Sitting of 11 July 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Kendal Corporation Bill [Lords]; Wisbech Water Bill [Lords]. —Head the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Devonport Corporation Bill [Lords]. — As amended, considered; A Clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Tees Valley Water (Consolidation) Bill [Lords]. —As amended considered; to be road the third time.
Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords] (by Order). —Order for consideration, as amended, read, and discharged—Bill recommitted to the former Committee in respect of the provisions relating to the superannuation fund.
Ordered, That the Committee have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.— (The Deputy Chairman.)
Dundee Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. —Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Portobello and Musselburgh Tramways (Levenhall Extension) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. —Read a second time; to be considered upon. Monday next.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J.)
Major SEELY reported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills; That the parties opposing the Renfrewshire Upper District (Eastwood and Mearns) "Water Bill had stated that the evidence of William H. Hill, of 194, Ingrain Street, Glasgow, was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said William H. Hill do attend the said Committee To-
34
morrow and on Monday 15th July, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Ordered, That William H. Hill do attend the Committee on Group J of Private Bills To-morrow and on Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]—Reported without Amendment. [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]; Oxford and District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Tees Conservancy (re-committed) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
Major SEELY reported from the Committee on group J of Private Bills; That Mr. Strauss, one of the members of the said Committee, was not present during the sitting of the Committee this day.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BROADSTAIRS AND ST. PETER'S URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL [LORDS].
Report [9th July] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill to be read a second time. —(The Deputy Chairman.)

PETITIONS.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN, CATTLE, AND CROPS.)
  Petition from Preston Patrick, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Fife, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Harlesden and other places; and, Peckham and other places; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1906. Part II. Civil Statistics [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (TEXTILE FACTORIES).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Textile Factories Labour Committee appointed by the Government of India, December, 1906, to inquire into the Conditions of Factory Labour in India, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of Tables which have been prepared in connection with the Question of Old-age Pensions [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy Presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 3856 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
  Return ordered, "of net Public Income and net Public Expenditure under certain specified heads, as represented by receipts into and issues out of the Exchequer from 1892–3 to 1906–7, inclusive (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 266, of session 1906)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  APPOINTMENT OF JUSTICES (FEES).
  Address for "Return of Fees payable on appointment by Justices of the Peace in England and Wales."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
  HIGHER EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Return ordered, "showing the expenditure to which, and the manner in which, local authorities in England and in Wales have applied funds for the purposes of Education other than elementary during the year 1906–7 under any of the following Acts: Education Act, 1902; Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889; Public Libraries and Museums Acts; Local or Private Acts."—(Mr. McKenna)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Facilities for Youthful Offenders Bill.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, upon further consideration, he can see his way to give facilities to the Youthful Offenders Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No, Sir. I am afraid the Government cannot do this. As I said, in reply to my hon. friend's previous Question on the 24th April, the effect of the Probation of Offenders Bill, which is now before the House, will in many cases be to substitute for fine and imprisonment a new method of dealing with offenders, which will be especially applicable to juvenile cases. My hon. friend the Under-Secretary hopes, moreover, to introduce next session, on behalf of the Government, a comprehensive Bill dealing with many points relating to the protection of children and the offences committed by them, and in connection with that Bill the question raised in the Youthful Offenders Bill will be carefully considered.

  Young Persons and Intoxicants.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to a volume by Sir Victor Horsley and Dr Mary Sturge, entitled: Alcohol and the Human Body, in which it is stated that evidence is steadily accumulating that the stunted frames and weak development of many poor children is at any rate partly due both directly and indirectly to the action of alcohol; that one of the most frequent causes of evil habits and of sexual immorality among young people is the taking of alcohol; that for the sake of national morality as well as physique it is clear that in no form whatever should alcohol be used by the young, either in childhood or adolescence; if he will say what teaching, if any, is given on the subject in the public elementary schools; and whether he will prescribe and enforce lessons thereupon in all schools over which he has any authority.
  (Answered by MR. McKenna.) The Answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the negative, but I would draw my hon. friend's attention to

  37
  paragraph 7 in the prefatory memorandum to the new Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, and to paragraph 4 in the prefatory memorandum to the new Regulations for Training Colleges, just issued, which will show, I think, that the Board of Education are doing their best to secure adequate and efficient teaching in the important matters referred to in my hon. friend's Question.

  Accommodation for the Board of Agriculture.
  MR LANE-FOX: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now state whether any, and, if so, what, steps are contemplated by the Government to provide better accommodation for the Board of Agriculture.
  (Answered by MR. Harcourt.) I regret that I am unable to add anything at present to my Answer to the hon. Member on the 23rd of April last.† The matter is still under consideration.

  Sale of Estate of Captain Magan in County Kildare.
  MR JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations are in progress for the sale, under the Land Act of 1903, of the estate of Captain Magan in the county of Kildare; whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement by an evicted tenant named Peter Grady, who was evicted from a farm on the estate in the year 1896; and whether, in any settlement of the estate, the application of this evicted tenant will be attended to by the Commissioners.
  (Answered by MR. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are in communication with the owner of the estate referred to, with a view to the purchase of untenanted land. If they shall acquire such land, they will consider the application for reinstatement which has been lodged by Peter Grady.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H. M. S. "Cumberland. "
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty
    † See(4) Debates clxxii., 1570.
    38
    on what date was H. M. S. "Cumberland" docked prior to her recent docking at Devonport.
    The SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON, (Dundee): The "Cumberland" was last docked at Gibraltar on the 20th December, 1905. I am inquiring into the reasons for the abnormally long interval between this and her recent docking at Devonport.
    MR. HUNT: Is it not the ordinary rule that ships shall be docked every six months?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I do not think it is quite so short a period as that.

    H. M. S. "Edward VII."
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the defective casting of the rudder of H. M. S. "Edward VII." was inspected by an Admiralty inspector before being built into the ship; and, if so, whether such inspector had practical knowledge of castings.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am informed that the Answer to both Questions is in the affirmative.

    Naval Shipbuilding Programme.
    MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with regard to the provisions in the Navy Estimates for twelve torpedo boats and twelve submarines, whether this programme is to be adhered to, or if any modification of the programme has been made will he state the nature of it.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Any modification of the shipbuilding programme will, according to custom, be communicated to the House when Vote 8 is reached, but the hon. Member must not infer that there will be any modification.

    H. M. S. "Indefatigable."
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H. M. S. "Indefatigable" is to proceed this year to Bermuda to dock for repairs; how long it is estimated that the repairs will take;

    39
    and whether a ship will be sent to replace the "Indefatigable" in West Indian waters daring her absence in Bermuda.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The "Indefatigable" is en route to Bermuda for docking and to carry out prize firing. No estimate of the time she will be in dock can be given until she has been examined at Bermuda. The presence of the "Scylla" in West Indian waters is considered by the Admiralty sufficient for present needs.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In the event of the repairs taking more time than is anticipated will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that another vessel shall be sent to take her place?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I car give no further assurance than that the matter shall be considered.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why not take your advice from the Lords of the Admiralty rather than from amateur sailors?
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Has any decision been come to with regard to increasing the naval force on the West Indian station?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice.
    MR MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of marines borne in H. M. S. "Indefatigable" and H. M. S. "Scylla" respectively."
    MR EDMUND ROBERTSON: The numbers allowed by complement are as follows: —

    Officers.

    N. C. O's and Men.

    "Indefatigable"

    4

    130

    "Scylla"

    —

    26

    The latter ship has the full ordinary complement of her class. |

    Ships' Armaments.
    MR COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the Return of Fleets no less than twenty-one armoured ships are shown by comparison with previous Return
    40
    to have reduced their armaments by two 12-pounder guns each; and whether in view of the importance of these guns for destroying torpedo craft, he can state for what purpose the reductions have been made.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Admiralty do not accept the hon. Member's view as to the importance of these guns for destroying torpedo craft.
    MR. COURTHOPE: Is that Answer consistent with the fact that they have recently been supplied with even more of these guns than before?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked for notice.

    H. M. S. "Renown."
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the battleship "Renown" being credited in the Return of Fleets with 4 10-inch, 10 6-inch, and 12 12-pounder guns, whether these guns are all on board this ship at the present date; and whether the ship is part of the Home Fleet with a nucleus crew on board.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The whole of the "Renown's" armament is not on board. She is a special service vessel attached to the Home Fleet, and together with the other vessels in this class, she is ready for service at five days notice, in which time the whole of her armament would be complete.
    Lord BALCARRES: Would it be against the interests of the Service to say if this ship has had her armament reduced?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The armament has not been reduced. The guns were taken away because the ship was not being used for warlike purposes and they simply have not been replaced as yet.

    H. M. S. "Blake" and H. M. S. "Blenheim."
    MR. GRETTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that H. M. S. "Blake" and H. M. S. "Blenheim" are each having their armaments reduced from two 9·2-inch and ten 6-inch guns to four 6-inch guns on each

    41
    ship, in order to fit them as mother ships for torpedo craft; and whether he can state why, under these circumstances, these ships appear in the new Return of Fleets for this year as first-class cruisers credited with their full original armaments.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No change has yet been made in the "Blake's" armament which is now as described in the Return quoted. The "Blenheim" is now in dockyard hands, and the preparation of the ship for her new duties is not yet complete.
    MR. GRETTON: Is any change contemplated in the armament of the "Blake"?
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, I think not.

    The Militia and the Special Reserve.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to offer any, and, if so, what, inducement to join the nucleus third battalions or Special Contingent to recruits or men serving in the present Militia respectively.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Buchanan,): A recruit joining the Special Reserve will do so under the conditions obtaining for that, force. A. serving Militiaman will be offered a bonus of £2, in view of the liability to foreign service.
    MR COURTHOPEwas understood to ask if Volunteers now serving would also get the £2.
    MR BUCHANAN: I should like to have notice of that Question.

    Militia Officers and the War Office Committee.
    MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether all parts of the country were represented on the body of Militia officers who discussed certain Militia questions with the War Office Committee, whose Report has recently been issued.
    MR BUCHANAN: The Militia commanding officers, whose names are given
    42
    in the Command Paper [Cd. 3, 513], were carefully selected by the War Office, in consultation with the several general officers commanding-in-chief. An examination of the units which they command will show that all parts of the country were represented, two of these units being located in the Eastern Command, two in the Southern, two in the Western, and three in the Northern. Scotland furnished two representatives, and Ireland three.

    Plague in India.
    Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received answers from the Government of India to his questions in April in reference to the special medical staff deputed to combat the plague.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Morley,): I have heard from the Government of India that local governments are engaged in collecting the needful information, but as the statistics wanted extend over a series of years they cannot be procured without some delay. The subject of the plague is engaging my particular attention, and full Papers will shortly be laid on the Table.

    Indian Railways.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken here, apart from any action that may be contemplated by the Government of India, for relieving the tension of the crisis in connection with the deficiency of wagons and rolling stock, which is causing prejudice and inconvenience to the commercial community and loss to the railways.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will now state what the available funds are likely to be for the purpose of an increased expenditure upon Indian railways over and above the sum provided for in the East India Financial Statement.
    MR MORLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer my hon. friends two Questions together. As stated in my reply to another Question asked by him on the 9th instant, I have sanctioned an addition of £1, 000, 000 to the programme of capital

    43
    expenditure for the present year. The greater part of this grant is being devoted to the supply of additional rolling-stock. By the addition of this £1,000,000 the funds available for capital expenditure on Indian railways will be increased from £9,000,000, as provided in the Financial Statement, to £10,000,000.

    Johannesburg Tramways.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the new tramway regulations of the Johannesburg Town Council; whether the reservations in the Transvaal Letters Patent in respect of any law whereby persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected or made liable to any disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European birth or descent are not also subjected or made liable apply to municipal by-laws since enacted within the Transvaal Colony under which British-Indians are subjected to disabilities and restrictions of a differential and humiliating character; and, if the reservations do not apply, whether His Majesty's Government is without any means of extending its protection to our British-Indian fellow-subjects against such differential treatment by Transvaal municipalities and similar corporations.
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE FOR the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill,): Yes, Sir. I have seen the regulations. Section 39 of the Letters Patent does not apply to municipal regulations. This is not a subject upon which representations could be made by the Secretary of State to the responsible Government with any advantage.

    Western Australia—Treatment of Natives.
    MR ALDEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Western Australia has passed any legislation or taken any administrative action, such as was promised in 1905, with a view to putting an end to the abuses in connection with the treatment of Natives disclosed in Dr. Roth's Report.
    MR CHURCHILL: I have to refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave
    44
    on 8th July to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for East Clare.†

    Labour Inspection in the New Hebrides.
    MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies how many female inspectors are to be appointed for the women and children indentured under the New Hebrides Convention.
    MR CHURCHILL: As no arrangements have ever previously been made for the inspection of labourers employed by British subjects in the Now Hebrides, there is no experience available for guidance in determining the character of the system of inspection required and the number of inspectors; but His Majesty's Government have asked the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific to report on the subject, and have informed him that they regard it as of great importance that the system of inspection should be thoroughly adequate.

    Deaths from Plague in Egypt.
    Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can say what was the number of deaths from plague in Egypt during January, February, March, April, May, and June, respectively, this year.
    The SECRETARY of STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey,): The figures are: 8, 4G, 204, 147, 184, and 111 to 17th June, respectively.

    Outrages in Macedonia.
    DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the Turkish perpetrators of outrages in Macedonia (recorded in the recent Blue-book) have been punished; and, if so, what was the nature of the punishment.
    *MR. REESasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the same formation as to outrages committed by persons who were not Turks.
    Sir EDWARD GREY: I have received no information on the subject
    † see (4) Debates, clxxvii., 1156–7.

    45
    since the appearance of the Blue-book. His Majesty's Ambassador has, when outrages occur, pressed for energetic action in securing and punishing the guilty persons and will continue to do so.

    Newfoundland Fisheries.
    MR HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any information to the House as to the progress of the negotiations with the United States on the Newfoundland question.
    MR ASHLEY: May I also ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can say what progress has been made in the negotiations with the Newfoundland Government as to the modus vivendi with the United States on the fisheries question?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not able to add to the information which I gave to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the 27th of June. No agreement has yet been arrived at, and negotiations on the subject are proceeding.
    MR ASHLEY: When will Papers be laid?
    SIR EDWARD GREY: We cannot lay Papers until the negotiations have been concluded. We are doing our best to arrive at an agreement.

