words that a person desiring to select a voting constituency "must send or cause to be sent a notice of his selection to he signed by him." Subsection (3) (b) stated that if any person "sends or causes to be sent a notice of his selection of a voting constituency without withdrawing any notice which is in operation in any other constituency" he should be guilty of an illegal practice, etc. There never had been any intention of compelling the voter to deliver the notice paper himself at the door of the town clerk or clerk to the county council or anything of that sort. But it was absolutely essential that the voter should have a notice paper brought to him and signed by him, otherwise there might be bogus demands for selection without any notice having been put on the register. Another question raised by the hon. and gallant Member was the case of a foreign traveller or the illness of a voter which would prevent the notice being sent on the appointed day. He had already promised to bring up a clause to meet the case of a person who was on foreign travel or was ill, and who subsequently discovered that he was registered elsewhere. He could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to leave out the words "signed by him;" otherwise it would load to personation. But he had no objection to accept the words "cause to be sent."
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that if they were to have any form of notice at all the voter
726
should sign it himself. If not, the door would be left open to all sorts of fraud. On the other hand, if the clause were retained as it stood, many people would not take the trouble to sign a notice-paper and hand it to an agent who would send it in to the proper officer.
MR. J. WARDasked, on a point of order, whether or not it had been decided that the voter must sign his notice-paper himself.
MR. A. T. BALFOURsaid that it was quite right that the Committee should know exactly where they were. The Government had stated that they did not object to introduce the words "cause to be sent," but these words were important as an introduction to his hon. and gallant friend's second Amendment. He ventured to suggest that they should introduce here the innocuous words "cause to be sent," and then they could come to the real issue when the hon. and gallant Member moved his next Amendment.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he accepted the words "cause to be sent," but with the warning that he must be careful to introduce similar words in subsequent parts of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. FELL MR. FELL(Great Yarmouth) moved an Amendment providing that the terms of the notice should be in a statutory form to be provided by the overseers or by an Order in Council or in some other way. At any rate, the form should be identical in all cases. It was not in the power of an agricultural labourer to draw a proper notice of selection which would pass the scrutiny of a town clerk or clerk to a county council.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, after the word 'notice,' to insert the words 'in a statutory form to be provided by the overseers.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had already promised to insert a statutory form, but

727
he was not inclined to inflict upon the plural voter the inconvenience of using that form. A simple letter would be all that was necessary.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he shared very much the hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the practical difficulties which would arise in connection with this Bill. Many people upon whom these duties would be put would be either undesirous or unwilling to carry them out, and to inflict upon them what was really a penal law would be a great hardship upon the poorer classes of the country. The greatest freedom should be given to these unfortunate people, because what the Government was doing was to impose upon the industrious man who had saved a little money and had got two or three votes a responsibility in regard to selection which he had not hitherto had. It would be better if his hon. friend did not press his Amendment, and left to these poor people the small limit of liberty which the Government were pre pared to give them.
Question put, and negatived.
*MR. FELL*MR. FELL moved an Amendment providing that a person desiring to select a voting constituency must send a notice to the clerk of the county council or town clerk of his selection, and a list of the other constituences in which he is registered, and a form of renunciation of his right to vote in such other constituences. This Amendment was, he believed, a most important one, for if it was required that the voter should send this notice then his object would be attained. That was to make all the registers in this country more complete and more exact. It would also save trouble to agents and returning officers and also expense at elections. If the registers were made up in this way and these voters were "starred" they would, he believed, be not only at the disposal of the candidates, the agents and the returning officers in the districts, but they would be available for the purposes of those interested all over the country. He believed that there would be very grave danger to these plural voters if they applied on the other registers without any notice being placed against their names that they had votes
728
in other constituencies. In the case of a borough with 10,000 voters, and 1,000 plural voters, possibly 500 might select the borough to vote in and 500 the county. There would therefore be 500 names "starred" on each list. The expenses of the returning officers were regulated by the number of electors, and unless some step of the kind he proposed were taken he did not see how the number of electors could be ascertained in any particular place. The expenses of candidates were also regulated by the number of voters, and in future it appeared that the candidates would be allowed considerably more expenses than the number of voters in their constituencies would justify under this Bill, because every constituency in the country would have a list of more voters than there were in it. If the voter sent in the list which he suggested the town clerk should, he thought, put a blue star against his name, and that would prevent not only expense but the grave danger of personation. It would save the expense of serving notices upon all these people, of sending them the candidates' address and the polling cards, although in 500 or 1,000 cases such a course was absolutely useless. Moreover these documents were in the nature of invitations to a man to vote who had not a vote, because a man got a card with his polling number and an intimation that he had a right to vote. In a well known book dealing with election law, Mr. Lloyd stated that a grave difficulty arose with regard to dead voters, and when an election was on it was almost impossible to prevent personation. Under this Bill they had to deal with thousands and thousands of people who were in the position of being dead to the constituency. Coupling that with the statement of an astute election agent that before nine o'clock he had polled all the "deads" in his constituency, the Committee would see the danger they were running in regard to personation. Of course there were eases in which a man would get a dual qualification after the time for sending notices, but that was a small danger compared with the other. Some people said they did not know what votes they had, but he thought that was an illusory statement. He had three votes: he knew where.

729
they were and would be perfectly able to send in a notice of selection. He ought to be able to expect to find a mark against his name at the place where he could not vote, and if this course were followed as he suggested a large amount of personation would be done away with. Under the system proposed by the Government a clever election agent would be able to render it impossible to conduct an election without the risk of a scrutiny.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, after the word 'selection,' to insert the words 'and a list of the other constituencies in which he is registered and a form of renunciation of his right to vote in such other constituencies.'"—(Mr. Fell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he could not accept the proposal, and asked what would have been said if he had made such a proposal as this. He should have been told that he was inflicting upon the pauper pluralist every outrage that it was possible he could inflict.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked what was a pauper pluralist?
MR. HARCOURTsaid he meant a working-man pluralist. He, however, did not think it was really necessary to argue the question seriously. He admitted that this proposal was a counsel of perfection, as he should extremely like to see every plural voter "starred" in all the places in which he could not vote. No doubt it was a blot upon the Bill that it did not so provide, but he came to the conclusion that that was not a liability which ought to be put upon the plural voter, because if it was imposed there ought to be put upon him for not making the return some penalty which would seem somewhat harsh, as a man was often put upon a register without his knowledge. It had been said that this Bill was going to lead to wholesale personation. [An HON. MEMBER: That is true.] He believed it would do nothing of the sort, and if that was the view of hon. Members opposite they ought to be very cautious about asking for any reduction in the penalties now being imposed.
MR. A. J. BALFOURagreed that this Amendment would throw too great a burden upon the ratepayers, but there was one point his hon. friend had raised to which he would like to refer. He had pointed out that the limit of a candidate's expenses at any election depended upon the number of electors on the register. He wished to know whether the persons who were not qualified to vote because they were pluralists counted for that purpose under the Corrupt Practices Act. There might be some constituencies in which the number of persons on the register was far in excess of the number qualified to vote. He thought that the scale should be framed not upon the number of persons on the register, but according to the number entitled to vote. He would like to know if that sound policy was going to be carried out under this Bill.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that there were many registers at the present time which contained hundreds of duplicate voters, but they could not vote without running the risk of the penalties imposed under the Act. The maximum scale counted all these, and, although in some constituencies there would be still more "dead heads added by the present Bill, yet it was impossible to deal with either. No means existed of officially discovering who were these voters that the right hon. Gentleman wished not to count.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Committee to take as an example the constituency which he represented, containing over 30,000 electors. A very large number of them were duplicate voters who voted in the City of London, and who also had votes for f heir residences outside the city. If those voters elected to vote for their residences and not for the city, it was quite evident that the scale of expenses in the city, being based upon the number of voters upon the register, would be extremely distorted and the discrepancy would be far more than the few hundreds which had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet. He thought it would amount to many thousands, and the whole purpose and object of the Corrupt Practices Act would be defeated.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTShoped his hon. friend would not press this Amendment. As the Leader of the Opposition had stated, this proposal would put a great burden upon the elector by requiring him to remember all the constituencies for which he had a vote. Personally he preferred that the voter should not have to make any selection, hut the Committee had decided otherwise. If the elector was obliged to make a selection they ought not to make it such a burden upon him. This Amendment would not carry out the object his hon. friend had in view.
MR. HARCOURTthought the right hon. Gentleman had fallen into the mistake of treating the maximum expenses as if they were the minimum. Of course the maximum expenditure was not one which was bound to be incurred.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought the right hon. Gentleman had missed the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. It was quite true that none of them were bound to spend the maximum allowed by the Corrupt Practices Act, but Parliament in its wisdom had laid down that any expenditure exceeding an amount in a certain ratio to the number of electors was illegal. He thought Parliament intended the number of electors to be the number of people actually entitled to vote, but in the case which had been cited the number of electors on the register would be enormously greater than the number entitled to vote. By the new Bill Parliament would be defeating the intention under the present Act, and would be making it legal to spend a much higher sum in proportion to the number of electors eligible to record their votes than under the Corrupt Practices Act. He agreed that they could not deal with this matter by the Amendment which had been moved. He wished to point out that he had given notice of a new clause which would deal with the same point in another way. He thought the objects of his hon. friend commanded sympathy, and even the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that he would gladly carry them out if he could. He trusted that the new clause that he should move later on would give the right hon.
732
Gentleman an opportunity of carrying out his good intentions.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the great object of this Amendment was that the voter on the register who was not going to use his vote should be marked in some way. It was quite clear that if a voter had got to make some selection the only place where a selection would have any notice taken of it would be the constituency to which it was sent. If the Committee did not adopt this Amendment there would be no mark on the register of the different constituencies where the voter was not going to vote, and the result would be that out voters would appear on the register without any mark as being perfectly entitled to vote, although, as a matter of fact, they would not be entitled to vote because they had selected some other constituency. The result would be that the returning officer's expenses would lie very much increased. The returning officer had to provide polling booths, presiding officers, clerks and machinery of all sorts and descriptions, and in a constituency which he had in mind it would cost almost twice as much to carry out that official machinery than would be the case if there was some way of marking off the voters who were not going to vote in that division. The voters who were on the list would have to be canvassed, and an immense amount of trouble and expense would be incurred dealing with a large number of voters who were not going to vote at all. Supposing a voter turned up in a constituency which he had not selected, and claimed a vote. There was nothing on the list to show that he was not entitled to vote. His name would be on the register, and there would be no mark and no notice to invite the presiding officer to put the stipulated question to him; in fact there would be nothing to prevent him from voting. He agreed that this Amendment was impracticable and would be a very great burden. Me would have much preferred arguing in favour of his own Amendment, which had been ruled out of order, to the effect that notice should be given to the constituency in which the voter did not, intend to exercise the franchise. Supposing a voter had two qualifications and had to send a

733
notice of selection. If, at, the same time, he sent notice to the constituencies in which he was not going to vote, all those evils which had been complained of would he cured, because that would automatically reduce those registers, and reduce the expenses of electioneering. There was one final argument which he ventured to put before the Committee. Surely it was necessary to know the number of voters in any given constituency. As long as they permitted, by using the machinery of this Bill, the registers to contain the names of those who were not entitled to vote, so long would it remain impossible to tell what the actual number of voters in any constituency was. For these reasons, whilst he could not support the Amendment in the form in which it was put, he did urge upon the Government that they should take into consideration the absolute necessity, if this Bill was to be made at all perfect, of having some mark against the names of people who were not entitled to vote.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR WILLIAM BULL SIR WILLIAM BULL(Hammersmith) moved an Amendment requiring the notice to be sent by post in a form which he proposed to move on the consideration of the schedule. After what had fallen from the right, hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill he was not particular whether it was sent by post, post free, or otherwise. What he desired was that the Bill should provide a form that might or might not be used, and that it should be witnessed for one thing; otherwise there would be nothing to prevent bogus claims being sent in wholesale. Then he would suggest that the form should be sent in duplicate, and that a receipt should be given at the foot of the notice, with a declaration by the town clerk or clerk to the council county that the notice was in order and that the name had been duly starred on the register of voters for the particular constituency. He suggested that this model form should be inserted in the Bill, so that election agents and others might know what the clerk expected to receive.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON, rising on a point of order, asked if the Committee had
734
not quite recently had a discussion relating to this question on an Amendment which had been rejected.
THE CHAIRMANdid not know which Amendment, the hon. Gentleman alluded to, but he thought this Amendment was clearly in order. It was understood that such an Amendment might be brought forward.
SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid there was no reason why the voter should not use his own form or write a letter to the clerk if he so desired. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, after the word 'selection,' to insert the words, 'by post in the form set out in the Schedule hereto.'"—(Sir William Bull.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTthought the hon. Member must have been out of the House when he promised that there should be a form in the schedule as guide, and that there should be provision for a receipt, to be sent to a voter. He could not accept the words "by post," because he did not want to limit the voter to that particular method of conveyance. With regard to the question of witnesses, he thought that would be inflicting additional labour on the voter, and as he left, the voter to write a letter if he so pleased, he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member would involve a great deal of inconvenience.
MR. HICKS BEACH: Would the form be obtainable at a Post Office?
MR. HARCOURT: At the town clerk's office.
MR. HICKS BEACHasked whether it would not be more convenient if it were obtainable at any Post Office. It would surely be a great convenience to the working-class plural voters, of whom the right hon. Gentleman himself said there was a large number.
THE CHAIRMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had stated

735
that he was going to do certain things, and when they were done would be the time, to ask these questions.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYunderstood that the town clerk or the clerk to the county council would have forms which the voter might obtain, but that he might send his notice on a sheet of Paper if he so desired. He did not often agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he thought his proposal was the simplest and best way.
Question put, and negatived.
CAPTAIN CRAIG CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to leave out the words "signed by him." He desired to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman once more the importance of bearing in mind the fact that the Bill as it stood would be distinctly in favour of the man who had one vote for one particular place as against the man who had two or more votes. According to this clause the man with several votes would have to take precautions to see that he marked one of them, whereas the man with only one vote had an advantage in that his vote was looked after entirely for him.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, lines 17 and 18 to leave out the words 'signed by him.'"—(Captain Craig.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
*THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN ELLIS,)said the Government could not possibly accept this Amendment. If the words "signed by him" were left out it might lead to all kinds of personation. If the claimant put his name upon the claim that could not occur. It was but little to ask. The Committee would see the signature was all that was required. The Amendment if agreed to would give rise to all sorts of difficulties, and therefore it was impossible to accept it.
*SIR CHARLES DILKEthought his right hon. friend was not quite right. Although those words were in every Act of Parliament relating to claims for registration, in practice, as he had stated
736
on a previous occasion, the authority and directions were assumed and frequently allowed in cases where it was against the strongly expressed wish of the person supposed to be making the claim. He had brought with him the claims to which he had previously referred arising in the townships of Manchester, which, although they were supposed to be signed by the persons claiming, were all in fact signed by the clerks. He had also brought the ownership claim, signed by a clerk after it was publicly stated by the voter that he had refused to sign and that the claim was sent in against his wish.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked, as an ardent student of the registration laws, whether the right hon. Baronet would further enlighten the Committee as to what action was taken by the Courts when a document purporting to be signed by a man was found to be signed by somebody else.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid the inference which he drew from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had replied for the Government and those of the right, hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was that this Bill should be postponed owing to the state of confusion in which the Government found itself. On a previous occasion the right hon. Baronet made an elaborate speech in favour of an Amendment with regard to a man having a right to vote in the district in which he resided. Having proved his case to demonstration the right hon. Baronet said he did not intend to divide the Committee upon the Amendment as it was obvious that his argument would cause an entire reconstruction of the Bill. Well, there was surely no objection to that. Where was the necessity for this haste? Was a general election or numerous by-elections so imminent as to make it necessary for a Bill of this kind to be hurried through?
MR. MADDISONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in discussing on this Amendment the advisability of postponing the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is in order.
MR. LYTTELTONsaid he bowed to the Ruling of the Chair and would only ask some representative of the Government to reconcile the refusal of this Amendment with the statement that the words at present in the Bill were unnecessary.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,)said that when the Government inserted these words "signed by him" they intended them to be interpreted according to the ordinary usage of the English language. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said with truth that in a number of eases it had been customary to accept documents not actually signed by the persons authorised to sign them, but signed by persons authorised by them. It was lax practice, and might be a very bad and loose interpretation, but it was the law, as would be seen by reference to the Municipal Registration Act of 1878, which dealt with the question of how declarations were to be made, and which stated that they might be accepted without proof of the signature of the claimant unless the revising barrister had good reason to doubt the genuineness of the signature. The distinction between those cases and the one under discussion was that in all those cases the matter was submitted to the judicial decision of the revising barrister, and therefore a certain amount of laxity could be allowed because, if there was reason for doubt, the case could be inquired into. In this case they were dealing with a ministerial officer, the town clerk, or the clerk of the peace, who had no such power as that possessed by the Revising Barrister. In such cases he thought it was right to require the signature of the voter himself.
*SIRCHARLES DILKEsaid after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated he would repeat the question he recently put which the right hon. Gentleman then promised to consider. Would the Government reconsider the form laid down? The lodgers' case was different.
738
The words "signed by him" were those of an ordinary claim, and in the Bill they had the word "notice." It was not "declaration" as in the lodger's case. There it was a witnessed declaration.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not himself see any special sanctity in a declaration that was not in a notice. The point, however, was well worthy of consideration, and he had promised to consider it, and he would consider it. But for the moment he was dealing with the distinction between the two cases. In this case the claims were sent in for a purely ministerial purpose.
MR. MOONEYthought these words ought to be left in in order that there should not be a repetition of what happened two years ago in South Dublin. Then a number of claims were put in each purporting to be signed by the claimant, and the Revising Barrister was about to accept them when objection was taken to the form of signature. The Revising Barrister then said he could not go behind the signature. It was then proved that all those signatures were in the writing of one man. The claims were disallowed, and the agent who signed them was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for forgery. If these words were taken out of the Bill such claims would be allowed, and there would be no means of punishing the guilty person.
CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid there was a discrepancy between the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the form in which notice of selection was to be given. He thought the two right hon. Gentlemen should lay their heads together and give the Committee a clear statement on the matter before the debate proceeded.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsuggested that words should be introduced to provide for the notice of selection being sent either by the voter or his agent. That would obviate the inconvenience which would otherwise be caused in the case of a person who from any reason could not send the notice.
MR. ASQUITHsaid his right hon. friend had already promised to introduce words providing for cases of illness.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he meant rather more than that.
MR. FORSTERsaid the letters or notices would he sent to the town clerk or clerk of the county, but they would be subjected to no scrutiny whatever. If a forgery was committed how was it to be found out and how was the offender to be punished?
MR. ASQUITHsaid his right hon. friend had already promised to provide for an acknowledgment of the notice being sent to the person from whom the notice would proceed. That would, to a certain extent, prevent the possibility of names being forged. The sending of an acknowledgment by the town clerk or the clerk of the county council would be a considerable safeguard.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had qualifications in Birmingham and London. If an acknowledgment was sent to his London address when he was out of town it was a hundred to one that it would not be forwarded to him because the letter would resemble a circular.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman could arrange to have letters re-directed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid some kind of discretion should be exercised as to the letters to be redirected.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the Government were considering whether it was desirable to put in some words to make falsification of a notice of this kind a special offence.
VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he was quite confused by the voluminous arguments which had been used in the discussion upon this Amendment. It seemed to him
that it resolved itself into a question of whether the Bill as it stood—[Laughter and interruption from the MINISTERIALISTS]. He did not know what he had done to be subjected to that interruption. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentlemen on the other side were permitted to make speeches upon any subject, whether they knew anything about it or not, whilst on the Opposition side of the House, when hon. Members got up, they were subjected to all sorts of interruptions. It seemed to him that Free Traders were not prepared to allow free speech. The arguments apparently resolved themselves into whether the Amendment or the Bill as it stood was the more likely to leave the way open to fraud, and it distinctly seemed to him that under the Bill as it stood fraud was the more likely to arise. So far as he could see, there was no possible reason why if a person forged a signature he should ever be found out. When a person voted he did not sign his name on the ballot paper. There was no possible reason why forgery should be discovered, and the arguments which had been used, or rather the references given to cases which had already occurred where attempts had been made to forge signatures, showed there was very considerable danger under the Bill as it at present stood that, signatures would be forged. Therefore he thought on the whole it was much better that the Committee should support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had failed to answer the point raised by his hon. and gallant friend. The light hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had said that the form of the notice would be optional, and he himself said that he would vote with the Government if that was so.
MR. ASQUITHsaid they would consider that point.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 315; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 340).

AYES.

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

Alden, Percy

Atherley-Jones, L

Acland, Francis Dyke

Ambrose, Robert

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Asquith, Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Lamont, Norman

Barlow,JohnEmmott (Somerset

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Langley, Batty

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dunne, MajorE Martin(Walsall

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Barnard, E. B.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Barnes, G. N.

Elibank, Master of

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lever, A. Levy (Essex,Harwich

Beauchamp, E.

Erskine, David C.

Lever, W.H.(Cheshire Wirral)

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

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Levy, Maurice

Bell, Richard

Everett, R. Lacey

Lewis, John Herbert

Bellairs, Carlyon

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Bonn, Sir.J. Williams(Devonp't

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lough, Thomas

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

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, W.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Ferens, T. R.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Bertram, Julius

Field, William

Lynch, H. B.

Bethell, J. H. (Essex.Romford)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Flynn, James Christopher

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Billson, Alfred

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Fuller, John Michael F.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshir

Fullerton, Hugh

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Boland, John

Gibb, James (Harrow)

M'Crae, George

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

Gill, A. H.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Bowerman, C. W.

Ginnell, L.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Brace, William

Gladstone, Rt.HnHorbertJohn

M'Killop, W.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

Branch, James

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Micking, Major G.

Brigg, John

Grant, Corrie

Maddison, Frederick

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Mallet, Charles E.

Brodie, H. C.

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceaton)

Brooke, Stopford

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Marnham, F. J.

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

Gulland, John W.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Brunner,Rt.Hn.SirJ T(Chesh.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Masterman, C. F. G.

Bryce,Rt.Hn.James(Aberdeen)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Meagher, Michael

Bryce, J. A.(InvernessBurghs)

Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Munzies, Walter

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Burke,E. Haviland-

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Harwood, George

Montagu, E. S.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Chas

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth

Montgomery, H. G.

Byles, William Pollard

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mooney, J. J.

Cairns, Thomas

Haze, Dr. A. E.

Morgan, J.Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Cameron, Robert

Hedges, A. Paget

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Morrell, Philip

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morse, L. L.

Cawley, Frederick

Henry, Charles S.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Cheetham, John Frederick

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murnaghan, George

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hobart, Sir Robert

Murray, James

Clarke, C. Goddard

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Myer, Horatio

Clough, W.

Hodge, John

Napier, T. B.

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

Hogan, Michael

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Nicholls, George.

Collins,SirWm. J. (S.PancrasW

Horniman, Emslie John

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

Cooper, G. J.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nolan, Joseph

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

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Hudson, Walter

Nuttall, Harry

Cowan, W. H.

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Cox, Harold

Idris, T. H. W.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Cremer, William Randal

Jackson, R. S.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Crossley, William J.

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Doherty, Philip

Dalmeny, Lord

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea

O'Malley, William

Delany, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshir

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Jowett, F. W.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dickinson, W.H.(St Pancras,N

Joyce, Michael

Paul, Herbert

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kearley, Hudson E.

Paulton, James Mellor

Dobson, Thomas W.

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Donelan, Captain A.

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, William; (Limehouse)

Duckworth, James

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Perks, Robert William

Duffy, William J.

Lambert, George

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

742

743

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Snowden, P.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Pollard, Dr.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney

Price, Robert John(Norfolk,E.)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Waterlow, D. S.

Radford, G. H.

Stanger, H. Y.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Weir, James Galloway

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Steadman, W. C.

White, George (Norfolk)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitehead, Rowland

Richards, T. F. (Wolverhamptn

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sullivan, Donal

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Summerbell, T.

Wiles, Thomas

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthn

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Williamson, A.

Rose, Charles Day

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

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

Rowlands, J.

Thorne, William

Wilson, HenryJ.(York, W. R.)

Runciman, Walter

Torrance, Sir A. M.

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

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Toulmin, George

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Ure, Alexander

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersfd

Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Vivian, Henry

Young, Samuel

Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester)

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Younger, George

Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Yoxall, James Henry

Sears, J. E.

Wallace, Robert

Seely, Major J. B.

Walters, John Tudor

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

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

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

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Wardle, George J.

NOES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Covan

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Baldwin, Alfred

Fletcher, J. S.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Forster, Henry William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Gadiner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hambro, Charles Eric

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, AbelH.(Hertford, East)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill,Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

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

Bull, Sir William James

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir JohnH.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thomson, W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thornton, Percy M.

Cave, George

Liddell, Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Cavenidish,Rt.Hn. Victor C.W.

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

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Long, Rt.Hn.Walter,(Dublin,S

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

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lytteltor, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

Courthope, G. Loyd

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Craig, Capt. James (Down.E.)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Craik, Sir Henry

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Captain Craig and Viscount Turnour.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Question put, and agreed to.

*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS*SIR PHILIP MAGNUS(London University) moved to insert in. sub-section (2) words which had been omitted probably by an over sight or by some fault of the draftsman, after "clerk of the County Council or town clerk," viz., the words "in the case of a University constituency the
744
clerk of Convocation or other persons who are responsible." Reference was made in Clause 2 to the possible selection by an elector for a University constituency of that constituency as the one for which he desired to vote; but no direction was given in sub-section (2) that he

745
should be required when he made that selection to send a notice paper to any one. It would be quite useless for him to send in a notice paper to a town clerk or a clerk of a county council. He desired to point out that members of Convocation of his own University were placed automatically on the register and a selection might cause very considerable inconvenience especially when the selection would have to be made some time before the election. Moreover the number of electors in a University constituency was likely to be considerably greater than the number of persons entitled to vole.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 18, after the word 'clerk,' to insert the words 'in the case of a University constituency the clerk of Convocation or other persons who are responsible.'"—(Sir Philip Magnus.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid there had been no omission of words from the clause or oversight on the part of the draftsman of the Bill. There were very few constituencies in the country that were not dealt with by the words "clerk of the county council or town clerk." But if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the end of Clause 3 he would sec that an Order-in-Council might be made for prescribing the manner in which the name of a person selecting any constituency as his voting constituency was to be marked on the register, and applying the provisions of this Act to constituencies for which no register was made under the Registration Acts 1843 to 1891, or in which any officer was responsible for printing the parliamentary register other than the clerk of the county council or town clerk. That clause was specially meant to meet the case which the hon. Member had dealt with and entirely covered the Amendment he had proposed.
Question put, and negatived.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he had put down an Amendment proposing to leave out the words "who is responsible for the printing of the parliamentary register,'" more to
746
ask for information from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill than for any other purpose. He wanted to know why those words had been put into the clause. Was it not the case that the person always responsible for printing the parliamentary register was the town clerk in the case of a borough, and the clerk of the county council in the case of a county council? These words were therefore pure surplusage, and he understood that words of surplusage were invariably bad. If these officers were not always responsible, then surely there should be the responsible officers named in the Act. How was the ordinary voter to know that there might be any other persons except the town clerk or the clerk of the county council who could make up the register?
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that he had an Amendment which came before that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester, E.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANadmitted that that was so.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid that his Amendment was to insert after the words "clerk of the county council, or town clerk" the words, "or other officer." He did not propose this Amendment for the sake merely of verbally amending the Bill, but because it seemed to him that there was a considerable amount of confusion as to where these notices were to be sent. Anyone acquainted with the machinery of preparing the lists of voters knew that down to 25th August in each year the town clerk in a borough and the clerk of a county council had practically little to do with the register at all. The position was that the list which was subsequently to become the register was prepared by the overseers. In the case of boroughs the town clerk had merely to make up the list of freemen, which was a comparatively trifling matter. There were a large number of statutes which dealt with questions of dates, who was to mark up the lists, and how they were to be published. The preparation of the lists was not in the hands of the town clerks in boroughs or of the

747
clerks to county councils. It seemed to him that all those notices should be sent to the people responsible for preparing the lists, and those people were the overseers. The notice should not be sent to the clerk of the county council or the town clerk, who had nothing to do with the details of the register, and had no power to alter it, but be sent to the people who actually had the repsonsibility and the custody of the lists. The Revising Barristers sat early in September until the 12th October, and during that time the validity of this notice could be gone into. He did not wish to press his Amendment if the Government did not want to accept it, but he thought that if the Government were going to provide for these notices at all they should provide that they should be given not to the people who had not got the control of the list, but to those who had control. The Government might well accept the words which he suggested, "or other officer," and it would certainly avoid a difficulty which he could see would otherwise arise.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 18, after the second word 'clerk,' to insert the words 'or other officer.'" —(Mr. William Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Member seemed to think that notification of selection by a voter should be sent to the person making up the register, but it was to avoid that that he put these words in, as his whole point was that this was a question of typography, and had nothing to do with the making up of the registers.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDwished to know whether the hon. Gentleman suggested that these selections were to be sent in under no authority, and that no authority had any right to say whether they were valid or invalid.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that certainly there was no authority to refuse them at all supposing they were in order. A man made his selection and sent it in to the person who was responsible for printing the register. The man who was responsible
748
was the person responsible for printing the register.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEinquired whether there was any person responsible for the printing of the register other than the clerk to the county council or the town clerk. Nobody else but those officers were specified, and it seemed to him that there was some very clumsy drafting in the Bill when the town clerk and the clerk to the county council alone were mentioned in this clause, while the "other officer" was only mentioned in Section 3. It would be much better drafting if some such words were included here as well as in Clause 3.
MR. HARCOURTsaid the hon. Baronet the Member for London University had assured him that he was perfectly satisfied with the words which he had pointed out to him would cover the case he raised. He himself thought it would be dangerous to insert the words "or other officer" because it might lead a voter to think that it did not matter which officer he sent the notice to.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid the voter could not possibly think that.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEprotested that he had not been heard.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that if an hon. Member wished to withdraw an Amendment and the Committee consented, it constantly happened that hon. Members were shut out from taking part in the debate.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINformally moved to leave out the words, "who is responsible for the printing of the parliamentary register."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman wished him to reply to this Amendment as the

749
point was really included in their previous decisions. He supposed he merely moved it for the purpose of enabling an hon. friend of his to make a speech.
MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was so. His hon. friend the Member for Birmingham was interrupted in making a speech. He himself was satisfied, but he thought his hon. friend was trying to raise another point.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid that all he wished to say was that if there was another officer beside the town clerk or the clerk to the county council and the voter was required to send a notice to him he would be acquainted with the fact just as much as he would be acquainted with the existence of the town clerk or of the clerk to the county council. He thought he had been treated a little bit irregularly.
THE CHAIRMANsaid he admitted that the hon. Member was treated irregularly, and it was because the hon. Member below him withdrew his Amendment. He must not speak, however, as if he (the Chairman) had treated him irregularly.
SIR FRANCIS LOWEsaid he did not mean to speak disrespectfully of the Chairman, but he was under the impression that if an hon. Member was speaking to an Amendment he had a right to conclude his speech before the hon. Member who moved it withdrew it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON(Durham, Barnard Castle) moved in Clause 1, page 1, line 20, after the word "constituency "to insert" on or." He thought the Amendment would make the Bill more in harmony with the existing registration law.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20,'after the word "constituency" to insert the words 'on or.'"—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That those words there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he would accept the Amendment.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON moved an Amendment altering the date applicable to the selecting of a constituency from 1st September to 5th September. He did this, he said, to avoid the difficulty of clashing dates. There was already a date of electoral law, which was the 5th of September. Some years ago an effort had been made to assimilate these dates with great success.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out 'first,' and insert 'fifth.'"—(Mr. Arthur Henderson.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'first' s'and part of the clause.'"
MR. HARCOURTwas prepared to accept the date of 5th September, and agreed as to the desirability of assimilation.
*MR. CAVEthought the proper thing would be to postpone the date for selection until same day after the lists had been revised by the revising barristers, and suggested the 1st of November.
MR. HARCOURTsaid the Committee would see why this month was put in instead of November. During the revision the person responsible for printing had of course to get on with his work. Practically the whole register came into force on the 1st November, and it must be printed before then, and if they made the notices too late the plural voter would not be able to be marked in the printed register, and would have to be written in afterwards in ink. He did not think the 5th of September would be an inconvenient date, and any delay would be so trifling that it would not be worth troubling about.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the 5th September because it was not intended that the question of these marks should come within the purview of the revising barrister at all. It was the practice to set up in type the draft lists in advance, and issue, not the written

751
lists, but advance copies of the list intended to be printed, but which only ought to be printed when the revision was completed on 12th October. Apparently it was intended that the notice of selection should be a matter entirely outside the purview of the revising barrister. It seemed to him that the 5th of September would meet the case without any other date.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYtook as an illustration the case of a voter on the register in the City of London, Chelsea, and a constituency in Surrey. Supposing when the Surrey list was considered this voter's claim was struck off, he would still have two other qualifications, but it would be too late to send in a notice to the City of London or to Chelsea, and therefore that man would be disfranchised.
MR. HARCOURTthought it would save time if he repeated the promise he had previously made that any case arising in that way would be dealt with so that the man might make a selection after 5th September.
Question put, and negatived.
Proposed word inserted.
MR. FORSTERsaid the Amendment he wished to move affected the plural voter who became a plural voter for the first time. It was the case of a man with one qualification who suddenly became possessed of another. He would claim to be put upon the register and it would not be allowed or disallowed until after the date had gone by upon which he had to make his selection. If the month of September stood that man would appear when the new registers came into force as having the right to give two votes, but he would not have been in the position to make a selection. The object he had in view was that where a man had simply a claim he should have the right to make a provisional selection, so that if his claim was allowed or disallowed he would be able to select another constituency. As far as he could see, if the month of September was left in the Bill they would disfranchise such a man
752
as he had suggested for fifteen months after he had become qualified to vote. He was sure that could not be agreeable to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he hoped to have some assurance or proof from the Government that the fears he entertained were groundless.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 20, to leave out the word 'September,' and to insert the word 'August.'" —(Mr. H. W. Forster.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'September' stand part of the clause"
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had already promised to put in the Bill on the Report stage a provision by which a man who has been abroad or who had been incapacitated whilst at home should be able to make his selection at a date subsequent to the 5th September. He had also stated that he was willing to allow a fresh selection to be made if in the interval the man had discovered for the first time that he had a duplicate qualification elsewhere. He thought that would meet the case which had been raised by the hon. Member.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONpointed out that the Committee had already decided that a selection must be sent to the town clerk or the clerk to the county council. The list would not pass out of their hands until two or three weeks later, and that would probably lead to great difficulty and confusion.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the right hon. Gentleman had promised to bear in mind the case of a man who suddenly acquired a new qualification. Would he also include the equally deserving case of the man with two qualifications who selected one constituency and was then struck off.
MR. HARCOURT: I promised to do that last Friday.
MR. H. H. MARKSsaid with the Amendment he desired to move that the Act would read "Before the 5th day of September preceding the commencement of the year in which the selection is to take effect." If the

753
claim was made this year it would begin to take effect this year, that was as soon as the selection was made. The making of the selection was the first step towards getting on the register, and as soon as that was done the act performed began to take effect. There were various processes of taking effect.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order. We are only talking about the month now.
Mr. FORSTER: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed—
"In line 22, to leave out the words 'to begin.'"—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'to begin' stand part of the clause."
MR. HARCOURTthought the omission of those words was quite unnecessary. He did not say that the words of the clause were the most eloquent that could be framed, but at any rate they carried out the intention of the Act. The register did not come into force until the 1st January, and he thought that fact carried out what the hon. Member wished.
MR. H. H. MARKS: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid the Amendment he wished to move was such a simple one that he thought the Government might very well accept it. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be able to argue that this Amendment was against the principle or destructive of his Bill. It was an Amendment of an improving order. The object of the Amendment was to secure that the name should be marked in open Court. He did not claim that the Amendment would do away with all the evil consequences which would arise as a result of this unfortunate Bill, but it might at any rate mitigate those evil consequences. Parliamentary agents
754
would be present when the revising barrister placed his mark against a name, and so mistakes would be guarded against. This was a Bill to disfranchise Unionist electors, but if the Government would adopt this Amendment mistakes would be less liable to occur.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after 'clerk' to insert the words' shall send the name and address of the voter to the revising barrister, who.'"—(Mr. Stanley Wilson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. HARCOURTsaid he had explained so many times to the Committee that he was really ashamed to repeat it that the matter of the selection would not come before the revising barrister at all, and no one would have any right in the Court to make any remark or take any objection to the selection made.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought the hon. Gentleman hardly appreciated the object his hon. friend had in view. It was one which he understood the Government had themselves already undertaken to provide for in one way or another before the Bill left the House. The object of the Amendment was to limit the chance of fraud or forgery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted there was real danger of notices of selection being forged. If the marking of the register were done in open Court the chances of successful forgery were diminished, for, while the county council clerks would not know whether the signature was forged or not, the Party agents in court would. That was the point to which the right hon. Gentleman in his reply made no reference, and he would ask him to consider the matter from that point of view.
MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked how the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill proposed to meet the case of a man who might have one qualification and who had claimed at the revision court for a second. He might be on the list as an occupier in one constituency and also get a claim allowed at the revision court. He would then be a plural voter. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to make some provision on the Report stage

755
to prevent such a voter from being disqualified from using either of his votes in the subsequent year if a general election should take place? It might be advisable to give the revising barrister the final right of accepting a selection form from any voter whom he might have passed on, and by doing so have created a duplicate qualification.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had already given a promise that the matter should be dealt with, as it could easily be. But it would be inappropriate to bring this matter under the purview and active operation of the revising barrister, because he had no power to add or to remove a mark. The point as to forgery would be largely met by the receipt which would have to be sent to the voter acknowledging his selection.
MR. CARLILEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his attitude in regard to this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman told them that the revising barrister had nothing to do with the matter. That was just the point they wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman. It would be only through the revising barrister that the general public, and in many cases the voter himself, would be made aware of the selection, and the more publicity that could be given to a selection the better it would be alike for the voter and for all concerned. It would very materially assist in the prevention of fraud and forgery. If this matter passed under the eye of the revising barrister the chance of a man being ignorant of the fact that somebody had sent in a notice in his name that he intended to select a certain constituency would be very much minimised. There were many men who were entirely ignorant of the fact that they were plural voters. He was on a register for thirty-three years without knowing the fact. A person could not personate in a case of that kind if his hon. friend's Amendment received the consideration from the right hon. Gentleman Which it abundantly deserved.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYquite agreed that the revising barrister should not have any power of making any
756
alteration or refusing to accept any notice of selection, and he did not understand his hon. friend to move his Amendment with any such object. His hon. friend's object was that if a notice were sent in to the clerk he should send it on to the revising barrister, who would merely put a tick against the name. The mere fact, however, of there being a second officer as a sort of Court of appeal would enable anybody who made a mistake or whose name was sent in without his knowledge to see publicly what had happened and rectify the mistake. The Amendment was not at all likely to do any harm, but it might do good.
MR. STUART WORTLEYquestioned the desirability of keeping the revising barrister entirely out of the Bill, and of having the selection notices dealt with in camera by officers who might fail in their duty. In matters of fraud and forgery, and, in fact, in all criminal matters, prevention was better than cure. This Amendment tended to throw a purely ministerial duty upon the revising barrister, who, though in respect to many matters a judicial officer, yet already had many ministerial duties to discharge, and this would give great security against fraud without interfering with the functions naturally forming part of the revising barrister's duty.
*MR. STAVELEY-HILLsaid he supported the Amendment because for the first time since the registration laws had come into force the duty of marking the register was taken out of the hands of the revising barrister. At present all town clerks and clerks to county councils attended on 8th September, before the revising barrister with all lists, and the revising barrister expunged names of aliens, infants and others, and rectified mistakes and dealt with duplicates, and was the official who marked the register in the case of a divided borough where the voter elects to vote in a particular division. Further than that, it was throwing a great responsibility upon the town clerks and clerks of county councils. The Government would, he thought, be well advised to accept this Amendment, and leave in the hands of the revising barrister that judicial work he had always carried out.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDpointed out that the register was before the revising barrister in proof, and that that Gentleman corrected the proof. One of the things, therefore, that the revising barrister might very well deal with was the errors of all descriptions that had crept in in the course of registering the claims. On the one hand the town clerk might have made a mistake, or he might have mislaid the notice of a claim sent in. Why should they not give the revising barrister the right to put these matters right at the last moment? The revising barrister did not sign his list and close it until 12th October, and if what he suggested was allowed, it would give time, not to send in notice, but to put anything right that might be wrong. For these reasons he thought the right hon. Gentleman should accept the Amendment.
SIR E. CARSONexpressed the opinion that they were really adding to the morass of the franchise laws by departing in this small detail from what was now the practice in municipal registration. Why the municipal list should be corrected by the revising barrister and the town clerk be responsible for the Parliamentary register was a matter he failed to comprehend. As he understood the section, the notice had to be signed by the man qualified to sign it or it was of no value. If the clerk to whom it was sent had grave reason for supposing it was not so signed, what was he to do? Was he to adjudicate upon it on his own initiative? They knew that over and over again these notices had been signed by agents. Supposing a large batch were sent in the handwriting of one man. What was the town clerk to do? The only way in which that question should be raised was in some Court, and the revising barrister was the proper person before whom it should be raised. Supposing a notice was sent and not received by the town clerk, or was not put into the register by hint, and the question arose as to whether it ought to be put in, surely the case ought to be dealt with by the revising barrister. In the borough of Eastbourne only last year there was a gentleman whom a large party were trying to prevent from being selected mayor. In correcting the list the town clerk took the old list, and ticked off those entitled
758
to vote on the old list, amongst others the name of this gentleman. When, however, this list came out his name did not appear upon it. What happened? In the printing office somebody had been got at to strike out the name which the town clerk had ticked to remain. He thought the Government were running a serious risk, and he suggested in order that a man might be able to see that he was not disfranchised he should be allowed to go before the revising barrister and look at the list. It would be far better to have one system for settling the municipal and Parliamentary lists than to leave the matter in this way. Nothing worse, nothing more difficult, or more likely to render the Bill unworkable could be suggested than working these two principles conterminously.
MR. HARCOURTwas averse to persons being dragged from one part of the country to another to revising barristers' Courts. It was obvious in a case where a man had a vote in London and Northumberland that the revising barrister in Northumberland could not know anything about any register except that which he was revising. There were already contests enough in the revision Courts, and this was not a question that could be properly brought there.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the town clerk know anything of any other?
MR. HARCOURTsaid he was not supposed to. He was a purely ministerial officer. He did not wish to make this a question of debate. He would only say that.
SIR E. CARSONsaid that was the very point. The revising barrister had nothing to say to them; they were left to the town clerk.
MR. RAWLINSONasked, supposing the town clerk received a batch of documents obviously in one handwriting, with this provision as it stood, and with no power to go to the revising barrister, what was his duty?
MR. ASQUITH: To send an acknowledgment, and wait for it to be found out.
MR. STANLEY WILSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to understand what the Amendment meant. It was to allow the revising barrister to put a mark against the name of a man. There was no question of fighting in open Court. It merely meant that the two agents should be before the revising barrister to look into the matter. It ap-
peared to him that the Government were endeavouring to disfranchise as many electors in the country as they possibly could, and therefore he must press this matter to a division.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 84; Noes, 333. (Division List No. 341.)

AYES.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

Percy, Earl

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Faber, George Denison (York)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Balcarres, Lord

Fell, Arthur

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Baldwin Alfred

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Rawlinson, John FrederickPeel

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Forster, Henry William

Roberts,S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

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

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Hambro, Charles Eric

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bowles, G. Stewart

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Smith, F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

Boyle, Sir Edward

Kennaway, Rt.Hn.SirJohn H.

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

Bridgeman, W. Clive

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Bull, Sir Willian James

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Butcher, Samuel Henry

King, Sir HenrySeymour (Hull)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Thorne, William

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Valentia, Viscount

Castlereagh, Viscount

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Cave, George

Long,Rt.Hn. Walter(Dublin,S.)

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

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wortley, Rt, Hon. C B. Stuart-

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt, Hon. Alfred

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Younger, George

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

Magnus, Sir Philip

Courthope, G. Loyd

Marks, H. H (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Stanley Wilson and Mr. Staveley-Hill.

Craig, CaptJames(Down,E.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Craik, Sir Henry

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Dalrymple, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

NOES.

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

Bethell, J. H, (Essex, Romford)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Byles, William Pollard

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Billson, Alfred

Cameron, Robert

Alden, Percy

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Boland, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

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

Causton, Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

Astbury, John Meir

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Cawley, Frederick

Atherley-Jones, L.

Bowerman, C. W.

Chance, Frederick William

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Brace, William

Cheetham, John Frederick

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Branch, James

Clarke, C. Goddard

Barker, John

Brigg, John

Clough, W.

Barlow, JohnEmmott(S'mers't

Bright, J. A.

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

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cobbold Felix Thornley

Barnard, E. B.

Brodie, H. C.

Collins, SirWm.J.(S. PancrasW.

Barnes, G. N.

Brooke, Stopford

Corbett, C.H (Sussex, E. Grinstd

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Beauchamp. E.

Brunner,Rt,Hn.SirJ.T.(Chesh.)

Cowan, W. L.

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

Bryce, Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen

Cox, Harold

Bell, Richard

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Cremer, William Randal

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonpt)

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Crooks, William

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Crosfield, A. H.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Crossley, William J.

Bertram, Julius

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Dalmeny, Lord

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hudson, Walter

Nolan, Joseph

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hyde, Clarendon

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Idris, T. H. W.

Nuttall, Harry

Delany, William

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Jackson, R. S.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

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

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

O'Doherty, Philip

Donelan, Captain A.

Jones, Sir D.(Brynmor,Swansea

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Duckworth, James

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Duffy, William J.

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

O'Malley, William

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furess)

Jowett, F. W.

O'Mara, James

Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dunne,MajorE.Martin(Walsall)

Kearley, Hudson E.

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Kekewich, Sir George

Parker, James (Halifax)

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Paul, Herbert

Elibank, Master of

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Paulton, James Mellor

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Laidlaw, Robert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Erskine, David C.

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lambert, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lamont, Norman

Pollard, Dr.

Everett, R. Lacey

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

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

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Price, RobertJohn (Norfolk, E.)

Fenwick, Charles

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Radford, G. H.

Ferens, T. R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Field, William

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Flynn, James Christopher

Levy, Maurice

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lewis, John Herbert

Redmond, William (Clare)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Rees, J. D.

Fullerton, Hugh

Lough, Thomas

Rendall, Athelstan

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lundon, W.

Richards, Thomas(W.Monm'th)

Gill, A. H.

Lupton, Arnold

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

Ginnell, L.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ridsdale, E. A,

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. HerbortJohn

Lynch, H. B.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Gooch, George Peabody

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Grant, Corrie

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down,S.)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Robinson, S.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

M'Crae, George

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Gulland, John W.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rose, Charles Day

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Killop, W.

Rowlands, J.

Hall, Frederick

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

Runciman, Walter

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Micking, Major G.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

Maddison, Frederick

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Mallet, Charles E.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Hart-Davies, T.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston

Schwann, Sir C.E. (Manchester)

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Marnham, F. J.

Scott,A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

Harwood, George

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Sears, J. E.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Seely, Major J. B.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Meagher, Michael

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

Haworth, Arthur A.

Menzies, Walter

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alport

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Helme, Norval Watson

Mond, A.

Snowden, P.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Montagu, E. S.

Soares, Ernest J.

Henry, Charles S.

Mooney, J. J.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Stanger, H. Y.

Higham, John Sharp

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Steadman, W. C.

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Morrell, Philip

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Hodge, John

Murnaghan, George

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Hogan, Michael

Murphy, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Holland, Sir William Henry

Murray, James

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Hooper, A. G.

Napier, T. B.

Sullivan, Donal

Horniman, Emslie John

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Summerbell, T.

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Nicholls, George

Tayor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nicholson, CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

762

763

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Ward, W.Dudley (Southampt'n)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

Wardle,George J.

Williamson, A.

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

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

Tomkinson, James

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Toulmin, George

Waterlow, D. S.

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Weir, James Galloway

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

Ure, Alexander

White, George (Norfolk)

Wood, T. M' Kinnon

Vivian Henry

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddorsf'd

Wadsworth, J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Young, Samuel

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Whitehead, Rowland

Yoxall, James Henry

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Wallace, Robert

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

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

Walters, John Tudor

Wiles, Thomas

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

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

William,Llewelyn(Carm'th en)

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR E. CARSON SIR E. CARSON moved an Amendment to make it incumbent on the clerk of a town or county council on receiving a notice of the selection of a constituency to send an acknowledgment of the receipt of such notice. The object of the Amendment, he observed, was to enable the person who sent a notice to be sure that the clerk had received it, or if he did not receive it, by reason of not getting an acknowledgment to know that such was the case. What would happen if he sent notice and the clerk did not receive it he did not know. The Bill did not provide for that. If the notice was sent and the man was not put on the register he could not vote. That was a flaw, and he did not know whether the Government at some time or other would turn their attention to it. His Amendment would at all events obviate some of the difficulties, because a man who had sent his notice some time before the 1st of September would, at all events, have an opportunity of inquiring afterwards whether the clerk had got the notice or not, and it was of the greatest importance that some opportunity should be given to the man who had taken the trouble to give a notice to see that he had secured his right. Even if this Amend-mendment was accepted—and he could not understand why it should not be —he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill the advisability of making these obligations upon the clerk in some way or other effective by putting upon the clerk such a penalty as would make him carry out the provisions of the Act, because otherwise nothing would happen by reason of the default of the clerk.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 22, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'send an acknowledgment of the receipt of the said notice and.'"—(Sir E. Carson.).
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had already promised that an Amendment should be made in the sense of that now proposed. He thought the terms of the Amendment carried out what he had promised, and therefore he accepted them. He was also prepared to impose a penalty on the clerk for not carrying out his duties. This he would fix at a later stage.
SIR E. CARSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could place the Amendment on the Paper for consideration by the Committee. He thought that would be desirable, as they were leaving so much to the Report stage.
MR. HARCOURTsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be content with the promise he had given. Those who had long experience of the House knew that it was not unusual to bring up such Amendments on the Report stage.
MR. A. J. BALFOURagreed that the course proposed was the one usually adopted. He thought, however, there had sometimes been a tendency to carry too far the practice of postponing the introduction of Amendments to the Report stage of a Bill.
SIR WILLIAM BULLthought there was a little clerical error in the use

765
of the word "register". At the time when the person sent his notice of selection, there was no register, but only a list of voters. He begged to move to leave out "register" and insert "list of voters."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 24, to leave out the word 'register' and insert the words, 'list of voters.'"—(Sir William Bull.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'register' stand part of the clause."
MR. HARCOURTsaid it was quite true that technically this was a list of voters; but it was no interest to a person that he should be on the list of voters, but only on the list when it became an effective register.
SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid that all other Acts of Parliament called it a list of voters.
SIR E. CARSONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, because the list of voters only became a register when it was signed by the revising barrister.
SIR E. CARSON SIR E. CARSON moved to leave out the words "in the manner prescribed by the Order-in-Council made under this
Act," and in lieu thereof to substitute "with the word 'selected' opposite such name." He objected to these matters being done by Orders-in-Council. Why should they not say here and now what the mark was to be? The procedure should be plainly set out in the Act of Parliament without the necessity of the voter having to refer to an Order-in-Council.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1,line 23, to leave out from the word 'register' to the word 'and,' in line 25, and insert the words 'with the word 'selected' opposite such name.'"—(Sir Edward Carson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. HARCOURTthought it would be more for the public convenience that the matter should be governed by Order-in-Council. The right hon Gentleman had found Orders-in-Council exceedingly useful in bringing Irish legislation into operation. [An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: Coercion Acts.] Experience might show that an alteration was desirable in the form of working, and an Order-in-Council would afford the necessary elasticity.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 314; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 342.)

AYES.

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

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

Burke, E. Haviland-

Acland, Francis Dyke

Berridge, T. H. D.

Burns, Rt. Hn. John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Bertram, Julius

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Alden, Percy

Billson, Alfred

Byles, William Pollard

Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cairns, Thomas

Asquith, Rt.Hn.HcrbertHenry

Black, ArthurW.(Bedfordshire)

Cameron, Robert.

Astbury, John Meir

Boland, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Atherley-Jones

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

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

Causton, Rt Hn. RichardKnight

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E.)

Bowerman, C. W.

Cawley, Frederick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brace, William

Chance, Frederick William

Barker, John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barlow, JohnEmmott(Somerset

Branch, James

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brigg, John

Clarke, C. Goddard

Barnard, E. B.

Bright, J. A.

Clough, W.

Barnes, G N.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Brodie, H. C.

Corbett, C.H.(Sussex,EGrinst'd

Beale, W. P.

Brooke, Stopford

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Beauchamp, E.

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

Cowan, W. H.

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

Brunner, RtHnSirJ.T. (Cheshire

Cox, Harold

Beck, A. Cecil

Bryce, Rt.Hn. James (Aberdeen

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Bell, Richard

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

Cremer, William Randal

Bellairs, Carlyon

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crooks, William

Benn, SirJ. Williams(Devonp'rt

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Crosfield, A. H.

Crossley, William J.

Hudson, Walter

O'Doherty, Philip

Dalmeny, Lord

Hyde, Clarendon

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Dalziel, James Henry

Idris, T H W

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

O'Malley, William

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Jackson, R S.

O'Mara, James

Delany, William

Jardine, Sir J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Paul, Herbert

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

Jones, SirD.Brynmor(Swansea)

Paulton, James Mellor

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Donelan, Captain A.

Jowett, F. W.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Duckworth, James

Joyce, Michael

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Duffy, William J.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Pollard, Dr.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Kekewich, Sir George

Price, Robt. John (Norfolk, E.)

Duncan, J. H (York, Otley)

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Radford, G. H.

Dunne, MajorE.Martin(Walsall

Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

Raphael, Herbert H.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro')

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Elibank, Master of

Lambert, George

Rees, J. D.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Lamont, Norman

Rendall, Athelstan

Erskine, David C.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lehmann, R C.

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

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lever, A. Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Everett, R. Lacey

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Levy, Maurice

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Fen wick, Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Ferens, T. R.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Field, William

Lough, Thomas

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Flynn, James Christopher

Lundon, W.

Robinson, S.

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lyell, Charles Henry

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lynch, H. B.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Fullerton, Hugh

Macdonald, J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Rose, Charles Day

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rowlands, J.

Gill, A. H.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Runciman, Walter

Ginnell, L.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.)

Samuel, HerbertL.(Cleveland)

Gooch, George Peabody

M'Crae, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Grant, Corrie

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Schwann, SirC.E.(Manchester)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Scott, A.H.(Ashtonunder Lyne

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

M'Killop, W.

Sears, J. E.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Seely, Major J. B.

Griffith, Ellis J.

M'Micking, Major G.

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

Gulland, John W.

Maddison, Frederick

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Hall, Frederick

Mallet, Charles E.

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil

Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston)

Snowden, P.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Marnham, F. J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcr.)

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Hart-Davies, T.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Stanger, H. Y.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Meagher, Michael

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

Harwood, George

Menzies, Walter

Steadman, W. C.

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Micklem, Nathaniel

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Mond, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Sullivan, Donal

Hedges, A. Paget

Montagu, E. S.

Summerbell, T.

Helme, Norval Watson

Mooney, J. J.

Taylor, John W. (Durham)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Henry, Charles S.

Morrell, Philip

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

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Murnaghan, George

Tomkinson, James

Higham, John Sharp

Murphy, John

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Napier, T. B.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

Nicholls, George

Ure, Alexander

Hodge, John

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r)

Verney, F. W.

Hogan, Michael

Nolan, Joseph

Vivian, Henry

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wadsworth, J.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nuttall, Harry

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Hooper, A. G.

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wallace, Robert

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

Walton, SirJohn L. (Leeds, S.)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Connor, John(Kildare, N.)

Ward John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

768

769

Ward, W. Dudley(South'mp'tn.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

Wardle, George J.

Whittakar, Sir Thomas Palmer

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

Wiles, Thomas

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Williams. J, (Glamorgan)

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersfd.

Waterlow, D. S.

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthn

Young, Samuel

Weir, James Galloway

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Yoxall, James Henry

White, George (Norfolk)

Williamson, A.

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

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

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

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

Whitehead, Rowland

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

NOES.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fell, Arthur

Percy, Earl

Balcarres, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

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

Fletcher, J. S.

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

Hambro, Charles Eric

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Beach, Hn. MichaelHugh Hicks

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Boyle, Sir Edward

Heaton, John Henniker

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hill, SirClement(Shrewsbury)

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool,Walton

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H.

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Cave, George

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Cavendish, Rt. Hn. VictorC. W.

Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham)

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Long, Rt.Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

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

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Younger, George

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Magnus, Sir Philip

Courthope, G. Loyd

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Viscount Valentia and Mr. Forster.