    Great Britain, Russia, and Persia.
    Mr. LYNCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in connection with the negotiations now proceeding with the Russian Government with a view to harmonising the interests of the two Powers in Persia, he will appoint a small Committee of experts thoroughly acquainted with Persia and the contiguous regions to confer together and to advise him in the preparation of the British case.
    Sir EDWARD GREY: I assume that the hon. Member means a Committee of non-official experts not connected with the British or Indian Governments. I do not consider that such a course, which is capable of indefinite extension, is desirable, though the hon. Member can always
    46
    on his own initiative put forward either information or opinions for consideration.
    MR LYNCH: In view of the great importance of this subject will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House and the country by stating it is not proposed to include in the Russian commercial sphere of influence the old established British trade route from Baghdad to Kermanshah?
    *MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.
    *MR. REESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the recent protracted Customs negotiations with Turkey, when his Majesty's Government were pressing for Custom facilities at the principal ports, the port of Baghdad, dealing with a British and Indian trade of over £1, 000, 000 a year, and the seat of a British Consulate-General, was entirely omitted from the negotiations by an oversight, and only included at the last moment as the result of unofficial prompting.
    Sir EDWARD GREY: My recollection is that the arrangement with regard to Customs applied to all Ports. I have no recollection that the Port of Baghdad escaped notice.

    The Hague Conference.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any new instructions have been issued to British delegates at The Hague with reference to the question of commerce destruction; and whether Sir Earnest Satow's views on this subject correctly represent the attitude of the Government in relation to the immunity of private property.
    MR RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the opposition of His Majesty's Plenipotentiaries at The Hague to the proposal to render private property at sea immune during naval warfare represents the opinions and was offered on the instructions of His Majesty's Government.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I conclude that this Question and the Question of

    47
    the hon. Member for Leicester refer to the subject of enemy's private property at sea; the line taken by the British; delegates at The Hague Conference is entirely in accord with the original instructions issued to them by His Majesty's Government for their guidance.
    MR ALDEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible to state in an authoritative form the instructions to the British delegates at The Hague Conference on the subject of contraband and blockade in time of war, since the British views have already become known with more or less incompleteness during the sittings of the Conference.
    Sir EDWARD GREY: We cannot make any further statement than that which has already been allowed to become public by the Conference respecting its discussions. The part taken by the British delegates has been, and no doubt will continue to be, in accord with their instructions, but it would not be desirable to anticipate what future action they may have to take by publishing the instructions in advance.

    Bristol Pilotage Dues.
    MR. W. HOPE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the port of Bristol it is the practice of the local pilotage authority, when collecting pilotage dues payable upon a ship's tonnage, to abstain from adding to the ship's register tonnage the tonnage of the space occupied by deck cargo; and whether he will direct such local pilotage authorities to charge pilotage dues upon the additional tonnage representing deck cargo, in pursuance of Section 85 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in order that the pilots, on whose behalf such dues are collected, may receive an additional payment in respect of ships with deck cargoes, as directed by the said section.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Lloyd-George, Carnarvon Boroughs): I am informed by the Corporation of Bristol, which is the pilotage authority there, that their practice is as described in the first part of the Question. The Board of Trade have no power to issue directions to a pilotage authority as suggested by my hon. friend, but I will communicate with the Bristol
    48
    Corporation calling attention to the provisions of Section 85 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as affecting pilotage rates. It is, of course, open to any person interested to take action to enforce compliance with the law.

    Telephonic and Telegraphic Bates in France.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to make any statement to the House with regard to a reduction in the telegraphic and telephonic charges between this country and France.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The question of a reduction in the telegraphic and telephonic charges for communication between this country and France is now under examination; but there are difficulties, financial and other, and I cannot at present make any statement on the subject.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would expedite the negotiations as much as possible.

    Average School Attendance under Fifty.
    MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he can state the number of public elementary schools or school departments having an average attendance of less than fifty scholars, and the number having an average attendance of between fifty and sixty.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna,): I fear the labour involved in the compilation of these figures would be so great that I do not feel justified in undertaking it, especially at this time of the year when the ordinary work of preparing the annual statistical volume is exceptionally heavy.

    Public Works Loans Bill.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can now state when it is intended to introduce the Public Works Loans Bill.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY: (Mr. RUNCIMAN,

    49
    Dewsbury): It is hoped to introduce the Bill shortly.

    Sugar Surtax.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount allowed, under the provisions of the Brussels Convention, to home-grown and manufactured sugar before a countervailing Excise Duty becomes automatically leviable.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Brussels Convention provides that the surtax, i.e., the amount by which the customs duty upon imported sugar may exceed the excise duty on that produced at home, shall not be greater than 6 francs per 100 kilograms upon refined, or 5· 50 francs per 100 kilograms upon unrefined, sugar.

    The Board of Agriculture.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he can state of whom that Board is composed; how often has that Board met within the last seven years; whether the Secretary or any of the Assistant Secretaries has the right to use the seal and so to pass orders on their own account; and, if so, will he grant a return of all such orders passed by a Secretary or Assistant Secretary without reference to the President since the Board was constituted.
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD Strachey, Somersetshire, S.): The Board consists of a President of the Council, the Principal Secretaries of State, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Secretary for Scotland. It has never yet met. The President of the Board is responsible for all the acts of his subordinates and no order—or indeed any other document— is issued except under his immediate authority or in pursuance of a general policy sanctioned by him. I am unable to grant the Return asked for by the hon. Member, but I have no objection to say that the issue of the order which has, I think, given rise to his Questions was personally sanctioned by the President.

    Timber in Ireland.
    MR CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the
    50
    Board of Agriculture (Ireland) whether the attention of his Department has been directed to the wholesale clearances of ornamental and useful timber being carried out by landowners (mainly absentees) throughout the country; whether steps will be taken to check them; and whether the time has come when a scheme of reafforestation might be favourably considered and given practical effect to.
    The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell,): Yes, Sir. It is a fact that both landlords and tenants are cutting down timber in many parts of the country. The area under wood in 1895 was 308, 928 acres. In 1905 it was 301, 132, a decrease of 7, 796 acres, and there is reason for believing that the rate has in-creased rather than decreased since 1905. Having consulted with the Chief Secretary, I propose to appoint a small Departmental Committee, not to consider the utility of afforestation, but to devise a scheme whereby, first, the mischief now going on may be chocked, and, secondly, the best means of approaching the larger question of afforestation may be ascertained.
    MR KILBRIDEasked whether steps would be taken immediately to preserve the woods of Dundrum, which were now in the hands of the Estates Commissioners.
    MR T. W. RUSSELL: I do not know about the woods in question, but I am aware that the Estates Commissioners will do everything in their power to preserve the woods.
    Captain DONELANasked whether the hon. Gentleman's Department had any power to purchase woods and plantations for the purpose of preserving timber.
    MR T. W. RUSSELL: No, Sir.

    Holywood District Council's Clerk.
    MR KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Local Government Board of Ireland directed its auditor, Mr. W. E. Ellis, at the beginning of 1906, to hold an

    51
    extraordinary audit of the accounts of the Holywood District Council in respect of sums of money obtained by James H. Barrett, formerly clerk to the council, for and on behalf of the council during a period of time from 1899 down to 1905, and not accounted for until the deficiencies were discovered in December, 1905, six months after Barrett's dismissal from his office of clerk, he will state the circumstances under which the Local Government Board of Ireland became aware of the deficiencies; whether the auditor has made any report or finding in the matter of the audit; and, if not, will he state the reason for the delay; will he state when Mr. W. E. Ellis was appointed auditor for the Local Government Board, what districts he has served in, and the cause of his removal from one district to another; whether he is aware that shortly after Mr. Ellis's removal to the Belfast district a Mr. John Smyth, of Belfast, made a declaration that Mr. W. E. Ellis had threatened to do certain acts in connection with the audit of the Belfast Asylums Board's accounts in a spirit of revenge against Dr. William Graham, the medical superintendent; and will he say whether the Belfast Asylums Board sent a deputation to the Local Government Board, or took other steps to secure the removal of Mr. W. E. Ellis as auditor; whether, seeing that signatures to a memorial asking the Local Government Board to retain Mr. Ellis were obtained by the said James H. Barrett on behalf of Mr. Ellis, will he say what steps were taken by the Local Government Board thereon; whether the Holywood Urban District Council has made further discoveries in respect of failures by James H. Barrett to account for other sums of money received by him for the council whilst clerk prior to May, 1905, disclosing an appropriation of moneys; and what steps the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, Liverpool, Exchange; for Mr. Birrell): Mr. Barrett requested the Local Government Board to direct the auditor to extend the ordinary audit of the accounts of the Urban District Council for the year ending 31st March, 1905, so as to include an additional month, in order to enable Mr. Barrett to close
    52
    his financial transactions with the Urban District Council, and the Board directed the auditor to hold an extraordinary audit accordingly. Dr. Ellis was appointed auditor in the year 1892. He has served in the Limerick, Dublin, Kerry, and Belfast districts, his transfer in each case being made for Departmental reasons. The Local Government Board cannot trace any record of the declaration stated in the Question to have been made by Mr. John Smyth, of Belfast. A deputation from the Belfast District Asylum Committee waited upon the Board towards the close of the year 1904, and among other matters asked that the same auditor who audited the Belfast County Borough should audit the asylum district accounts, as the district was coterminous with the borough, but the Board were unable to make this arrangement. It is the fact that a memorial was presented to the Board (in 1905) asking that Dr. Ellis should be retained in the Belfast District, but the Board have no information as to the circumstances under which the signatures to the memorial were obtained. The Board informed the memorialists that it was not intended to transfer the auditor to another district. The Board have no information as to the penultimate paragraph of the Question. They propose to take no further steps in any of the matters referred to in the Question, but they have approved of Mr. Barrett's dismissal as executive sanitary officer in connection with other charges preferred against him by the urban district council.
    MR KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that for four and a half years from the date of his appointment down to the 31st December, 1905, James H. Barrett, clerk of the Town Court of Holywood, charged the Urban District Council of Holywood and deducted out of moneys he had in hand of the council the sum of sixpence for the service of each summons for the town court, although the summonses were served gratuitously by the police; that the council called upon Sergeant Samuel Donaldson, who is in charge of the local police barracks, to hand over the originals of the summonses served during this period, which originals were the property of the council who were named as complainants in each, so that the evidence of

    53
    service could be preserved (the mode of service being endorsed on the back of each summons); and that Sergeant Donaldson replied that he had then just destroyed them; and whether, seeing that, in consequence, Councillor James Shannon, a member of the council, personally investigated all the cases for the quarter ending 31st December, 1905, with the result that he found that the summonses in each case had been served by the police, he will say what authority Sergeant Donaldson had for destroying the summonses; and whether it is intended to take any action in the matter.
    MR CHERRY: The Local Government Board have ascertained from their auditor that it was Mr. Barrett's practice during the period mentioned to deduct from lodgments made by him for town court fines a sum of sixpence for the service of each summons. The summonses were served by the constabulary free of charge, but Mr. Barrett claims that he invariably paid over to the court summons server the fee for the service of each summons. The summonses in town court cases are not now served by the constabulary. The Inspector-General informs me that in March, 1906, as the result of a letter received from the Holywood Urban District Council, he inquired into the complaint against Sergeant Donaldson, and found that the sergeant had received from the clerk of the court summonses which had been disposed of, for the purpose of entering the particulars in the crime register, and had subsequently destroyed them as the clerk had informed him that the summonses were of no further use. The permanent record of the cases to which the summonses refer is contained in the order book of the court. The sergeant was instructed lot to take any further summonses from he clerk, but to obtain the required particulars for the crime register from another source. The Inspector-General does not intend to take any further action regarding the sergeant.

    Irish Department of Agriculture.
    MR BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state when the Minutes of Evidence of the Departmental Inquiry into the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction will be issued.
    MR CHERRY: I understand from His Majesty's Stationery Office that the Minutes of Evidence are in the printer's hands, and will be ready for distribution within a fortnight.

    Boycotting in Leitrim.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. and gallant Member for East Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many persons in the neighbourhood of Drumkeeran, county Leitrim, are boycotted; how many miles have these boycotted persons to travel to obtain the bare necessities of life, have their horses shod, and dispose of their stock; the reason why they are boycotted; and the number of police employed for their protection.
    MR CHERRY: The police authorities inform me that there are in the neighbourhood of Drumkeeran two cases of serious boycotting, comprising eight persons. These persons have to go about twelve miles to have their horses shod, twenty miles to obtain provisions, and twenty-four miles to dispose of their stock. The persons concerned are holders and care-takers respectively of evicted farms. There are no police employed solely for the protection of these people, but eleven extra police are stationed in Drumkeeran and one of their duties is to afford protection to persons who need it.

    Tullaroan Evicted Tenant.
    MR MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state if the Estates Commissioners have yet investigated the application of the representatives of Richard Walsh, of Picketstown, Tullaroan, county Kilkenny, who were evicted from their holding at Knucknamuck Matter's estate; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken for their restoration to their own or an equivalent holding.
    MR. CHERRY: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have recently received their inspector's report upon Mrs. Walsh's application for restoration to the holding from which her late husband was evicted, but they have not yet made any ruling in the matter.

    Urlingford Evicted Tenant.
    MR. MEAGHER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Estate Commissioners have yet investigated the claim of the representatives of Thomas Kennedy, The Islands, Urlingford, county Kilkenny, who were evicted from their holding on the Mountgarret estate; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken for their restoration to their own or an equivalent holding.
    MR. CHEERY: The Estates Commissioners have inquired into Mrs. Kennedy's application for reinstatement. The present occupiers of the holding are not willing to surrender it, and the Commissioners therefore have not been able to arrange for the applicant's restoration.

    Labourers' Cottage Schemes.
    MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether the statement made frequently in correspondence emanating from the Labourers Department of the Local Government Board, to the effect that it is open to any agricultural labourers whose claims for cottages and allotments have been rejected by the rural district councils to appear before the inspector at the local inquiry, implies that such labourers can have their rejected representations inquired into and the reasons why they were excluded from the benefits of the Labourers Acts thoroughly investigated; and will he state what rule or clause or section of any of the Labourers Acts empowers the Local Government Board to declare that an inspector is not empowered to enlarge an improvement scheme by the addition of cottages and plots unjustly rejected by the district council.
    MR. CHERRY: I would refer to my right hon. friend's Answer to the Question put by the hon. Member for West Clare on the 3rd instant. † Section 6 (1) of the Labourers Act of last year provides that the inspector shall consider all objections made by any persons interested, including any agricultural labourers by whom or on whose behalf representations have been made. The view taken by the Local Government Board of the effect of this
    † See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 701–2.
    56
    section is that the investigation which the inspector is empowered to make into rejected claims should be directed to ascertaining and reporting as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the scheme as a whole rather than as to the action of the council in rejecting individual cases. They do not consider that he is intended to act as a court of appeal from the decision of the council in each case, inasmuch as he has no power to make any addition to the lands proposed in the scheme to betaken compulsorily.