Craik, Sir Henry

Mildmay, Francis Bingham)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Duncan, Robt. (Lanark, Govan)

Nield, Herbert

Faber, George Denison (York)

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

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

MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON(Lanarkshire, N. W.) moved to add the following new sub-section—" (3) If a person having selected a voting constituency should become disqualified or disabled from voting in that constituency in any year, he may, at any time during such year, select for the purposes of this Act another voting constituency from among those constituencies for which he is registered, and send a notice of his selection signed by him to the clerk of the county council or town clerk in manner aforesaid, and such selection shall forthwith have effect accordingly." The hon. Member said that several points had been raised in the course of the debates which the hon. Member in charge of the Bill said he would take into consideration, and he hoped he would take into consideration the point he was now raising. He brought the Amendment forward in order to provide for the case of a man who had a vote, say, in three separate constituencies, who made a selection in one them, and then found that the particular vote he had selected was disallowed by the re-
770
vising barrister. Unless some such provision as he now proposed was inserted that man would be disfranchised, and he thought it would be very desirable to prevent such a state of things from arising.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 28, at end to add the words, '(3) If a person having selected a voting constituency should become disqualified or disabled from voting in that constituency in any year, he may, at any time during such year, select for the purposes of this Act another voting constituency from among those constituencies for which he is registered, and send a notice of his selection signed by him to the clerk of the county council or town clerk in manner aforesaid, and such selection shall forthwith have effect accordingly.'"—(Mr. Mitchell Thomson.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTagreed with the spirit of the suggestion which had been made although he could not agree to the exact words which the hon. Member had

771
proposed. He would consider the matter and bring up words to meet the, case upon Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD R. CECILsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper which provided that if any plural voter should fail to send such notice before the first day of November in any year he should be entitled to vote for any one constituency, in which he resided. He thought that this proposal raised a separate point which had not yet been discussed, but perhaps the Chairman might differ from him and ride it out of order. He therefore wished to know whether it was in order or not. It would enable a man to vote in one constituency only and compel him to vote in the constituency in which he resided if he had not sent in a notice of selection in due time.
THE CHAIRMANthought the point had been covered by the discussion which had gone before, and therefore the Amendment would be out of order.
MR. FORSTERsaid he also had an Amendment on the Paper which he thought raised a point which had not been discussed. It would enact that "provided always that if no selection be made by any elector residing outside the county or borough in which he is registered, the clerk of the county council or town clerk shall, before the twenty-fifth day of August in each year, send a copy of the entry in the register to the registration officer of the county or borough in which such elector resides, asking him if the elector is on the register of such county or borough, and the reply must be returned on or before the fifth day of September, and if the reply is in the affirmative the clerk of the county council or town clerk shall inform the revising barrister of the fact, and the revising barrister shall mark the register in the manner prescribed by Order-in-council; nothing in this Act shall prevent any elector who shall not be marked as aforesaid from recording his vote at any election."
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment would alter the decision at which the Committee had arrived in regard to some of the Amendments
772
in Clause 1. He had looked at it very carefully and he thought the point had been covered.
MR. FORSTERsaid he did not wish to dispute the ruling of the Chair, and quite agreed that the concluding part of the Amendment might be taken to deal with a matter which had already been discussed and decided. Therefore he should propose to leave out all reference to the revising barrister and make the Amendment read that the clerk should mark the register.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member had altered the Amendment very much. He did wish that hon. Members would give him notice of these alterations, because many of the points were extremely difficult to decide. He was not prepared to rule the hon. Member's Amendment out of order with that alteration. Of course the latter part was clearly out of order, but he did not think he ought to prevent the other part from being discussed.
MR. FORSTERregretted that he was not able to let the Chairman know of his proposed alteration, but he pointed out that it was only within the last few minutes the Committee had decided that the revising barrister should not be brought in. The object he had in view in moving his Amendment in its amended form was to prevent the possible disfranchisement of a large number of people whom he was afraid would be disfranchised if the provisions of the Bill were left un-amended. What he wanted was that in cases where no selection had been made by the elector the register should make it apparent and should be so marked by the clerk that he was an "out voter."
THE CHAIRMANwas sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he had not grasped before that what he was now moving was really a contradiction of what had already been passed. The first subsection stated distinctly that the individual plural voter must select before a certain date and this proposal would go altogether beyond that. He ought, therefore, to have ruled it out of order before and he did so now.
MR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINformally moved the first Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dublin University.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'and the clerk shall retain and preserve all notices so sent.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINalso begged to move the following Amendment standing in the name of the same right hon. and learned Gentleman. He pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had agreed on the previous Wednesday to provide for this matter, and suggested that if he was not willing to accept those words he should be prepared with the words he proposed to substitute for them. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 28, at end, to insert the words 'provided that when on application made it is shown to the High Court that a person was prevented by illness or by absence beyond the seas from sending such notice the Court may, if it thinks right, give liberty to serve such notice together with a copy of the Order giving such liberty, and thereupon the clerk shall mark the name in manner prescribed by the Order in Council.'"—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTdemurred to the implied suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that he had neglected in detail the promise he had made. The reason he said that he did not produce the words now was that he was anxious to carry the matter further and deal with the case of the application of the voter who subsequently discovered he was on another register. An application to the High Court would be a rather expensive thing to the working plural voter, and he was considering whether the application could not be made to the county council in the locality. He could not, of course, pledge himself that it should be so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY(Shropshire, Newport) moved an Amendment to provide that where a voter was entered on the register of more than one constituency by reason of a claim's having been proved before a revising barrister, he should be at liberty to make a selection within seven days after such proof has been made. He desired to take this opportunity of putting on record another proof of the extraordinary want of care with which this Bill had been drafted. Let the Committee assume that this Bill passed into law, and a Parliamentary election was being conducted under its provisions in the year 1908. In that case the register would be completed in the autumn of 1907. Under the provisions of this Bill a plural voter had to select the constituency in which he would vote before the 5th of September, 1907. The man who possessed only one qualification had not to send in any notice of selection. Supposing in the course the revision Court in September, 1907, either with the knowledge of the voter or without, a claim was put forward in another constituency and established, and on the 1st of January, 1908, that voter was initialled as a plural voter. By the law of the land he could not have a vote unless he made a selection, and he was exposed to dire penalties if he exercised the franchise. He had no chance of selection, because the claim to the second vote was established after he sent in his claim. On the face of it the position was absurd. When the Bill contained such an arrant error as the omission of a provision to deal with such a case it stood convicted as an absurdity. This, he contended, was only one of the numerous instances of many similar blunders and the same want of care. It was in order to get rid of this absurd position that he moved his Amendment. It was absolutely necessary in the interests of fair play and justice that a man should have a certain time during which he could signifiy to the proper authorities that, having now a second vote, he did select to vote in a particular constituency. He bogged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 28, at end, to insert the words,' Provided always that where a voter becomes enrolled as a Parliamentry elector in more than one constituency by reason of a claim having been proved before a revising barrister, he shall be at liberty to make a selection

775
within seven days after such proof has been made.'"—(Colonel Kenyan-Slaney.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he had already explained that this case would be dealt with in his proposed new clause. It was perfectly clear that a voter could not select if his second qualification accrued subsequent to his sending in his notice.
MR. LYTTELTONpointed out that the point raised by the Amendment was not that which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to deal with. The point the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind was the case of a voter who sent in a selection. The point raised here was where a selection had not been made and where a second and new qualification accrued subsequently, rendering a selection necessary.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he qui to understood that. This came within the category of those who through illness or absence abroad had been omitted during the year.
MR. BONAR LAWsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made a definite promise that if this case had not been covered he intended to provide for it. He wanted to point out, however, that cases of this kind ought to make the right hon. Gentleman and Members generally ask whether this was a fair way of dealing with the selection. The only fair way of dealing with selection was that in force in boroughs, where a voter qualified in several wards had not until the election came round to decide in which ward he would vote.
MR. HARCOURTsaid that his was the usual fate which befel those who endeavoured to meet objections. He had tried in many instances to meet points on which hon. Gentlemen opposite professed to feel alarm, but which he did not think really ever would arise. He could not allow this action of his to be the excuse for a charge that the Government produced a Bill which would not have operated perfectly in its original shape.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was perfectly true that concessions from the Government bench were not always so kindly received as they might be. This was the first Bill the right hon. Gentleman had conducted, but he hoped it would not be the last. The right hon. Gentleman Had displayed admirable qualities in dealing with this measure, but he must not think he was a special victim of Parliamentary ingratitude. He himself had had a long and, he thought he might say, painful experience of conducting controversial measures through this House, and relatively to some of his predecessors the right hon. Gentleman could rest assured that he was in a peculiarly fortunate position.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS moved an Amendment to provide that in the event of a plural voter's name being struck out in the place where he had been accustomed to vote notice should be sent him by the clerk in order that he might select another constituency where he was entitled to vote. Unless this Amendment were adopted the voter struck off would be disqualified altogether.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 28, at the end, insert, 'In the event of the person's name being removed from the register, the clerk shall give him notice that his name has been removed.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. HARCOURTsaid he could not possibly accept this Amendment, as it would put a very considerable labour upon the clerk, and was not necessary, because ex hypothesi a person having been removed from the register must have received notice of the objection upon which he was removed.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYdisagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and said he could give a case in point. He himself was on the register for the

777
borough of Chelsea, and voted there several times, but at a certain election he went to the polling booth and found that his name had been removed, although he had had no notice. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain how it was he did not receive a notice.
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid he thought it could readily b explained why the hon. Baronet did not get a notice, and the explanation would show that this Amendment ought to be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the last year's register had to stand unless objection was given against it. That was not the case. The list of voters was prepared afresh, or ought to be, every year by the overseers, and the hon. Baronet's name was clearly left off by the overseers. If his name had been put on the list by the overseers, and somebody had made an objection, it would have come before the revising barrister and notice would have been sent to his. hon. friend. But if the overseers left out any voter's name the only remedy was for the voter to make a claim. The overseers were alone responsible for the list until it got into the hands of the revising barrister, and the overseers were not bound to follow the preceding year's list to any extent whatever.
MR. HARCOURTsaid he was dealing, of course, with continuous good qualification.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he was put on the list again.
MR. HARCOURTsaid then the hon. Baronet was in a very unfortunate position; but it was, of course, open to everyone to see the overseers' list before the 1st August.
MR CARLILEsaid the Amendment was an extremely reasonable one. Notice of objection might be sent to the voter, and if the objection were upheld his position was one of very considerable difficulty.
And, it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and leave having been given to
778
move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, Further Proceeding stood postponed without Question put.

IRISH EVICTED TENANTS-MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
MR. JOHN REDMOND, in moving the adjournment of the House, said that were it not that the matter about which he was going to speak was a vital one, he would not interpose discussion at this moment; but anyone who was at all acquainted with Ireland, and certainly those who were at all responsible for the government of Ireland, would admit that the question he was going to bring to the notice of the House was of the most vital urgency, and one which affected not merely the question of land settlement and the fulfilment of the great object of the Land Act, but most directly affected the whole question of the peace and tranquillity and the maintenance of law and order in Ireland The Government could not be surprised that he raised this question, because several weeks ago he wrote to the Chief Secretary informing him that the very first day of the autumn session he intended to submit a Question to him on the matter, and subsequently in conversation, so far back as, he believed, 8th October, he told the right hon. Gentleman that not only would he ask this Question, but that he would endeavour, if it were in order, to raise a discussion on the matter on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House. Therefore neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his colleagues could be taken by surprise in this matter. There was no opportunity of raising this question of vital urgency except on a Motion of Adjournment. By one of those characteristic arrangements in the government of Ireland the Report of the Irish Estates Commissioners, a matter of the most vital interest to everybody connected with Ireland, although due last March, was not published until after the House rose in August; and therefore they were kept in ignorance of what he would call the essential facts contained in that Report until after Parliament had risen. No one could complain for a moment that that being so they had seized the first possible opportunity of raising the matter now. There was no other mode of raising.

779
this question other than that which he had adopted. Under the Motion which was made for the holding of these autumn sittings, no question could be raised other than a matter of Government business, except by way of the Adjournment of the House, and therefore they had been forced to take this opportunity of raising the question, because it was the only way open to them, and because the question was one of such vital urgency that it was impossible that Parliament should continue to sit for any time in the autumn without some discussion upon subjects connected with the Land Commission Report issued in March. It was not too much to say that the whole question of the peace and tranquillity and the maintenance of law and order in Ireland depended upon the question of the evicted tenants. The settlement of the land question depended upon it; no one would deny that. The intention of Parliament was perfectly plain in the matter. The object of their land legislation in 1903 was perfectly plain to the whole country. It was to end the Irish land war, and all those who were responsible for the land legislation of 1903 admitted at the time in this House that the land war could not be settled unless there was a settlement of the evicted tenants question, and he might say for himself, as one of those who had no inconsiderable share in the negotiations which led to the land legislation of 1903, that his colleagues and he in all those negotiations made it a condition precedent that the Irish evicted tenants question should be settled. He said without hesitation that the Land Act of 1903 would never have been carried were it not that that Land Bill held forth the promise, and that the promoters of the Bill in the most explicit way held forth the promise in public and in private that it would mean the speedy settlement of the question of the evicted tenants. He supposed there were scarcely any Members in the House whose memories did not go back to the events connected with Irish politics for the past twenty years. Still there were some, perhaps, whose memories were so short as to forget the salient points in the political history of that period. The evicted tenants in Ireland were to them on those benches,
780
and he thought he might say, without fear of contradiction, they were to hon. Gentlemen opposite, the men who made vital and necessary every special Act on land reform in Ireland that had been passed in the past twenty-five years. The Land Act of 1881 would have been impossible had it not been for the struggles and sacrifices of the evicted tenants. Land purchase would never have been heard of were it not for the struggles and sacrifices of the evicted tenants; the great Land Act of 1903 would never have been heard of were it not for their struggles and sacrifices— struggles and sacrifices in support of the policy and principle of the Land League. Parnell and the Land League took as their principle the purchase by the tenants of their holdings at a fair price, and although that was at the time denounced as confiscation and robbery, not only the Liberal Party, but the Conservative Party had since accepted the principle. They believed that this would never have happened were it not for the struggles and sacrifices of the Irish evicted tenants— sacrifices compared with which the imprisonment of his colleagues and friends was a small matter —sacrifices that meant the risking of their well-being and that of their wives and children, and the giving up of their homes. The Irish nation would be beneath contempt if it permitted any so-called settlement of the land question which did not include the restoration of these men to their homes. What occurred when the Land Act of 1903 was passed? They suddenly found that all the promises that had been made of a speedy settlement of the evicted tenants question were fading into thin air. They found that the Act was not restoring the evicted tenants to their homes, and they speedily discovered that was to a large extent due to certain restrictions and regulations which were issued by the late Government for the guidance of the Estate Commissioners in carrying out the Act. They found that these regulations had practically stopped the work of reinstatement. They found that these regulations had forbidden the Estate Commissioners to initiate any negotiations with the landlords for the purposes of reinstatement of evicted tenants, and that reinstatement was forbidden altogether unless the whole estate on which these farms were situated was being sold at the time. The Report of the Estates

781
Commissioners made it quite clear. It says—
"The instructions contain provisions which in the Commissioners opinion seriously impeded the expedition and efficient working of the Act, especially in the acquisition of untenanted land and the restoration of evicted tenants,"
so that there was a statement by the Estate Commissioners in their Report that the late Government issued regulations, the effect of which was directly to thwart and impede the intentions of Parliament in passing the Land Act of 1903. Therefore they found that up to the end of last year there was some explanation of the breakdown of the Land Act of 1903 with reference to the evicted tenants. It did not work, and they all thought they had found the explanation in the fact that the late Government had issued these regulations. They therefore hailed with delight the accession to office of the present Government, because they knew that they came in pledged to the hilt to abolish these obnoxious regulations. The only occasion on which the late Government were defeated in the Division Lobby last year was on a Motion moved by himself condemning these regulations, and in support of that Motion almost the whole Liberal Party and the present Government voted, and so the Irish Nationalists hailed with delight their accession to office, because they felt sure that it meant that the Land Act of 1903, so far as the evicted tenants were concerned, would at last begin to work, and the whole people looked forward with hope and confidence. To-day, in reply to a Question on this matter, the Chief Secretary had given him an Answer which raised a number of most serious questions. First of all he made the point that he had been making that the delay in the working of the evicted tenants' portion of the Land Act was due in large measure to the action of the late Government, because the right hon. Gentleman said that under the former regulations— that was the regulations made by the late Government—the Estates Commissioners were not allowed to negotiate with owners of untenanted land for the purchase of it with the view of providing farms for evicted tenants, and they were also prohibited from proposing the reinstatement of evicted tenants on holdings unless the whole of the estate on which the holding was situate was sold. Both these restrictions were removed by the
782
regulations of February, 1906, and subsequently in May last the Estates Commissioners were given a special staff of six inspectors for the purpose of the promotion of this work. Therefore, so far, their expectations were fulfilled. The Government tore up those obnoxious regulations, and they appointed a special staff of six inspectors to aid in the work of the restoration of the evicted tenant. But what had been the result? Had the case during the months since the Government came into office been exaggerated? Unfortunately, no. On that point the right hon. Gentleman today gave important information. Since the new regulations came into force, since a friendly Government took charge of this matter, since an increased staff had been put at the disposal of the Estates Commissioners, 1,285 cases of evicted tenants had been investigated. How many had been reinstated? Eighty-six. There had been applications for reinstatement from 5,912. Of these, up to the present moment only 161 had been restored to their homes by the action of the Estates Commissioners, and only 86 out of the 1,285 cases investigated had been restored since this Government came into office. What was the cause of this? Here they had a strange state of things. They had a Government most anxious, according to their own professions, to restore those men to their homes; they had the disappearance of those obnoxious regulations which this Government told them impeded the work; they had an increase in the staff of the Land Commissioners and no increase in the progress of the work. What was the reason? The right hon. Gentleman, in his Answer to him this afternoon, gave under four headings what he considered to be the cause of this failure. Let him read them. He said these were the causes of the failure—
"(1) The unwillingness of tenants who hold evicted farms to relinquish them in favour of the former holders; (2) the difficulty of finding, especially in Ulster and Munster, untenanted land which the owner will consent to sell; (3) local opposition which is sometimes offered to the introduction of strangers—local public opinion might do much to remove this obstacle; (4) objection taken by landlords in whose hands evicted farms are to the giving up of those farms for the reinstatement of evicted tenants."
Let him point out in a few words that really these four heads might be consoli-

783
dated. They all amounted to one cause— first, the unwillingness of tenants who held evicted farms to relinquish them in favour of the former holders, and secondly, the difficulty of getting landlords to agree to sell untenanted land. Those were both parts of the same question. It was the policy of the Land Act of 1903 that where in Ireland what they called the grabber was in possession of an evicted farm no violence should be used to compel him to give up that farm, but that the Estates Commissioners should be able to give another farm to the evicted tenant on untenanted land acquired elsewhere or be in a position to say to the grabber, "If you relinquish this farm and let the old tenant back we will give you another farm elsewhere." Therefore the unwillingness of the grabber to relinquish his land was part and parcel of the same question of obtaining untenanted land by the Land Commissioners. If the landlords by refusing to sell untenanted land to the Land Commissioners deprived them of the means of thus providing new farms for the old tenants or for the new tenants, those were part and parcel of exactly the same question. It all came back to this, that so far as that matter was concerned the working of the Act was being blocked by the action of the landlords. He did not want to say anything in defence of the grabber, but in this matter by far the most guilty man was the landlord, because if he would agree to sell untenanted land to the Land Commission the Land Commission would be able to reinstate the evicted tenant, even though the grabber refused to give up the old farm which he took from the old tenant. The third cause the right hon. Gentleman gave for the breakdown of the Act was that local opposition was sometimes offered to the introduction of strangers. That raised an exceedingly delicate and difficult question. What he would say by way of advice to the right hon. Gentleman and to his officials in Ireland was this. They ought to be very cautious how they carried out this policy of migration. He had known himself of some cases where without any consultation with the local leaders and local opinion they had endeavoured to carry it out. He did not think popular opinion on this matter was unreasonable at all. He thought it was natural that the people in any particular county should say that the wants and
784
needs of the non-economic tenants in that county should be considered first before men were brought from other parts of the country. Although that was a perfectly natural feeling, at the same time he was convinced that if they were properly approached and their local leaders brought into consultation it would be found that no unreasonable attitude would be taken up in the matter. There was a case in the West of Ireland, and most lamentable consequences to some extent arose, and seemed likely to a greater extent to arise, and all due to the fact that local leaders were not consulted at all. The first the people of the locality heard was the appearance of strangers from another county who came and were told they were to be given some of the grazing land in the county in question. That was the excuse for the breaking down of the evicted tenants' portion of the Act of 1903. He said that the contention was a sham. He did not believe that there were half a dozen cases in the whole of Ireland where the reinstatement of the evicted tenants was prevented by any such feeling on the part of the locality. It was a perfectly proper question to raise, and the right hon. Gentleman in raising it pointed to one of the difficulties ahead in the settlement of the land question, but to point to it as the reason why only 161 tenants had been restored in three years was on the part of whoever prepared the document a sham. These were the only reasons given by the Government for the breakdown of the Act, and be submitted to the House that he had shown that, boiled down, these four reasons all amounted to one, namely, the refusal of the landlords to sell untenanted land, and the refusal of the grabbers to give up evicted farms for the reinstatement of the former tenants. In another part of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman there was what appeared to be very dramatic confirmation of that view. He told the House that of the 1,285 cases of evicted tenants specially inquired into since the Government came into office, there were 444 cases where the landlords would not only not reinstate the evicted tenants, but would not allow the Estates Commissioners to come on to the lands at all to inquire into the question of the evicted farms or to initiate negotiations. What a farce it all was! The Land Act of 1903 was

785
passed avowedly having almost as its primary object the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, and a friendly Government sent to the Estates Commissioners instructions to go down through the country and initiate negotiations with the landlords wherever there were evicted farms and to seek to get the evicted tenants reinstated. How did the landlords act? They would not allow the Estates Commissioners' inspectors to put a foot on the land or to investigate the matter at all, and really the right hon. Gentleman might not have taken such pains as he apparently did on this question to wrap up and disguise the real reason of the breakdown of the evicted tenants' portion of the Act. He thought it would have been better for the settlement of the question, better for the Government and himself, if he had come down and candidly stated "we have done all that we can, we have given the freest hand to the Estates Commissioners, we have given them as large a staff as they have asked, but the cause is this— the landlords will not carry out what was the primary policy of the Land Act of 1903." He thought the House, when it remembered that, this Act had now been in operation for three years, and when it remembered something of the history of the Irish agrarian movement with all the passions that it aroused, and all the memories that it kept alive, would admit that the Irish people had acted with singular self-restraint and patience during these three years. Ireland had been, during the last three years and was today, in a state of profound and extraordinary peace. He did not say "extraordinary" in comparison with its own history at all, but by comparison with the history of England or Scotland, or any other country they liked, Ireland was now in a state of profound peace and crimelessness, and that had been due almost entirely to the fact that the people had looked forward with hope and with faith to this Government's, at any rate, making good the promise made in 1903, but he felt bound to say to the right hon. Gentleman that in his judgment, that feeling was almost exhausted. He regretted a phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used in his answer to-day to the effect that they ought to be patient because these were preliminary investigations which were being held. Good heavens ! Preliminary investigations
786
going on for three years in regard to a question which required no investigation at all.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): For four months.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: So far as this Government were concerned they had been in office for nine months. And after all, he himself had to look at the question from the point of view of the people of Ireland. They had been waiting for three years since the Act was passed. In that time there had been 5,912 applications for re-instatement. Some of these might not be genuine cases, but making every allowance for such, only 161 had been re-instated in the three years by the Estates Commissioners. Worse still, during the nine months which the present Government had been in office, only eighty-six had been restored to their holdings. That was to say, that if they went on at the present rate it would take fifty years to settle the evicted tenants' question. By that time all these evicted tenants would be dead and buried.
MR. BYLES: Many of them are already.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that the majority of hon. Members would also be dead and buried before the evicted tenants' question was set at rest, if the present rate of restoration was continued. He did not want to use extreme language, but in all seriousness he told the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish people would not tolerate this state of things. What he asserted was that the Government must have resort to compulsion. The right hon. the Chief Secretary at the end of his answer to the question which he had put to him earlier in the day said that —
"Until the whole of the evidence is before the Government, and until the administrative measures taken, and capable of being taken, by the Estates Commissioners have matured, I am not in a, position to state whether further legislation upon the matter will be necessary or not."
The House must remember that the present Secretary for India, ten years ago, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into this question, and that

787
Commission took all the evidence, brought out all the facts, and made a most remarkable report. The right hon. the Chief Secretary could not for a moment suppose that the Irish people would be satisfied with an answer of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman knew the facts and had all the evidence before him; he knew what was standing in the way of a settlement, and what he asked from him was a straight-forward statement on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman had said "I do not think that the nine months we have been in office is long enough to enable us to settle the question"—he admitted that their experience had been somewhat disappointing; still with all his twenty-five years experience of the land question, he still cherished the hope that some feeling of goodness would touch the hearts of the Clanricardes and other harsh landlords—if the right hon. Gentleman had said to him '' give mo a few months more, and if, at the end of that time those landlords still stand in the way of restoration, the Government will introduce legislation giving compulsory powers of re-instatement"—if the right hon. Gentleman had said that, he certainly would not have complained, and he would have said to the Irish people—to all those with whom he had any influence—that they ought to be still patient. What was he to say to them when the right hon. the Chief Secretary in answer to his question said that they had nothing definite enough to go upon, and that the Government would see how matters would mature? The way to deal with these Irish landlords like the Clanricardes was to say to them—" We give you six months to agree to the re-instatement of your tenants, and if you do not by that time do so, we shall carry by our majority in Parliament a Bill giving compulsory powers to the Estates Com missioners to re-instate every tenant in Ireland. And further, we will introduce a proposal to refuse to every landlord who declines to restore his evicted tenants to their holdings a share in the bonus.'' He knew that the Government might allege that all they could say would not affect the Clanricardes; but so far as the majority of the Irish landlords were concerned he believed they would very soon hand in their guns. The position of the Irish Nationalist Leaders was a very difficult one. For his part, he was most anxious that the fullest fair
788
play should be given to the present Government till he saw what next year, or whenever they attempted it, they were going to propose on the question of Irish self-government. But there were limits to their power, and when he was asked to use his influence to preach patience to the Irish people, he told the right hon. Gentleman that he might make that task an impossible one if he did not act more strenuously on this question of the evicted tenants. He had raised this question as much in the interest of Irish government and of the right hon. Gentleman as in the interest of those for whom he spoke. He believed that the one fatal thing for this Government, so far as Ireland was concerned—and Ireland might have a good deal to say as regarded the future of the present Government—was to teach the lesson to the Irish people that there was no use in observing patience, no use being put off with expressions of sympathy when they could get nothing from a change of Government. He begged the right hon. Gentleman, not merely in the interest of the evicted tenants, but also, if he might be allowed to say so, in the interest, of the Government itself, of Irish government, and of himself, whose sincere sympathy with Ireland he gladly acknowledged, to take a firm stand upon tins question, and to let those Irish landlords know that if they remained obdurate and refused to allow a settlement of this burning question, the Government would grapple with it in a manner which would show the landlords they would be the losers in the long run. He begged to move.
MR. DUFFYseconded the Motion. He said it would be impossible to exaggerate the immense importance of this question in relation to the peace and happiness of the people, and the tranquility of Ireland. The question of the reinstatement of the evicted tenants had been discussed time after time for twenty years past, so that there was no question affecting Ireland which was so well and thoroughly understood by hon. Members and by the country at large. Everyone acquainted with Irish affairs knew that in the years 1885–6–7 Ireland passed through a period of extraordinary agricultural depresssion, in consequence of which

789
the tenants were obliged to band themselves in a combination known as the Plan of Campaign, with the view of resisting, on the one hand, the aggressions of the landlords and of protecting their own interests on the other. A large number of the tenants wore evicted from their homes, and those unfortunate tenants had been ever since regarded as self-sacrificers for the purpose of securing reformed land legislation, and their defence and protection had always been regarded as a point of honour with the Irish people. The Irish people took the deepest and most thorough going interest in these people, and they would not rest until they were restored to their holdings or holdings of equal substantiality were provided for them. Those evicted tenants were always regarded by the Irish people as the wounded soldiers in the land war, and up to the Act of 1903 the whole force of the Nationalists' organisation had been used for the purpose of protecting them from attack. When the Act of 1903 was passed they were all filled with the hope that these unfortunate people would be restored to their holdings, and they had done their host, in consequence of the assurances offered them in this House, to try and get the people to take to that Act kindly, always with the hope that the day would come when a Liberal Government would try and find a solution for this knotty question, His own district was the most disturbed in Ireland, and he could say that so long as this great question was allowed to exist the wound would be constantly widening and festering, and there would be no chance of obtaining or restoring that peace, happiness, and tranquility which they all desired quite as strongly as any other set of hon. Members in the House. When, however, the Government allowed a man like Lord Clanricarde to hold in his possession 206 evicted holdings and protected a man of that kind who never visited Ireland in his life except upon two occasions — on one occasion he paid a midnight visit to bury his father, and on another occasion he came over to Dublin Castle to prosecute his agent — they thought the time had come when they should protest. Lord Clanricarde came into a great inheritance in Ireland to which was attached a princely castle, which had cost, £80,000 to build when the old castle was destroyed by fire. The landlord had, however, allowed that castle
790
to remain windowless and roofless. He could go on to describe at great length the acts of agression and of cruelty which had been committed by this man. He was not indeed a man but an inhuman monster. So long as the Government of the day, whether it was Liberal or Tory, allowed such power to remain in the hands of such a man, and allowed him to wreak his own will on the people under his control, they could expect nothing but turmoil. In the same district another landowner some years ago evicted fifty-six tenants, and in that case also every single one of the holdings had remained derelict. The Chief Secretary had stated in his reply that one of the reasons why the Estates Commissioners had not restored evicted tenants was the unwillingness of tenants who held evicted farms to relinquish them to the former owners The right hon. Gentleman had also alluded to the difficulty of finding untenanted land which the owner would consent to sell. The latter question was a very difficult and thorny one in the West of Ireland. Early in the year the Estates Commissioners purchased 150 acres in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, one of the most congested districts in Ireland, from which he had himself forwarded to the Estates Commissioners during the last eighteen months memorials from tenants, or the sons of tenants, which not less than 1,000 acres of land would satisfy, and this purchase of the Estates Commissioners would not give the people who wanted land an acre apiece. On their part Nationalist Members did everything in their power to see that the reasonable requirements of evicted tenants were complied with, and they did all they could to induce people in other districts to allow evicted tenants to settle amongst them, and to restrain public opinion upon the subject. Unless some steps were taken by the Government to alleviate the grievance at present existing, it would lead to great annoyance. This was a very great question, and, outside the National question, none appealed so strongly or so deeply to the love and affection of the Irish people, and the Government might be satisfied that peace and happiness was not possible in Ireland so long as a single one of the Plan of Campaign tenants was allowed to remain out of his holding. These evicted tenants were to be found in the workhouses throughout the land.

791
They were to be found in America and in foreign parts, but wherever the evicted tenant was found, in his heart was deeply planted the love of home, and he was desirous of being repatriated. The Government should try and control and, if necessary, manacle such men as Lord Clanricarde, and, if needs be, bring in a Bill to expropriate them. If that was not done it would become the duty of the Irish Nationalist Members to look out and see in what direction they could actually defend these tenants without bringing them within the measure of the law.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
MR. T. L CORBETTsaid anyone not accustomed to the tactics of the Nationalist Party must have been amazed at the notice of Motion for Adjournment given that afternoon at Question time. New Members, on the Liberal side especially, probably asked themselves, "What does it all mean? We were getting on so nicely. We had come to an understanding with the Nationalist Party. Why do they upset everything? Why this Motion for Adjournment so suddenly, so unexpectedly? The answer he could give them from a longer knowledge of the House than many of them had. It was a sham fight. It was a clever plot, a clover plan of campaign carefully arranged between the Whips of the Government side, and the Whips on the Nationalist Party. It served a double purpose. It showed first of all what was very important at the present juncture, that those two Parties were not altogether co-equal. Furthermore, while it professed to embarrass the Government it was really intended to help them They must ask why. First of all, there must be a short speech by the Leader of the Nationalist Party, who never made too long a speech, and was always eloquent and to the point. The hon. Member had intended to be a little shorter than he was, when he saw that some were on the watch and on the guard. The calculation was that the Chief Secretary would make a very brief reply, accepting the main points advanced by the Leader of the Nationalist Party, and then the poor, muddled followers of the Nationalist Leader, who,
792
frankly speaking, were bubbling over with anxiety to speak, were once more all to be muzzled; the Motion would be withdrawn; and the Plural Voting Bill would be rushed through Committee, and a very successful plot would be brought to an end. But that had not succeeded because some of them were determined to examine very briefly the merits of the Motion now before the House. They had heard an eloquent and impressive speech from the hon. Member for Water-ford. He was always eloquent and impressive to those Members who had not hoard his speeches before. But to-night he was not only eloquent and impressive but pathetic. They had heard that pathos before —those of them who had spent years in that sombre temple. But although he had heard that pathos before he was not unmoved by it. He pitied still those unfortunate women and children who had been driven to their present misery, which the hon. Member had so pathetically described. That misery had been caused by following the policy of hon. Members below the gangway. The hon. Member mourned over those evicted tenants and so did most kind, human-hearted men. What was the hon. Member's remedy? He would restore one set of men and evict other honest, industrious, law-abiding people in order to provide for the poor dupes whom he had misled and placed in their position of misery. When the House came to understand the farce a little better, a farce which would, when oftener played than it was now— [A NATIONALIST: And which you are still playing]—they would estimate it at its proper value and see through it as Unionists did who had Keen in the House for many years.
MR. FLYNNsaid the House must have been greatly impressed by the heroic speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member had described a dark and sinister plot concocted between the hon. Member for Waterford and the Government Whips, and how he had stood in the breach and destroyed that plot so suddenly sprung on the House. He could not help contrasting the speech just made with the language used with regard to those unfortunate victims of this social struggle when the Land Purchase Act of 1903 was passing

793
through the House. Was such language used then? No On the contrary, colleague after colleague of the hon. Member rose and joined with the Nationalists in asking that its provisions should he made to include these unfortunate victims. It showed very little improvement in the sense of political fitness when three years after the passing of that Act language such as that uttered by the hon. Gentleman could he used in this House. The House knew perfectly well there would have been no Land Purchase Act if these people had been excluded from its provisions. It was the hampering and harassing nature of the regulations laid flown for their guidance under the Act that tied the hands of the Estates Commissioners very largely, and the Nationalist Members rejoiced to see the present Government had cancelled those instructions. But even so, the greater progress during the last few months, since the present Government had been in office, had been terribly slow. It was heartbreaking to the people of Ireland. During all this time, only eighty-six evicted tenants out of 5,000 had been reinstated, and that with all the enormous power the Land Commissioners had at their disposal. Ireland hoped to see the Liberal Government going forward in a whole-hearted way to a settlement of this question. The Irish Party had always felt that those persons had a genuine claim to their support. That support they would continue to have, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for Ireland would take advantage of the opportunity given by the peace and tranquility which now obtained in Ireland to make a great attempt to settle this question.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid the hon. Member for North Down certainly paid the Government a compliment by attributing to them highly altruistic conduct in the suggestion that they had been engaged in a plot with the Nationalist Party to bring about a sham right on the subject before the House, for, whatever else the result, it had certainly delayed the progress of the Plural Voting Pill by three hours. But passing from that to the main question, it must strike many Members of Parliament for British constituencies as a great disappointment that after all the Irish land legislation
794
of the past thirty years, and especially after the great Land Purchase Bill of 1903, the Irish land question should be again before the House, and that, not for the tenth, or the hundredth, or even the one thousandth time, but possibly for the ten thousandth time, and in the acute form of evicted tenants turned out of their little holdings by the edict, perhaps by the whim, of an individual. The hon. Member for North Down had laid the blame for this on the Nationalist Members of Parliament, but as he did not bring forward one word of proof or reason for the statement, it did not call for serious notice. Had British Members of Parliament ever yet realised what was the nature of the Irish land question? There doubtless were in this House more who took an interest in the question, and desired to see it settled, than in any previous House, but it was only by visiting Ireland and studying the conditions on the spot that it could be fully realised. The tenants, as a rule, had built up every stick and stone of their holding, and consequently they clung to it with the deepest affection, and a sentence of eviction was looked upon as a sentence of death. The Bessborough Commission of 1880 reported in those words, adding the quotation—
"You take my life when you take the means by which I live."
He had the utmost confidence in the Chief Secretary. He was sure no one was more desirous of settling this question and of seeing the evicted tenants replaced in their holdings. There were no doubt great difficulties in the way, but he sincerely hoped that if he could not bring reinstatement about by the present law he would introduce drastic legislation for the purpose.
*MR. DELANYassociated himself with his Leader and the Member for South Galway in support of this Motion. The figures adduced from the last Report of the Estates Commissioners showed very clearly that strong action needed to be taken when out of over 5,000 evicted tenants who had sent in claims—the great majority of which wore bona fide— only 161 had been restored to their homes in three years by the Estates Commissioners. There were no men in Ireland so conscious as the Estates

795
Commissioners that if there were power to compel landlords to sell untenanted land at a fair price, there would not be an evicted tenant homeless in Ireland to-day. It was clearly laid down in the Report of the Estates Commissioners that since the operation of the Act of 1903, land had been raised 68⅓ per cent. The only way to deal with the difficulty was by giving compulsory power. There was untenanted land enough in Queen's County to reinstate more than every evicted tenant there. An impossible duty had been placed upon the Estates Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman might beat about the bush as much as he liked, but he would have to face the situation and confer compulsory powers upon the Estates Commissioners. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had many supporters like the hon. Gentleman who had just, spoken, and he had only to rise to the occasion to bring forward a measure which would carry out the object desired.
*MR. BYLESsaid he desired to associate himself with his hon. friend the Member for Crewe. He would make no attack whatever upon the Chief Secretary or the policy of the Government, but he desired to strengthen the hands of his right hon. friend by every means in his power to deal with this matter. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had referred to the condition of Ireland twenty years ago. He himself vividly remembered those days. At that time he was frequently in Ireland, and he saw many terrible scenes enacted, tenants defending their homes against the bailiffs, the police, and the soldiery. The hon. Member for North Down could not understand pathos, and thought the whole question was a sham, but happily the Government had taken it out of the hands of a Party which treated it in that way. Now that there was a Liberal Government supported by a large majority in power they might hope that this question would be advanced towards a settlement. It was a visit to Ireland that first led him to enter Parliament fourteen years ago to vote for the cause of Ireland. Everyone remembered the prolonged struggles of 1893. He had come back to the House after an absence of ten years and found this question in exactly the same position as it was then, notwithstanding the good will of suc-
796
cessive Chief Secretaries. It was really time they saw some change. Compulsion had been suggested by the hon. Member for Waterford. Whatever that word might convey to some it had no terrors for him. He knew that compulsion was the only means of obtaining justice for the tenants of Ireland, who had made their farms, taking up soil and seaweed until they had turned the bare rock into an economic holding. Those men in the real sense of the word were the owners rather than the landlords. But they did not want to take away the land from the landlords without paying for it, and the Land Act of 1903 must have led the landlords to believe that they would get a fair price for it. In his opinion drastic measures were necessary to restore these unfortunate men to their holdings, and he should be very happy to vote for the Motion.
MR. BARRIEsaid that hon. Members listening to that debate would probably be given the firm impression that the evicted tenants in whose interest the House was spending some hours of the valuable time of the Government were tenants who had been evicted from land largely composed of stones, barren in its character, and what wore termed uneconomic holdings. He desired briefly to point out that the vast majority of the evicted tenants were tenants of one of the most fertile parts of Ireland, and that the demand which was made was that these tenants should be restored—tenants who were evicted justly and fairly, because their rent was in arrears to an extent that would nor be tolerated on the English side of the Channel, and because they followed the counsels of the Nationalist Members of Parliament of that day. Those tenants were simply weapons in the hands of these Members, and they suffered because they obeyed the requests of the Nationalist Members of that day in order to advance what they were pleased to call "the cause." He could use language quite as earnest as that which had been used by the hon. Member for Waterford; but he did not forget that what was proposed by him was that compulsion should be used to evict tenants who had succeeded those other tenants— that tenants who were law-abiding and rent-paying should now be taken out by force from their holdings and the

797
evicted tenants put in their place. He had no sympathy with any such plan, and he would be slow to think that the hon. Member for Waterford was absolutely sincere in making that demand upon the Government. He had read within the last fortnight that at a certain meeting which the hon. Member for Waterford attended there was a demand made for a more advanced programme for the Nationalist Party in Ireland. What was the reply of the Leader of the Party? He said that time was when the Nationalist Members of Parliament had the people of Ireland behind them, but that was not the case at present. He (Mr. Barrie) interpreted the present Motion rather as an evidence that the hon. Member had a desire to try and please the extreme section of his constituents on the other side of the water than as a proof of his real desire to do anything tangible for those tenants. They had heard various numbers given as the true total of the evicted tenants. He was informed on an authority to which he was bound to give every weight, that the number of bona fide evicted tenants in Ireland at present was nearer 500 than 5,000. They had been told that night that the Land Act of 1903 would not have passed if the case of the evicted tenants had not been provided for. He was only a young Member of Parliament, but he had no knowledge that would corroborate that assertion. If the Nationalist Members were so concerned about this small body of evicted tenants, those whom he represented would rather see them use some part of that great fund which had just been collected in America on behalf of "the cause" devoted to placing some of the tenants in small and comfortable holdings. Even if a small sum was used for such a purpose Nationalist Members would have, given a token of that sincerity to advance the prosperity of Ireland which the people of England could not yet believe. He remembered when the Plan of Campaign, which left such a train of disaster behind it, was carried out in Tipperary, that a large fund was collected, which, though it was never known, was believed to be finally located in Paris, but this they did know, that not one penny of that fund was ever devoted to the bettering of the condition of these unfortunate people.
SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid the speech of the hon. Member for North Londonderry was an indication of the spirit of a body of gentlemen now rapidly diminishing in Ire land, who stood as the only barrier between Ireland and the attainment of her national rights. The hon. Member had objected to the time of the House being taken up in discussing the case of the evicted tenants. He himself thought the time taken up had been well occupied. This was not the first time that his Party had championed the cause of the evicted tenants in this House. Whatever the hon. Gentleman might think, he was certain that the Nationalist Party would never be found wanting when it was necessary to speak on their behalf. The hon. Member had shown great solicitude in regard to the evicted tenants, and suggested that Irish public funds should be devoted to their support. He was glad to welcome the adhesion of the hon. Member to the idea that, should it be necessary to start a public fund for the maintenance of the evicted tenants, the Orange Members in the north of Ireland would come forward and assist. His reason for intervening in the debate was his very great interest in this question. He had taken a great interest in it since he first entered Irish public life. He had followed this phase of the land question through all its vicissitudes for a number of years, and he had expressed the widespread feeling of dissatisfaction which prevailed throughout Ireland in regard to it. He regretted that the message of peace which, as they understood, was to be conveyed to the Irish tenants by the Act of 1903 had not found proper expression in the case of the evicted tenants. It had been hoped that by the passing of that Act this melancholy chapter in Irish history would be closed; and the representatives of the Irish people would not be doing their duty if they did not express regret that the question had not been more rapidly settled, looking to the urgency and importance of it. When the Act of 1903 was passed it was fully expected that before many months were over steps would be taken to restore the evicted tenants to their former homes. As his hon. friend the Member for Water-ford had said, it was mainly for that reason that they agreed to the passing of the Act of 1903. In supporting that Act on

799
account of the hope it held out to the evicted tenants he believed they had the sympathy of every fair-minded, dispassionate, and charitably disposed man from one end of Ireland to the other. All sections of the people, whether landlords or tenants, were sincerely anxious for the peace of Ireland and the ending of the long strife and hideous social disorder which had for so many years prevailed. Everybody was agreed that the first essential of a settlement, and the only hope of an early settlement, was the speedy treatment of the evicted tenants question. They had been disappointed in that hope—he did not say permanently — from causes into which he did not intend to enter that night, but surely the Chief Secretary was aware of the urgency and importance of the question. Without going into the question generally he might speak of circumstances of which he had intimate personal knowledge, namely, the state of affairs in his own constituency. In the county of Wexford there were something like 200 evicted tenants. Up to a year ago about seventy-three of these tenants had been restored to their holdings, or placed on other farms in the county. During the last twelve months for some extraordinary reason only six cases had been dealt with by the Estates Commissioners. Surely there must be something wrong somewhere when such a small advance had been made with the question in that county. Was it too much to ask the Chief Secretary to take into consideration all the counties of Ireland, as well as the county of Wexford, and to see that some further advance was made? In Wexford they were perhaps more fortunately circumstanced than in some other counties. The Estates Commissioners had at their disposal large tracts of land which they had obtained specially for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants. Up to last May the Estates Commissioners had purchased 1,744 acres of land, they had agreed to acquire 1,900 acres more, and they were in treaty for 1,000 additional acres—altogether about 4,600 acres in one county. Surely they had a right to expect that some greater progress would be made in the reinstatement of tenants when the Estates Commissioners had so much available land. There was almost sufficient land in the possession of the Commissioners to deal with the case of every evicted tenant in
800
the county of Wexford. The Chief Secretary would no doubt give some reason for the delay. He joined with his hon. colleagues in urging the extreme necessity of dealing promptly and boldly with the question, of utilising all the resources at the command of the Estates Commissioners, and of losing no time in "red tape" or making inquiries about things people know all about. No settlement of the Irish land question would ever be arrived at or agreed to by the representatives of the Irish people until justice was done to the evicted tenants in every county in Ireland.
MR. BRYCEsaid he did not for a moment deny the importance of this question. He felt it to be so important that he regretted he had had no notice that the question was going to be brought on to-day by a Motion for the adjournment of the House. He understood some time ago that the hon. Member for Waterford intended to bring forward the question, but it had come entirely as a matter of surprise that it should be raised now in this way. If he had had longer notice it would have been possible for him to fortify himself with facts and opinions obtained from the Estates Commissioners, with whom the management of these affairs rested, and so to have been able to give a more complete and satisfactory statement than was possible with the short notice of three hours. The hon. Member for Waterford had complained that the Estates Commissioners Report was not presented until the end of the session, lie did not think that the Estates Commissioners ought to be blamed for that. They were indeed entitled to a good deal of consideration at the hands of the House, because he knew that a large part of their time during the whole of last session was occupied in preparing Answers to the extremely numerous and difficult Questions put in the House by hon. Gentleman opposite demanding information. He entirely denied that it could be fairly said that the Act had failed in dealing with the evicted tenants.
AN HON. MEMBER: Substantially.
MR. BRYCE: No, not substantially; and even if it were so the Irish Government were not responsible. This matter

801
had been entrusted by Parliament to the Estates Comimssioners, over whom the Irish Government had no authority. All that the Irish Government could fairly be blamed for was, if they had not framed proper regulations for the Commissioners, or had failed to give them the necessary staff for their work, or had neglected to apply to Parliament for a needed enlargement of the powers of the Commissioners. He did not think that anyone would say that the Estates Commissioners had failed in their duty. No body of men could have been more zealous or more interested in their work or more prompt to recognise the importance of it. It was impossible they could have brought more sympathy and zeal to their work than they had done, and therefore the Estates Commissioners could not be condemned any more than the Irish Government. The difficulties encountered were very great. He did not know whether the ordinary Scottish or English men knew enough of those difficulties. He did not think they did. For his part he had formerly had no idea of their extent; and if they had not been so great the question of the evicted tenants would have been settled long ago. One attempt was made by the present Secretary for India, but it was defeated by the House of Lords. This new Government had come in, and it would be their endeavour to press forward a settlement of the question. The Government had done their best to cope with the grave evils which confronted them, and they had succeeded to some extent in accelerating progress. He did not want to trouble the House with a mass of figures, but the speech of the hon. Member for Queen's County showed that that hon. Gentleman had not grasped the figures which he had given in answer to the Question earlier in the day. The hon. Member for Queen's County said that only 161 evicted tenants had been restored to their holdings. What were the facts? Three hundred and eighty-one evicted tenants were restored by the landlords on the sale of their estates under the Land Purchase Act, the tenants being assisted by grants from the Estates Commissioners for the equipment of their farms. One hundred and sixty-one evicted tenants were restored directly by the Estates Commissioners, making a total of 541. Of the 5,912
802
applications received, 1,047 had been finally dealt with up to date. He might add, that a very considerable number of applications had been made which would not bear investigation, and also that in a certain number of cases the tenants had been restored without the knowledge of the Commissioners — the landlords and tenants having agreed between themselves. He did not think that the progress made had been inconsiderable, considering the difficulties which surrounded the question; and it was certainly greater than might be supposed from some of the speeches made that evening.
The Commissioners informed him that of these 1,285 applications inquired into, 377 were cases where the holdings were now in the owners' occupation, and the result as regarded them was as follows:—
"In 161 cases the owner objected to any inspection. In fifty-nine eases otters to purchase, with a view to reinstatement, were made. In nine of these the offer was accepted, and the tenants reinstated. In nineteen the owner replied, refusing to sell at the estimated price. In thirty-one no reply had been received up to the present. In forty-nine cases offers to purchase, with a view to reinstatement, were about to be made. In 108 cases the applications were postponed or struck out for the following causes:—(1) Applicant was not suitable for reinstatement, owing to want of farming experience, habit of industry and competence to work the land as a holding. (2) Applicant had surrendered his holding and received compensation or sold his interest. (3) Applicant was not eligible as a representative of the former evicted tenant. (4) Applicant was only a herd or caretaker, or the holding was not agricultural. (5) The applicant had enough land already."
These figures showed how minute the inquiry which had been made into the different cases.
MR. JOHN REDMONDasked if he was right in gathering from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that afternoon that in 444 cases investigated since the now regulations came into force the landlords had refused to allow the inspectors to visit the land?
MR. BRYCEsaid he was not sure of the length of time covered, but the total given to him where the landlords had refused to allow inspection was 444.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that of the 1,285 applications since the Act came into force, 272 had been

803
rejected, and in 444 cases the landlords had refused to allow the inspectors to visit the land.
MR. BRYCEsaid that that was so. He much regretted that such a course should have been followed. The Government had no power to compel landlords to agree, but he wished public opinion in Ireland could be exerted to show the landlords that their action was disapproved. He meant the public opinion of all right-thinking men, who felt that an Act of Parliament which was passed three years ago to secure the reinstatement of evicted tenants should be given effect to. It was only fair and right that the landlords should respect the intentions of Parliament and give the Estates Commissioners an opportunity of inspecting the land and bringing about the reinstatement of the evicted tenants. He could not but think that public opinion moderately and temperately expressed by all classes in Ireland would have due weight, and that the Act would in consequence be brought to greater fruition. Proceeding with the Report of the Estates Commissioners the right hon. Gentleman said:—
"The causes which have impeded the restoration of evicted tenants are the following: (1) Where the evicted farm is in the occupation of another tenant, and he is unwilling to surrender it, no pressure can or ought to be brought to bear on the existing tenant to relinquish his holding in favour of the evicted tenant. In such cases new farms must be provided for the evicted tenants according as untenanted land becomes available for the purpose. Sometimes the evicted tenants are unwilling to migrate to new farms, and prefer to stay in the neighbourhood of their old homes in the hope that they may some day be reinstated in their old holdings. Sometimes the introduction of evicted tenants from a distance on untenanted land meets with local opposition It would be easier to overcome this if the persuasions and efforts of the Commissioners' Inspectors were re-inforced by public opinion. (3) As regards farms in the owners' occupation, landlords who are unwilling to agree to their speedy restoration are, it is believed, influenced by the following considerations. (a) If the owners were to reinstate evicted tenants as their own tenants without entering into agreements for the sale of the holding, the Estates Commissioners could not under Section 12 of the Act make any advances to such reinstated tenants or any grants for equipping the farms, since the estate would not be one that has been sold or is proposed to he sold under the Act of 1903, and if an impoverished evicted tenant were to go back to his former holding as tenant without such grant the landlord would have no security for his rent. (b) If an evicted farm is
804
sold as a separate 'estate,' terms of sale not having been arranged for the other holdings on the estate, the owner would have all the expense of proving title for one evicted farm just as he would if the whole estate were sold. Some owners also entertain the view that they thould not be expected to restore evicted enants unless in connection with the sale of their estates as a whole, (c) Some owners are believed to fear that if they were to sell evicted farms to the Commissioners at the comparatively low price which the Commissioners could otter to advance, in view of the farms having been derelict and neglected, then such prices would set up a standard which would regulate the offers which other tenants on the estate would make when the rest of the estate was being sold. As to the difficulties (a) and (b) the Commissioners have intimated that they are willing to declare evicted farms when the tenants are reinstated to be separate 'estates' and to give them immediate priority. Where the number of evicted tenants reinstated is considerable the Commissioners are willing to give priority to the whole property, and thus expedite the payment of purchase money. Where the owner does not wish to make the evicted farms separate 'estates,' but enters into a purchase agreement to sell to an evicted tenant at prices approved by the Commissioners as soon as the estate as a whole is being sold, the Commissioners are willing to make grants to the reinstated evicted tenants to equip their farms and so give them a fair chance of succeeding. The owners will also in this way have security for interest in lieu of rent on the price agreed on, while the reinstated tenant may remain on paying such interest pending the sale of the whole estate. It should be remembered that the work of the past five months has been largely in the nature of preliminary inquiries and negotiations which cannot be expected to be immediately brought to a successful issue and some time must be given to enable those investigations to bear fruit. The Commissioners propose to continue their inquiries as to the remaining applicants for another period of six months, and that a larger staff should be employed and that all applications may be inquired into within that period, if possible. It should be added that as regards the principal estates in which the Plan of Campaign was adopted and which are referred to in the ad interim Report of the Commissioners, dated the 10th of April, 1905, the cases of the evicted tenants on the Ponsonby, Lansdowne, and Brooke estates have been practically settled. Negotiations are actually in progress for the settlement of the Massereene, Lewis and Byrne estates. Negotiations are also in progress for the settlement of the evicted tenants question on the Vandeleur estate. The Government is fully aware of the difficulty of bringing about any settlement on the Clanricarde estate."
The Report of the Estates Commissioners would give the House some idea of the complexity of the question which they had to deal with. It must be borne in mind that effect was not given to a great deal which was promised and hoped for when the Act of 1903 was passed. A great

805
many questions arose upon the interpretation of the Act which caused considerable difficulty, and for a time tied the hands of the Commissioners. For instance, there was a regulation made by the late Government that the evicted tenants could not be reinstated except in connection with the purchase of the whole estate upon which the holding was from which he had been evicted. That regulation had a most important effect upon the working of the Act. Then serious doubt was thrown upon the power of the Commissioners to buy untenanted land in order to reinstate tenants, and that question was only determined at the end of last year, or early this year, when it was found that the Commissioners had that power. The withdrawal of the old regulations, the making of the new regulations, which considerably extended the work of the Commissioners, and the decision of these legal points, at length, so to speak, untied the hands of the Commissioners, and enabled them to set to work in a far better and more energetic way, and with afar greater hope of obtaining substantial results than was possible before. They were further strengthened by being given six new inspectors, and he thought that looking to the results obtained since the appointment of those inspectors, it must be recognised that far more than rapid progress had been made and more important results obtained. What the inspectors had done had very greatly cleared the way for the future. He thought the hon. Member for Waterford entirely undervalued the results which had been obtained by the investigations of these inspectors during the last five months. He would now tell the House something of the methods on which the Commissioners were proceeding. If a landlord was not selling the whole of his estate the Commissioners had now found their proper course to be to declare a separate farm to be a separate estate, and they were going to act boldly and largely on that. Where a substituted tenant held a farm, in some cases he could not be induced to give it up, and there was no power to eject him. In some cases such a tenant was willing to take money compensation, and the Estates Commissioners had in some cases given that compensation, and had used the power in their hands for that purpose pretty freely. But in some cases, where
806
there was no money compensation given, he was willing to take a new farm altogether, but the power of dealing with him in that way depended upon whether a new farm could be got for him. With regard to the settlement of an evicted tenant on untenanted land in a new neighbourhood, this required a great deal of tact. The best plan generally was to approach the neighbourhood beforehand and to let it be known that, although they must consent to the bringing in of strangers, that operation and the operation of the enlargement of holdings would be carried on simultaneously. The hon. Member for Waterford had spoken of the sympathy in Ireland fur the evicted tenant. He thought this was a practical mode of showing that sympathy, and he thought they ought to appeal to those among whom the Commissioners proposed to settle evicted tenants not to receive them with harshness and unkindness. He was in hopes that when experience was gained, and if judgment was exercised, these difficulties, serious as they were, would be overcome. The quantity of untenanted land, however, was limited, especially in Ulster and Minister. Even in Connaught, he believed, there was not more than about one-third of what would be wanted to raise all small uneconomic holdings to the level of reasonable economic holdings. Therefore the question was a very grave one. As to the general question of what was to be done in the future, work might be done partly by administration and partly by legislation. As regarded administration the work of the last six months had shown the Commissioners how they might work out their plans. It had alto shown them how they might give priority in the cases of evicted tenants. He believed there was ample power to exercise discretion as to giving priority to particular cases; and he believed the fact that social order was involved in this question was a very sound reason why such priority should be given. Upon this part of the subject he thought he was entitled — they were all entitled—to make an appeal to the landlords. [A NATIONALIST: Not much use, I am afraid.] He thought in the great majority of cases the landlords might allow bygones to be bygones. They might recognise that this was a matter in which the peace and well being of the country was involved, and,

807
realising the gravity of the case, they might recognise the duty of being more willing to help than heretofore they had shown themselves to be. There were a great many landlords who as heartily wished the welfare of their country and their fellow-countrymen as any of them could do, and he would respectfully venture to appeal to them to give the Executive the help they could so powerfully render by letting the Commissioners go on with the work of reinstatement where they had not some great and solid reason in a contrary sense, outside political prejudice and passion, which this land war had unfortunately excited. He would, however, tell the House his own mind upon the subject. As a member of the Congested Districts Board, he had come to learn the extreme difficulty of getting the untenanted land which the Congested Districts Board required for the purpose of settling small tenants from the congested regions of the west. It was only with the greatest difficulty that the Board were able to obtain that land, and he was seriously obliged to consider whether if that difficulty continued, and if the necessity for dealing more rapidly with the problem of congestion became more and more recognised, it might not be necessary to arm them with further powers for the acquisition of land. That was a question which was under consideration, and he ought not to say more than to tell the House the impression made upon his own mind by the experience he had gained as the head of that Board. He could not help feeling that what might be true of the Congested Districts Board might be not less true in regard to the work of the Estates Commissioners. He was not at all satisfied that the way the bonus was now spent and given was either the way in which Parliament desired it should be spent or the way in which it attained the maximum of good. He ought not to express any more than doubts at this moment, because this was a subject which would require very serious consideration, especially as the Act of
808
1903 provided that next year the Treasury should be permitted to revise the system, although any change would not come into effect till the year after. Even supposing the question of the bonus were dealt with, it would be but a partial remedy. He thought the real difficulty was the difficulty of getting untenanted lands. For that some remedy must be found, and if the remedy lay in compulsion—well, to that remedy they might have to come. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford seemed to have made assumptions which were quite groundless as to the attitude of the Government, when he assumed that they had been backward in dealing with this question. That was not so; on the contrary, the Government had done all in their power, and they had accepted every single suggestion made to them for extending the operation of the Act and accelerating its progress. He admitted that it was a question of great gravity, because it was a question of sound order. He had recognised that from the first, and they should continue to recognise it. It was a question out of which many of the troubles, disturbances, outrages, and breaches of the peace during the last twenty years or thirty years had arisen in Ireland, and anything that would put an end to that state of things would be a boon to that country. The Government would continue to work earnestly upon this problem, but they would work a great deal more effectively if they had the support of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his friends in endeavouring to preserve tranquility and order in Ireland.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: You have had it.
MR. BRYCEappealed to the Leader of the Irish Party to help in keeping tranquility and good order in the country, to continue to exert all the influence he possessed to keep the people quiet and to believe, as they ought, that

809
the Government were trying to do their best for them. As he appealed to the landlords on the one side, so he appealed to the popular leaders on the other. Nothing would strengthen the hands of the Government so much as to have a quiet Ireland to deal with; and he believed that, if Ireland remained tranquil, and if that public spirit was shown on both sides where so grave a question as this was involved, affecting the future of Ireland, with the support of the House, and with the earnestness which the Government desired to show in the matter, this ancient sore might soon be healed.
MR. WALTER LONGthought that the Irish Members had secured a complete triumph over the Government in this debate. The speech of the Chief Secretary involved the complete surrender of the Government on the main points of the land problem and to the views so long advanced by the Nationalists. The right hon. Gentleman had also attempted to shift the responsibility for the delay in carrying out the Act on to the Estates Commissioners and the late Government. But the regulations about which the House had heard so much were issued in July of last year, and they were immediately repealed by the present Government on coming into office, so that the new regulations did not appear to have had any material effect as compared with the old. The Chief Secretary had not touched on the difficult aspect of the problem that there was a large number of tenants who would not come within the description of evicted tenants used throughout the debates preceding the Act of 1903. The Government had to face the difficulty of differentiating among those tenants as to who were deserving and who were not, and they had also to deal with the difficult problem of the uneconomic holding. He had listened with some surprise to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman to the landlords. The Leader of the Nationalists had referred to 440 cases where the land-
810
lords had refused to allow the estate valuers to go on to their property to carry out the work of valuation. If there wore cases in which the landlords had unfairly exercised their lights, he was not concerned to defend them; but before the landlords were condemned wholesale, more ought to be known of the circumstances in which their refusal was made; and what demands were made upon the landlords by the Estates Commissioners and the valuers. If this was to be used as evidence on which they were to condemn, convict, and sentence the landlords, they ought to know more about it than they know after the very poor and insufficient statement which had been placed before them. He assumed that the Estates Commissioners would give the landlords an opportunity of stating their case before they took what had been said as the fact. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Estates Commissioners were going to exercise their powers to give priority to estates where such priority was necessary in the interests of social order. That was a very dangerous step for the Government to take. Parliament did not vote £120,000,000 to settle the land question in order that the Government might act in this way.
MR. BRYCEexplained that what he said was that the Commissioners in their discretion would give priority to estates where there was a large number of evicted tenants.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the right hon. Gentleman used the words "in the interests of social order."
MR. BRYCE: Yes, that referred to the evicted tenants.
MR. WALTER LONG: Exactly, and it meant that priority was to be given to estates where disturbance and intimidation was going on.
MR. BRYCE: I never meant anything of the sort. It would have just the opposite effect.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that he could not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by this priority in that case. The only fair priority to observe was that in which the applications were received. At present many landlords and tenants who had entered into agreements were being kept waiting, and every stop of this kind meant more delay for them. In many cases some of the best of the tenants in Ireland were anxious to become possessors of their own holdings, but if the declaration of the Chief Secretary meant anything it meant that priority was to be given to those tenants who were not the best.
MR. BRYCE: It is not a matter within my discretion, but within that of the Estates Commissioners. They may give priority to an estate where there are a large number of evicted tenants and thereby settle a long-standing social question.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid that that involved injustice to those estates where there was no social disorder, and the only fair and proper priority was priority of application. As the cases were considered and settled by the Court they should be dealt with and the tenants who applied first should be dealt with first.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid this speech of the Chief Secretary would be welcome because it clearly indicated that the Government saw the necessity of granting compulsory powers in certain cases to the Estates Commissioners. Unless they got compulsory powers against such landlords as Lord Clanricarde the owners would never sell their land. The speech of the Chief Secretary showed that he was coming round to the general view held in Ireland
812
as to the absolute necessity of having some compulsory powers for the acquisition of land. He did not think there would be any difficulty in getting such powers granted by the present Parliament, because hon. Members were aware that in many parts of the Empire compulsory powers had already been granted by the Government for the acquisition of land for the common good. There was no question whatever of taking anything without payment.
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Motion for Adjournment lapsed without Question put.