    Grange Shooting Outrage.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received reports of a shooting outrage at Grange, county Galway, at the house of a man named John Costelloe, who took possession of a grazing farm on the estate of Lambert Minors; and whether any arrests have been made.
    MR CHERRY: The police authorities inform me that they have fully investigated this alleged shooting outrage, and are satisfied that there is absolutely no foundation for the rumour.

    The Member for North Mayo and the Crannagh Farm.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a meeting of the United Irish League at Ardagh, county Mayo, on Sunday, a resolution was adopted condemning John Haire, who was described as the infamous grabber of Crannagh farm; whether he is aware that the hon. Member for North Mayo publicly advised the people to boycott Haire absolutely, vigorously, completely, and exhaustively; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    MR SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the hon. Member for North Mayo been warned that this question attacking him would be put?
    *MR. SPEAKER: I have not the faintest idea.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Neither have I.
    MR. CHERRY: I have seen a newspaper Report of the meeting referred to. It is, however, only right to say that according to this report the hon. Member for North Mayo explained that by boycotting he meant picketting as employed in England, and he told his hearers that there must be no violence and not the least infraction of the law. My right hon. friend has already stated that John Haire is receiving all necessary police protection and no further action appears to be necessary for the present at all events.

    Abbeyleix Unlawful Assembly Prosecution.
    colonel LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the hearing of a charge against twenty-three men of unlawful assembly at the Abbeyleix Petty Sessions Court on Saturday; what was the finding of the Court; and whether all the justices who adjudicated were appointed for the district in which they were sitting.
    MR CHEERY: The charge against three of the men referred to in the Question was dismissed for want of identification. The magistrates wore equally divided in opinion upon the case as regards the remaining twenty defendants, and the case was therefore adjourned till the 20th instant, when it will be further heard. I am informed that Jill of the ten magistrates present were qualified to sit at Abbeyleix Petty Sessions.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether it was in accordance with order and etiquette for a. Member to ask a Question notice of which appeared in the name of another Member, except at the request of the latter.
    *MR. SPEAKER: It is quite in order for a Member to ask a Question on behalf of and at the request of another Member, as has been the case in this instance. In an instance which occurred yesterday the hon. Member for Rutland informs me that he was asked to put the Question. †
    † See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 1619.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Is there anything improper in one hon. Member at the express request of another asking a Question for him?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Nothing whatever.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: That is all I have done. I have been specially requested by the hon. Members for East Down and Mid. Armagh to put their Questions today.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: When a Question was put in the same way yesterday the Minister who replied stated that he had written to the hon. Member in whose name it stood asking him to postpone it. That seemed to indicate that the Question was not asked by special request.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: In one case my noble friend asked me only half an hour before to put a Question on his behalf.

    Kerry Fair Rent Courts.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the last Sub-Commission Court to fix fair rents, sat at Listowel, North Kerry; when will the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners be given; and where will they be published.
    MR CHERRY: The Land Commission inform mo that in order to answer this Question they find it necessary to communicate with the Chairman of the Sub-Commission referred to, who is absent on duty in the country. As soon as I receive the necessary information I will acquaint the hon. Member with the facts.

    The "Forest Hall"
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that a sworn declaration, made by Patrick Gallivan as to the circumstances in which the "Forest Hall" was saved from being wrecked on 20th April in the Kenmare River, had been submitted to him, that the captain of the vessel asked Patrick Gallivan to convey her to a safe harbour as she was then in distress and drifting close to Moylaun Island, and that

    59
    Patrick Gallivan is precluded by his position in life from embarking on costly proceedings in a court of law to obtain salvage, he will take the necessary steps to secure that adequate compensation is given to Patrick Gallivan by the owners of the "Forest Hall."
    MR LLOYD-GEORGE: As I informed my hon. friend in reply to a Question on the 7th June last, this matter is not one in regard to which the Board of Trade have any power to intervene.

    Swine Fever at Carlow.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, with reference to the alleged case of swine fever said to have been traced to Carlow on 21st November, 1905, and to the fact that the general inquiries as to the health of the swine in that district were made with negative results, can he state on whose diagnosis was swine fever declared, and was the examination in this case an ordinary one.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The diagnosis in this case was made by the veterinary officers of the Board in accordance with the ordinary procedure.

    Parliament and Egypt.
    Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will give at least one day in every session for the discussion of Egyptian affairs, so that the House and the country may more thoroughly realise their responsibilities and better discharge their duties to Egypt as long as the British occupation continues.
    *MR. REES: Before the Prime Minister answers, will he say whether there is any justification for the inference contained in the Question that the country does not thoroughly realise and thoroughly discharge its duties towards Egypt?
    The PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD of the TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): I have no wish to underrate the importance of Egypt, but neither in Foreign nor Colonial affairs has it been the custom of the Government to select individual subjects connected with
    60
    these Departments and to allocate a special day to them as a matter of annual procedure. In view of the great and varying demands made upon the time of the House I do not see my way to depart from this practice. Very full information is laid before Parliament every year in the report of His Majesty's Consul-General at Cairo and there are each session several opportunities for discussing it.

    Sir James Brown Smith.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Mr. James Brown Smith, Clifford Park, Stirling, one of the new knights gazetted in the birthday honours list of last month, was a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company during the time the latter company fraudulently supplied a defective rudder for H. M. S. "King Edward VII. "; and whether it is proposed to take any action against him.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir James Smith is a man entirely worthy of the recognition which his public services have received and enjoying the respect of all who knew him to whatever class or party they belong. I have inquired and find that he was a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company at the time when the circumstances referred to occurred. But he and his fellow directors had no knowledge whatever of the offence which was being committed by their servant or servants, and for which they themselves have suffered a heavy pecuniary loss. The Law Officers of the Crown after careful consideration declined to take any action against the company.
    MR BELLOC: May I ask whether the name of the servant of this gentleman, for whom he is responsible, can be given to the House?
    MR LEA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was in consequence of Mr. Smith having been a prominent supporter of the Prime Minister, and acting with the Stirling Liberal Association as chairman of the right hon. Gentleman's election committee, or whether it was in consequence of his having been a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company, by

    61
    whom this fraudulent rudder was supplied, or whether it was in consequence of his having paid over money to the Liberal Party Fund, that he was knighted?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Questions cannot be asked of the Prime Minister as to his responsibility for any advice he might give to the Sovereign in the recommendation of honours.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think I can safely leave it to the House to judge.
    MR LEAsubsequently asked when an opportunity would arise for discussing the Ayrshire Foundry Company's contract.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreminded the Prime Minister that the subject would arise on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the discussion of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed a strong opinion that an opportunity should be given.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he would look into that and any promise given should be adhered to.
    MR. LEAasked Mr. Speaker if it would be in order to discuss the question of the knighthood conferred on a director of the Ayrshire Foundry Company.
    *MR. SPEAKERsaid a question of order in Committee was for the decision of the Chairman.
    MR WILLIAM REDMOND: Might not the creation of a few more knights settle the matter?
    MR LEA: Will this democratic Government consider the advisability of publishing a tariff before recommending any more people for knighthood?
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of his Question.

    Radiotelegraph Convention.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I bog to ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the expediency of affording the House an opportunity for a debate on the
    62
    Report of the Select Committee on the Radiotelegraphic Convention.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the Report was only issued this morning, and I have therefore not yet been able to examine it. As the House had an opportunity of discussing this question which led to the appointment of a Select Committee, I think it unlikely that further time can be given.
    SIR EDWARD SASSOONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the Report of the Select Committee was dissented from by a very substantial minority of the Committee, and whether that did not point to the expediency of affording the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject.
    SIR GILBERT PARKERalso pointed out that some of the members who signed the majority Report differed from their colleagues on some particulars.
    MR. GWYNNurged that there was a strong desire even on the part of the Committee for further discussion of this very complex subject.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought that, as the Government had met the desire of the House by appointing a Committee of inquiry, and as every opportunity had been afforded to the Committee for investigating the subject, they could not give any more Parliamentary time to it, considering the period of the Session and the pressure of business.

    The Grant to Lord Cromer.
    MR WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if there is any precedent and, if so, what, for the proposal to give a public grant of money to a Civil servant who is already entitled to a pension; and whether, in the event of such a proposal being made in reference to Lord Cromer, ample notice will by given before any Resolution is made in the House.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir, there have been cases varying in amount and circumstances; and with regard to the second part of the Question ample notice would no doubt, in such an event, be given.
    MR WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the opposition to this grant will not be confined to Members on this side, there being many on his own side who will also object to it?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know what opposition there may be until the time comes.
    MR.WILLIAM REDMOND: asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give him the reference to the precedents for such a grant, so that he might examine them.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is one important precedent which is really analogous in every respect, and the date and circumstances of it I will convey to the hon. Gentleman.

    Tax on Titles.
    MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, before advising His Majesty to confer any further Peerages or other honours upon commoners, he will consider the desirableness of instituting a tax on titles, and applying the proceeds of such tax in aid of the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for establishing the commencement of the nucleus of the fund for old-age pensions.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Question seems to be one which ought rather to have been addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It suggests a new tax. I have no doubt he will consider the suggestion with any others.

    Electoral Anomalies.
    MR. DUNN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that a number of Members of the present Parliament have been returned at elections in which the majority of the electors voting thereat have recorded votes against their return by voting in favour of other candidates, and that since the last General Election five Members have been so returned at bye elections; and whether he will consider the advisability of promoting remedial legislation.
    SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe that the facts are as stated by my hon. friend; and when the time arrives for dealing with the various matters affecting our electoral system which stand in need of change, the question of remedying the state of things to which he calls my attention will, no doubt, receive due consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR A. J. BALFOURasked what business would be taken next week.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid on Monday it was proposed to take the discussion on the Motion in reference to Colonial preference, on Tuesday the Report Stage of the Finance Bill, on Wednesday the Committee on the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, on Thursday Home Office and Local Government Votes in Committee of Supply.
MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid the annual report of the factory inspector had only been delivered to-day; it was voluminous, and many Members desired to make themselves acquainted with its contents before the Home Office Vote came on for discussion.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANthought that in this cool weather a week would be sufficient for the purpose.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C:— Sir George Doughty; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Harrison-Broadley.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee C: — Mr. Howard.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

SUPPLY [16TH ALLOTTED DAY].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1907–8.
Class IV.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £6, 593, 646, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various establishments connected there with, including grants for the building of new public elementary schools and sundry Grants in Aid. "
MR A. J. BALFOURsaid it had been intimated by the Minister in charge that it was not his intention to begin the discussion by a statement of the education policy of the Government. Great inconvenience must ensue from following that course. One of the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman in the Radical Government of 1894 stated that it was the invariable practice on the Education Vote for the Minister to make a statement upon the general policy of the Department; and, if the right hon. Gentleman would look through the records of years succeeding that declaration made by Mr. Acland, he would find that whenever the Education Vote was considered of sufficient importance to be made the first order of the day the invariable rule had been for the Minister to begin with a statement. If that ever were desirable it was doubly and trebly desirable on the present occasion, not simply because they were voting £13,000,000, as compared with only £6,000,000 dealt with by Mr. Acland, but because it was understood that the right hon. Gentleman was initiating in more than one important branch of his administration new procedure, which, in the absence of any explanation from the Minister in charge, seemed to be not only grossly unjust, but grossly unconstitutional. Let them take the item of £100, 000 which stood sixth on the list of items, and of which they
66
learned that it was a special grant for the building of new public elementary schools. He understood the view of the Government to be that there ought to be new elementary schools in certain unspecified parishes in certain unspecified counties where at present there were only single schools, and those of a denominational character. He had always admitted the single school area grievance. It existed equally where those who wished undenominational education could only find a denominational school and where those who desired denominational education could only find an undenominational school; and he would gladly relieve parents of this grievance, whatever their views as to the religious or non-religious education of their children. But the right hon. Gentleman's whole method of dealing with the situation seemed to him to be utterly wrong and utterly unconstitutional in more ways than one. When the last Government desired to assist schools suffering from what was justly called an intolerable strain, a Bill was introduced which practically did no more in regard to those schools than the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do by this Vote for the unspecified schools with which he proposed to deal. The opportunities of discussing this £100,000 would be limited to a portion of a single night's discussion, which would range over a variety of questions, for it was improbable that another night would be given to the Education Vote, whereas the Bill to which he referred took three days on the Second Reading, eighteen or nineteen days in Committee, and a day on the Third Reading—in all twenty-two days. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, in the course of one miscellaneous discussion, to deal with the whole of an analogous question, the only difference being that he proposed to make a subvention out of the money of the general taxpayers, many of whom might or might not approve of his policy, whereas the Bill of 1897 was definite and elaborate in its proposal and was exposed to the full fire of Parliamentary criticism. To reply that the discussion on the Appropriation Bill would afford an opportunity was really asking the House to deprive itself of one of its most valued privileges of devoting that occasion to a general survey of the Government's policy and criticism of its past conduct. It was impossible

67
on the Appropriation Bill to get the decision of the House as to the propriety of this item, for the only way would be to vote against the Second or Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, a course which, if successful, would necessarily turn out the Government and cause great inconvenience to the administration if it did not bring it to a standstill. That was not nearly all. Perhaps the House was not fully aware that by the Act of 1870 it was distinctly laid down that no public money should be given for the erection or equipment of any elementary school, so that the Government now, by a Vote in Supply subsequently embodied in an Appropriation Bill, proposed to over-ride, without repealing, an explicit provision of an Act of Parliament.. He might have to ask the Chairman of Committees at some later stage to give his decision as to whether that was in order. Was it not obvious that it was the grossest violation of the ordinary practice and legitimate procedure of the House? It became worse when it was remembered that the Education Department were absolute masters of this £100,000, which they could use exactly as they liked, when they liked, and where they liked. If the Unionists had been in office and had put down a Vote in these terms, he took it that it would have been absolutely in the power of the then Minister of Education, the Member for Oxford University, as it would be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman himself, to use this money for building any kind of school. Nothing was laid down by statute limiting the use of the £100,000. They did not know whether it was going to Wales or to England, to the West Hiding of Yorkshire, or the county of Carnarvon. If the right hon. Gentleman bound himself by any Ministerial statement he could not bind his successors.
THE PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr McKenna,)said that an ample explanation had been given on the Consolidated Fund Bill.†
MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not agree, and the dubious tone and language of the Attorney-General on that occasion was such as to show on what thin ice they
† See (4) Debates, clxxi., 975–6; 978–82.
68
stood, and how important was the constitutional problem the right hon. Gentleman had chosen thus recklessly to raise. He hoped the Prime Minister would consider all the consequences to which this precedent might lead when any future Government found itself in a position in which it was its duty to assist any class of school. It would not again find it to be its duty to go through all the formalities that were gone through in 1897. This simpler procedure, if sanctioned by the House under his œgis, must become a precedent for all time. That was the first point on which he thought the right hon. Gentleman should have given a full and frank explanation to the House, and he hoped he would either himself or through the mouth of his Law Officers tell the Committee what the position would be when the Appropriation Bill was pissed, including this £100,000 for primary elementary schools, while the Act of 1870 remained unrepealed. They would have an Act still in full vigour and force declaring that no public money be given to public elementary schools, while they would have passed an Act giving money to public elementary schools. Both Acts would be living and operative and would have to be taken into account in any proceedings that might be taken before the Courts. This would be the first occasion on which the House, knowing exactly what it was doing, put on the Statute-book an Act which left unrepealed another Act which was wholly inconsistent with its provisions. He now passed to the Vote, with the object of which, if administered impartially, he had great sympathy. He sympathised with any attempt to meet the wishes of the parents, whether they desired undenominational teaching or denominational teaching. His objection was not so much to the expenditure of £100,000 if it were to be impartially applied, but to the constitutional error which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made, and the new course into which he was, wittingly or unwittingly, leading the House. He next came to two Votes as to which ho could not say that he sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had declared it as part of his policy to prevent any hostel being added to a training college—to prevent a denominational hostel being added