PLURAL VOTING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 28, at the end, to insert the words, 'in the event of the person's name being removed from the register the clerk shall give him notice that his name has been removed.'"—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
And, it being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
Adjourned at four minutes after Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
PETITIONS

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against—Of inhabitants of Great Washbourne; and Olderton; of inhabitants of the parishes of Middleton Stoney; Houden; Perrott; Richmond (Yorks); Little Hereford; Stanton-Fitz-warren; Pawlett; Syston St. Thomas's (Lancaster); Kelton; Saxby-cum-Stapleford; Newbold-Verdon; Hugglescote; Fringford; Everdon; Barrowden; Daventry; Hinckley; Maxey; Muston; and Potterspury; of parents and guardians of children attending church schools at Blymhill; Stanton-Fitzwarren; Newbold-Verdon; Chapel Heaton; of trustees and managers of Church of England schools in the diocese of Chester; members of the Vale of Avon (Batheaston district) of the Primrose League; and teachers in the rural deaneries of Framland; and Rutland.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition for amendment of; of the Ruridiaconal Conference of the rural deanery of Sandwich; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 505. St. Lucia (Report for 1905).
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3725. China.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1869.
  Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland, for the year 1905.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Closing order made by the council of the county borough of Londonderry; the urban district council of Wexford.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Order, dated 30th July, 1906, entitled the Liverpool (Birkenhead) Foreign Animals Wharf Order of 1906.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES.
  Order of the 25th of June last, for Papers relating to the proceedings of the International Council for the Investigation of the North Sea, discharged.

  THE COST OF THE EDUCATION BILL.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council whether, in the event of the £1,000,000 promised out of the Imperial Exchequer being insufficient to defray all the expenses incurred under the Education Bill, the deficiency will fall upon local rates. This is a supplementary Question which was put the other day by my noble friend Lord Wenlock in consequence of an Answer given by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, and of which the noble Earl then asked that notice should be given. Lord Wenlock is not able to be present at the commencement of to-day's sitting, and has asked me to put the Question on his behalf. I think it is necessary that I should read to your Lordships the answer which was given the other day by the Lord President of the Council out of which this Question arose. In reply to an interrogation by Lord Avebury with regard to the expenditure to be incurred under the Education Bill, Lord Crewe said—
  "The extra change thrown on the taxes under the Bill was the sum of £1,000,000 provided by Clause 12, and the expenses of the Commission under Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill. As regarded the expenditure thrown upon the rates, that might come under three heads; in the first place, in respect of structural repairs of the voluntary schools which were to be taken over; in the second place, in respect of the sums paid by way of rent, or otherwise on taking over schools; and, in the third place, in the shape of new annual charges for interest and sinking fund in cases where new council

  587
  schools had to be built in the place of existing voluntary schools."
  If that was intended to be a full statement of the expenditure, I cannot help thinking that the Lord President is under a very strong misapprehension as to the charges which are to be imposed by this Bill. I will merely mention two of them. In the first place, it stands to reason that a considerable increase in administrative expenditure will take place when the voluntary schools become provided schools. In the second place, let me call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the two-penny limit for secondary education is done away with by this Bill. Therefore there will be a very large increase of expenditure under this Bill. What the amount may be I do not know. All that I wish to ask now is whether the deficiency, whatever it may be, is to fall on the local rates.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, I am very sorry that the reply which I gave to my noble friend the other day was not considered satisfactory, and I fear I cannot add very largely to it on this occasion. The sum named in the Bill is the total grant over and above existing grants payable out of the Exchequer in aid of elementary education, and any further expenditure incurred by local authorities will fall upon the rates. The noble Earl and the House will, I am sure, see that it is absolutely necessary to make a provision of this kind. If we definitely offered to recoup any local authority for any expenditure it might choose to make under the Bill, no incentive to economy on the part of those authorities could possibly exist. We should have to make ourselves responsible for any expenditure, however extravagant. In the distribution of the additional grant regard will be had to the additional burden imposed by the Bill; but it must be clearly understood that the Government do not state that in every area it will cover every possible extra expense which the local authority may incur. I might also add that the sum mentioned in the Bill has only reference to the Bill as it stands. If a considerable number of Amendments which I see upon the Paper were to become part of the Bill, I have no doubt the expenditure of many of the local authorities would be very largely increased.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am bound to say that the reply of the noble Earl is not a satisfactory Answer to the practical Question put. If there had been any calculation of the number of schools, the number of children affected, and the amount per head, it would have been possible perhaps to realise how far the £1,000,000 would go, but apparently there was no such calculation, and all the noble Earl seems to hope is that the £1,000,000 will go sufficiently far to recoup the managers of those schools which are proposed to be demolished. The absence of data is unfair, and I hope the noble Earl's answer will come home to the ratepayers.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Order of the Day read for the House to be again put into Committee on this Bill.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFF VISCOUNT LLANDAFF moved to postpone the clause. Their Lordships would be aware that by Clause 1 all the denominational schools of the country were put out of the category of public elementary schools, and were therefore deprived of all share either of rates or of taxes for maintenance. By Clause 1, as it stood, there was to be in future only one type of school in the country— namely, the provided school under the absolute control of, the local education authority, and with either no religious instruction at all or religious instruction governed by the Cowper-Temple clause. When their Lordships remembered that out of the 20,000 elementary schools in the country 14,000 were denominational schools, and that more than half of the children of the country were educated in these schools, it would be admitted that this complete destruction of the 14,000 denominational schools was a matter of the greatest moment and one that deserved their most careful consideration.
  If the case stood upon Clause 1 alone, which had no exception, no safeguard.

  589
  and did not point to any dispensation whatever, he would certainly not move the postponement but the rejection of the clause. But when they came to look at the Bill more in detail they found that, in spite of the absolute terms of Clause 1, there were to be exceptions. Under Clauses 3 and 4 certain classes of denominational schools were to be reprieved. Sentence of death was passed upon them all by Clause 1, and then reprieve was given to certain denominational schools. On the face of their Bill, therefore, His Majesty's Government admitted in principle the necessity of continuing the dual system which had prevailed for thirty-six years in this country. They admitted that there must be at least some denominational schools retained side by side with the council schools. But they did something more than that. When the Bill was before their Lordships on Second Reading the noble Marquess who led the House said, speaking in the name of the Government, that the Bill would be unjust and indefensible without Clause 4. Those were memorable words, which he trusted would not he forgotten. He would like to see them incorporated in the text of the Bill, and he thought they would form a fitting preamble to Clause 4. They might read in this form—
  "It would be unjust and indefensible to prevent parents who desired denominational education for their children from obtaining that education in schools built and maintained by themselves for that express purpose, and therefore be it enacted—
  A preamble of that sort would tend to clear their minds as to the adequacy and efficiency of the provisions of Clause 4.
  They had, therefore, both the admission in the text of the Bill that there must be some dual system continued in this country, and the admission of the noble Marquess that without some concession of that sort the Bill would be unjust and indefensible. And when they came to look at what Clauses 3 and 4 enacted it seemed to him that the Motion he proposed for the postponement of Clause 1 became of even more importance. To the Catholics of this country Clause 3 was really a useless clause. He did not believe half a dozen, even if so many, Catholic schools would apply for facilities under Clause 3. He did not propose to say a word in censure or in criticism of Cowper-Temple teaching;
  590
  all he would say was that it was a kind of teaching which was essentially Protestant in its character, and it was, therefore, repugnant to Roman Catholic principles, and Roman Catholics could not submit their children to it.
  When they referred to Clause 4 the case seemed worse. It was edged round by conditions which rendered it almost impracticable in practice. It was perfectly optional to the local education authority whether they granted facilities under Clause 4 or not. They might, out of caprice, or prejudice, or whatever motive they pleased, refuse to grant them, and then there was an end of the matter. The facilities under Clause 4 were confined to urban areas of a particular size, and all rural areas were excluded. Then there was a further condition that a minority of one-fifth plus one was to deprive a majority of four-fifths minus one of privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed. That was, again, one of those enactments which seemed to him totally inadequate and not to come up to the standard which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House had laid down in his speech. The appointment of teachers under Clause 4 was left entirely to the local education authority and not to the parents of the children or to anybody interested in the proper and efficient giving of denominational instruction in the schools. He trusted that many of these things would be altered in Committee; but, until they knew the ultimate form Clauses 3 and 4 would assume, they could not judge satisfactorily whether to accept, reject, or amend Clause 1.
  Clause 1 was a sentence of death on denominational schools. They wanted to know, and they ought to know, how many would be reprieved before consenting to pass this sentence of death. As the Bill stood at present, the exceptions that were admitted to Clause 1 were, in his judgment, totally inefficient. If they were made more efficient, the objections to Clause 1 would not be so strong, and the clause might possibly be accepted. Then there were clauses by which an appeal could be made to a Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in another place that the object of this Commission was to compel obstinate trustees to transfer their schools to the local education authority. They ought

  591
  to know what the conditions of that compulsion were going to be before they assented to Clause 1. The clause professed to leave the Commission in the first instance, guided by the principles of the Court of Chancery, and then there were enacted a number of clauses which varied and altered the principles of the Court of Chancery, all of them against the interests of the denominational schools and their owners, and in favour of the local education authority. Their Lordships ought to know what the final form of this compulsion was going to be before they assented to Clause 1 as it stood. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "To postpone Clause 1 until after Clause 12."—(Viscount Llandaff.)
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDONsaid that instead of moving the similar Amendment of which he had given notice, he should support that moved by the noble Viscount. He took this course in the interests of peace. No one could more desire to see some end to this religious strife than the Bishop of a large diocese, so that the whole weight of the religious forces in the diocese might be focussed upon the vice and crime which had to be faced.
  He supported the Amendment because it seemed to him that to pass Clause 1 now and leave the Bill as it was would be to do something which was going to offend the consciences of at least half the religious people of the country. He knew that the Nonconformists felt a grievance under the Act of 1902. He was not going to argue whether they were right or not. It was enough for him that they felt a grievance. They should, therefore, put their heads together and try to remove the cause of offence. But two wrongs would not make a right, and it seemed to him that they could not redress the grievance, real or supposed, of one religious community and leave a sense of burning injustice on three other religious communities.
  He asked the Government to consider the position in which they found themselves. There were 11,800 Church of England schools, and they were asked to consent, in Clause 1, without knowing
  592
  in the slightest degree what the substitute was going to be, to their being swept away. He was not one of those who thought that the denominational schools were the only means of safeguarding the denominational spirit, but, at the moment, they provided the only way, and they must know what was going to take their place before they consented to that safeguard being taken away. If, however, their lordships decided that it would be more satisfactory to proceed with the discussion of the clause now, he wished it to be clearly understood that, if they were not satisfied with other points in the Bill, their freedom to reject the clause when it came up for Third Reading was absolutely untrammelled.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I am very sorry that we are unable to fall in with the suggestion made by two Members of the House whose opinions we so greatly respect, but I hope that on consideration they may be induced not to press this Amendment. As noble Lords are doubtless aware, a similar Amendment was moved in the House of Commons, and it was moved there on the ground that the Opposition were not really in possession of all the arguments for the later clauses of the Bill. The bare clauses of the Bill, they implied, stared them in the face, but they did not know by what arguments the provisions of the Bill would be pressed. That argument certainly does not apply here. The arguments in favour of all the later clauses of the Bill, or against them, are perfectly familiar to all your Lordships, and, therefore, on that ground it certainly seems to me impossible to press a request of this kind. But, quite apart from that, it certainly does seem to me that when you have Clause 1, which contains the main principle of the Bill, it is very much more satisfactory to face that main principle at once than to set it aside and, as it were, pretend that it does not exist.
  What does Clause 1 do? Clause 1 provides that in future all schools are to be council schools, and subsequent clauses go on to say that although they are all to be council schools, they are not all to be council schools of one pattern, but that certain varieties are admitted. I confess it seems to me that the bare fact

  593
  of passing this clause in no way prevents noble Lords from considering, as they undoubtedly intend to consider by the Amendments they have put on the Paper, what form those varieties are to take. I can quite understand the noble Viscount moving the postponement of the clause, but, as we see from the Amendments standing in his name on the Paper, he would have an entirely different Bill. The noble Viscount's Bill might or might not be a good Education Bill, but it would bear no resemblance whatever to the Education Bill introduced by the Government. The fundamental idea of this Bill is entirely abandoned if we agree to all the Amendments to be proposed by the noble Viscount, and it is perfectly obvious, therefore, that if the noble Viscount persists in moving the postponement we cannot support him.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, with the premises upon which the noble Lord on the cross-benches and the right rev. Prelate founded their arguments I do not for a moment desire to quarrel. It seemed to me that all that they said with regard to this clause was perfectly justified by the facts as we know them. The clause is vague and obscure in its language, and some of the explanations which have been given to us have been equally vague and obscure. There is, therefore, prima facie a good deal to be said for the postponement of the clause until such time as fuller information has been vouchsafed to the House upon a number of these controverted points. But, while I admit all that, I should like to suggest to your Lordships one or two considerations which seem to me to tell in the opposite direction.
  I think that the very fact that this clause is vague and obscure and that it has been explained in different ways makes it perhaps more desirable that we should lose no time in getting to close quarters with it, and in endeavouring to elicit from His Majesty's Government more specific statements than any which we have yet received. We may, I cannot help thinking, find it possible in the discussion which, if we proceed with the clause, will soon take place, to discover whether this clause is really intended to be what I may describe as a steam-roller clause,
  594
  whose object is to obliterate all but one single type of elementary schools in this country, or whether it is merely an affirmation, in general terms, that the whole of these schools are to be subject to popular control — a proposition with which I, for one, do not desire to quarrel —but that, subject to the exercise of that popular control, there are to remain in existence a number of various types of schools such as those which have been referred to by the noble Lord who spoke just now.
  I desire to take note, and I do so with satisfaction, of what I understood the noble Lord to say on that subject. I understood him to say that it was part of the principle of this Bill, and part of the proposals of His Majesty's Government, that there should still remain what he called schools of various patterns in this country. If that is clearly announced to us, and if we are to understand that our discussion is to be conducted on that assumption and that we shall not be ruled out of order hereafter because we have accepted this clause in the beginning, then I, for one, am ready to continue the debate. The Amendments which have been put upon the Paper by the most rev. Primate and by my noble friend Lord Heneage are likely to afford us an opportunity of raising many points which might with advantage be debated early in our discussion, and I feel strongly that any appearance of dilatory tactics on questions of this kind is, so far as this House is concerned, to be deprecated. It is also true that if the result of our debate should be unsatisfactory to us we shall have a right to recur to this clause at a later stage. Therefore, my Lords, we shall be relieved if the noble Lord and the right rev. Prelate do not ask us to divide upon this Amendment. We, however, should approach the discussion of the clause upon the clear understanding that our assent to it, whether with or without Amendment, leaves us with the retention of full freedom of debate upon the clauses which follow. I will only notice one other observation which fell from the noble Lord. He told us, I think, that we were familiar with the arguments which had been advanced and could be advanced with regard to the later clauses of the Bill. That is true, but only up to a certain point, for the noble Earl must

  595
  be aware that a great number of these clauses, and some of the most important of them, were never discussed at all in the House of Commons. If, therefore, it should be your Lordships' pleasure to allow the discussion of the clause to proceed, I should take part in that discussion upon the assumption, and upon the condition, that I for one did not in any way forfeit my full discretion of raising these points at a later stage.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKthat said if Clause 1 stood alone he should move to reject it altogether. But it was followed by other clauses which tripped it up and made its vagueness more obscure than its own phraseology. He thought they might accept the advice of the noble Marquess and allow Clause 1 to go forward on the condition that they retained their absolute right to deal with the clause on the Report stage. He and those who agreed with him could not accept the fundamental principle of this clause. How far it might be made acceptable was another point.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid that, speaking on behalf of a great number of persons all over the country, he assented to the proposal not to divide the Committee on the principle involved in Clause 1 but only on the distinct understanding that they should be able, by moving other clauses, to secure the existence of denominational schools throughout England, and see that justice was done to all the different denominations. They would not assent to the principle that there should be one class of school throughout the country from which religion should be excluded.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYpointed out that the question was not whether they would pass Clause 1, but whether they would proceed to consider it. As one who was opposed to dilatory tactics, he was prepared to go forward with Clause 1 on the clear understanding that they did not commit themselves as to their final action with regard to the subsequent clauses of the Bill as a whole.
  THE EARL OF MEATHsaid that, as a moderate Churchman, he had come down to the House determined to support the Amendment standing in the names of Lord Llandaff and of the right rev.
  596
  Prelate. He was, however, quite willing to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, but he thought the Committee ought to have some statement from His Majesty's Government that they accepted the noble Marquess's proposal.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): If your Lordships pass Clause 1 as it stands, or in a modified form, it will not in the least interfere with legitimate discussion upon any other clause.
  VISCOUNT LLANDAFFsaid that for his part he was prepared to accept Lord Lansdowne's proposal, subject to the conditions which the noble Marquess himself had expressed. They were asked in Clause 1 to say that there should be no school henceforward in this country except county council schools. That was a proposition to which he could not assent unless he was assured by clauses in the Bill, and not by vague statements or promises on the part of individuals, that this was only a flourish of trumpets and that what was really intended was that there should be schools of different kinds. He did not in the circumstances propose to move any of the Amendments standing in his name to Clause 1, but would wait until the other clauses had been dealt with and then move whatever Amendments he considered necessary on Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to amend the clause by substituting "1909" for "1908." He pointed out that the Commission which was to be appointed could not complete its work in a year. Moreover, unless the voluntary schools made an arrangement, they would be destroyed on 1st January, 1908, and the fixing of this date would be an invitation to a "pigheaded" local authority not to make an arrangement.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'eight, and insert the word 'nine.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Earl's Amendment is of a sweeping character, for he proposes to

  597
  postpone the operation of the whole of the first part of the Bill for twelve months.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: No, no. The noble Earl mistakes me. The Commission will be in operation, and they will be working during the whole of the year 1907. Therefore I am not postponing the operation of the Bill.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am very glad to have the noble Earl's explanation. I merely rose to say that, if the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment I shall be prepared to accept, in a some what modified form, the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of Lord Ridley. The proposition I should make would be to insert certain words after the word "eight" in Clause 1, but I am informed that it would not be possible, for technical reasons, to insert those words on this occasion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why not?
  *THE EARL, OF CREWE: I will read the words of the proposed Amendment, and then the noble Marquess will see the reason why it cannot be moved until the Report stage. The words I propose to insert after the word "eight" are—
  "Or, as respects the area of any particular local education authority, on and after such later date, not being later than the 1st day of July, 1908, as the Board of Education may appoint on the application of that authority."
  That gives an additional six months instead of a year as proposed by the noble Earl. The reason the Amendment cannot be moved on this occasion is that it would not be possible, after the Motion which has been made by the noble Lord, to move to insert "July" instead of the word "January."
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNexpressed the hope that the noble Earl, before he made up his mind as to the precise wording of the Amendment he was prepared to accept, would reconsider the matter. As the Bill now stood, and as he supposed it would stand when it became law, there had to be a very considerable amount of work done before the Commissioners could commence their labours. The local education authorities
  598
  in the counties and county boroughs had to take into consideration the circumstances of all the voluntary schools. They had to communicate with the trustees of those schools; they had to endeavour to arrange with them; and if they could not arrange, there was a provision for an appeal to the Board of Education. He thought it was absolutely impossible that all this could be got through in any county before the end of six months from the passing of the Act. Therefore six months of the year 1907 would in all probability elapse before the Commissioners could commence their work at all. How was it possible, then, that they could conclude their work, which might relate to thousands of schools, by the end of the year 1908? It was not a question of postponing the date merely on the application of a particular authority. What was really required was that the date should be postponed for the whole country so that time might be allowed for doing the work which it was necessary should be done under the Bill, and which he was quite sure His Majesty's Government desired should be properly done.
  LORD BURGHCLEREthought it would be better to give more elasticity by using the words for which a precedent would be found in the Act of 1902:—
  "This Act shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be the 26th day of March, 1903, or such other day, not being more than eighteen months later, as the Board of Education may appoint."
  He did not suggest to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council that he should give quite such a large limit as eighteen months, but he thought it would be better, in framing the Amendment, to give more elasticity than was proposed.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he was quite satisfied that something on the lines of what the Government proposed would work better than any general rule, as suggested by the noble Lord opposite. There were a great many negotiations to be entered into in some districts and very few in others, and any uniform rule would therefore be inadvisable and would not meet the various conditions. He thought the extension should be adapted to the needs of the locality. There was another

  599
  point. So long as the intermediate state existed the schools which had not become council schools would be working under the Act of 1902, and under that Act it was the duty of the managers to carry out all repairs necessary for the keeping of the school in good sanitary condition. With this Bill in the air managers of aided schools were not being compelled to carry out these improvements, but, if a long interval before transition took place, local authorities which were not very friendly to the aided schools would be much more ready to enforce their conditions as to structural repairs.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the allowance of such time as would be necessary would be far more likely to lead to a workable arrangement. What was required was an elastic period. It was impossible to say how long it would be before the arrangements could be come to. He thought the matter should be left in the discretion of the Board of Education.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEYsaid he would consider the effect of the Government's suggestion before moving the Amendment of which he had given notice and to which the noble Earl the Lord President had referred.
  *LORD AMPTHILLasked whether it would not be well to decide what the Bill was to be before discussing when it should come into operation. He regarded the question of the date as a purely administrative one, and advised its postponement to a later stage.
  LORD GRIMTHORPEsaid that if their Lordships would look at Clause 11. they would see that there was a provision that when a schoolhouse was taken over by the local education authority temporarily without an arrangement having been made, the religious instruction in the school was to remain of the same character as that previously given, and the teachers would go on imparting it. There would be no change in the arrangements in the school in the meantime. As to the point that the Commissioners might not have concluded their labours in the time stated, he quoted Clause 10,
  600
  sub-section (6), which provided that His Majesty might, by Order in Council, continue the powers of the Commissioners for such further period as His Majesty thought fit. This to some extent met the objection raised.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYurged that the date should be further postponed in view of the large number of schools to be dealt with. There were 8,000 Church of England schools and only 200 legal days in the year, and it had been pointed out in the House of Commons that, on an average of one school being taken per day, it would take forty years to cover the whole of the 8,000 schools. He desired to know on what basis the Government had proceeded in fixing the date. In the event of a large number of schools not having been dealt with by the extended time, what was to happen? Mr. Birrell had stated that in that case fresh legislation would be required. But why should not that question be dealt with at the present time?
  *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE)said the object of the Government at the time the Bill was introduced was, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case, to choose such a period as would seem reasonable to those who had had experience of carrying out the complicated class of questions which, undoubtedly would arise when this Bill was placed on the Statute Book. He could assure his noble friend Viscount St. Aldwyn that he fully appreciated the necessity of not driving local authorities too hard in regard to the matter of time. The noble Viscount knew from his experience, as many noble Lords did, how very complicated the questions were which arose in regard to the transfer of trusts, buildings, and other matters of that kind, especially when a local authority and a body of private persons were brought into contact, with an appeal either to a Commission or to the Board of Education as the case might be.
  The Government had borne those considerations in mind, but he was quite willing to grant that the circumstances had slightly altered since the Bill was.

  601
  introduced. When the Bill was first brought in—and a reference to the debates in the House of Commons would corroborate this—it was assumed that there was a reasonable chance of its being placed on the Statute Book in the course of the ordinary session; that was to say, that it would have been on the Statute Book by now. But here they were, or the 29th of October, discussing the Bill in Committee. Therefore, it was quite clear that a large portion of the time which the Government desired to give to the local authorities to make arrangements had been lost through circumstances over which they had no control. That period was from the passing of the Act till 1st January, 1907. His noble friend the Lord President of the Council had voluntarily come forward and acknowledged the fact, and proposed to add a period corresponding on the whole to that which would have been lost by effluxion of time to the period named in the first clause, after which no school was to be recognised as a matter of principle unless it was a provided school.
  As the Bill stood now, the periods were as follow. From the 1st of January, 1907, to the 31st December 1908, the power continued to make arrangements as distinct from schemes. During that period the local education authority, however, might also apply to the Commission for a scheme, and naturally those cases which were plain and simple would come into line first. The more difficult ones, where arrangements might be found impossible, would no doubt go on being discussed for some time, and eventually the local education authority would take them to the Commission for a final decision if necessary. If no arrangement was made, therefore, before the 31st December, 1908, the local education authority went before the Commission, and the Commission had power to make a scheme as distinct from an arrangement. But there was nothing whatever to prevent an arrangement being discussed and registered as distinct from a scheme made by the Commission. The powers of the Commission naturally expired on the 31st December, 1908. but, as his noble friend behind him had pointed out, there was an actual power in Clause 10 to prolong
  602
  the existence of the Commission. He mentioned this in answer to the question put by the noble Marquess opposite. The Government would take advantage of the power in Clause 10 to prolong the existence of the Commission if necessary.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY.— What about the schools in the meantime?
  *LORD FITZMAURICEwas surprised that the question was asked, as the position of the schools and their temporary use in the event of the prolongation of the Commission's powers was clearly dealt with in Clause 11.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid the noble Lord had not answered Lord Salisbury's question. As he understood it, the Commission would not begin work in contested cases until the 1st of January, 1908, but, if every school was to become a provided school on that date, what would be the position of a denominational school which had become a provided school, and yet had not settled its future, but had to go before the Commission? That seemed to him to be an important point which would not be met by the extension proposed by the noble Earl the Lord President.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the noble Viscount is in error in one respect. The Commission begins its work, not on the 1st of January, 1908, but on the 1st of January 1907.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: There is to be a year preliminary to the work of the Commission, during which the local authorities and owners of the schools are to negotiate.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: No. The noble Viscount is in error. The two things go on together. The plan as adumbrated by my right hon. friend in the other House was this, that from the passing of the Bill, which he hoped would be in September, to the 1st of January next, bargains might be matured between the two parties; that during 1907 bargains might go on being matured, but the Commission would be at work dealing with such cases as it could. If cases cannot be considered in the time mentioned in the Bill, it is possible for

  603
  the King in Council to prolong the labours of the Commission. Therefore, the the only difference between the state of things now and the state of things which existed when the matter was discussed in another place is that the preliminary period for bargaining, which was to be up to the 1st January next, is curtailed by the fact that we are still considering the Bill. It is in consideration of that fact that we are offering six months more during which the process of bargaining can go on.
  LORD ASHBOURNEwould prefer to see the words proposed by the Government in print. It was his impression that they were not adequate, as they would make the extension of time conditional on the application of the local education authority. He suggested that "the owner or any party interested" should also have the power of application.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I can understand that it is not easy for noble Lords opposite to grasp the full meaning and intention of a rather complicated sentence once read across the Table, and although I think it would be quite possible to put the clause into a form which would get over the difficulty which my noble friend behind me suggested, I am quite willing to postpone the consideration of the whole of this matter until the Report stage. At the same time I wish to say we are in full accord with my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, that it is not a desirable thing in itself to make this period of negotiation and settlement longer than is necessary. We feel very strongly that it would be of no assistance to either party. We do not believe it would be any advantage to the voluntary schools to have the period indefinitely extended, and, therefore, we shall try to get the whole business put down for settlement at as early a date as we can, subject to the considerations I have already mentioned.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I should like to ask the noble Earl, before this discussion closes, whether there is any serious objection to the form of words which has been put on the Paper by the noble Viscount, Lord Llandaff, and by the noble Lord behind me, Vis-
  604
  count Ridley. We are all agreed that the clause will not do as it stands. The noble Earl makes a proposal which is evidently most considerately intended, but which we understand would give an extension of six months. In our view, what is really needed is that the period should not be stereotyped, that it should not be a fixed period of general application, but that there should be in it an element of general elasticity which would enable the Board of Education, in consultation with the local education authority, to give a reasonable extension where the local circumstances called for an extension.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: The real difference between my noble friend behind me and Lord Ridley is simply this. Lord Ridley's Amendment is entirely indefinite and fixes no limit to the period during which the uncertain state of things may be continued. What my noble friend the Lord President of the Council desires is to have a period——
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It leaves it to the Board of Education.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: It leaves it to the Board of Education to fix the period and not to the Act of Parliament. We say let the Board of Education have the power to extend the period from the time laid down in the Bill, but let a time be fixed beyond which the Board of Education cannot extend it. It is surely not desirable to keep up this uncertain state of things for a long time. The sooner these things are settled and brought to a conclusion the better. We admit that the period fixed in the Bill must, through circumstances already described, be extended. We offer an extension of six months. The noble Lord opposite proposes that the Board of Education should have the power of extension for an indefinite period. I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that, after the discusion which has arisen, it would be better to let this matter rest until the Report stage. On that stage you will have the proposals of the Government in the form in which you may deliberately consider them.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYacquiesced in the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and said that in his opinion nothing would be lost by postponing the discussion on this point.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he would withdraw his Amendment, but he desired to call the attention of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council to the fact that by far the greater number of speakers had expressed themselves in favour of an elastic period. Therefore, if the noble Earl merely proposed to fix the 1st of July instead of the 1st of January it was extremely doubtful whether that would prove acceptable to the House. He thought the words in the Amendment standing in the name of Viscount Ridley—
  "Or such later date as the Board of Education shall appoint in any district"
  dealt with the matter in a more satisfactory way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD EMLY LORD EMLY moved an Amendment limiting the operation of the Clause to "any school area in which there is but one public elementary school." He said that perhaps the best way to introduce this Amendment was by quoting some words from the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. The noble Earl said—
  "In this clause, to put it briefly, the object which we believe we effect is to place an undenominational school within the reach of every child whose parent desires him to attend one and by so doing we remove one principal grievance of which the Nonconformist churches have complained. That is one half, at any rate, of what is known as the Nonconformist grievance. It is admitted, I believe, by almost everybody."
  It was because they admitted this grievance that he proposed this Amendment. They were perfectly ready to respect the Nonconformist conscience, but they required that the Nonconformists should respect their conscience. It was during the course of the same debate that the noble Earl said—
  "I am almost tempted to wish that for once in a way the two Houses could have sat together on this subject in joint session. I feel that the debates which would then have followed would.
  606
  have not merely been exceedingly instructive but also very possibly somewhat exciting!"
  At all events, with this pious wish of the Lord President of the Council he was in complete accord. In their Lordships' House His Majesty's Government cooed as an enamoured turtle dove. They recognised to a great extent the claims which the Church of England had put forward. They almost shed tears at being so cruelly misunderstood. They sympathised with Roman Catholics; they patted the Jew on the back; they lisped so prettily about the prayers they had learned at their mothers' knees. But apparently the same climatic conditions did not prevail in another place. The voice of the turtle dove was no longer to be heard. The wooing was another sort of wooing. It was the wooing of the buffeted waves by a mid-winter north-wester. It was an undisguised attack, interlarded with meanness and threats, with sneers and jeers on the State Church and the clergy. It was, in some quarters at all events, a not thirdly-veiled demonstration even against Christianity.
  Not so long ago a great nation, and a nation still in the first blush of resplendent youth, a rising sun where West met East, despatched a Commission to study what particular form of religion was best suited to meet the requirements of their people. As he listened in another place he thought that that Commission had resumed its suspended sittings. When Lord R. Cecil taunted His Majesty's Government with wantonly turning the clergy out of the schools, did His Majesty's Government indignantly deny this accusation? Not they. From the Ministerial Benches rang out a lusty chorus of "hear, hear." The Christian people of England would never forget Catholic France, would never forget the language of the President of the Board of Trade, "Clericalism is the enemy." The President of the Board of Trade had by his wild hurtling words caused deep pain to millions of French Catholics. Allied by ties of blood to French Catholics he (Lord Emily) claimed the indulgence of their Lordships whilst in their name he gave feeble expression to their just indignation. Let him first

  607
  give one bit of advice to the President of the Board of Trade. The entente cordiale would not suffer by British Ministers refraining from noisy meddlings with purely French politics.
  "Clericalism is the enemy." It was the war cry of the Revolution, that time of desolation when a nation was being scourged by God and Hell was let loose, and murder and rapine brazenly stalked through the land and bubbling cataracts of blood poured into the streets from off the quivering guillotines. Later on it was the war cry of Gambetta. To the present day it was the war cry of infidelity in France, of atheism and of materialism. Nor was this all. The President of the Board of Trade had gone out of his way to gloat over the spoliation of the Church in France, the sacking of the monasteries and of the convents, the closing of the churches, the indignities to which the priests were subjected, the lease of the churches to impious adventurers, and the secularisation of the schools.
  But though the words of the President of the Board of Trade were uncalled for, injudicious and hurtful, and his reasoning narrow-minded and false in the very highest degree, still when he went to France for a parallel to the struggle into which, unfortunately, it would appear that we were about to drift in this country his instinct was right. There was a parallel awful and convincing to those who had eyes to see—but he had missed it. The tactics presently pursued by a certain reckless section of politicians in this country were the same as achieved such a dire result in France. It was the same literature distributed broad cast here that spread the rot there. It was the same doctrine inculcated here that was inculcated there.. The marionettes were being pulled by the same strings here as there. When we listened to, or read, certain speeches, when we perused certain literature we wondered, we thought we had already read, somewhere, something to that effect. So we had. It was a rehash from Condorcet, from Diderot, from Jean Jacques Rousseau; and when the President of the Board of Trade shouted "Clericalism is the enemy" he was shouting as the Revolution shouted, as Gambetta shouted, as the
  608
  Commune shouted the day they murdered the hostages—the Archbishop and the other priests. What hostages? The hostages to indifference to religion, to State catechisms, to secularism. When the Secretary of State for India wrote—
  "The disadvantages and inconveniences of legal interference with parental freedom are more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages and inconveniences arising from a parent's abuse of this freedom to the detriment of other people,"
  he was only a plagiarist. It was mere music piracy from his illustrious masters Robespierre and Danton. Did they doubt it? Robespierre said—
  "It is the right of the State to educate her children."
  Danton said—
  "The children belong to the Republic before they belong to their parents ‥‥ What matters to us the wish of the individual as against the wish of the State."
  When we glanced over this clause we remembered that in France the Assembly edited the catechism. A stringent law enacted that schools were to be closed where teachers presumed to teach any other religion. Even the Assembly recognised the existence of a Supreme Being.
  *LORD AMPTHILL, rising to a point of order, asked whether it was right for the noble Lord to make a speech that was entirely irrelevant to his Amendment. He should be reluctant to move that the noble Lord be no longer heard, but he did hope the noble Lord would confine his remarks to the Amendment.
  LORD EMLYsaid he would certainly confine himself to the Amendment; but he understood distinctly when they were discussing whether Clause I should be postponed that they were at perfect liberty. He would content himself, then, with moving his Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, after the word 'eight,'" to insert the words 'in any school area in which there is but one public elementary school.'"—(Lord Emly.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not consider me discourteous if I address myself to his Amendment. The Amendment standing

  609
  in his name on the Paper proposes to confine the operation of this Bill to what are somewhat vaguely talked of as single school areas. But I am afraid the words in which it is couched do not effect that object. There is, for instance, no definition of a school area, and, as his Amendment stands, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say to what schools the provisions would apply. What my noble friend undoubtedly wishes is to confine the operation of the Bill to school areas where there is no alternative school for a child to attend. But I am afraid the words on the Paper would not carry out the object he has in view. On the general merits, I am bound to say that we could not agree to any Amendment which would practically have the effect of striking out of the Bill all the urban schools in England, and no doubt a good many others.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD HENEAGE LORD HENEAGE moved to add at the end of the clause the following proviso—
  "And unless some portion of the school hours of every day is set apart for the purposes of religious instruction."
  He disclaimed any political or sectarian object in moving his Amendment, and reminded their Lordships that he voted against the Second Reading of the Act of 1902. He therefore approached this subject with a perfectly free and unbiassed mind as regarded that Act. He wished at the outset to associate himself with the searching criticisms of Clause 1 which were so eloquently made by Lord Goschen on the previous Thursday. Like the most rev. Primate, he (Lord Heneage) did not look upon this religious question as a Church question, but as a great national question—namely, whether this country was to remain a Christian nation.
  Naturally, as a Churchman he desired as far as possible, with due regard to the really conscientious scruples of others, the teaching of the Church of England in all schools. That would be, in his mind, an ideal solution, and Lord Ampt-hill had adumbrated that policy as practised in Germany in his Amendments; but he feared it was no longer practical. They must remember that they had had thirty-five years or more of
  610
  education since the Act of 1870, and he therefore wished to acknowledge accomplished facts. He desired under the present Bill, if it became an Act, to secure for all children some religious instruction within schools hours, aid if possible by the teachers themselves. Under Clause 1 voluntary or non-provided schools would cease to exist, and there was no provision at all for religious instruction, either definite or undenominational, whilst it was clear from other portions of the Bill that religious instruction was not to be given in school hours; nor need children attend it nor the teachers give such instruction. In the case of denominational teaching the teachers were expressly forbidden even if willing to give it.
  Mr. Birrell had described the Bill as an undenominational Bill, but it was not so; it was an anti-denominational and secular Bill. The Bill was simply a collection of clauses to abolish voluntary and Church schools, and it came before their Lordships without any Parliamentary credentials or authority, and in direct opposition to Ministerial speeches and of the vote against a secular Bill in the House of Commons. If the Bill had been framed on the speeches of Ministers in the other House, however objectionable it might be to some of them, it still would be a fair and reasonable measure. But those speeches had never been translated into clauses in the Bill. Perhaps owing to circumstances over which he had no control, and owing to the Bill being debated under the Closure, Mr. Birrell had not been able to give effect to some of those promises which he had intended to fulfil, and he hoped their Lordships would endeavour to put those promises into effect. In his (Mr. Birrell's) April speech there was a memorable passage in which he urged the importance of the preservation of idealism—
  "in a prosaic age and among a somewhat prosaic people. 'Where no vision is the people perisheth.' Our people have been accustomed to look for such scanty glimpses as they have obtained of the Heavenly Vision in the pages of the Bible."
  At that time Mr. Birrell must have been in favour of some religious education in the schools. On the Third Reading, again, Mr. Birrell made an

  611
  earnest appeal to the Labour Members not to associate themselves with secularism in education. He said—
  "I would venture to say to gentlemen below the gangway if they say, 'Think only of the child '—Yes, but what is the child, whence came it, whither goes it? Conscience, sin, immortality, are you going to drive all these things out of the ordinary curriculum of the school life? Are you going to leave these things as if they were of no account? 'Were this House disposed to do so, which by an overwhelming majority it showed it would not, the parents of the children would not let you do it, nor would the children themselves, at all events for a good many generations to come.''
  He (the noble Lord) could not imagine two stronger speeches in favour of religious instruction. He believed that the parents would not have secular teaching without proper religious instruction, and it was absurd for the President of the Board of Trade to rail against their Lordships' House because they desired to carry out the wishes of the parents. Why had not the Government carried out the declared wish of the House of Commons by a majority of about 470 to 60 in favour of religious education and against secular education only?
  Clause 1 was a destructive, not a constructive, clause. It destroyed all denominational teaching, but did not even substitute undenominational teaching. He asked their Lordships for one moment to take a retrospective view of this question. From 1870, for over thirty years, the education of this country was under the entire control either of school boards or voluntary school managers, and religious education was given and acknowledged as part of our system of education in both schools and was willingly taught by school teachers. The school boards were directly elected ad hoc by the parents. Under the Act of 1902 school boards were transferred to the county and borough councils and called provided schools, and voluntary schools were renamed non-provided schools under special conditions. Under that Act the local authorities took over all the duties, responsibilities, and obligations of both the school boards and the managers, but they had taken different views of their duties in regard to religious education. Some local education authorities
  612
  in the counties and boroughs had excellent syllabuses, others had very indifferent syllabuses, and some none at all. Even in the same county, as, for instance, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, they differed largely; and it was now necessary that it should be clearly laid down and enacted that proper religious instruction should be given in all schools in school hours.
  His noble friend the Lord President of the Council had expressed regret at the fact that Nonconformist divines were not represented in their Lordships' House, and the most rev. Primate had expressed the same view. He (Lord Heneage) heartily wished that there were some representative Wesleyan divines in their Lordships' House to speak for themselves. But in their absence he would quote from the report of the Joint Committee of the Wesleyan Conference in July last. Sub-section 3 was as follows—
  "The simple Biblical instruction to be provided in the schools should be given by the teachers within school hours by means of a syllabus to be prepared by the local education authority under the conditions of the Cowper-Temple clause, and should be subject to a conscience clause."
  And in a Nonconformist manifesto directly afterwards they asked the Press to be permitted to state that—
  "We regard instruction in Biblical truth as an essential factor in the education of the young; and while we deprecate the use of any religious Catechism or of any distinctively denominational formulary, we hold strongly that the Bible should be taught as an authentic and authoritative record of fact and truth, and that instruction given in Holy Scripture should lot be inconsistent with the Apostles' Creed, which represents the general consent of Christendom in the fundamental facts of the Christian religion."
  He could not see any difficulty in the Board of Education framing a model syllabus with the assistance of experts of the Christian denominations or on the basis of the best existing syllabuses. The Grimsby syllabus, which was one of the best, was framed by a sub-committee of the school board, consisting of the chairman, who was a popular Congregationalist, the late Vicar of Grimsby, and the Roman Catholic priest. There was no doubt that all Christian parents of all denominations desired religious teaching for their children as part of the

  613
  recognised system of education in the school hours, and by the teachers, if possible.
  In the House of Commons two-thirds of the whole House had voted in favour of definite religious instruction against only sixty who voted for secular teaching, without distinction of politics or religious creeds. At the Wesleyan Conference at Nottingham in July last, the Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, in proposing resolutions after the Report, said that he—
  "rejoiced that Parliament had refused to sanction the principle of secularism."
  Then why did not the Government give effect to this vote? Dr. Pope had recorded his satisfaction that the—
  "Education Bill provides for the continuance of simple Biblical instruction in elementary schools."
  He did not know where it was in the Bill, but Dr. Pope clearly believed and hoped it was there. The venerable Dr. Rigg, the nestor of the Conference, said—
  "This is the most critical and perhaps most favourable and perhaps most dangerous crisis in the life of England, and the burden of it rests upon Christian educators and education."
  Mr. Middlemore, of Leeds, was anxious that they should—
  "recognise the conscientious views of those who differed from them, and said there was in the North of England a strong tendency towards secularism amongst those who were disgusted with the controversies amongst the denominations."
  Mr. Perks, though he tried to drag the political red-herring across the discussion, was not very successful, and seemed more concerned about the six types of schools in the Bill than about any practical Amendments by their Lordships.
  He apologised for detaining their Lordships with so many quotations, but he hoped they would recognise their great authority at this moment when certain political dissenters affected to speak for the whole body of Protestant Nonconformity. The result of adopting his Amendments to other clauses of the Bill as it stood would be to carry out Mr. Birrel's own principles, and, whilst in undenominational schools the religious teaching of the syllabus would be given every day within school hours,
  614
  in schools in which facilities were given under Clause 2 there would be two days of denominational and three days of undenominational religious teaching each week.
  He had endeavoured to show that this was neither a denominational nor a Church question. It was a question of whether or not the poorer children of a Christian country should be properly educated in the simple truths of the Christian religion. He had shown that when the parents had the power and elected the school boards, under their influence religious teaching was given, whilst even under the control of the county councils it had also very generally been given. He had therefore shown "that Christian Protestant Nonconformists no less than Churchmen and Roman Catholics desired that religious instruction should be given by the teachers and within school hours. It was to his mind most essential that the religious teaching should be given within school hours, and, if possible, by the teachers, and that the register should be marked at 9 o'clock. If not, there would be neither discipline nor punctuality, and children would stay away. Children must not be allowed to consider religious teaching of no, or even secondary, importance, or parents to become indifferent to it.
  If he had dealt with this Amendment from the broader aspect of securing some Christian religious teaching in all schools rather than from the point of view of more definite religious instruction, it was because he knew the strong feeling on this point amongst the Christian Nonconformists and especially the Protestant Wesleyans in Lincolnshire. He had lived all his life, for over forty years, in the county which was the home of John Wesley. He knew the religious honesty of the Wesleyans and the sacrifices they made for their chapels and Sunday schools, and he had never known any religious difficulty there. The Amendment was now in their Lordships' hands. It was for them to decide, under a divine Providence, whether our old country should remain in the future as in the past one of the leading Christian countries of the world, or whether, under this Bill in its present

  615
  shape, the children now and the manhood and womanhood of future generations should gradually drift into secularism, socialism, and atheism.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and unless some portion of the school hours of every day is set apart for the purposes of religious instruction.'"—(Lord Heneage.)
  *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,who had given notice of the following Amendment, viz.—
  "In page 1, line 10, after the word 'authority,' to insert the words 'and unless religious instruction is provided therein either by persons making use of facilities granted under this Act or by the local education authority for every child attending the school who is not withdrawn from such instruction,'"
  —said that the Amendment which stood in his name did not differ in fundamental principle from the Amendment which the noble Lord had just moved. He preferred the wording of his own Amendment, but he should not make the difference between the two Amendments a matter of controversy. He ventured to hope the Amendment would be accepted by the Government, and that it might go forth with the unanimous approval ol the Committee. He was glad it should have been moved by Lord Heneage rather than by himself, because he thought it was eminently desirable that it should be obvious that this was not an ecclesiastical matter—that it did not come from ecclesiastics, whether they were bishops or other clergy, but that it came from the sense of a Christian people as to what they wanted.
  The subject-matter of the Amendment was vital. Its acceptance was a matter of importance. The Amendment seemed to him to accord with almost all that the foremost spokesmen on behalf of the Government, either in Parliament or outside of it, had said as to their wishes in pressing this legislation on the country. Again and again they had been assured that care was being taken that this should be a Bill which had a religious element, if not a religious basis, and that there was nothing of a secularist tendency in it. He found it difficult to give full weight to those assurances. He found in the Bill provisions that religious educa-
  616
  tion when given should be given outside school hours; that apart from the question of conscience, which he would be the first to respect, the teacher need not give religious instruction, and that the children need not attend it. It seemed to him, therefore, that in a sense the Bill was a secularising Bill, which gave an inferior place to religious teaching as compared with other instruction. That was why he desired that they should put in the forefront of the Bill a declaration that they meant the contrary.
  He wanted it to be clear at the outset that the Bill should include within its range this question of the giving of religious instruction. There was no word in this Amendment to interfere with the conscientious scruples of parents who desired to withdraw their children, and in the Amendment which he had himself placed upon the Paper he had specially provided that it applied only to children who were not withdrawn from religious instruction. He was thankful to know that in pressing forward this great and sacred cause they had the support of leading Nonconformist ministers, whose opinions were entitled to the highest respect, and of some of the foremost lay Nonconformist spokesmen.
  He had purposely abstained from putting any details into his Amendment as to what the religious education should be. He wanted a single declaration to stand in the forefront of the Bill in the very plainest terms, that there should be religious instruction in the large and general sense of the word. He hoped that under the Bill as it would leave their Lordships' House it would be rendered possible that religious instruction of both sorts might be given in the elementary schools.
  He had tried to anticipate what objection could reasonably be raised to this. It might be said that they should trust the local authorities. He yielded to no one in his readiness to trust the local education authorities throughout England for the most part. But could there be any doubt that it was only with a certain reserve that they could speak of that trust as a universal thing? The Return for which he moved a few months

  617
  ago, and which was furnished in a most valuable and clear shape by the Education Department, showed that there were some important boroughs and great populations in which, as a matter of plain fact, little children were growing up in council schools without religious instruction. It was only an exceedingly small minority of local education authorities who did not provide for religious education; but if they took the number of children in schools in which no religious instruction was given and the number of children in schools in which the religious instruction if given was not examined and was often most inadequate, they would find that wholly apart from the use of the conscience clause, tens of thousands of children were growing up without adequate religious instruction in the elementary schools which they were compelled to attend. In face of that plain fact, he wished the religious character of the Bill to be set forth on its very forefront.
  An argument used not infrequently by the Minister for Education was thas the local education authority was much more likely to do what they wanted them to do if they did not "order." It seemed to him to be a miserable imputation upon the character for independence and thoughtfulness of the local education authorities to say that they would be debarred from doing what they otherwise would have done, simply because the country and Parliament had declared that it ought to be done. It might be said that the administrative difficulty "would be exceedingly great, and that it would be undesirable to lay down any such rule unless it could be enforced. To this he replied that there were in our educational legislation many matters upon which rules were laid down without there actually being the means of enforcing their observance.
  Such additional words as had been suggested would serve as a declaration of principle besides giving a useful direction to the authority as to what should be the natural course of their action, it was not proved that such a rule could not be enforced, and even if it were proved it would not be conclusive against the proposal. The Cowper-Temple clause in the Act of 1870 declared that there should not be any religious formularies of a dis-
  618
  tinctive kind taught to the children, and it might have been said that that was difficult to enforce, but in the main the Cowper Temple clause had been obeyed because it was known that such was the will of the nation as expressed in Parliament. This Amendment presented an almost exact analogy. The Code annually issued by the Board of Education had for the year the force of an Act, and it contained a great number of things extremely difficult to enforce. The last code set forth in quite admirable words full directions as to the moral and ethical teaching which ought to be given; was this to be enforced by mandamus ? Without dwelling on the difference in the words, he earnestly hoped the Committee would accept either the Amendment proposed by Lord Heneage, or that of which he had given notice.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsupported the Amendment, preferring it to that standing in the name of the Archbishop, because it appeared to him from the generality of its language to be more germane to the principle of the clause and because it contained the words "some portion of the school hours of every day." Without these words the authority would not have sufficient direction. On the other hand, he would prefer that the first clause should not contain an explicit reference to the local authority as a religious body. As to the necessity of the Amendment as a whole, it was said that few authorities would fail to provide sufficient instruction. But would that always be the case? There could be no doubt that the fact of denominational schools standing by the side of board schools had had an influence upon the religious teaching given in the latter.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, this, as your Lordships will all agree, is by far the most important Amendment with which we have yet had to deal, making, as it does, not merely a considerable alteration in the Bill, but also a considerable alteration in the law, as it exists at the present time. I entirely agree with what fell from my noble friend opposite—and it is a satisfaction to me in dealing with this first important Amendment that it should be so—that this Amendment as it stands on the Paper

  619
  does not raise those vexed questions as between Church and dissent that are likely, I am afraid, to be raised by some of the other Amendments on the Paper.
  As this Amendment stands, your Lordships will see that all that it does is to make the provision of what is called the Cowper-Temple religion, that is to say, religious instruction not inconsistent with Clause 14 of the Act of 1870, compulsory in the council schools. That is practically its own operation. I do not for a moment deny that the proposition has an attraction for many persons. It is not a party question. It would have an attraction, I have no doubt, if it could be carried out, for many Liberals and Nonconformists just as it might have for many Conservatives and Churchmen; but I think it is only reasonable to add that there must be a considerable body of persons to whom it is not attractive, but very much the reverse. We have been told, in the course of this controversy, that we are trying to force a form of State religion on the people. The name of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education has been made the subject of many small pleasantries in this connection. In view of things that have been said, and in view of things which were said yesterday no further off than in Trafalgar Square, I confess I am surprised that the proposition should be considered one which your Lordships and all members of the Church of England are likely to accept. We are told that that form of religion is rejected by many members of the Church of England, and now we are given to understand that by this declaration it is to become universal in all the council schools and that the declaration is one which the Church of England is expected to welcome.
  LORD HENEAGE: I did not specify any particular kind of religion in my Amendment. It is open for us to deal with that question when we come to other clauses. I only declare that there must be some definite religion.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I am not talking of what the noble Lord'sintentions may be. He may mean subsequently to vote for the abolition of the Cowper-Temple religion. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord's Amendment does
  620
  not specify any kind of religion. As it was first put on the Paper it specified Christian religion, but there is now nothing whatever to prevent its being the Mohammedan or Buddhist religion, provided that it does not contain the catechism or formularies distinctive of any creed. I come to the objections which were anticipated by the most rev. Primate in his speech in. favour of the Amendment. But before I do that I may say that the whole question turns on what the quantity and quality of this religious instruction is to be. The most rev. Primate says nothing as to its quantity, but my noble friend opposite does. He says it is to be given every day. By the most rev. Primate's Amendment it need only be given perhaps once a year. But, what is a much more important question, what is the quality of this religious instruction to be? What is the definition of religious instruction?
  If noble Lords will look through the syllabuses in the Return mentioned by the most rev. Primate, I imagine that the ideas of many would be entirely different as to which syllabuses gave what could be called religious instruction and which did not. I want to know, further, how is that quality to be estimated, and, as the most rev. Primate said, how are you going to enforce that it shall be given at all? What would the process be? Some kind of teaching which the most rev. Primate would not probably admit to be religious instruction, such as simple reading of the Bible, singing of hymns, and the offering of one or two simple prayers, is thought by some people not to be religious instruction. What steps are they going to take? The most rev. Primate spoke of inspection. He says nothing about inspection in any of his Amendments that I have seen, and if he is going to alter the law by making the religious instruction subject to inspection by officers of the Board of Education, he is effecting a change of which he has given no indication in his Amendments.
  The most rev. Primate in his speech threw out the hint about inspecting this instruction as though it would be the simplest thing in the world. What I want to know is, what would actually happen in cases where there was a doubt as to the efficiency of the religious

  621
  instruction? There is no accepted definition, so far as I know, of the term. If these Amendments are carried, are persons who are aggrieved by what they consider disobedience to the law to appeal to the Board of Education to decide what religious instruction is? Or are they going to the Courts of the country, by applying for a mandamus, to ask the Courts of justice to define what religious teaching really is? It they are to go to the Board of Education, it must end in the Board of Education having to do what my noble friend opposite has refrained from asking them to do—namely, to set a standard of religious instruction. Even if they do not publish a syllabus, they must have a private minimum syllabus, and they must see that the religious instruction given in a particular school comes up to that syllabus. That is a work which the Board of Education could not and would not undertake.
  The plan would have this further grave disadvantage, that those who managed the schools in the country would never know that the Board of Education might not alter its standard at any particular time according to the views of the particular Minister for Education for the time being. The Board of Education syllabus would be the syllabus of the Minister for Education of the day, and it might easily happen that at some future time a Minister for Education might hold entirely different ideas as to what the minimum of religious instruction ought to be, and he might refuse to admit syllabuses which, for instance, under the present régime at that office might pass muster. And equally I cannot contemplate with satisfaction cases of this kind coming before the Courts of the country. It seems to me it would be a most undesirable thing for a Court of law to have to decide what religious instruction is under the terms of an Act such as this.
  Then the most rev. Primate spoke of the question of putting compulsion on local authorities, and he seemed to indicate that it was unfair to suppose that local authorities would behave like schoolboys and be driven to object to a thing because they were ordered to do it. That is surely not quite the point. The point is that if, in those comparatively few cases where the local authorities prefer that their schools should be run on secular, or on nearly
  622
  secular lines, you impose a syllabus or a system of religious instruction which they would not have instituted or organised on their own initiative, you are giving a strong impulse to the ideas which those authorities hold. I cannot conceive anything which would be more likely to lead to a spread of secularism in this country than if those who hold those views are able to hold them in the name of religious liberty; and that is to my mind what the effect would be of forcing upon reluctant authorities the command which you lay upon them by this Amendment. What would be the actual result? They might have to give the teaching. It would be given grudgingly; it would certainly be given badly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: It would be given badly because it would be given without any enthusiasm. No care whatever would be taken to see that the teacher was in any way competent to give it, and it would have the effect, as I believe, of rousing on behalf of broad, or what are generally known as secular, views, a kind of religious enthusiasm which does not distinguish them at the present moment. In conclusion, I merely wish to call attention to an observation made by my noble friend Lord Heneage. He stated that various Ministers had made speeches, and that those speeches differed in substance from the Bill. If, said he, the Bill and the speeches could only be brought into harmony, the Bill, though he would strongly object to it, would be a fair and reasonable one.
  LORD HENEAGE: I said that though I might object to some portions of it, it might be made a fair and reasonable Bill.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: Of course if the noble Lord says he did not say so I withdraw. I was merely anxious to call the noble Lord's attention to his statement in order that he might withdraw it himself, because I felt it would be altogether impossible for him strongly to object to anything which he considered reasonable and fair.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient that I should at this stage say, in a few words, how the two Amendments before the Committee strike some of my noble friends who sit near me. In the first plate, I have to say that of the two Amendments we prefer that placed on the Paper by my noble friend Lord Heneage, not because we differ from the most rev. Primate, to whose speech we listened with much pleasure, but on account of the extreme simplicity and directness of the language of my noble friend's Amendment. Simple as its language is, it seems to have been imperfectly apprehended by the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council. I will venture to read the clause as it will stand with my noble friend's Amendment—
  "On and after the 1st day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eight, a school shall not be recognised as a public elementary school unless it is a. school provided by the local education authority, and unless some portion of the school hours of every day is set a part for the purposes of religious instruction."
  That is all. It is a simple affirmation that it is desirable that in all these schools, which are henceforth to be of a single type, some portion of the school hours shall be set apart for religious instruction. Not that any particular kind of religious instruction should be given, but that the children should have so far as the time-table is concerned, the opportunity of receiving religious instruction. The noble Earl suggested that the clause involved compulsory Cowper-Temple teaching in all schools.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: No, in such existing council schools as do not now give it.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But even that is not said in the Amendment. All that the Amendment says is that there shall be an opportunity given, to every child in the school to obtain religious instruction.
  *THE EARL OF GREWE: I was speaking of what the actual effect upon the schools of the Amendment would be if carried.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Then the noble Earl went on to entangle us by conjuring up difficulties in connec-
  624
  tion with the machinery which might have to be set in motion in order to give effect to the noble Lord's Amendment. The old terrors of the mandamus were again paraded in order to intimidate us, and we had suggestions of the different views which might be taken by different Ministers for Education in regard to the syllabus. We are ready to discuss all these things at the proper time, but they do not arise under the Amendment of my noble friend.
  We have been told constantly that the great principle of this Bill is the maintenance of public control over these public elementary schools, and I have ventured to say that we do not dispute that proposition. I am not quite sure, however, that we all of us interpret the words "public control"' in exactly the same fashion. May I tell the noble Earl what in my view is the best expression of public control in this connection? It seems to me that then and then only do you have public control in the truest sense of the term when the opinion of the majority of the parents of the children is allowed to prevail in reference to this question of religious instruction, and when at the same time you make considerate and liberal provision for the wants of the minority. We intend to support this Amendment because we think it lays, as it were. a kind of foundation upon which the structure of that popular control can be built up when we come to the subsequent clauses of the Bill. That is our idea of public control.
  I am afraid the noble Earl's idea of public control is something very different. I think when he and his friends talk to us about public control, what they have in their minds is that you should submit all these things to the despotic jurisdiction of a provincial bureaucracy, which may be entirely out of touch with the real state of feeling in the particular locality with which it has to deal, and allow that bureaucracy to impose upon the schools within that locality a system under which, if the local education authority so choose, every chink and every cranny may be closed against the entrance of religious instruction. We want to render that impossible. We want this Bill to be so framed that there shall at any rate be an opportunity for giving religious instruction to the children.