69
to an undenominational college or an undenominational hostel to a denominational college. The right hon. Gentleman had absolutely put his foot down on that as a fundamental part of his policy, and he understood that to be in direct contradiction of his immediate predecessor, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had made that a question of policy, and in that he thought he was profoundly wrong. The right hon. Gentleman might say it was right, but could he say that of that part of his policy which practically deprived denominations which had built training colleges of the use of those colleges? It was not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends had first encouraged denominations to spend denominational money for some denominational object, and then turned round and appropriated the results of their liberality and public spirit and turned them to wholly different purposes. The right hon. Gentleman might not be able to agree that their objects were meritorious, but, at all events, these denominations, with encouragement from that House, had undertaken the whole cost of building training colleges. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Yes, he thought the whole cost. At any rate, nobody could deny that they had borne by far the greater part of the cost. That was universally admitted. These training colleges fulfilled a function which was of absolutely vital importance, not from the denominational or religious educational point of view, but from the secular educational point of view. The Government now came forward and said, "We find this or that denomination has been zealous and public-spirited enough to build training colleges, primarily, of course, for those who agree with them in religion. Let us take them, or at all events make arrangements by which they can be taken and appropriated by those who differ from the intentions of the donors and subscribers, to whom the State owes a profound debt of gratitude and for whom we must have the warmest sympathy, respect, and regard. "He thought that was utterly wrong, and he would be tempted to dwell on it at greater length if there was not a worse case of Governmental intolerance and injustice. In some of the secondary schools which received a Government grant denominational teach-
70
ing was given, and in others it was not. The right hon. Gentleman proposed for the first time to differentiate between these schools and, without legislative authority, to penalise those which provided the education which was presumably desired by the parents of the children who went to them. But the Government recognised that a great many of these denominational schools, which were founded and worked by the generosity of individual benefactors and donors, were bound by the character of the trust deeds to give religious education of a certain type to meet the needs of the parents who held religion of that type. The right hon. Gentleman was by a kind of legislative inheritance the successor of the old Charity Commission, which in former times arranged the way in which these schools should carry on their work. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had power to alter those arrangements, and he was bribing those denominational schools who preferred to adhere to the charter their trust deed settled for them —he was, on the authority of that House, bribing—or rather fining—these schools to abandon their trust deed in order that they might get a little more public money. He called that disgraceful. He knew nothing like it since the seventeenth century. The right hon. Gentleman literally and strictly, so far as he understood the matter, proposed to fine people for holding certain religious opinions, and he was not aware that that had been done since the seventeenth century. It rested with the present holders of office, who represented religious freedom as it was understood by Radicals, to make this new departure. He thought the folly of it was almost equal to the intolerable pity of it. Was it not obvious that, if the right hon. Gentleman, simply by manipulating the Votes, could fine those who held certain religious opinions, when a Minister for Education who held different opinions came into office, he could easily repay by another Vote all the arrears illegitimately withheld from these people by the right hon. Gentleman's Government? He trusted that kind of reversal of policy would never be rendered necessary by any such violent procedure as that he had spoken of. But if they were to have Committee of Supply used for purposes which violated every sound doctrine of justice and equality, if they were to have the proceedings in Committee of Supply used to

71
carry out these nefarious purposes, the same Committee of Supply, under different leaders and in different circum-stances, must undoubtedly be invoked to repair the injustices of their predecessors. He would gladly have withheld these remarks had the right hon. Gentleman followed the invariable practice and condescended to explain his policy, and perhaps justified it to the Committee. He could only speak from the necessarily imperfect information at his command; but the House would feel, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would feel, that he could not longer withhold the desired information, which might have saved all this trouble. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would meet the request he made, in no hostile or factious spirit, that he should give the Committee his policy now and at once; but in order to make it clear he moved, he hoped only pro forma, to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. McKENNAsaid he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in not following the usual practice of making a statement it was not with any intention of being discourteous, but solely with a view of saving time on a day on which they had an enormous amount of ground to cover. He had thought it better to hear what hon. Gentlemen had to say before making any observations. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was an exact illustration of his difficulty. The
two chief subjects to which he had referred were subjects to which, in stating the policy of the Board, he would have devoted very little time. In the first place, he had already fully explained the policy of the Board with regard to the £100,000 on the Vote on Account; and, secondly, they had fully debated the secondary regulations on a Motion made by one of his hon. friends. He read at that time to the House the regulations covering all the points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised. It was on that very ground that he thought it would be more convenient to hon. Members if he did not take up an hour or an hour and a half with a preliminary statement at that time of the day, and then again absorb a great deal of time later in answering criticisms. There was a further reason why he had taken this course. The regulations, whether for secondary schools or training colleges this year had prefatory memoranda which clearly stated the policy of the Board. His speech could only have been a repetition of those printed statements, and he appealed, therefore, to the Committee to support the view he had taken, that it was far better that he should be allowed an opportunity of hearing what might be the criticisms and points which he had not cleared up in those memoranda than that he should occupy the time of the House by making a speech now.
Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 97; Noes, 196. (Division List No. 275.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fardell, Sir T. George

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

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Fell, Arthur

Ambrose, Robert

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

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fletcher, J. S.

Anstruther-Gray. Major

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

Flynn, James Christopher

Ashley, W. W.

Collings, Rt. Hn. J (Birmingham

Gilhooly, James

Balcarres, Lord

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ginnell, L.

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

Corbett, T. L (Down, North)

Gretton, John

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Courthope, G. Loyd

Gwynn, Stephen Lucia's

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

Halpin, J.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Craik, Sir Henry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Boland, John

Crean, Eugene

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Cullinan, J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Burke, E. Haviland.

Devlin, Joseph

Heaton, John Henniker

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Donelan, Captain A.

Hills, J. W.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Duffy, William J.

Hogan, Michael

Castlereagh, Viscount

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Hunt, Rowland

Cave, George

Faber, George Denison (York)

Joyce, Michael

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Sheehy, David

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

Nolan, Joseph

Sheffield. Sir Berkeley George D.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Kimber, Sir Henry

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Starkey, John R.

Lane-Fox, G. R.

O'Malley, William

Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staff'sh.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

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

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Young, Samuel

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Younger, George

M'Killop, W.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Magnus, Sir Philip

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Meagher, Michael

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Viscount Valentia and Mr.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Forster.

Mooney, J. J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Evans, Samuel T.

Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

Acland, Francis Dyke

Everett, R. Lacey

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fenwick, Charles

Massie, J.

Alden, Percy

Ferens, T. R.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Armitage, R.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Menzies, Walter

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mond, A.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Barlow. Sir John E. (Somerset)

Fullerton, Hugh

Morse, L. L.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Gill, A. H.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Murray, James

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

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nicholls, George

Branch, James

Grant, Corrie

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster

Brigg, John

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bright, J. A.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

ODonnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Brodie, H. C.

Hart-Davies, T.

O'Grady, J.

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

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Partington, Oswald

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Helme, Norval Watson

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

Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Pullar, Sir Robert

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Radford, G. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Higham, John Sharp

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cameron, Robert

Holt, Richard Durning

Raphael, Herbert H.

Campbell- Bannerman, Sir H.

Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Horniman, Emslie John

Rees, J. D.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Hudson, Walter

Richardson, A.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Idris, T. H. W.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Clough, William

Jenkins, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Clynes, J. R.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradford

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Jowett, F. W.

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Cox, Harold

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rowlands, J.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Kelley, George D.

Runciman, Walter

Crombie, John William

Laidlaw, Robert

Russell, T. W.

Crossley, William J.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rutherford, V. H. (Brenftord)

Curran, Peter Francis

Lambert, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Lamont, Norman

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sears, J. E.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Seely, Major J. B.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Shackleton, David James

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Levy, Sir Maurice

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

Dewar. Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lough, Thomas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lynch, H. B.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dunne. Major E. Martin (WalsaIl

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Snowden, P.

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Elibank, Master of

M'Crae, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Stanger, H. Y.

Erskine, David C.

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

74

75

Steadman, W. C.

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

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton

Williamson, A.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, John (Druham, Mid)

Summerbell, T.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Sutherland, J. E.

Watt, Henry A.

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

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

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

Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

Weir, James Galloway

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Whitbread, Howard

Winfrey, R.

Tomkinson, James

White, George (Norfolk)

Yoxall, James Henry

Toulmin, George

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Ure, Alexander

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES. Mr.

Walker, H. De R, (Leicester)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Walsh, Stephen

Wiles, Thomas

Pease.

Walters, John Tudor

Wilkie, Alexander

Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the President of the Board of Education had departed from a custom which was very convenient to the House, and which he had always himself observed when he was responsible for the Department. Their prefatory memoranda were issued in the ordinary course, but, admirable as they were as literary compositions, they were not sufficient to elucidate points which they expected to hear fully explained by the Minister. The most serious matter which they had to discuss was one which the President said he would dismiss in a very few words, namely, the exercise of the power of regulation to legislate, and to legislate so as to impose religious disabilities. The money which Parliament voted for secondary schools and training colleges was voted to promote secondary education and the training of teachers for public elementary schools. It was not meant to enable the President of the Board of Education to advance his own religious or political opinions, and in that way to divert or alter the character of schools and colleges, the money for the encouragement of which was entrusted to him for the time being. He would further say that wherever religious disabilities or religious requirements were imposed on the use of Parliamentary Grants for the provision of educational institutions, those requirements had been imposed by Act of Parliament. The Cowper-Temple Clause, which was Clause 14 of the Act of 1870, forbade catechisms and formularies distinctive of religious denominations to be used in any school provided by the local authority. Clause 4 of the Act of 1902 forbade local authorities to provide any schools except subject to the provisions of the Cowper-Temple
76
Clause. That was really to protect the local authorities from the possible discord which would arise if they were able to provide schools, elementary or secondary, for one denomination or another. Under the Charity Trusts Act, and the Endowed Schools Act, the greatest care was taken that existing denominational institutes should be protected in the framing of schemes. Clause 19 of the Endowed Schools Act declared that its provisions were not to affect any educational endowment in which the scholars were required to learn or be instructed in the formulae of a particular denomination, and no scheme was to make any provision as to religious instruction of the scholars except with the consent of the governing body. To return to Clause 4 of the Act of 1902, it expressly forbade local authorities in giving money to existing institutions, schools, colleges or hostels other than elementary and not provided by them, to require that any particular religious teaching should or should not be given or that any particular religious observances should or should not be kept. These were the statutory provisions, and they seemed to him to tie the hands of the Board, if it wished to carry out the spirit of those statutes, from interfering with the religious instruction in schools except for the purpose of carrying out the express provisions of the Act. The Board of Education, under whatever rule it had been, whether Radical or Conservative, had always kept themselves absolutely clear of religious questions in the apportionment of grants. What were the Board doing now? They were imposing by regulations a Cowper-Temple Clause on secondary schools and training colleges, and they were doing this by departmental documents which had not to lie on the Table of the House. Not

77
only that, but they were using their powers as Charity Commissioners to compel or induce the governors of secondary schools to bring up the trust deeds or schemes or instruments of foundation to the Board to get them altered, so as to introduce the Cowper-Temple Clause and various other religious disabilities under pain of the loss of part of the grant offered by the Board of Education. The Board of Education were going to do what local authorities were expressly forbidden from doing, namely, to differentiate between one school and another on religious grounds. Local authorities were forbidden to require that any form of religious instruction should or should not be given or observances followed, but the Board of Education were going to do this, and why? Was there any religious difficulty in the secondary schools? Had any parents complained? Had local authorities complained? They had clamoured for larger representation, but had they alleged that there was any religious difficulty? He challenged the President of the Board of Education to point out any case in which any religious difficulty had arisen in secondary schools. The right hon. Gentleman was doing this to gratify his Nonconformist supporters, and not to benefit education or the students. It was being done not at the invitation of the local authorities but to satisfy the clamour of the Nonconformist clique who were largely represented in the House of Commons. What was the present situation in regard to the training colleges? How far were the Board of Education and the country indebted to the denominations for the provision of institutions for the training of teachers? There were at this moment fifty-one recognised training colleges. How many of them were undenominational? Only ten were undenominational, thirty-two were provided by the Church of England, seven by the Roman Catholics, and two by the Wesleyans. The Government, it was true, provided the maintenance, but what was the good of that if there was not a college for the students to go to? Who provided the colleges? The denominations were the first in the field, otherwise there would have been very few colleges for training teachers.
SIR G KEKEWICH: They were built with the aid of State grants.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSON: No. There had not been any building grants since 1870. The hon. Member for Exeter would have done well to remember that a great many of those colleges had been built since 1870, and those built before that date must have cost a large sum to repair and equip for modern requirements.
SIR G. KEKEWICH: And many of them have not been repaired yet.
*SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that if there was one thing more than another which was urgent in regard to elementary education it was to obtain a better supply of competent teachers. Now it was proposed that one source—the only source for a good many years—was to be cut off. What about the colleges now in existence? They were to be appropriated by persons who intended to frustrate the objects for which those colleges were built. At present the colleges selected their own students. The Board of Education had taken minute care— which was almost ludicrous when they came to read it—that the heads of the college were not to have any voice in the selection of the pupils. No application was to be received before a certain date, every application, as the letter was opened, was to be recorded and registered and open for the inspection of the Board of Education. If the student was not accepted in the order in which his application was opened the Board of Education would intervene, and the college would have to show cause why he had not been accepted, and might be mulcted in a considerable amount of the grant, or, for a second offence, refused recognition altogether. A mass of applications might be deliberately sent in by persons anxious to flood the college with Nonconformist students, and the letters would have to be opened and the students admitted in the order in which they were received. Many of those colleges were held under trust deeds which required that religious instruction of a particular kind should be given there. What would happen now? They might get