  625
  I should like to ask noble Lords opposite, to whom shall we do violence by carrying this Amendment? Not to the parents of the children, because we know that whatever happens the parent will always be free, on conscientious grounds, to withdraw his child from the school. Not to the local education authority, for the, local education authority can, if it is perverse and desires to defeat the intention of the law, step aside and allow facilities to be given in lieu of the education which it might afford itself. Nor, again, is there any violence done by this amendment to the feelings of the teachers, who, we are all agreed, should not be compelled to give any kind of religious instruction of which they conscientiously disapprove. Now, my Lords, who really desires that these opportunities for religious instruction should be altogether withheld from the children of those schools? Not the Minister for Education. His speeches have been often quoted. I will not quote him at length, but here is one passage which seems to me so pregnant that I cannot resist reading it to the House. Speaking on the third reading of the Bill, Mr. Birrell said—
  "It has been the main object and the passionate desire of this Government to do what it can, to secure throughout this country, as an ordinary rule and principle of our school life, that religious education should be given. Nothing has shaken my mind since first I began to think night and day on this subject, that the best way of doing that is to make undenominational teaching of the kind authorised by the Act of 1870, which has behind it the experience of thirty-six years, the ordinary rule of the schools."
  All that this Amendment does is to suggest that there should be sufficient opportunity for enforcing that ordinary rule. Nor is the Amendment contrary to the opinion of the representatives of the people in the House of Commons, because we have been reminded already by the most rev. Primate of the emphatic expression of opinion against secular education which was lately given when this Bill was in Committee in another place. And the same thing is true of the leaders of Nonconformist opinion in this country. Their views have been quoted, and I will not repeat them; but it would be easy to multiply quotations showing that the opinion of the leading Nonconformists is
  626
  strong and solid against the exclusion of religious teaching from the curriculum of the schools. Then, my Lords, with regard to the Act of 1870 and the Cowper-Temple clause. We are told that this is an invasion of the settlement of 1870, and an encroachment upon the Cowper-Temple clause. But it is not we who are uprooting the settlement of 1870; it is noble Lords opposite and their friends.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: 1902.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: The Act of 1902 followed the example of the Act of 1870 in preserving the existence side by side of two types of school —the voluntary and the provided. It is noble Lords opposite and their friends who for the first time propose to substitute for those two types of school a single type, perhaps not absolutely uniform, but a single type from which many of the characteristics of the old voluntary schools will entirely disappear; and, therefore, I am not in the least deterred by arguments based on the sanctity of the settlement of 1870 and the Cowper-Temple clause. If we are to have, as we are told we shall have, a single type of school, we say, Let there be at any rate this one characteristic running through the whole of the schools of that type, that they shall keep the door open for religious instruction. The noble Earl opposite conjured up many difficulties arising out of the action of reluctant local authorities. I venture to express my agreement with what was said by the most rev. Primate. I have yet to learn that the local authorities will fly in the teeth, not only of an Act of Parliament, but of public opinion declared as it has been again and again upon this subject.
  Those are, stated very simply, the reasons which induce us to regard with favour the Amendment of my noble friend behind me, and all I can say is that if noble Lords opposite deny us this concession, for which we ask in the name of religious instruction, their attitude will be somewhat difficult to defend before the judgment of the country. The people of this country will not have been slow to notice the constantly repeated professions of His Majesty's Ministers in favour of the admission of

  627
  religious instruction. This Amendment is a test of the sincerity of noble Lords opposite and their friends. If they are unwilling to concede to us what my noble friend asks for, we shall then know what amount of confidence to repose in their frequently reiterated professions that religious instruction ought to be an essential and inseparable part of the education of our children.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I have very few observations to make in answer to the speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down. In the year 1870 the provided schools of this country were placed under the control of education authorities, in whom was vested a discretion whether any, and if so, what, religious instruction should be given, subject to certain definite restrictions of the Cowper-Temple clause; that is to say, during the last thirty-six years the schools of the country have been carried on without any declaration of the character suggested by the Amendment being contained in any Act of Parliament. The results have not been unsatisfactory. On the contrary, I understood from the most rev. Primate that he was gratified at the general results, although he — and I think with truth—pointed out that there might have been exceptional cases here and there in which religious education was withheld or only a stunted form of it given.
  Then came the Act of 1902, in which the whole of this subject was reconsidered. I will not do the noble Marquess opposite the injustice of suspecting him and his friends of the insincerity which he rather imputes to us; but I would ask, if noble Lords opposite were animated by so strong a sense of the injustice of allowing the schools to remain without the declaration that there should be religious instruction in them, why did they not propose an Amendment similar to this in the Act of 1902. Of course, the real difficulty is that although you may put in the declaration that there shall be religious instruction in the schools, if you only keep the words general enough and wide enough—and I observe that my noble friend Lord
  628
  Heneage plumes himself on the extreme generality of his expression—you can lay down the most noble maxim upon which you can pride yourselves, without any obligation attaching to it. That is exactly the case of the Amendment now before your Lordships.
  The Amendment leaves every solitary difficulty unsettled. It is a flag and nothing else. We are not told who is to decide what the religious education is to be or what the creed is to be, whether it is to be left to the discretion of the local authority or whether it is to depend on the desire of the parents or the wishes of the Minister for Education of the day. Nor does the Amendment tell us how the education is to be imparted, whether by teachers or by ministers of religion. And how are you going to settle the difficulties, so familiar, of having only one schoolroom and four or five different creeds to be taught? In the action we are taking there is nothing inconsistent with the sincerity of my right hon. and learned friend Mr. Birrell. We are not refusing this Amendment because we think it is a departure from anything that Mr. Birrell or any other Minister has said. We are refusing it solely because it is not business. We are being asked to assent to a perfectly general and vague statement of a maxim against which I have not a word to say; but I do want to know what it is that it would commit me to before I vote upon it.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid the answer to the noble Lord was one of the greatest simplicity. The broad principle of the Amendment was that education to be worth anything must be religious. How the religious instruction was to be given, by whom, under what conditions, were points not touched by the Amendment. What they desired was that religion should be an integral part of the education of the country. The noble Lord had asked why the noble Marquess had not put down such an Amendment to the Act of 1902; the answer was that the circumstances had not arisen which made it necessary. But under the present Bill religious education was outside school hours; no teacher need give it, and no child need attend. This Amendment would not in the least preclude such a

  629
  subsequent Amendment as that which was moved by Mr. Chamberlain in the other House, by which the State was to supply the secular part of education and to assist the different denominations to teach their children what they insisted on being taught.
  THE MARQUESS or LONDON-DERRYsaid he would not have risen but for the remarks of the Lord Chancellor with regard to the Act of 1902, for which he (Lord Londonderry) was largely responsible. That Act did not in any way touch the board school system, and consequently he was at a loss to know what sort of Amendment the noble and learned Lord would have had the noble Marquess introduce. Their object in the Act of 1902 was to relieve voluntary schools of an intolerable strain and give them the justice to which they were entitled.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that is a perfectly just observation. My criticism was that if this was such a wrong thing to allow to continue, why was it not amended then.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid the Lord Chancellor had expressed confidence in the local authorities, but there were local authorities and local authorities, and they could not discriminate between them when legislating. Local authorities would not all act in the same spirit; in Wales, for example, there were local authorities which gave no religious instruction at all. In Cardiganshire, out of seventy provided schools no religious instruction was given in sixty; in Carmarthenshire, out of 104 schools religious instruction was only given in sixty-nine; while in Pembroke-shire there were eleven schools giving no religious instruction at all. Would noble Lords opposite tell him that they approved of that system? In view of the fact that it was quite possible under the Bill for schools to be turned into secular schools, he maintained that it was the bounden duty of their Lordships to support the Amendment, which was framed in no bigoted and narrow spirit.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPONsaid that this was a question on which it would
  630
  be very undesirable to take a hasty vote. For his own part, he could not help feeling that the Amendment involved a very deep and important issue, and he was somewhat dismayed to find that the Government did not seem to have any inclination to accept it. As he read the Amendment there was nothing in it that sinned in the direction of a sectarian tendency, nor had he discovered in it the slightest indication of political animus. The Amendment dealt with one simple and imperative principle. It asked that in all schools recognised as public elementary schools religious education should be provided, and the more they reflected upon it and the more they allowed the natural instincts of liberal thought to be brought to bear upon it, the more it would commend itself to their minds and feelings.
  The objections which had been raised had been based mainly on the fact that, as the Lord Chancellor had said, although it might be a very innocent and innocuous maxim which everybody would be willing to accept, yet from the view of practical statesmanship it was not business. He asked the attention of the Committee while he endeavoured to show that it was business. It was not a question merely of a maxim to be studied at large and which, because it was large, was to be declared incapable of practical application. The Amendment, so far from having no element of business, ought to be regarded as being full of business, because they had been told that there were a few educational authorities or county councils in the country which had not provided religious teaching at all. He regarded both Houses of Parliament, not merely as places where legislation should be initiated, but as being entrusted with the protection of the liberties of the subject, and therefore as being always open to the appeal that the weak should be protected against the strong. It was unquestionably the case that in those instances in which religious teaching had not been provided the defect, as he ventured to call it, had not been in harmony with the great consensus of opinion of the people of the country. It might be that by an accidental vote or through local circumstances a majority

  631
  had been obtained on the county council which had exercised its powers to the detriment of the inhabitants of the district concerned, and because those cases had existed he asserted that it was a matter of real business to appeal to members of their Lordships' House to take care that such protection was afforded to the minority as that these outrages upon the rights of parents should not be again perpetrated. If that was said to be not business, he was at a loss to know where business began, because in his view business began wherever any practical result would ensue.
  The Amendment was business from another important point of view, namely, of those who had not come down with a vehement desire to oppose everything brought forward by the Government. He might venture to claim for himself that throughout these discussions he had endeavoured to maintain an attitude of the strictest impartiality. He had earnestly wished that this great question, for it was a question of momentous issue, could be settled, not by the strife of extremes, but by the proper and due understanding of that central party of both sides which could arrive at a reasonable compromise. That being so, he asked their Lordships to notice that the Amendment provided a basis for the security of such a compromise, for if the Amendment were rejected then, seeing that the Bill destroyed all those schools in which distinctive religious teaching was given there would inevitably be provoked reaction which must mean what he, for one, would very much deplore— the victory of the extreme denominationalists or of the secularists. Therefore he would welcome any Amendment, and this Amendment in particular, which did form a basis of security for the reasonable compromise which he hoped would be the result of their discussion.
  Then he might quote his own personal point of view. To him education without religion was not really or completely education at all, and in making that affirmation he believed he was expressing the firm conviction of 80 or 90 per cent. of the people of the country. He could not look upon religion in any sense of the word as a kind of addition to the instruction given in
  632
  the schools. According to the first principles of the faith which he professed, the only life which human beings could possess in its fulness was the life in which a recognition of the Divine agency and Divine power took its real place; therefore if they put into the forefront, of this Bill an affirmation of their desire that that great principle should be recognised, and if at the very outset of their discussion they were ready to declare that that was a vital principle, they would have laid the foundation of a compromise, because they would have disarmed to a very large extent the hostility—call it sentimental if they pleased—of many who feared this Bill not because it was an Education Bill, but because it was a Bill in which that great principle which they believed lay at the root of their faiths, no matter how various they might be in denominational expression, was either ignored or set at naught. Hence it was a mistake to argue as if the Amendment were not a matter of business. It was a matter of business because it was protective of the weak and because it would afford a real basis for a reasonable compromise as the discussions went on.
  Even looked upon as a matter of sentiment, even supposing it were not a matter of business—which he was not prepared to admit—supposing for the sake of argument it were a matter of sentiment, it should be remembered that it was a sentiment which operated in the breasts of four-fifths of the people of this country, and he took it that it was one of the greatest mistakes on the part of any legislature to ignore the sentiment of the people in such a matter as this. As surely as they ignored a great sentiment, they created a great grievance. They had had examples of that times without number. They could recall cases in which agitation had gone on and the argument against the agitation was that it was merely a sentimental grievance. There was the case of the Burials Bill, when he stated that he was prepared to admit that it was a sentimental grievance, but that if they could remove it it was the way of common sense and the way of humanity to endeavour to do so. By and bye the Legislature did remove the grievance which was described as mere

  633
  sentiment. Were they prepared to say to-day, when the issue which lay before them was whether or not they should affirm that religion was to be a cardinal part of elementary instruction, that they would ignore the great sentiment of the country which declared religion to be an integral part of education, merely because it was sentiment? He would say that it was the height of folly to refuse to listen to such a sentiment.
  It had been said from the Government Benches that the proposal was quite harmless, that they were in agreement with the principle. If that were so and the Government granted that it was harmless, and seeing that it would meet the great sentiments of the vast majority of the people of the country, was there any settled reason at all why it should be refused? Were the Government under the idea that the Peers who supported the Amendment had some plot concealed in the words proposed? Personally, he believed that those who were supporting the Amendment simply desired that this great principle to which he had referred should receive real and definite affirmation at the hands of the Government, because they could not forego their belief that education must be bound up with religious instruction of some sort. Therefore they were present to support the Amendment, and for his own part he could not conceive on what ground of wisdom, policy, or statecraft it should be refused.
  He could quite understand that persons who by conviction were secularists in education should withstand this Amendment. By all means let those who were in favour of secular education say so, and they would be respected as speaking their convictions. But that was not the view of the people of this country; the secular idea had been rejected in another place. Over and over again throughout the length and breadth of the country the opponents of the Act of 1902 had declared that they did not wish to destroy religious teaching. Therefore it seemed to him almost incredible and also unwise that any responsible Government should decline to pass an Amendment innocent and in harmony with the sentiments of the
  634
  people such as this was. But whether the Government were pleased with this Amendment or not, the question had been raised and the House had to give an opinion. Would it look well to the religiously-minded people of this country that they should refuse to pass words that declared the one simple principle that religion was an integral part of education If they rejected the Amendment they would stand convicted of having refused to accept that which simply declared what its supporters believed to be the earnest hungering wish of the vast majority of the people of the country.
  He was jealous not only of his own earnest conviction that unless something practical was done for religious instruction in education they would have forfeited a great and noble opportunity, but also of the honour of their Lordships' House. What was the argument which had been adduced over and over again on behalf of local authorities? It was that the local authorities could be trusted because they had consciences in this matter. By what conceivable line of argument were they going to convince the people of this country that Huddersfield and Richmond had consciences in this matter, but that the House of Lords had not? They had a conscience in this matter. It was not merely because the population outside believed in religious education that he was supporting this Amendment, but because he believed in it himself with a deep-rooted conviction, so that whenever an Education Bill might be produced, from whichever side of politics it might come, if it ignored religion or stood for secularism, he would oppose it even though he stood alone. Because he was jealous that they should affirm what the people of the country expected them to affirm, because he was jealous that they should recognise that they had a conscience in this matter and that it was their duty to protect the people against the possibility of secularism, therefore he appealed to their Lordships not unwisely or hastily to reject an Amendment which was in perfect harmony with the sentiments of not merely one religious denomination but of all. It was a matter in which every religious body was interested, and all that

  635
  the Amendment affirmed was not that there should be any supremacy, not that one sect or denomination should get an advantage over another, but that there should be an opportunity for religious teaching whether for the Jew or the Roman Catholic, or the Established Churchman, or the Free Churchman, in the schools of the country. The vagueness of the Resolution commended it to his mind, because it covered the width and liberal scope of that view.
  *THE EARL OF CREWEpointed out that it was not a Resolution, but an Amendment, which was a very different matter.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPONsaid he was not careful for the Amendment in particular, but he was careful for the affirmation of the principle. If the Government would give a guarantee that a Resolution affirming the principle should be brought before the House, he would be quite willing that the Amendment should be withdrawn. He was standing for the principle, not for the form, and if he received an assurance that the principle would be affirmed, whether by Resolution or by Clause he cared not, he would be content to leave the matter so far in their hands; but he stood for the honour and consistency of the Members of that House, for they were only affirming that simple faith in the living God, who in the prayers of their Lordships' House was declared to be the One by whom alone kings ruled and princes decreed justice.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYfelt very strongly that the Amendment was most objectionable both in form and in substance. It had been criticised on the ground of its impracticability and vagueness, and he objected to it on the ground that it would be a rash and bad step for Parliament once more to take up that which for years they had been trying to withdraw from, namely, the control and direction of spiritual affairs. He had marked the development of the views of the most rev. Primate since the introduction of the Bill. On the Second Reading he used words which seemed to indicate a wish that there should be universal religious teaching in school hours, but when, in commenting on that speech, he
  636
  (Lord Stanley) said that the words were capable of that construction, whereas probably all he desired was that if such instruction was given, it should be in school hours, the most rev. Primate nodded assent. But on Thursday last he went a step further and foreshadowed what seemed to be a desire to impose an obligation to give religious teaching. The most rev. Primate, like the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken, had treated it very much as a matter of indifference whether the proposal was carried as a Resolution in the nature of an exhortation or as an Amendment in the nature of an order. He could quite understand that right rev. Prelates, whose function was exhortation and preaching, might feel the great importance of weighty words of advice addressed from high bodies, but the churches had been in past ages and were still too apt, when they found exhortation insufficient, to fall back upon the secular arm, and what the Committee had before it on the present occasion was not a pious exhortation, but the calling in of the secular arm. On Thursday last, when speaking on the matter of religious teaching, the most rev. Primate said—
  "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 intended to have, a secularist character at all."
  To-day the most rev. Primate had spoken of his Amendment as a flag or manifesto rather than an operative proposal. In the earlier part of his speech he had intimated that he did not desire any coercive measure, but as he warmed to his work he had gradually begun to see the possibilities of making it coercive, because although the Amendment was couched in the most deliberately vague terms, yet as the most rev. Primate had said with perfect truth, if they put it into the Code as one of the necessary conditions for qualifying for a Parliamentary grant, it would be necessary for the inspector to go into the schools to see the time-table and satisfy himself that the instruction was given in accordance with the Code. The Leader of the Opposition, who had also spoken of the principle as being very general, had used significant language

  637
  to the effect that the Amendment might be taken as merely general for the moment, that it was quite vague, but that it could be followed up; it was to be a foundation which could be built upon by suitable Amendments in subsequent clauses of the Bill. Therefore, they were face to face with the first parallel of the besiegers. It was not to be a mere pious exhortation or excellent Resolution, but an operative provision. The Leader of the Opposition had not properly grappled with the point made by the President of the Council, who had pointed out with perfect justice, that if this teaching was to be given by the local education authorities in provided schools, it was clear, unless the Cowper-Temple clause were repealed, that it must be teaching in accordance with the Cowper-Temple clause. He could quite understand a person saying, accordance with the teaching of the late Dr. Hook—
  "Let the public authority be answerable only for the secular instruction, and leave the religious instruction to pious people of varying opinion to come in and teach those who desire it."
  That was a tenable position, but it was not the position before the Committee. When the people of Birmingham, under the influence of Mr. Chamberlain, had secular schools, they met the wishes of various religious bodies or a combination of religious bodies by placing the schools at their disposal on a certain day in the week for the volunteers to give religious instruction, but in order to satisfy the law they were obliged to make public elementary school begin on that day only at 9.30 instead of at 9 o'clock, so that it was merely a school house put at the disposal of volunteers outside school hours. If they put the teaching within school hours it must come under the Cowper-Temple clause. Cowper-Temple teaching was extremely popular throughout the country among Church people as well as dissenters. There was a time when the bench of bishops proclaimed that they would not put up with Cowper-Temple teaching, that it was intolerable. At one time he thought that under the leadership of the Bishop of Birmingham, and especially after the sermon of the Bishop of Stepney, that bench was gradually bringing itself to the logical position, and that it would declare for
  638
  impartial treatment and equality, and trust to the efforts of religious people to give religious instruction. But he supposed they saw that the current of general undenominational Protestantism was too strong for them, for now they were rallying to that general undenominational Protestantism, and they were going to enact for the first time that there should be an established religion in the schools, a religion which should be undenominational, which undoubtedly would be broadly Christian in a sense which would cover Unitarianism. It would be a big job for the House of Lords to propose to repeal the Cowper-Temple clause. They would have to do more than that. It they were going to let the inspector look at the time-table and put this into the Code they would have to repeal Clause 7, sub-section (3) of the Act of 1870, which enacted that it should be no part of the duties of an inspector to inquire into instruction on religious subjects. When they began to play with this question they would find it more serious than they thought; they would be setting up a new State Church, a church which would be undenominational, and they would involve themselves in controversy with reference to the repeal of an important section of the Act of 1870.
  Several speakers had spoken as if the Amendment gave effect to the dislike of the country of secular schools. He quite agreed that there was a majority of the effective voting force of the country against secular schools, but it was a great exaggeration to suppose that there was any violent attachment to any particular system of religious teaching. Nobody could say that when the Birmingham schools were secular they were a bit less popular or less frequented by the people who sought a good education. The attitude of the State since 1870 had been one of secularity towards teaching. Mr. Gladstone, whom none would ever accuse of being wanting in definite religious earnestness or conviction was a strong opponent of the State organisation of religion, and he considered that Dr. Hook had solved the question but that the country was not ripe to accept the solution. The other House earlier in the year was invited to order

  639
  secular schools, but it refused, being willing to remain in the impartial attitude which it has been the rule of the State to adopt ever since 1870, and to leave a discretion to the local authorities as to what should be done. But it was now proposed that they should take quite another line, and order religious teaching to be given. It was easy enough for people to say which way the great voice of the country was going. He would not undertake to prophesy, but he was quite content to judge the voice of the country with regard to this Amendment by what the House of Commons would say to it if it went back to them. That he thought would be a very good index of the voice of the country, and when that result came it would be seen whether the voice of the country was as unmistakable as noble Lords opposite seemed to think.
  What were the places where they had instruction either secular or so scantily religious that it might be almost considered as such? The case of Huddersfield had been repeatedly quoted, and on a previous occasion he had been able to show that according to the evidence of the police courts at Huddersfield, the great contributors to the industrial and reformatory schools were not those who came from the board schools, but from the schools where definite denominational teaching was given. Then there was the case of Wales. No one would doubt that the Welsh people as a whole were much more actively permeated by religious conviction and that religion filled a much larger space in their lives than was the case with the English working classes. Nobody could believe when they went to the manufacturing towns of England that the religious interest of the working people was not tenfold greater in Wales than in England. The members of the Commission on the Welsh Church at present sitting were amazed at the evidence showing how practically the whole adult population, whether Anglican or Nonconformist, were habitual communicants. That showed a state of mind as far removed as possible from ecclesiastical indifference or secularity, and yet it was pre-eminently in that part of the country that the people refused to have any systematic religious instruction in
  640
  their schools. Such a position was no evidence of want of religious belief, but they were going to order the Welsh people to have some sort of syllabus of religious instruction and, according to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, they were laying down a groundwork upon which an edifice was subsequently to be reared.
  He was a little surprised that Lord Halifax should have supported this Resolution, seeing that on Saturday last he was addressing the people from the backs of the lions in Trafalgar Square, accompanied by banners on one of which appeared the motto "Religious equality," while on another blazoned forth "No State Religion." He (Lord Stanley) was perfectly willing to march under both of those banners, and would be only too glad if Lord Halifax would march with him. If they had religious equality and no State religion they would have a state of things much healthier, much more progressive, and much more conducive to the true spirit of justice and piety, and all the good qualities which built up character, than the state of things which now existed with the present alliance of the spiritual and the secular. He quite agreed that if they came to the solution of removing from the municipal authorities the power of drawing up schemes of theology, many of which erred greatly on the side of excess and not of defect, and if they gave a reasonable hour within such time that the children would naturally be in the schools, and invited voluntary teachers who believed in religion to give the instruction, that would be a satisfactory solution; but any proposal which simply hinted at what should be done, without its proposers having the courage to do it, would never be operative. Possibly us the Committee went on the proposal would be made operative, but at present it was merely an expression of hope.
  In 1886–87 he sat under Lord Cross on a Commission dealing with this question, and when the Report was being considered it was urged by some that it would be well to insert a provision that the State should call upon all public elementary schools to include religious instruction.

  641
  He believed that for a moment there was an Amendment to that effect put into the Report, but on reflection it was seen how impolitic and useless it would be for the State to thrust upon a community like Birmingham, which was in favour of secular schools, obligations which the State could not effectively enforce. If they tried to force upon people that which they were not willing to do, that thing would become mechanical and artificial. To some religious instruction was different from Bible instruction. If a school determined that the Bible should be read, but that the teacher should not be permitted to draw theological lessons from it, leaving it to tell its own story, would that satisfy the Resolution or would the grant be withdrawn? He wished to put in a caveat against the plea of the right rev. Prelate who seemed to think that, because he was firmly convinced of the righteousness and propriety of some public action, it was quite right that he should call upon the State to enforce that action. In the time of the Stuarts that was what led to the people being fined for not going to church on Sunday. But we had outgrown that idea, but the right rev. Prelate apparently still thought it right.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPONsaid he really did not think it was possible that his words could be so misconceived. The noble Lord desired to draw an analogy between the principle he had advocated and the power to compel people to go to church on Sunday. He had simply asked for an opportunity of religious teaching on behalf of those who desired it.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid the right rev. Prelate desired to coerce the local authority. Of course two centuries had passed since the legislation to which he referred, and the right rev. Prelate had had to move with the age. No doubt the form of coercion which he proposed to apply was much milder than the Caroline Parliaments applied, but the spirit was the same.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON: I protest, my Lord.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid he could see the same spirit, perfectly well-meaning but perfectly mistaken, on the part of those whom he might call the secular fanatics or enthusiasts of the day. A great many people thought it so essential that temperance should be taught that the local authorities had ordered definite lessons in temperance to be given. It was their confidence in their good intentions which make people so regardless of the border line between right and wrong limits, and it was because of that, he especially regretted this Amendment. As far as the future went it would probably spread the cause of which he was in favour. But if it was carried and became the law of the land, he was sure it would be resented. Some noble Lords had spoken of the people being with them, but they seemed to forget that a great body of Nonconformists, who certainly had not been indifferent to religious considerations, felt so strongly the impropriety of the State's meddling with religious teaching that down to 1870 they would never accept any Parliamentary grants for their schools. Dr. Dale of Birmingham, who was not wanting in religious conviction, was one of the leaders of the day. By trying to drag the State into this alliance with the Church, they would make a great mistake, and would hasten the day of general disestablishment and probably of secular education.
  *LORD AMPTHILLsaid there was an aspect of the question which had not yet been touched upon, and to which he desired to invite their Lordships' serious attention. Had their Lordships considered whether it was appropriate to introduce a declaration of this principle, on which it was evident they were all agreed, into this particular clause Were there no other clauses in the Bill to which it could be applied? Noble Lords and right rev. Prelates had spoken as though their chance of asserting this principle of religious instruction began and ended with Clause 1. He could not hope to emulate the eloquence of some noble Lords in endeavouring to explain that which seemed to him to be a simple matter of business and ordinary procedure, but he hoped their Lordships would not be led away by impassioned exhortations on the one side or the other.