79
a Roman Catholic or a Church of England college filled with students who would alter the whole character of the college, who would decline to receive the religious instruction provided, or attend the religious observances for which the college was founded. They might get enough of this class of students to destroy the discipline of the college if not its entire character. Some of the colleges would not be able to receive the grants for the students who would not take the religious instruction and the college would very likely have to be closed in consequence. Nevertheless the teachers would have to be trained somewhere and the burden would fall upon the local education authority. In the past they had heard a good many eloquent speeches upon the great merits of the undenominational religious instruction given in the council schools. That teaching was very good of its kind, but it should not be forgotten that most of the teachers who gave that instruction had been trained in Church of England training colleges, and consequently, by adopting these regulations they would not merely affect the supply of teachers, but they would affect the character and quality of the religious teaching given in the elementary schools, because the students would no longer receive the religious instruction they had been accustomed to receive in the post. He understood the purport of the new regulations to be this, that a denominational hostel must not be attached to an undenominational training college. So that where a local authority did not desire to build a training college of its own but desired to use the training college established by a denomination, yet wished to build an hostel for the benefit of its own students, that hostel would no longer be recognised for grants. That seemed unjust on the face of it, and it was not in accord with the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who, speaking to a deputation last year, deliberately assured them that he recognised the desirability of having the two kinds of hostel, a denominational hostel in connection with an undenominational college, and vice versâ, and added that he would do all he could to see that these hostels had a fair chance. That was the policy of the Board last year, and he desired to know for what reason and to what extent
80
it had been changed. He hoped that the Committee would consider that this imposition of religious disabilities by the mere act of a Department, and contrary to the spirit of existing legislation, was not a matter to be dismissed in a few words by the President of the Board of Education. In regard to secondary schools, the Board required as one of the conditions of a grant that there should be a majority of representative governors. That would probably involve an alteration of the scheme, and it was another instance in which the Board of Education was using its powers as a dispenser of grants to bring the recipients of the grants within its grip, and to compel the governors to bring up their schemes for alteration under pain of losing half the grant. In this matter of local representation the local authorities had taken pretty good care of themselves. Why should the Board step in to help people who were perfectly well able to help themselves, and why should it insist that the local authority, when it had not built the school or contributed to its maintenance, should have a majority of representative governors, or else the school should only have half the grant to which it would otherwise be entitled? Was the Board altogether satisfied with the government of these schools by the local authority? On the contrary, it was quite clear that they had considerable grounds for dissatisfaction. It was stated that excessive powers of government were given to the organising secretary, that the schools were not really supervised by the local authority, and that the latter were apt to consider that the only instruction worth having was scientific and technical instruction. Then to impose, as the Board of Education was now doing, a hard and fast requirement that 25 per cent. of the places in secondary schools must be kept free for children from the elementary schools would risk the financial position of the secondary schools, would very likely lower their standard of teaching, and would not profit, but rather would very often fatigue and embarrass, the unfortunate children who were sent up to occupy these places. What was most needed was to provide schools suited to carry on and develop the work of the elementary school, not to send boys and girls from one school to another with no regard to suitableness or to the capacity of the child. He noticed that Wales

81
was excluded from the operation of the Code issued by the Board of Education. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain to what extent he considered himself responsible, under the new arrangement in regard to Wales, for the government of the elementary schools in Wales, and what Code would be applied to Wales. Was there any probability that the provision of this Code would be made to apply to Wales in the course of time? They knew that there were many burning questions in Wales as regarded elementary schools, and it was therefore of great importance to those interested in voluntary schools in Wales to know what the conditions were there. There was another matter which might in some localities inflict hardships, and that was the striking out of the 8-feet per child limit in the elementary schools. He did not suppose anyone quarrelled with the desire of the Board—it was a desire which he shared—that children should have full space for the prosecution of their studies, in comfort. He had no doubt that in a great part of the country the requirement would not work hardly. Certainly, in rural districts the accommodation provided was often in excess of the school attendance, and therefore there would be no difficulty to meet the present requirements of the Board there; but there would no doubt be cases in towns, and possibly even in the country, in which a sudden call upon a school, whether voluntary or Board school, to meet this 10-feet requirement would produce hardship. Children might have to be taken out of schools to which they were attached and which their parents wished them to attend and have to go to other schools which their parents did not desire them to attend. He therefore expressed the hope that the new rule, or rather the omission from the Code of this year of the rule which was involved, would be exercised in a spirit of fairness. What he regarded, however, of most importance was the topic on which he had already dwelt, and which the President of the Board of Education had dismissed with a smile and the waving of his hand—the introduction of the, practice of legislation by regulation. The President of the Board of Education was imposing requirements as to religious teaching or the observance of religious
82
teaching which imposed disabilities as conditions of grant: what one Board of Education did, however, another might undo. There was a great deal in the requirements which he considered unjust, and he should have no hesitation in doing his best to undo them if occasion offered; and to introduce into Departmental Government practices which would produce see-saw administration, leaving one Government to undo the work of another Government, would be a most unfortunate thing. If these changes were to be made, they should be made by legislation. The House ought to have full opportunity of considering whether training colleges and; secondary schools were to be provided with a Cowper-Temple clause which by legislation had been imposed upon all elementary schools and all secondary schools provided by the local educational authority and the House should say whether the Board of Education was to be allowed to do what the local authority was forbidden to do, which was to differentiate between different classes of schools in relation to grants in accordance with the religious teaching there given. These were serious matters which they ought never to have been invited to discuss without a full explanation of the policy of the President of the Board of Education. They ware discussing them under a disadvantage. He hoped he was not doing the President of the Board of Education an injustice when he told him that he was departing from the universal practice of the Board and running counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of a whole series of statutes.
*MR. S. T. EVANSsaid the speech just delivered by the hon. Baronet was just the kind of speech they would have expected from the representative of the late Government at the Education Office. The greater portion of the speech was taken up with the question of the secondary schools and training colleges. He did not propose to attempt to deal with his arguments with reference to the secondary schools, because he took greater interest in the intermediate schools of Wales than in the secondary schools of England and he would only point out that

83
there never had been any religious difficulty in their intermediate schools, because in them they had practically the spirit of the regulations which they saw in the Code of his right hon. friend this year prevailing all over the country. There never had been from the beginning in these schools any difficulty from the point of view either of the Church of England or any other denomination with reference to the religious instruction which was imparted. The hon. Baronet had said that they were by this new Code for the first time imposing religious disabilities in the training colleges. But on the contrary his right hon. friend was removing some of the religious disabilities under which Nonconformists had suffered for generations. The hon. Baronet said the Code had been got up to meet the clamour of a clique of Nonconformists. They did not mind hard words being used towards them, if only the diabilities from which they had suffered were removed, and to the extent that these disabilities were removed he most heartily approved of the provisions incorporated for the first time in the Code of Regulations under the régime of his right hon. friend. He would point out what the hon. Baronet called imposing religious disabilities. This was one of the regulations—
"In no circumstances may the application of a candidate be rejected on the ground of religious faith or by reason of his refusal to undertake to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship or any religious observances or instruction in religious subjects in the college or elsewhere; nor on the ground of social antecedents or the like."
He should think that was an attempt to remove religious disabilities already existing. To say it was imposing religious disabilities was to use the phrase in a most unwarrantable fashion.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that what he meant by "religious disability" was that they took a particular sort of religious instruction which persons desired and said that if they had that religious instruction in their establishment they should not get the money which the State gave.
*MR. S. T. EVANSsaid he should call that freedom from any religious disability. I the hon. Baronet would refer to one other of the regulations he would
84
see that after August 1st, 1907, no institution not already recognised as a training college or hostel would be so recognised unless certain conditions were observed. First, no catechism or formulary of any particular religious denomination might be taught in the college or hostel, "except in the case where the parent or guardian requested the governor in writing to provide that the student's religious instruction in the doctrines, catechism or formularies distinctive of any particular denomination." He did not know whether the hon. Baronet had forgotten that provision, or whether the Code had not been in his hands sufficiently long to enable him to master it. Why did the denominations assert an exclusive claim to the training colleges? Everybody knew that training colleges had been mainly built by public money, and that they had been maintained for generations almost exclusively by public money. Who had had the benefit of that? The Church of England had had the benefit, and that was the particular denomination that was fighting in this matter to retain the exclusive right to manage the institutions. It had excluded whenever it had thought fit anybody who would not submit to its regulations, doctrines, teachings, or religious observances in the colleges. It was in order to remove these disabilities and to enable Nonconformists to enter these State institutions without sacrificing their self-respect, and to adhere to the religious beliefs of themselves and their parents that he and his friends wanted the resolution to be adopted. If denominations desired to retain their colleges, let them keep them by all means—he would not even require them to disgorge any of the public money which had been spent on the colleges—but let them maintain those colleges at the exclusive expense of the denomination which they served. It had been complained that the present proposal was legislation by regulation. That might be so, but what had rendered that course necessary was the attitude of the Conservative Party in the House, and of their allies in another place. The Minister for Education had not only the right but it was his duty to do his best to give effect to the well-known wishes of the electorate when those wishes had been thwarted in the Upper House.

85
He hoped that the Minister for Education would continue in the course he had adopted. Let him not be frightened by the cry that he was doing wrong. There had been notable instances where reforms were achieved by Executive Act, where legislation had failed. There was the well-known historic proposal to abolish purchase in the Army. A Bill with that object passed the Commons but was rejected by the Lords. Mr. Gladstone then advised the Crown to abolish purchase in the Army by Royal Warrant. He was constitutionally right, and, although it was a bold thing to do, it was justified, having regard to the welfare of the nation. If his right hon. friend was doing nothing outside an Act of Parliament, he was doing nothing wrong. Within the provisions and the letter of the statute he certainly had the right, and it was his duty to the supporters of the Government in the House and in the country, to deal with this question, not only in the training colleges, but also, so far as the could, in the denominational schools. He wanted to know whether his right hon. friend could not go a little bit further, in dealing with the voluntary schools by means of the Code. His right hon. friend ought, in his judgment, to give every support to the local authorities to insist upon the observance of all the statutory obligations which had been imposed upon the trustees and managers of the denominational schools. They [would have no ground to complain, because the obligations were slight enough in all conscience, having regard to the advantages which they still retained and the control which they still wielded. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would insist upon these obligations being carried out to the very letter of the law. What were some of the obligations? The first was that the school buildings must be kept in repair by the trustees of the schools, and in many parts of the country it was said that the local authorities had been very strict upon the managers and the owners of the schools in this matter. He submitted that it was the duty of the Education Department to see to it that if the school was not kept in repair and the provisions under the Act of 1902 were not observed that the local authorities should be supported in their refusal to give any grant to the
86
school. They had no access to the reports of the inspectors, but he made bold to say that in the pigeon-holes available to his right hon. friend he would find abundant evidence that many of the schools were not in proper repair and condition, and that Clause 7 of the Act was not observed, and that under the Act of Parliament they were no longer entitled to be public schools and have public money given to them. He urged this especially for the sake of the children. The next obligation was to make such reasonable alterations and improvements as might be required by the local authority: and he wished to refer to the alteration in the Code of the space or floor area required for every scholar which was a provision of great importance touching the health and comfort of the children. The prefatory note to the Code stated—
"The Board, however, propose to take steps gradually to bring the accommodation up to the proper standard, and as a first step towards doing this they have removed from the Code the provision which has hitherto appeared stating that there shall in no case be less than eight square feet of internal area for each unit of the number of children in average attendance for which the school is recognised."
The inclusion of this provision had in certain cases been misinterpreted as implying that eight square feet was accepted by the Board as adequate, just as, when a speed of twenty miles was allowed in regard to motor cars, everyone thought that motors must go twenty miles an hour. In regard to new council schools he understood that the Board of Education in their building regulations required that they should show an average of not less than ten square feet of floor-space for each scholar in average attendance
MR McKENNAsaid that applied to all new schools.
*MR. S. T. EVANSsaid that was a reasonable provision. But it was pointed out in the note to the Code that in voluntary schools erected in earlier years the accommodation had usually been calculated at eight square feet per scholar only, and as the Board were not always supplied with complete plans, it was stated that it was possible that in some cases the actual accommodation had not reached

87
even this minimum standard. If the standard of ten feet was right in regard to council schools, he maintained that it would be a reasonable requirement on the part of the local education authority that the trustees and managers of voluntary schools should also make provision for this space, as a condition of the right of: public maintenance. He also thought play-grounds ought to be attached to all schools, and that they should be made (as the Code provided) healthy, safe in case of fire, that there should be sufficient sanitary and cloak-room accommodation, and that they should be adequately lighted, warmed, ventilated, cleaned and drained, kept in proper repair, and should be sufficiently convenient and suitably arranged for the instruction of children: and no grant should be paid unless these provisions were complied with. Then again, the quality and quantity of the staffing in the voluntary schools should be brought up to the same level as in the council schools. They must come to this sooner or later, that the public must provide their own schools, and that there must be one, and only one, common type of elementary school erected and maintained by the State where all children would be treated on the same footing. Nobody could deny that the quality and quantity of staffing in the council schools was on a higher scale than in the denominational schools, and he wanted the level in the latter raised to that of the former. This might force the local authorities to do what they did not want to do; it might put people's backs up so as to make them passive resisters, but if it produced the reforms they desired, it would be worth the sacrifice. With regard to the grants, there were, as he understood, five different grants given to elementary schools. There was the Aid Grant given under Section 10 of the 1902 Act, which must be given by Statute, and which the Department could not withhold if the school fulfilled the conditions. Then there was the Fee Grant, which was also statutory; but next came the Annual Grant, which was 17s. per head to infants, and 22s. per head for older children, Which was in a different category. Was it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would not continue to give
88
these latter grants in respect of any schools unless the owners gave the majority of the control to the public and unless they made the regulations of the schools similar to those which would now prevail in the training colleges? The only argument against the Department having that power appeared in Section 97 of the Act of 1870, which provided that advantage should not be given to one school over another. But this was not a question of giving a bigger grant to one school and a smaller to another. The Act of 1870 did not say the right hon. Gentleman could not impose conditions as to the grant, and he therefore submitted that the Department was in a like position qua this particular anuaul grant with regard to the elementary schools as with the training colleges. He trusted his right hon. friend would consider that matter. Finally, he congratulated him for having boldly faced the situation. It came with a very bad grace from hon. Members opposite to say that his right hon. friend had no right by this method, and by means of the Code, to try and mitigate the injustice from which the people had suffered so long. If it had not been for the treatment which the Education Bill of last year received at the hands of the other House, these regulations would never have been made. What had happened last year completely justified them. He could assure his right hon. friend that if he went fast and boldly in the direction he had indicated, he would have the consistent and unanimous support of all those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House.
*MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken was nothing if not humorous, and sometimes he was an unconscious humorist. During the debates of 1902 the hon. and learned Gentleman was constantly expressing distrust of the Education Office as an executive Department. He must have some humorous recollections now of how he forgot in that day that what one executive embarked upon with levity, a later executive might possibly reverse with wisdom and with popular acceptance. These considerations were only some among many evidences that the day had

89
gone by when in respect of Radical measures either of legislation or of executive power, men could say "they are bound to come, and, having come, are bound to remain. "Bad legislation could now be and probably would be reversed and set aside. And he could promise hon. Gentlemen opposite that no efforts would be lacking—and probably a considerable deal of success would attend those efforts —to obtain popular approval for the complete reversal of these flagitious measures of the present Executive. There was a recent example which might serve as a warning to the President of the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman was being invited to embark on an executive crusade against voluntary schools. In 1893–5 they had such an executive crusade, and then there was the general election of 1895. Some of the acuter observers of the contests of that period were of opinion that although perhaps cordite had something to do with it, and Home Rule had something more to do with it, and possibly beer had something to do with it, yet the crusade of those days undertaken by Mr. Arthur Acland against the Church schools probably had more than anything else to do with the dire reverse which befell the Liberal Party of that day. [An Hon. Member: That is unconscious humour.] When invitations to proceed upon a crusade of that kind were addressed to the right hon. Gentleman—when he was asked to renew in 1907 what had such dire consequences in 1895—he (Mr. Stuart Wortley) and many of his friends hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would try.
MR HARVEYremarked that according to the doctrine laid down by the last speaker a Liberal Government was to carry out the regulations and arrangements of its Tory predecessors and then there would be peace, but immediately a Liberal Government dared to put into operation those principles of administration which its Members were elected to carryout, the direst consequences were threatened. He did not think the Liberal Party would assent to a propostion of that sort. His purpose was to offer a few criticisms upon what he considered to be the apathy of the Board
90
of Education with regard to the defective condition of many of the elementary schools. The situation, he thought, was one which demanded courage and determination on the part of the Board. His view was that the rejection of the Bill of last year, so far from paralysing the Board, ought to stimulate them to a relentless performance of their obvious duties. After the rejection of the generous and just measure of last year many of them had predicted that a course of strong administration would immediately be set on foot. Something had been said about a bloodless administration. He never understood the meaning of those words, but he hoped they did not mean that the administration might be colourless and anæmic. He had always thought that many of our educational difficulties might be set straight by administration. He did not ask for vindictive action, which would be undignified and tend to set up a feeling of sympathy where sympathy was not merited. It was common knowledge that many elementary schools were bad in the sense that they were bad for the health of children and teachers, and the results obtained, moreover, were not commensurate with the public money spent on them. The Board of Education compelled the children to go to these schools and was bound to safeguard the children's interests. He urged that the Board should stand behind the local authorities in these matters and give them its support. Incidentally he might say that he admitted the Act of 1902 had had the effect of improving elementary education by the raising of the salaries of the teachers and by stimulating public interest in education. Ho maintained that playgrounds, cloakrooms, and lavatories were required for all elementary schools, [and he thought the time had come when the 10-feet space area should be insisted upon. If the President of the Board of Education could not follow the children to their homes, at all events he could insist that in the schools there should be a sufficiency of light and air during the hours which they spent there. The right hon. Gentleman could not see that the children went early to bed, but he could set his face against the nerve destroying conditions of many schools

91
where the conflict of raised voices interfered with the processes of education and rendered the children irritable and confused. The Board acted not only by codes and regulations, but through inspectors who were always willing to do their duty. When the last Education Bill was carried the then President of the Board, Lord Londonderry, called the inspectors together conspicuously and publicly, and told them to stay their hands and not to report adversely against bad schools. The President of the Board should follow that example publicly and conspicuously, but with this difference. Let him call together the inspectors in the public eye, and tell them that he would like to hear of all those cases; let him insist, in fact, upon a survey of the schools of the country, and let the results of that survey be made publicly known. The Blue-book published each year giving a list of the elementary schools of the country was supposed to contain figures of the accommodation in each school with the number of children the managers were entitled to teach therein Those figures were very inaccurate. In many cases they very much overstated the capacity of the school. He had instances in his mind. He would not be expected to give the names of the schools, but he could hand them to the right hon. Gentleman. He was very well acquainted with a certain denominational school which had a mixed department that, according to the Blue-book, accommodated 561 children. On the 8-feet basis it could only accommodate 524, and on the 10-feet basis 401; and the working accommodation of the school was assessed by the managers at 394. That deceived the public. He came to the case of six schools in Lancashire, where the Blue-book gave the accommodation in the mixed department at 1, 310, but which on the 8 feet basis was only 1, 180, and where the working accommodation, as assessed by the officials of the Lancashire County Council, was for 898, the full number of children that could be taught. He thought the President of the Board of Education would act wisely if he resurveyed those schools, because they wanted the public to know the true facts of the situation, for until they did know the true facts
92
they would never make the progress which so many of them desired. Many cases must be known to Members of the House where inspectors had reported adversely upon schools, and yet those reports had mysteriously disappeared, and they knew nothing more about them. He made these criticisms in no hostile spirit, for he believed the Minister for Education was showing great energy this year, but he wanted to assure him of the support he would receive if he proved still more energetic.
MR. BOLANDsaid he did not know whether the President of the Board of Education was aware of the effect produced among the Catholics of this country by the publication of the regulations for secondary schools and training colleges. He could assure him that they were regarded as a declaration of war, and he would, before he sat down, move the reduction of the Vote in order to emphasise their attitude upon this subject. He thought the least that could be said was that the President of the Board of Education had endeavoured to pass, by regulations for secondary schools, what the Government last year failed to obtain in the case of elementary schools. The endeavour was undoubtedly to starve out the denominational schools in the case of the secondary schools, to interfere with the training colleges, Catholic and Protestant, and then by easy stages, having secured the principle in the case of secondary schools and training colleges, to proceed, at as early a date as possible, to the absolute destruction of the denominational colleges and schools of the country. He spoke only with a knowledge of the Catholic training colleges, which to a great extent had been built by Catholics out of their own funds. He found from the regulations dealing with training colleges, that application might be made for and on behalf of any candidate who had been refused admission to a college, with a view to obtaining the Board's decision as to whether Section 8 had been infringed. By this the door was immediately opened to outside influences, quite apart from the actual student who was supposed to be interfered with. Then the regulation went on—
"If the grounds on which the candidate has been rejected are in the view of the Board

93
unreasonable, the college or hostel returned will be liable to a reduction in its total grant for the year, not exceeding £100, on the first occasion, and to removal from the list of recognised colleges or hostels on the second occasion. "
The importance of this would be seen if they took one of the Catholic training colleges where at the present moment there was not a single student who was not Catholic. What was to prevent someone who was not a Catholic presenting himself as a candidate and being refused, in which event £100 would be deducted from the grant? And, again, what was to prevent a strong Nonconformist parent, anxious to do away with the Catholic training college in his district, from getting his son to present himself as a candidate and being refused, in which event the college would be removed altogether from the list of colleges and hostels receiving grants. He did not think it was the least exaggeration to say that this could be done under the actual terms of the regulations. They might foresee the spirit in which these regulations would be carried out from the speech made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mid. Glamorgan, but the Catholics were prepared to meet this declaration of war, if a declaration of war was meant, by the strongest refusal and objection to seeing these regulations put in force. It would be equally possible for him to detain the House with reference to the regulations for secondary schools if he desired to do so; but he thought that he was justified in saying that they went pari passu with the regulations for training colleges. The two things stood together, coupled with this fact, that these regulations were to come into force on 1st August. They had only received four weeks notice. He did not know whether they could be issued at any moment or had to lie on the Table for four or five weeks. ["No."] If they were not to be laid on the Table, then there was all the more reason that they should not be sprung on the country. If these regulations could be issued two or three weeks before they came into force, there was nothing whatever to prevent the Board of Education from issuing them the day before they were to come into operation. It had always been considered that a
94
certain amount of time should be given to Members and the public generally to consider regulations by the documents being laid on the Table for a specified period, and he contended that where that was not done Members of that House and the public should have due and solemn notice before such absolutely revolutionary regulations were brought into force. The hon. and learned Member for Mid. Glamorgan had referred to the necessity of the Government stiffening their backs and supporting the local education authorities. He would like to mention two instances which showed the way in which, if that advice were adopted, denominational schools, Catholic and Protestant, throughout the country would have absolutely no chance of being heard or getting justice. One case occurred in the West Riding of Yorkshire which he believed was coming before the right hon. Gentleman personally for decision. It was that of a school at Mortomley, near Sheffield. The salaries of the teachers had been withheld since 1st May on the objection taken by the local authority that the playground had not been asphalted. The only answer he wished to make on this case was to quote from letters sent by the Board of Education itself to the local education authority in this particular matter. On the 17th May, in the present year, the Board of Education wrote to the local education authority as follows—
"The Board have been informed by the managers that the authority have required them to asphalt the playground as a condition of maintaining the school. I am to remind you that, in the opinion of the Board, the authority are not empowered to make such a requirement, though the managers are under an obligation to put and maintain the playground in a proper condition for the use for which it was intended. In the present case the Board understand that the managers have given an undertaking to carry out their duties in this respect."
That was the reply given officially by the Board of Education to the local education authority, and that authority refused to accept that decision. They refused to pay the salaries of the teachers and for three months they had been kept without salaries. A little later, on the 8th June, another letter was written by the Board of Education to

95
the local education authority in the following terms—
"Under these circumstances there appears to be no reason why the authority should not recognise the new premises and continue to maintain the school as required by Section 7 of the Education Act of 1902."
That was a case in which the local education authority received two answers from the Board of Education directing them to maintain this particular school, and yet they refused to pay the salaries necessary to do so. He referred to the case as showing what the local education authority was able to do if it had within its ranks people determined to destroy the educational character of a school. The second case was more important, because it raised in a remarkable degree the action, not only of the Board of Education, but also of the local education authority, which was the county council for the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was the case of the Low Valley schools, and it exemplified what could be done by a local education authority when the Board of Education was dilatory in carrying out the Act of 1902. Public notice was given on 19th January, 1906, under Section 8 of the Act of the intention of the promoters to provide a new school. The Act provided that there should be no unnecessary delay in carrying out the requirements, but in this case six clear months elapsed before a public inquiry was held. It was held on 4th July, and the inspector actually issued his report on 30th July last year. Would the House believe it, it was not until nine months after that report was sent in that the Board of Education gave its decision, and all that time this particular school was being maintained by the people of the district out of their own pockets. During those fifteen months the Board of Education, by its dilatoriness, prevented the matter being settled. Meanwhile the anxiety of the local authority was undoubtedly to have this Low Valley Catholic school crushed out as well as the neighbouring Church of England school, and, towards the end of 1905, they gave notice that they wanted a new school built to accommodate 720 scholars, which practically meant that the Church of England and the Catholic schools would be closed and their scholars
96
find their way into the new council school. But that school had not yet been built; the council had not even got a site, and if they got permission to build to-morrow it would be at least a year before it could be erected. Meanwhile the local education authority had acquired possession of what was previously a Wesleyan school which they were now carrying on as a provided school. That school was admitted to be the most unsatisfactory building of all school buildings in the district. The council were still maintaining that school, and no conclusion had yet been arrived at to obtain a site for the new school. By the action of the local education authority and the Board of Education in neglecting to bring matters to a head the Catholic miners of Barnsley had had for two years to maintain the Low Valley school out of their own slender resources, and last Monday the Church of England school was closed. Whether the parents of that school would join with the Catholics in maintaining their own school remained to be seen, but he hoped they would and so check this direct effort of the local education authority of the West Riding to crush out denominational schools. He submitted that if any hon. Member would read the correspondence which had been printed and published with respect to the Low Valley school, he would see what would happen if the Board of Education did not stand fairly between parents who desired denominational education and a local education authority determined at all costs to act in an unfortunate spirit which had not characterised English local government administration. He hoped they would see that the Board of Education acted honestly as a court of appeal and not delay when it meant help to the local authority, and above all that it would check that unfortunate spirit which seemed to be spreading on the West Riding County Council and was trying to crush out denominational schools altogether. The regulations for training colleges and secondary schools were a direct declaration of war on the part of the Board of Education, and they would undoubtedly be accepted by the Catholics and Protestants of Great Britain in that light. The Board of Education had not acted fairly in bringing

97
forward those regulations only a few days before they had to come into force, and only a couple of days before this important debate. He begged to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (1) (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Boland.)
MR WILLIAM REDMOND: said that the hon. Member for South Kerry had so well stated the case of the particular schools about which complaint was made that there was really no need for him to refer again to those specific cases. He would like, however, to make one or two general remarks on the regulations which had been issued by the Board of Education. Whether the Minister for Education realised it or not, he was certainly by these proposals preparing the way for a great deal of trouble for himself and his Party. If he imagined that he could treat minorities in this way he was making a very great mistake indeed. He entirely denied the right of any Government, no matter how strong, to spring upon the country and Parliament regulations which meant an absolute revolution in the management of the schools of the land. These regulations, if carried into effect, would entirely change the whole management of secondary schools and training colleges. That being so, the very least they expected was that full and ample notice would have been given by the Government of their intention. It was altogether wrong that it should be within the power of any administration, simply by the publication of a couple of pamphlets, to introduce such extraordinary and fundamental changes. Last year the Government endeavoured frankly and in the ordinary way by introducing a Bill to crush, to a great extent, many of the denominational schools in the country. Whatever might be said for a course of that kind, there was absolutely nothing to be said for either the candour or the courage of a Government which endeavoured to crush denominational institutions, not by introducing a Bill, but by issuing a couple of pamphlets without any notice whatever. They often heard
98
that it was more and more becoming the practice of Parliament to be asked to register the will of the Cabinet and that it was really at the Cabinet Councils that the programme of the Government was settled and not by discussions in Parliament. However that might be, it was not for the present Cabinet, no matter how large a majority might be behind it, to carry through without notice, by regulations, or by Act of Parliament, changes which very injuriously affected large minorities in the country. There was no need for him to go at length into the changes involved by the new regulations. Any man who read the pamphlets would come at once to the conclusion that they had but one intention, and that was mercilessly to crush denominational schools and training colleges. With reference to admission to training colleges, there was an extraordinary change. They were told that—
"In no circumstances may the application of a candidate be rejected on the ground of religious faith or by reason of his refusal to undertake to attend or abstain from attending any place of religious worship, or any religious observance, or instruction in religious subjects in the college or elsewhere."
[Cheers.] Yes, that was cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It might suit the schools and the class of establishments of which they approved very well, but could a more monstrous regulation be laid down with reference to a Catholic boarding school which was in existence simply because it was a Catholic school, and to which parents sent their children mainly, and almost entirely, because they knew that there, at any rate, they would be taught the religion they themselves believed and which they desired their children to be taught? What did it mean? It meant that if these schools were to continue to get any grants-in-aid whatever, under these regulations, they would have to give up their character as denominational schools altogether.
MR. MCKENNA: No.
MR WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the right hon. Gentleman denied that, and no doubt he would endeavour later on to justify his denial. But, after all, what they had to consider on these matters was the opinion of the people who were