  643
  In this question there should be clear thinking, and it seemed to him that the Amendment was singularly inappropriate in this particular clause, and that there were better opportunities in the Bill for asserting as noble Lords so passionately desired to assert their honour, their conscience, and their sincerity. He had a particular reason for holding this view, as he himself had put down an Amendment to the first clause, but some friends of his had pointed out the disadvantage of inserting it in that particular place. On that account he was now endeavouring to explain to their Lordships why it was unnecessary, inexpedient, and unwise to introduce the principle they sought to affirm into the first clause.
  What was the first clause? It had been explained over and over again. It declared the main principle of the Bill. And what was that principle? It was a financial principle. The clause declared that no school should be supported out of public funds unless it was subject to popular control. Why should they mix up a religious principle with a financial principle? Why not give the honour of a separate place in the Bill to what the most rev. Primate had rightly called a large general principle, or at any rate why should they not assert it in other parts of the Bill in such a manner that it could be defined as to quality and quantity, and thus do away with that vagueness which had been so properly objected to by the Lord President of the Council
  He believed that noble Lords, in putting down Amendments to this first clause, had been unconsciously actuated by the example of the other House. But there were excellent and forcible reasons for moving Amendments to the first clause there. The Opposition and the country had not fully understood the intentions of the Government, and the object of the Amendments was to elicit a full declaration of principle. But no such reason existed at the present time. The intentions of the Government were fully known, and their Lordships had had the immense advantage, which was not enjoyed by Members of the other House when they debated the Bill, of having been able to watch, during the recess, the full development of public opinion on this matter
  644
  The first clause asserted the principle of popular control. He took it that that principle was no longer in controversy. On the Opposition side of the House there were many who believed that it had already been asserted by the Act of 1902. Then why not assert it at once and without seeming qualification? Why should they run the risk of provoking further misunderstanding in the country? Why should they not say at once to the country that they accepted unreservedly what was undoubtedly the mandate at the last general election— that where there was public expenditure there should be public control? He could not see that in doing so they would in any way prejudice their power or their right to amend other clauses in the Bill, and to assert in the fullest and most definite manner possible their view that the education of the country should be religious—that was to say, that religious instruction should form an essential part of the national education. He exhorted their Lordships to think well over this practical side of the question, and to consider whether they would be acting wisely in inserting this Amendment in the first clause. Since they were all agreed on the principle that education must necessarily include religious instruction, where would be the difficulty of asserting and defining that principle in other parts of the Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONwas anxious to state his reasons for supporting the first clause of the Bill as it stood. He believed they were present that night owing to the fact that His Majesty's Government were returned to power at the general election with a mandate, or whatever term might be used, to introduce amongst their very earliest measures an Education Bill, the first principle of which should be that all elementary schools should be under public control. It was a complement, or a necessary consequence, of the unfortunate Act of 1902. He said unfortunate, because he felt at the time, and he felt still, as a Churchman that that Bill did an irremediable harm to the Church schools, and he was absolutely certain that it would be necessary in good time—and the time had come more quickly than he had expected—that there

  645
  should be another Bill to sweep away the injustice inflicted by the measure of 1902.
  As a matter of fact, the first question brought before the country at the last general election was the education question. He spoke from experience, having taken part in any number of meetings, and that was the question on which he always spoke. [Cries of "Privilege!"] Of course he meant before the writs were issued, but he would be glad when the time came when their Lordships would be able to take part in elections after the issue of the writs. But this discussion of the education question was not a matter of the few weeks preceding the general election. Ever since the passing of the Act of 1902 every Liberal meeting which he had attended, and every Liberal speaker to whom he had listened, had always been concerned with this question of education. A great fuss had been made about certain other questions which might have been alluded to, although never by him personally; but education was the one dominant question which carried the people with it and decided the general election. The principal factor in those discussions was whether there should be complete public control over the nation's schools, and His Majesty's Government had brought forward the Bill to which they were pledged. If they had not put in the forefront of that measure the principle of popular control, he would have been standing up on the present occasion declaring that they had not fulfilled the pledges they had given to the country, and were not doing what their supporters had expected of them. Therefore he should support His Majesty's Government in the first clause as it stood.
  With regard to the Amendment, he was one of those who considered that no education of the children could be successful or satisfactory unless it was founded upon the teaching of the Christian religion. He was ready to fight against secularism, and to contend, as far as he could, against the movement in favour of all State teaching being only secular, and of all allusions to Christianity or to morality founded upon Christianity being excluded from the
  646
  schools. But having made that admission, he could not support the Amendment under discussion. It would be perfectly possible to introduce into an Education Bill a clause to enforce, he would not call it religious instruction, but Biblical instruction in the schools. He had the honour to move the Address to His Majesty at the beginning of the session, and in his remarks on that occasion, not knowing what His Majesty's Government were going to do, he expressed the opinion that there might be an Education Bill containing the principle of Biblical instruction in the schools. He was still of the same view. There were three classes of opinion with regard to religious education. There was in the first place the logical class, the secularists. Their contention was absolutely logical. The State must he undenominational and neutral, and their contention was that anything for which the State paid should also be undenominational and neutral. That was a logical argument, but at the same time he was hostile to it, and ready to fight against it. Then there were those who were in favour of denominational, of definite, religious teaching, and after all, whatever might be said as regarded the present Amendment, there was no one who had spoken in favour of religious education, particularly among the right rev. Prelates, who had not in his heart, and naturally so, a wish for denominational and definite religious teaching. The third class were those who considered it to be necessary to have Biblical or undenominational teaching in the schools. He belonged to that class. It seemed to him that they were at the beginning of a fight betwixt secularism and religion, and unless the two classes who represented religious teaching, denominational and undenominational, joined together and fought the other class, the result was absolutely certain—the secularists would win the battle. Therefore, at the beginning of the discussions on the Bill, he desired to express the view that unless they came to terms, and agreed among themselves, they would lose the fight, with the result—possibly the logical result—that no religious teaching whatever would be given in the schools during school hours. If they could agree that there should be Biblical instruction,

  647
  he believed the vast majority of the people of the country would support them; but if they added to the first clause a provision that there must be religious instruction, without any definition as to what that religious instruction should be, he was perfectly certain that the strife between the denominationalists and the undenominationalists would only be accentuated, and would do irremediable harm to the cause of religious education.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKsaid they had all listened to the speech of the noble Marquess with the respect which his sincerity and earnestness commanded, and it was certainly not with any want of respect that he declared that even upon the principles of the noble Marquess himself he would draw the opposite conclusion. He would not detain their Lordships with any discussion of the principle of popular control, or with any dispute as to that principle. There was a form in which he would be quite ready to accept it. But surely the noble Lord would not wonder if they were a little anxious at the outset of this new departure in our educational system, to know clearly what was going to be the position of religious teaching under it. All would agree with the importance of the view taken by the noble Marquess when he pleaded with the forces of religion not to be divided, and, by conflicting one with another, give what to them was the enemy the advantage. But it was a strange moment to urge that plea, when the Amendment before the Committee offered in a singular degree to those who had religious instruction at heart an opportunity for united action.
  There was one element in public opinion which ran the risk of not being represented in their Lordships' House. They had heard a great deal of religion, and a great deal about religious opposition. People were very critical in that respect, saying, with some appearance of fairness, that religion was only the cause of strife. But their Lordships knew quite well that along with those things which divided religious men, there was a great force which united them, and that suggested the question whether in these debates, in the course of which different
  648
  forms of religion would be debated, and various opposing views pressed, they ought not to avail themselves of an opportunity of this kind for bringing out not a fictitious unity but a real unity. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Ampthill) had suggested that they might have found a better opportunity for affirming this principle. Even though that might be true in the abstract, he was doubtful about it, because when they came to details it would be much more difficult to do a thing of this kind. But the great issue was now before the Committee, and he suggested to the noble Lord that he should not allow a mere question of order to deprive the supporters of the Amendment of his co-operation.
  As to the propriety of this affirmation of principle, he welcomed the recent utterance of prominent Nonconformists, among whom were several personal friends of his own. While they could not help noticing certain omissions from the list of signatures, while they could see whom it did not represent as well as whom it did, they could not help recognising that the names carried with them a great force; and while the Legislature of a great country might certainly be too bold, or ill-guided, in its expression of convictions for the sake of expressing them, it might also err on the other side by withholding an expression of its opinion when that opinion, embodied in a law, would have a great effect upon the opinion and the action of the country. He therefore ventured very respectfully to ask His Majesty's Government whether the principle to which they were very much in the habit of appealing might really be applied here. The Government had often declared that they had a mandate upon this matter and upon that. They might be right but had they no mandate from the religious sense of the country to maintain religion in the schools? He believed they had, and if that were so, he hoped the Committee, by its decision on this Amendment would discharge that mandate. Lord Ampthill had stated that it was very essential to have clear thinking on this matter. That was important, because the issue now before the Committee was a tangled issue—more tangled than some speakers had admitted. It was very

  649
  important that they should not confuse opinion out of doors, or confuse even their own minds, upon the matter. Lord Stanley of Alderley, with his dexterity as a debater, had tried to pin the supporters of this Amendment to something which they had distinctly said they did not mean, and possibly one or two obiter dicta on the part of various speakers had given him a little assistance. Their view was that it was very desirable that they should make a declaration which would bring together the forces of religious opinion which, on other grounds and in other places, might act independently. It should not, however, be inferred from that that they were in any way pledging themselves to united action in giving effect to that declaration. Such united action would be impossible, and, from their point of view, undesirable.
  The most important issue in the mind of the country was between secularism and that treatment of religion which would give the fullest effect to the varieties of different men's consciences. He, and others sitting on the Episcopal Benches, would not vote for this declaration if they thought that they were thereby committing themselves to compulsory undenominationalism or compulsory Cowper-Temple teaching. They were clear in their thinking that if they passed this Amendment there would be the largest discretion on the part of the local authorities as to the way in which it should be given effect to. For example, some local authorities might perfectly well say: "We do not consider ourselves competent to give religion, or to dictate religion, or to draw up a syllabus; but the law requires that there should be religion in the schools, and therefore we will assign a time when it is to be given and open the doors to those who are ready to come in and teach it." He hoped they would always say that the teachers, if they conscientiously desired to do so, might aid in the work. Would anyone say that they had not then discharged the duty which Parliament had laid upon them? Or would anyone say that it was a new form of State religion?
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: In order to do that it would be necessary to repeal
  650
  the Cowper-Temple clause; it could not be done under this Amendment.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARKsaid that that was not a conclusion which would drive him to despair. It was part of his conviction in this matter that they were moving in that direction —a direction quite as much in the sense of liberty as that negative form of liberty which Lord Stanley of Alderley seemed to desire. He desired to make it quite clear that they were not committing themselves to any compulsory method for giving effect to this declaration, and that they believed it would be perfectly possible to allow the most liberal and various ways of interpreting it, in all of which they would rejoice, although many of them might not accord with their own personal convictions, because in that way they would get the maximum effect of the religious sense and the religious life of the nation.
  It had been said that most of those for whom he spoke in their hearts desired denominational teaching. That might be so, but they were perfectly aware that there were a large number of persons who might be called un-denominationalists, who desired un-denominationalism, or there might be a large residuum of children whom the denominations would not succeed in providing for; and he himself would be prepared that they should have un-denominationalism for those as one of the alternatives. Another way in which effect might be given to this Resolution in many places would, he believed, be that the local authority would say: "We have got to do this; we cannot do it ourselves; therefore we will see whether the religious people will not help us." And he believed that in certain places there would be what might be called an inter-denominational solution, under which men who were not altogether of one mind would be brought together to settle upon a common form which could he given along with more special facilities to those children for whom something of the kind was desired. He believed that even the strictest of the denominational schools would be ready to welcome something of that kind.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid it was only fair that he should preface his observations

  651
  by saying that personally he was in favour of the secular solution of the question. To his mind, the association of Church and State had always been harmful both to the Church and to the the State, and he would regret to see that association extended. He recognised perfectly clearly, however, that that was not the general sense of the country. The general feeling seemed to be in favour of some sort of religious instruction being given in the schools in which elementary education was carried on, and His Majesty's Government, in framing a workable measure, had had to bear that in mind.
  He desired to direct attention to the actual words of the Amendment, and to the speeches by which the Amendment had been supported. It would be seen that the speeches of the supporters of the Amendment had themselves, to a large extent, provided the best answer to it. The noble Viscount opposite (Lord Halifax) had stated that the Amendment was simplicity itself—that anyone could understand it—that it simply provided that religion should be combined with education. That entirely depended on what was meant by religion. Religion, to the mind of the noble Viscount, might convey something very different from what it would to many others in the House, and still more to the minds of others outside who had to do with elementary schools. The most rev. Primate had said that he wished the Amendment to be in the forefront of the Bill as a declaration. If it were a bare Resolution, an expression of opinion, a mere declaration that this House thought that some kind of religious instruction might conveniently be given in elementary schools, it would do no harm at all; it would interfere with nothing. But it was desired to put it into an Act of Parliament as a provision of the statute, and indeed as a condition, without which a school should not be an elementary school within the meaning of the Act. That was rather a different thing from a declaration, as it amounted to saying that a school had to have this religious instruction before it could be considered an elementary school. Parliament, in legislating, was hardly entitled to put a bald statement of that sort into an Act
  652
  of Parliament without intimating to the authorities who had to carry out the instruction what was intended by it. That difficulty was fully recognised by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, because he had stated that the Amendment was merely a foundation upon which a superstructure was to be reared. Was it not fair and reasonable that their Lordships, before being asked to proceed to divide on the Amendment, should have some indication from noble Lords opposite, either by Amendments on the Paper, or by speeches in the House, as to what that superstructure was to be—as to the kind of religious instruction which was to be imposed willy-nilly by the authority of Parliament upon the elementary schools?
  Apparently the catch-words of religious equality and religious liberty were used by which-ever Party wished for the moment to promote its views, without strict regard to the meaning of the words. Freedom in religion and equality in religion meant also freedom to have no religion at all. What was to be the condition of schools in Birmingham, or in a secularist centre like Leicester, where perhaps four-fifths of the parents objected to any kind of religion in the schools? If there was to be a four-fifths clause, and facilities were to be given them for denominational instruction, why was not that to apply to cases where four-fifths of the parents desired no religious instruction at all?
  He had listened with the greatest care to the speech of the most rev. Primate, in the hope of extracting exactly what the practical outcome of the Amendment was to be, but he had not succeeded in doing so. He perfectly understood that the most rev. Primate and others who had spoken from those Benches were perfectly earnest and sincere in the matter; they had a very strong feeling on religious instruction, and they knew perfectly well what they meant by saying that religious instruction should be associated with education in elementary schools. But he was not so sure that any feeling quite so single-minded had animated noble Lords opposite in their support of the Amendment. He was not sure that the Amendment had not been proposed and supported by

  653
  the official Opposition largely with the intention of going to the country afterwards and saying at meetings, and on platforms, and in other places, that His Majesty's Government had distinctly repudiated religion. He was not at all sure that that was not one of the objects with which this Amendment had been supported by noble Lords opposite. He thought, however, that the ground had been somewhat cut away from under their feet by the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Northampton) who had stated distinctly that he was opposed to the secularist programme, and had appealed to the forces of religion to unite. He feared that if this Amendment had not been fully discussed the statement might be made, and probably still would be made, that all that the Opposition had asked for was religious instruction, and that His Majesty's Government had refused it, because they were against religion and against religious instruction. It was perfectly obvious, however, that that was not the fact.
  This Amendment presumably was intended to mean something, and the Committee was entitled to know what it meant, beyond a mere so-called pious expression of opinion. What was to be the kind of religious instruction; how was it to be worked? He understood when the Bill was discussed in another place that there was a great outcry throughout the country about a State religion. It was said that a new State religion was being set up—an undenominational State religion. That was not strictly accurate. But if this Amendment was carried, and interpreted to mean undenominational religious teaching, then indeed their Lordships would have imposed upon schools, for the first time, a State religion—a religion which some official must inspect and report upon— because unless the elementary schools gave this religious instruction they were not to be considered as elementary schools, and could not be so classed for the purposes of attendance, of grant, and so on.
  The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, who had quoted from a speech of the Minister for Education, must have felt that that extract had carried him a little further than he wished, because it ended by
  654
  saying that the hope of His Majesty's Government was that the ordinary undenominational religious teaching which had existed in elementary schools should be continued. Was that what the noble Marquess meant when he supported this Amendment? If so, there was not much difference of opinion as to what was desired in practice between him and noble Lords behind the Government. But the noble Marquess must not quote the Minister for Education unless he was prepared to support the whole of what that right hon. Gentleman had stated. Mr. Birrell had never pledged himself to support compulsory religious education of varying characters, and he would be much interested to see, if their Lordships inserted this Amendment, how it was developed later on. If the Amendment was carried, he thought their Lordships would find some little difficulty in considering what to do with it; it would prove a rather troublesome subject to deal with when they had to define what they meant by the vague expressions contained in the Amendment. Their Lordships, who were now so willing to vote for a mere sentiment, a mere idea, a mere declaration, would find that they had landed themselves in a position of considerable embarrassment when they came to the actual practical details. It could not be too clearly stated that the Amendment as it stood practically meant nothing at all, and that His Majesty's Government, in opposing it, were clearly opposing it on purely administrative grounds.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid there was a singularly refreshing character about the speech of the noble Lord who had just spoken, inasmuch as he was the only one who had had the courage to announce that he was in favour of the secular solution. All the other noble Lords who had declared their intention of voting against the Amendment had been profuse in their assurances that they desired that some religious instruction should be given.
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: I devoted the greater part of my speech to explaining that I was not prepared to support the imposition of compulsory

  655
  religious teaching on local authorities, which is all that this Amendment does.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdid not quite admit the description just given of the Amendment, but he would deal with it later on. The great majority of the Committee agreed that religion ought to form a part of elementary education, and that was really all that this Amendment actually affirmed. It said that during a portion of every day the schools should be available for religious instruction. It said nothing more than that, and it said nothing less. Lord Ampthill had complained of the place at which the discussion had been raised. But surely the first clause was the natural and obvious place, inasmuch as it described the conditions which were to attach henceforth to every public elementary school.
  LORD FITZMAURICEthought the statement of the noble Marquess was somewhat inconsistent with what had been stated a moment ago. From the words he had just spoken it appeared that the Amendment was not a mere declaration, but a stern condition to be attached to all schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the clause was a description of the character which should attach to every public elementary school in the country, and the supporters of the Amendment held the view that the description was not complete, but that there was another condition which should be applied— namely, that some opportunity should be given for religious instruction, and therefore they desired to place it in Clause 1, because that was the only clause applying universally to every public elementary school. The Amendment did not in any way interfere with the principle of public control. The words of the clause which provided that every school should be subject to public control remained un-amended and untouched.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTONsaid he had never suggested that it did; what he said was that he supported the clause as it stood, because
  656
  it dealt solely with the question of public control.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he accepted at once the noble Lord's statement; he wished merely to say that the Amendment did not interfere in any way with the principle of public control. Neither did it impose religion upon anybody. The noble Earl who had just spoken seemed to think that they were imposing religion upon those who might be unwilling to receive it. But every parent was entitled to withdraw his child from religious instruction, and he would still have that privilege, if it was a privilege. Then Lord Stanley of Alderley had stated that they were trying to re-establish the religious tyranny of the Stuarts.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I did not say that.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, he did not quite say that, I admit.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I said you were 250 years the wiser.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He said at any rate that we were reverting to that condition of things— that we were moving in that direction.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Keeping up the traditions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he did not mind the precise form of words, but the noble Lord seemed to think that it was an exercise of great religious tyranny that they should enable every poor parent to have religion taught to his child if he wished, and that imposing a condition upon a public authority was the same thing as tyrannising over the conscience of an individual. It was the most prodigious misuse of language, if he might say so with all respect, of which anyone could be guilty. In those days King and Parliament did impose their religious views upon the individual, and in these days local authorities were in the habit, some of them, of imposing their religious views on individuals; and the supporters of this Amendment desired to stop that.

  657
  They desired that every individual should not be imposed upon in the matter of religion by the local authority, and it was with that intention that they asked the Committee to accept this Amendment. Neither were they going to establish Cowper-Templeism. The right rev. Prelate had so completely demolished that assertion that it was unnecessary for him to deal with it further. There was no reason at all why the religion given in these schools should necessarily be Cowper-Temple religion. All that the clause said was that an opportunity should be given for religious instruction.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: In school hours.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdid not know whether the noble Lord thought it was a law of the Medes and Persians, which could not be altered, that no religion could be given in school hours except Cowper-Temple religion.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: You must alter the law to do it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid they were now engaged in altering the law; this Bill did nothing else. Then the noble Lord had appealed to the feeling of the country, saying that it was to be interpreted by the views of the majority of the House of Commons. He personally desired to speak with every proper regard for the views of the majority of the House of Commons, but he thought it was really straining language to say that this detail of the education question was submitted to the country at the last general election. The old theory of the mandate, with which they were so familiar, had been appealed to by the Marquess of Northampton.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: As regards Clause 1 as it stands.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have not yet said what the noble Marquess stated.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: No; I thought it as well to put you right before you made any mistake.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Thank you. As a matter of fact, the country appeared to have decided a good many things, and to have given a great number of different mandates; but he ventured to say that it did not give any mandate to the Government to say that no opportunity was to be given in any school district for any child to receive the religious instruction which its parents desired. If the movement of public opinion in the country, since the introduction of the Bill, were studied, he believed that a very different conclusion would be come to from that held by the noble Marquess. No one could have watched the deep and profound feeling which had been excited by the Bill without being convinced that they were in the presence of a deep hostility to many parts of the measure. Petitions were somewhat looked down upon, and undoubtedly in certain cases they were open to criticism; but the figures in this case were so enormous as to be impressive. He believed that there were petitions containing upwards of 750,000 signatures against this Bill. That was a very large figure indeed, especially when it was remembered that it had been calculated that at one of the hardest fought contested elections of recent years not more than 250,000 persons attended public meetings, and that was when the country was supposed to be seething with excitement. And how many signatures had there been in its favour? He believed that to the petitions presented in favour of the Bill in another place there were in all not more than 179 signatures. That was the difference between the support in the county which the Bill had received and the support which had been given to its opponents. He did not envy the feelings of any Member of Parliament who went down to his constituency and said—
  "I have supported the Government on the Education Bill, in voting against a proposal that every poor child should have an opportunity of learning religion."
  He did not believe that such a course of action would be popular in any part of the country, and, as far as those for whom he spoke were concerned, they would vote most confidently, and without the slightest feeling of dismay, in favour of the Amendment before the Committee.
  *LORD BURGHCLEREsaid that as like their Lordships he had to give a responsible vote on this occasion, he desired to be quite certain as to what they were about to vote on, because the various speeches of the supporters of the Amendment had enabled them to form only a very hazy conception of the reasons in favour of the Amendment. The speech of the noble Marquess to which they had just listened did not seem to be on all fours with the speech of his Leader, and he would like to know whether the noble Marquess spoke for the official Opposition and the whole of his Party. The noble Marquess seemed to interpret the Amendment as giving a right of free entry to all the Cowper-Temple schools set up by the Act of 1870. The noble Marquess had stated that he was not in favour of Cowper-Templeism, but of certain hours being set aside for religious education in order that the form of religion—no doubt a denominational form—might be taught during that period. That, was an entire upsetting of the Act of 1870, and was not, as far as he understood, borne out by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. It was said by the supporters of the Amendment that they did not desire to compel the local authorities, or the children, in regard to religious instruction, inasmuch as there was a conscience clause. No doubt there was a real conscience clause in Clause 7 of the Bill before the House— he was not saying whether or not he supported it—which permitted parents to withdraw their children altogether from religious instruction in the schools. But he gathered that that clause would certainly be opposed by those who supported the views of the noble Marquess. [Cries of "No!"] He certainly understood that it was opposed in the other House, and he would watch the debates with interest when that portion of the Bill was reached by their Lordships. As far as the experience of rural districts went, the existing conscience clause under the Act of 1870 had not been an unlimited success. The reason it had not been put into force in many instances was perfectly clear. In a village with fifty or sixty children, if the parents withdrew their children from religious instruction they would be pointed at in the village, and stigmatised as schis-
  660
  matics, or agnostics, or have some such other name applied to them as the rural mind found it very difficult to understand, and still more difficult to endure. The conscience clause of 1870 as it stood did not really prevent this provision from being a compulsory provision.
  The Amendment would impose for the first time upon the people of this country a public test of their religious faith, and in his opinion the present was a very inopportune time to do so. It might have been opportune to promote a feeling for religious education some time ago, but since the Act of 1870 there had been an increased tendency in that direction. After 1870 the Birmingham League, and other similar associations, set their faces against religious instruction in the schools. Since that time many more schools had adopted religious instruction, and the vote in the other House showed that there was a strong feeling at present against secularism. If now for the first time they attempted to force the people of the country to accept religious instruction whether they wished it or not, they would probably hinder the very movement which the great majority of them desired to promote and largely stimulate the secular movement. He was as much in favour as right rev. Prelates of having religious instruction in the various schools, but he thought it would be very inopportune, and probably check the religious tendency he had pointed out, if they brought compulsion to bear upon the people and forced them to have religious instruction in the schools. A man's conscience was a very tender plant, which they should not put into a forcing house. If they did, they would subject it to an atmosphere which, while it might be exciting, would possibly be fatal to its future growth.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, you have intimated very clearly that you are anxious to bring this discussion to a close, but on behalf of His Majesty's Government it is my duty to make some observations upon this question. The question may be treated from two points of view, the theoretical or sentimental and the practical. The greater part of the discussion to which you have listened

  661
  has turned upon what I may call the sentimental point of view, which, I may frankly admit, makes a strong appeal to me. But, my Lords, we are not discussing an abstract resolution. Many of those who have spoken, the most rev. Primate amongst them, have talked about this proposal as if it were a declaration. The most rev. Primate calls it, I think, a flag, and the Bishop of Ripon seemed to care very little how it was worded provided the declaration was made. If we were in a public meeting, moving resolutions representing our special opinions, no course could be more natural, but we are at the present moment engaged in legislation, and the question to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is how you are going to carry out the vague proposals of this Amendment.
  The Amendment proposes to add a third condition to Clause 1, namely, that some portion of school hours of every day shall be set apart for the purposes of religious instruction. No words can by any possibility be more vague. You do not define what you mean by religious instruction. We have been told particularly that you do not mean Cowper-Temple instruction: therefore you must mean something else, but you do not tell us what it is. I should be very glad to have some clear explanation on that point. The fact is that unless you repeal the Cowper-Temple clause by this Bill, these council schools must inevitably if they give religious instruction, give it under Cowper-Temple conditions under the Act of 1870, which you do not propose to touch. Unless you can explain away that fact you are simply saying that there must be everywhere Cowper-Temple instruction.
  But it seems to meal most trifling with this serious subject to put into an Act of Parliament words so vague as these. How are you going to enforce your clause? I gather from many of the speeches which have been made to-night that after all you do not mean to enforce it, that it is meant merely as a declaration or a flag. Is that wise, or reasonable, or sound legislation? But if you mean to enforce this clause you mean that if a local body refuses to act upon this provision
  662
  you will proceed against it in a Court of law by mandamus. Any ratepayer, I suppose, could proceed by that method. Then you will leave it to a Court of law to decide what is religion instruction. This is not a question like the Cowper-Temple clause. The Cowper-Temple clause is a negative clause; it tolls you what you are not to do; it does not tell you what you are to do. This is a positive clause, and I venture to say with all respect that what the Courts will have to decide is, what is religious instruction? Being a great advocate of religious instruction and earnestly desiring that it should be extended as widely as possible, I do not wish to see it made the subject of a contest in Courts of law. That is not what we want. You will not obtain any advantages for religion or for religious instruction out of any provision of that kind. There are not many local bodies who do not give some kind of religious instruction—there are a few, but not many. But what is going to be done in a case like that of Huddersfield? There is certain instruction given there which has the outward appearance, at all events, of being religious. Are you to go to a Court of law and ask them to say whether that is religious instruction or not? I have the highest respect for Courts of law and the deepest reverence and alarm for lawyers, but at the same time, in the interests of religious instruction, I do not desire that questions of that kind should be dealt with in that way. It is not wise to insert in a definite Act of Parliament something which you have made as indefinite as you possibly can, something out of which you have taken even that which was definite in the original form of notice, and which has now been reduced to something which after all we are told is to be a mere declaration. You will do no good by making a declaration of that kind. You will not convince the people of this country who are determined to have religious instruction in the schools if you adopt something which they will feel ought not to be enforced before a Court of Jaw, but is merely set there as an abstract resolution which your Lordships on this occasion have seen fit to pass.

  663
  But the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition used language which was somewhat alarming. He seemed to speak of this Amendment as if it was to be the basis or foundation of something else. What is to be built on this foundation? What is the superstructure that you are going to erect upon it? You ask us to pass this vague resolution, committing you to nothing, and impossible, as I believe, to enforce, and at the same time with very great honesty you tell us that it is vague now, but that before the Bill leaves this House you intend to make it anything but vague. I cannot think that that is a wise course, or that it will really lead to respect for or the extension of religious instruction. My noble friend the Lord President said that it would stir up the advocates of secular education to strong and eager opposition. I believe that the only people likely to gain much from the proceedings before the Courts of law which would arise under this clause, if it were ever enforced, would be the secularists, and that you will not by this step really produce any effect beyond a vague declaration of opinion in your Lordship's House which is shared in its main sentiment, not only by those who will support the Amendment, but by those who are determined to oppose it.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURYdesired to protest as emphatically as he could against the statement that this was a vague resolution. It seemed to him that if the noble Lord ever addressed his countrymen upon the subject and was asked whether he understood the difference between a religious education and a secular education, he would have some difficulty in saying that he did not understand the distinction. Those who said that one object of this Amendment was to raise that question before the country were quite right. That was one of the objects and he believed it was one of the questions upon which the country would give no uncertain answer. They intended that what Parliament was about
  to enact should be subject to the condition that no child in the country should be made compulsorily to go to school unless an opportunity was given to it to have religious education. He thought that was a very simple proposition. Why could they not force compliance with that condition? The penalty was that if a school did not do that which Parliament had insisted upon its doing, and made a condition of its receiving public control and public rates, it should not receive them. Was there any difficulty in enforcing that? The noble Lord said it was difficult to say what was and what was not religious education. He should have thought there was not much difficulty about it; he thought the man in the street would understand it perfectly well. He quite agreed that it might be difficult to define a particular form of religion, but this Amendment avoided anything of the sort. It did not enforce the teaching of anything, but it did enforce the granting of the opportunity of being taught. His noble friend the Lord Chancellor spoke of the difficulty of enforcing this by reason of the vagueness of the language. But it was not unknown to the law to leave things to the ordinary common sense of mankind. If a contract was made to do something, and no particular form or time was put in, the law said it must be done in a reasonable way and in a reasonable time. Accordingly, if one of these local authorities refused to do that which the Legislature had asserted should be done, the default was manifest, and the penalties followed as a matter of course; they would not receive the support of the State. For his part, he was quite content to leave the proposition to the man in the street, and he hoped the division about to be taken would be in favour of a form of education which should give, at all events, an opportunity for religious teaching.
  On Question, "That these words be there added," their Lordships divided:— Contents, 256; Not-contents, 56.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Devonshire, D.

  Marlborough, D.

  Grafton, D

  Newcastle, D.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Leeds, D.

  Portland, D.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Barrymore, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Plymouth, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Powis, E.

  Biddulph, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Radnor, E.

  Blythswood, L;

  Wellington, D.

  Romney, E.

  Bolton, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Braye, L.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Bath, M.

  Scarborough,E.

  Burton, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Bute, M.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

  Camden, M.

  Stamford, E.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Hertford, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Linlithgow, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Colchester, L.

  Norman by, M.

  Westmeath, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Westmoreland, E.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Zetland, M.

  Wicklow, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Winchelsea and Nottingham, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Deramore, L.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Bridport, V.

  Digby, L.

  Bandon, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Cobham, V.

  Dunleath, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Brownlow, E.

  Cross, V.

  Emly, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Estcourt, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Faber, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Fairlie, L. (E.Glasgow.)

  Cathcart, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Cawdor, E.

  Hill, V.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Chichester, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Forester, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Coventry,E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Knutsford, V.

  Darnley, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Portman, V.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Denbigh, E.

  Ridley, V.

  Harlech, L.

  Devon, E.

  Harris, L.

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

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Hatherton, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Heneage, L.

  Drogheda, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Herries, L.

  Egerton, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Hindlip, L.

  Eldon, E.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Hothfield, L.

  Essex, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Hylton, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Durham, L. Bp.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

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

  Gainsborough, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Guilford, E.

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Kenyon, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Kesteven, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Peterborough, L. Bp.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Huntingdon, E.

  Ripon, L. Bp.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Jersey, E.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  Lichfield, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Leigh, L

  Lindsey, E.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  Londesborough, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Llangattock, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Ludlow, L.

  Mar, E.

  Addington, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Alington, L.

  Manners, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Masham, L.

  Morley, E.

  Alverstone, L.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Morton, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Mount Edgecumbe, E.

  Armstrong, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  Moncrieff, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Barnard, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  666

  667

  Mowbray, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Muncaster, L.

  Robertson, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Napier, L.

  Rosmead, L.

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

  North, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Tennyson, L.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Sandys, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

  Seaton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Ponsonby. L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Walsingham, L.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Wenlock, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Rathmore, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Ravensworth, L.

  Southampton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Ampthill, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Boston, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Brassey, L.

  Monson, L.

  Manchester, D.

  Burghclere, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Overtoun, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Reay, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Chesterfield, E.

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

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Craven, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Durham, E.

  Farrer, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Granville, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Shuttleworth, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Russell, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Temple, E.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Weardale, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Haversham, L.

  Welby, L.

  Headley, L.

  Winterstoke, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  House resumed, and to be again in Committee to-morrow.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.