99
affected by them, and he said that the Catholic people of this country, at any rate, whatever might be said for the Protestant denominations, would read those regulations as having one object, and that was to destroy the Catholic character of their schools which had been established with very great difficulty and with much sacrifice. With regard to the regulations for the training colleges, they put a premium upon attempts by people who were bitterly hostile to the Catholic religion at any rate, to enter the training colleges simply for the purpose of breaking them up altogether. What was to prevent students claiming admission to any of the Catholic training colleges in the country, and, if the conditions set forth in the new regulations were not carried out, the training colleges being closed altogether? The regulations in reference to the training schools and colleges were most unjust and, at the very least, full warning ought to have been given by the right hon. Gentleman before the changes were made. He did not know whether the President of the Board of Education expected that the people who bitterly resisted the attempt made by the Education Bill of last year to crush the denominational schools were going calmly to submit to its being done by regulations. If they resisted being wiped out by Act of Parliament, they would still more resist being interfered with or wiped out by regulations. The protest made during that debate was but the commencement of a protest, which would not be confined to the House of Commons. It would spread through every part of the country, and in the end the Government would be convinced that it was not possible at this time in the history of the world to proceed in the manner proposed in these regulations. The time had come when, in matters of the deepest and most vital interest in connection with the education of children, the country ought not to be asked to consent to regulations drawn up in the Education Department or any other Department. If these changes were to be made in reference to training colleges and schools, let a Bill be introduced into Parliament, with full warning of its introduction, so that the people had an opportunity of making their opinions known and felt,
100
and let not this cowardly attempt be made to do an underhand sort of a way what the Government did not succeed in doing when it was proposed by the Bill of last year. He felt that he had spoken somewhat strongly in the matter, but he assured hon. Gentlemen opposite that his indignation had been aroused by the sudden publication of these regulations. Speaking quite frankly and without any hostile spirit at all, he did not know what had come over the counsels of the present Government. For some time past they had been wasting time, in many directions. They had been taking step after step which had not led them a bit more forward in the confidence of the people or strengthened their position in this House. Practically at the end of the session these changes were suggested. He could only say that of the many mistakes that had been made this would probably, if persisted in, be found to be the greatest, and it would prove a colossal blunder so far as the interest of the Government was concerned. He was afraid that unless some strong assurance was given by the right hon. Gentleman to calm the fears that had been aroused, these proposals would give rise to more trouble in the country and in Parliament than the right hon. Gentleman had any idea of.
MR. McKENNAsaid the hon. Baronet who moved the reduction of the Vote, and also the hon. Member for East Clare, had complained that the training college regulations had been sprung upon the people without notice Upon that preliminary point ho had two answers to make. On 15th May this year in the House of Commons he said—
"With regard to the training colleges, he had found that question a difficult one to deal with. The only conclusion he had been able to come to was that in every training college there ought to be a conscience clause. The training colleges were almost exclusively supported out of public funds. That regulation would, for administrative reasons, not come into force this year, but it would come before the House next year."
That was the exact position. This regulation would come into force next year.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: When were these regulations published?
MR. McKENNAsaid they were published three days ago. His meaning was perfectly understood on 15th May by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University, who said—
"As regarded the training colleges, the effect of what had been told them by the President of the Hoard of Education was not at first sight very obvious, but at the same time it did not strike him us being very alarming to those colleges which had been built and started by denominations."
Then he went on to say, showing that he thoroughly appreciated the meaning of the conscience clause—
"The requirements of the proposed conscience clause did not seem to him to amount to more than this, that a Nonconformist would be able to go to a Church college, and that a Church of England student would be able to go to a Noncomformist college, both without any fear of proselytising."
SIR WILLIAM ANSON: But I did not understand from you that Nonconformists would be forced upon either Church of England or Roman Catholic colleges, and I said I reserved my opinion upon the regulations until I saw them.
MR. McKENNAsaid all he had done was to make that conscience clause of which he then gave notice a reality. He would have been misleading the House if he had only done what the hon. Baronet suggested. If he had merely said that the managers of training colleges might accept a Nonconformist if they liked, or that they might accept a Church of England applicant at the bottom of the list instead of a Nonconformist at the top, he would have been deceiving the House. He had done exactly what he had said he would do. The hon. Member for South Kerry had called this "a declaration of war." He would be sorry if anything he had done in this regulation were regarded as in the nature of a declaration of war. It was not so intended, and he did not think it would be found so in operation. What he meant to do was to throw these schools and colleges open to applicants of all denominations so long as the schools and colleges were maintained nit of public moneys. If these denominational colleges were maintained by private funds he would naturally have nothing to say. They would not be under his control. But so long as the public paid, the public ought to control. If there was one thing on which the public
102
clearly expressed their desire at the last election it was that in schools and colleges there might be public control over public expenditure. The hon. Member for Clare had said that he had taken a new line, and he referred to paragraph 18 of the new regulations. If the hon. Member, however, would turn to the Act of 1902 —an Act which he supported—he would find religious instruction upon the very lines laid down in those regulations with regard to secondary schools. He was only following the principle laid down in, and using the language of, that Bill.
SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would read the clause he would find that the local authority was expressly forbidden, either to require or not to require that religious instruction should or should not be given.
MR. McKENNAsaid the hon. Baronet had stated better than he could his point, which was that as regarded the rates it was expressly provided that the local authority should not have regard to religion. He was following out that principle in regard to training colleges. He was making it a condition in regard to training colleges, to which a grant was paid, that no person should be excluded because he practised or abstained from practising any particular religion. It was the same principle, though the application was not the same. Freedom from denominational qualification was a condition of receiving public aid.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it was somewhat irritating continually to hear the statement "public money." Did not the denominations pay their full share of public money and were they not entitled to consideration?
MR. McKENNA: said he would deal with the general principle in a moment. The hon. Baronet had challenged him on Clause 4. Paragraph (a) of Subsection (2) provided that—
"A scholar attending as a day or evening scholar shall not be required, as a condition of being admitted into or remaining in the school or college, to attend or abstain from attending any Sunday school, place of religious worship, religious observance, or instruction in religious subjects in the school or college or elsewhere."

103
He had applied the same principle to training colleges. There were two other particular points, before he dealt with the general question, which the hon. Member for South Kerry had referred to—the conduct of the local education authority in the West Riding of Yorkshire in regard to schools at Mortomley and Low Valley. The case of Mortomley, as the hon. Member was aware, was sub judice. He had the case before him, and it would not be proper for him to say anything upon it at the present moment. With regard to Low Valley, the difficulty arose originally with regard to the Catholic school and the building of a council school. When the proper statutory notice under the Act of 1902 to build the council school was given, no opposition was taken by the representatives of the Catholics. Consequently, the local education authority obtained leave to build the school in the absence of any opposition. As no opposition was taken, it could not be assumed that the parents in the district did not require a council school, but wished, on the contrary, to have a Roman Catholic or Church school. Having obtained the right, the local education authority, he understood, intended to build the school, but had been prevented by local difficulties with regard to the transfer of the site from doing so up to the present time. They were within their statutory rights, and, though the hon. Member might complain of the action of the local education authority, he did not see that he had any ground of complaint against the Board. It was true he had spoken of the delay between July last year until the early part of this year, but, as he knew, in many cases very important questions of dispute between local education authorities and managers of schools arose owing to the fact that a Bill was then before Parliament, although in the present case the delay seemed to have operated disadvantageously, as the hon. Member thought, to the school managers. There were many instances where it had operated disadvantageously to the local education authorities. He would pass from that to the question raised originally by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the proposal to put upon the Estimates the charge for
104
£100,000 for building new schools. The right hon. Gentleman had very truly said that the proposal was a contradiction of a clause in the Act of 1870. So far, they were on common ground. He went on to say, however, that it was unconstitutional or at any rate improper and possibly disorderly to make any such proposal in the Estimates until the clause in the Act of 1870 had been repealed. He observed that it would be a very difficult position for the courts to deal with, if they found, at one and the same time, two Acts of Parliament, one forbidding the building of schools out of public money and the other, the Appropriation Act, apparently authorising the building of such schools out of money granted from the Exchequer. That, he took it, was the position the right hon. Gentleman took up. The answer was really very much simpler than he had suggested could be the case. It was perfectly true the Act of 1870 forbade the application of Exchequer grants to the purposes of building schools, but it did not bind Parliament for all time, and it was perfectly open to the House, first by Vote and secondly by the incorporation of that Vote in the Appropriation Act, provided the purpose was explicitly stated in the Appropriation Act—perfectly possible and proper he submitted—to override to the extent that the Appropriation Act could override an Act of Parliament by the inclusion of a particular charge in the Appropriation Act. He said the extent to which the Appropriation Act could override it, because the Appropriation Act did not repeal or purport to repeal the Act of 1870. The prohibition under the Act of 1870 continued. The Appropriation Act only lasted during the currency of the present financial year. All he could do under the Appropriation Act and all he would do if Parliament allowed him would be to acquire the right to pay out of money voted by the House a sum of £100,000 for the purpose of building schools up to 31st March next. If he had not spent all the money then he must surrender what remained to the Exchequer in accordance with the usual practice. He could not carry the money over, and could not go on spending any part of the money after 31st March. The Act of 1870 still remained in force,

105
and the prohibition still existed, but so far as the Appropriation Act had authorised the expenditure of this £ 100,000 within the year only he would be able to spend that money under the authority of statute. He did not know whether any question of order would ever be submitted. He could not see that one arose. The right hon. Gentleman might not like it, and he might have his own view as to the constitutional point, but he could hardly put a point of order for the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the refusal of hostel grants under the regulations either for new denominational hostels built in connection with undenominational training colleges or undenominational hostels built in connection with denominational training colleges, bat he did not quite state the whole meaning and purport of the grants. It was perfectly true that what were known as hostel grants would no longer be given in respect of hostels under the conditions which he had described, but there was nothing to prevent an ordinary student getting a lodging grant and taking it where he liked. The difference between the hostel and lodging grants was a matter of £10 a year. The lodging grant was in respect to the expense of a student's living whilst training for the profession of a teacher, and the hostel grant was an additional grant to cover the expense of the corporate life which the student lived in a hostel. The question he had to consider was, ought they to pay that what one might call the corporate grant when the corporate body was held together for a denominational purpose? If it was for a denominational purpose that the hostel was maintained, ought not that corporate body to provide for the hostel? They gave the lodging grant presumably for what it cost to keep the student who attended daily a training college, but if he wished to live in the denominational atmosphere of the hostel, then the denominations ought to pay for that atmosphere. The student might take his lodging grant where he pleased. The Board had no desire to prevent anybody living in a denominational atmosphere if he or she wished. All they had sought to do was not to make the public pay for that atmosphere. Freedom to
106
the student was still fully granted. A question had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to the building grants, but it had been cleared up in the course of the discussion by the hon. Baronet, and therefore he need not further refer to the matter. The hon. Baronet had made a strong and plausible constitutional point in respect of the regulations. Ho had said that the regulations should not be used for enforcing or preventing religious doctrine from being taught, but that if Parliament wished to enforce such teaching or abstention it ought to be carried out by an Act. That was a very pleasing doctrine in the mouth of the hon. Baronet. When the hon. Baronet had a majority in the House he had also a majority else whore; and when he pointed to what he did in 1902 and held the action up as a model for the Government to follow, the hon. Baronet was really holding up something which the Government could not copy. He would be willing to introduce a Bill as the Chief Secretary did if it were in his power to do all that the hon. Baronet wished; but he could not—not because of the House of Commons, for the representatives of the people would give him an overwhelming authority; and he was asking them to give this authority by the regulations.
SIR W. ANSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that the Cowper-Temple Clause was introduced by a Liberal Government?
MR. McKENNAsaid he remembered perfectly that it was introduced by a Churchman, but ho did not see how that fact was relevant to the present position. Whatever might have been done in 1870 could not be nearly so well done to-day, because the action of the other House last year had taught the Government that no matter what compromise they offered, they could not give force to the will of the majority of the House of Commons—he said it without offence— if the Leader of the Opposition thought it to be more advantageous to his Party that the Bill should not pass. Under these conditions, he was forced to take the only method open to him, a perfectly proper method, perfectly constitutional, thoroughly authorised by statute, and to enforce these principles by means of a regulation. All

107
that he could do by regulations was to make the doing of a particular act or the refraining from doing a particular act a condition of money grant. But he could not declare by regulation this or that thing illegal; all he could do was to say that he could only distribute these grants in accordance with certain conditions, and in that he was acting in a perfectly constitutional way. After all, it was a pure money question, and although he admitted that a Bill would give a fuller opportunity of debate, nevertheless, inasmuch as a Bill would have no prospect of passing, he was bound to take the only course open to him and to make these necessary changes by regulations. Then the hon. Baronet had complained of the secondary school regulations for local education authority control; but he reminded the hon. Member that there had been ample time for him to consider them and their effect since May 15, when the policy was welcomed, though the giving of the local authority a majority was deprecated. To-day the hon. Baronet assumed a different position, though between 15th May and now he had not received a word of protest from the hon. Baronet on the point. [Sir W. ANSON: There has been no opportunity.] The hon. baronet had enjoyed several opportunities, and, considering that he was interested in education, it would not have been beyond precedent had the hon. Baronet made a private representation to him on the subject. He submitted, therefore, that he was not being treated quite fairly in this matter. The hon. Member for Mid. Glamorgan had suggested that by administration as to buildings the Board could do a very great deal in the event of default to enforce the condition of a certain type of school throughout the country, and the hon. Member had asked whether the Department would support a local authority in its efforts to secure that the managers of voluntary schools should maintain their buildings in the condition prescribed by statute. On that point he replied with a most whole-hearted affirmative. In no case that he knew of had the Board ever refused to support the local education authority where the Board was asked to assist it in carrying out the law. There was no doubt that the Board had consistently endeavoured to enforce the conditions of the law, and it would endeavour to do so. Then as to the ten square feet of floor
108
space for each child in attendance, and the exercise of a power, in case of default, to compel managers to close the schools, he had not this power over the local authorities. All that he could do was to say to the managers that they must turn out a certain number of the children, so that the remaining children would be provided for on the basis of ten feet square floor space. But he had no power to make managers alter their buildings if the buildings were otherwise suitable. The Department could not say that the managers must-build in order to find accommodation, and. if they were to say that all the excess number of children were to be turned out of every school in which the floor space was less than ton feet Square per child, there would be hundreds of thousands of children turned into the streets. The necessary school accommodation over the whole country could not be provided under two to three years, and this arbitrary act compelling schools to be built would be regarded by the local education authority as so unfair upon them, and so disliked by the electors, that, whatever the desire of the Government might be, the resistance to the Government would be so great that no Government would ever enforce the law.
MR. A. J. BALFOURthought it would be found that Parliament had placed it in the power of the Department to compel local authorities.
MR. McKENNAsaid the Government had power in their hands to force a local authority to do a particular thing, but when that took a great deal of time and cost a great deal of money— as the Government of the right hon. Gentleman found—the Government were very cautious how they proceeded. He did not for a moment dissent from that view. He realised, and the House realised, that they had made the local education authority responsible for the administration of the Education Act; and, unless there was a very strong case, he did not think they would be well advised in interfering unnecessarily with their discretion. The great local education authorities ought to be respected and had to be respected. They represented, in the case of London, some millions of people, and it would be a very difficult task to endeavour to coerce them into spending, suddenly and at once,

109
perhaps a million of money in providing accommodation for children who would be turned out of school if the ten square feet rule were at once ordered to be adopted in every case. But by what they had done in this year's Code, they had taken the first step towards enforcing that rule, and they meant to put pressure upon every local authority to bring their school buildings up to the standard— he did not mean directly—that after a given date, say six months, this extra accommodation should be provided by all local authorities for all children; they had taken the first step to enforce the rule. They should do so with discretion and should have regard to the great burdens on the local ratepayers, because they recognised the great difficulties under which the local authorities acted in persuading the electors to consent to pay the education rate. Then he was asked whether he could not enforce Section 18 of the Code, where the majority of the managers were not representative of the local education authority, by refusing the annual grant. He did not think he could do that. He would be acting illegally if he did so. The managers in the case of the voluntary schools were appointed under statute, and he would be acting in contradiction of the spirit and letter of the statute if by any action through the Code he endeavoured to override the Act and compel the trustees to submit to the majority of the managers being appointed by the local education authority. He was invited by the hon. Member for Rochdale to take his courage in both hands and to insist upon closing schools if the condition of the buildings was not satisfactory. He made no concealment of his policy in this matter. He endeavoured in every case and by every means in his power to ensure that the buildings should be brought into a satisfactory condition. That he believed was the only possible policy, but he did not go the length of refusing a grant to the school. If the local authority asked him to have patience and assured him that they had reason to hope that the condition of the schools which the local authority would build in course of time would be satisfactory, he must have patience. If he failed to have patience, the only effect would be that the local education authority would refuse to build at all. No doubt he could proceed by mandamus against the local authority, but in the first place
110
that would, if resisted, take a very considerable time to obtain, and when he had got it he would have to begin to build the school, and, in the meantime, for a period of some years, the whole educational condition of the town would be one of chaos. He was not prepared to take that course. He was bound to proceed with a view to the interests and the welfare of the children. He could not agree to act in that drastic way, which would only end in turning the children out into the street. He had to co-operate with the local education authority.
MR. HARVEYasked the right hon. Gentleman what he would do in the case of a school which had been absolutely condemned by the local inspector four years ago and nothing had been attempted to be done.
MR. McKENNAsaid it was always easy to act in gross cases, and that in such a case he should have no hesitation in acting on the view of his hon. friend. But the case he was dealing with was a different one. He was asked, deliberately, by administrative act, to close a voluntary school in every case in which it did not come up to the full requirements of the Act of Parliament. He submitted that, however desirable it might be in the interests of the children that it should be brought up to the full standard required, they were bound in the interests of the children to proceed slowly. At the same time, he assured his hon. friend that he exercised all the pressure he could on the local education authorities to induce them to bring their schools up to the standard. A survey was now being made of all the schools. He had no further questions before him to answer, but he would have another opportunity to reply to others that might be put to him. In conclusion, he assured hon. gentlemen opposite that his regulation had not been framed in any spirit of hostility or warfare to them; and he could also assure his friends behind him that he was endeavouring to the utmost of his power, through the local education authorities, to secure full conformity with the rules.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had already spoken and he only rose for the purpose of discussing shortly two or three

111
points raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the series of replies which he had made to criticisms which had been passed, and he wished to ask whether those replies were to be taken as his statement of the education policy of the Government. If so, he ventured to think that it was much more meagre than his predecessors in office had been accustomed to give to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had not given them any satisfactory account of the substantive policy of the Government; he had simply contented himself with dealing with some of the comments on his policy. He could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman had not made a statement of his policy like his predecessors, unless it was that he was not prepared, and ex hypothesi had not the materials for it. After the replies which they had heard, did the right hon. Gentleman intend to make another statement? It was a new view of Parliamentary procedure that the circulation by a Minister of a small printed statement of the lines which he intended to pursue should be regarded as a complete and satisfactory substitute for the usual Parliamentary discussion in Committee, with the Minister in charge. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the new departure was a good departure, then, after all, it was for him and the majority to decide whether that new departure should be adopted.
MR. McKENNAsaid his impression was that the practice which the right hon. Gentleman called a new departure was followed by all the Departments, with the exception of the War Office and the Admiralty, which had several days for the consideration of their Estimates. All the others had but one day, and therefore they adopted this practice in order not to take up the time of the House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was accurate in regard to other Departments; but certainly it was quite inaccurate in regard to the Education Department. However, he did not wish to pursue the point, and it was a matter which the right hon. Gentleman could settle between himself and the majority. He came now to the reply which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and in the first place he wished to congratulate him on the excellent and sound doctrine which he had
112
laid down as to the amicable relations which should exist between the Board of Education and the local authorites. But he doubted whether the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that doctrine. Before he made his statement had the right hon. Gentleman consulted with the Minister in charge of the English Agricultural Holdings Bill? That Bill, by the avowal of the Minister who had drawn it up, was intended to coerce local authorities which did not carry out the policy which the Bill contained. That was the essence of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. ["No."] He thought the matter was put accurately in more sporting phraseology by the Under-.Secretary for the Colonies that "ginger" was to be applied to them. In regard to the question of training colleges and hostels, what was the defence? The right hon. Gentleman was laying down regulations which might and very likely would convert a training college which was created by denominational funds, into an institution the whole denominational character of which would be destroyed by the fact that those who belonged to the denomination would be excluded from it, and those who differed from that denomination would be included. That was the policy which the right hon. Gentleman was deliberately pursuing. It was an unjust policy, and one which it was impossible to defend on principles of justice or religious toleration, and he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would find it possible consistently to carry it out. Then the right hon. Gentleman had gone on to tell them that if they allowed denominational hostels they were practically giving public funds to denominational purposes. Had the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the policy clearly laid down by his predecessor in office, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had left the office of President of the Board of Education only some three or four mouths ago? The present Chief Secretary for Ireland had been absolutely explicit on this point, for he, rightly in his judgment, desired to encourage these hostels in connection with training colleges which were to be undenominational in their complexion, but he rightly held that corporate life with or without some denominational element ought to be added to the training colleges; and, if

113
the right hon. Gentleman's words meant Anything, they meant that equal treatment should be dealt out to these hostels whether they had a denominational element or whether they had not. That was the Chief Secretary's policy, and that policy had been abandoned by the President of the Board of Education, who had given no defence whatever for the abandonment. The third and the only other point to which he wished to refer was the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman had taken up in regard to the constitutional issue which he had raised two and a half hours ago. The point could be very shortly stated in this way. The Government found in force a section of an Act of Parliament from which they dissented. They did not propose to repeal the section, which would mean the introduction of a Bill, but they overrode it by voting money on the Estimates, which were embodied in the Appropriation Bill. Such a course was unprecedented and absolutely unconstitutional. The other day the House induced the Government in the case of the Army Bill to refuse to allow money to be given for military training in public elementary schools. If the Bill passed in that shape, any Government which took a different view had only to follow the precedent set by the Minister for Education by voting money on the Estimates, and the deliberate intention of the House, embodied in an Act of Parliament, would be defeated by what was nothing more nor less than a Ministerial fiat. He had no rooted objection, if the House desired to see a subvention of local authorities to aid in building schools, provided that subvention was used impartially between all schools, nor had he any objection to aid the local authority; but that carried with it a corresponding grant to Irish and Scottish education, and he presumed that the Scottish and Irish ratepayers would see that a corresponding grant was given to them. But at present nothing had been heard of it. While he did not object in principle to this aid being given to local authorities, he did ask the House seriously to consider whether it would be wise to start a new procedure which could be used in many directions, and whether it would not be wise even at some sacrifice to insist that the Government; should remain in those well-worn and well - beaten paths of legislative
114
tradition which were the only security, as far as he could see, for the will of that House and of Parliament being carried out. Let not the right hon. Gentleman suppose that he had uttered one word which diminished the objection on constitutional grounds to the action he had taken. He protested against that action, which had started a procedure which other authorities and other Governments must follow; a new weapon would be placed in the hands of the executive.
MR. McKENNAsaid it was not the power of this House that was in question. It was the power of the other House.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had long been a distinguished Member of the House, and was aware of the distinction that nominal legislative action taken through a vote in Supply was embodied in a Bill that was not discussed, and removed from the House one of its privileges. He regretted on the broadest ground what the right hon. Gentleman was doing; each Party in turn, as the pendulum of power swung from one side to the other, would regret it because the right hon. Gentleman's successors would, from the nature of the case, be compelled to use the weapon he had thus rashly forged.
MR. PICKERSGILLcalled attention to the supply of teachers for elementary schools. Nobody would deny that the supply was inadequate in number and inefficient in quality. The importance of the position held by a head teacher or a head mistress was admitted, but he regretted that the supply of teachers for elementary schools was far from satisfactory. According to the Report recently issued by the Board of Education, 13,500 new teachers would be required in the elementary schools in the year 1909, and in order to produce that number, 20,500 boys and girls should be introduced into the earlier stages of the profession in the year 1906. But the actual number entered that year was 10,900, which justified the statement in the Report that the prospect was an alarming one. But that was not all. Year by year there was an ever growing army of unqualified teachers being introduced into the schools. The total number of adult teachers in the

115
elementary schools was about 136,000, and 20,000 of them were unqualified, a fact which gave the gravest disquietude to those engaged in the elementary schools of the country. The material of those entering as pupil-teachers was not altogether satisfactory, and that was shown by the extraordinary wastage in the ranks of the pupil-teachers. During the period of pupil-teacher-ship and time of examination 35 percent. either dropped out or were rejected. These facts emphasised the conclusion that the training of pupil-teachers should be a national service, the cost being defrayed out of the national exchequer. At present it was a duty imposed upon the local education authority, but he submitted they were not the proper authority to discharge it. The present system led to endless friction. One authority spent money in training teachers, and another authority attempted to take them away by offering larger salaries. Persons intended for teachers in elementary and secondary schools ought to be trained together if possible in connection with a university, so that they might enjoy the great advantage of association with those who intended to follow other professions. The gulf between the elementary and secondary teacher ought to be bridged over. The elementary, school teacher ought to pass freely into the secondary schools, and inspectors ought to be appointed from the ranks of elementary teachers. Teaching in elementary schools should be made more attractive. At present there was not an adequate supply of boys for training, and it looked as if elementary teaching would become the monopoly of women, a thing to be deprecated in the interest of teaching in the higher standards. In Prussia there was an ample supply of men teachers, and he attributed that to the absence of any barrier, and any elementary teacher could aspire to the highest position in the teaching profession. So it should be in this country.
COLONEL LOCKWOODreferred to the regulations issued by the Department as having taken the House by surprise, and he very much regretted that the President had raised the religious question in relation to secondary education. Those regulations would not raise the standard of secondary education. With regard
116
to what had been said about the last occasion when this subject was discussed, the date was 15th of May, and it was late in the evening. He was informed that upon that occasion there were not fifty Members in the House. He wanted to know, in common with other Members, by what authority the right hon. Gentleman proposed these extraordinary changes. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman intended to proceed in this way, he would create a narrowing bureaucratic control with more centralization than ever. When they came to the question of reversing the policy of the late Government, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that it would be very easy for other Governments to follow his example. He wanted to know the meaning of the words "for the present" in the preamble. Were these changes to take place every year or were they only experimental? He protested also against the right hon. Gentleman bringing in the religious difficulty in connection with secondary education. For many years those interested in secondary education had carefully and successfully avoided the religious difficulty. He heard the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies describe himself recently as a controversial politician. He ventured to say that the President of the Board of Education had shown himself a more controversial politician than his right hon. friend. He seemed to have gone out of his way to drag the tail of his coat, along the floor of the House, and to invite his friends to tread upon it. In many places with which he himself was acquainted the exemption from fees in connection with the secondary schools would not benefit the poorer scholars. It would benefit the sons of men living in a district who would be sent to an elementary school in order to qualify for the cheap education to be obtained at the secondary or grammar schools. The parents of these scholars would pay the charges for railway fares while their children were attending the schools in order that they might get the benefit of the grammar schools. Those connected with secondary education had always tried to raise its standard, but he believed the regulations, produced as he thought unconstitutionally, could not have that

117
effect. Were the governors of a school appointed by a parish council or a parish meeting likely to assist in attaining a high standard in secondary education? What was wanted was more money for the secondary schools, so that the best scholars should be sent from the elementary schools, and not 25 per cent., some of whom might be good workmen, but who certainly would make very poor clerks. He did not think the regulations would do any good to secondary education. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had dragged in the House of Lords in connection with this controversy. He could not possibly know how the House of Lords would treat a Bill brought in by himself? The right hon. Gentleman had failed, up to the present time, to give any reason why a Bill had not been brought in to do what he now proposed to do by regulations. The regulations had not even been laid upon the Table of the House. At the appointed time the Minister of Education might send a letter to a secondary school, saying that if within fourteen days the governors did not accept one or other of the terms the school would be dealt with according to the regulations. He could see perfectly well that there would be consternation among the secondary schools, and among Members of that House who professed the Roman Catholic faith. What was now proposed was a gross interference with the Roman Catholic schools, but not more than was the case with the Church of England schools. They felt that they had been hardly dealt with, and that they were being made to suffer in a way which they would not have expected in connection with secondary education.
MR MASTERMANsaid he did not propose to follow hon. Members who had dealt with the question of the new regulations. He did not underestimate the seriousness of that matter, but he thought they had had a full discussion of it on both sides. He held strong opinions on some of those regulations, but he did not wish at present to press them upon the Committee. He desired to bring before the President of the Board of Education one or two vital questions affecting something that was almost lost sight of in
118
education debates, namely, the welfare of the children. The first question was with reference to the administration of the Act passed last autumn as to the provision of meals for school children. It would be altogether out of order and entirely irrelevant to discuss the provisions of the Act. What he was concerned with at present was its administration, but he might be allowed to say that the form of the Act made some difficulty in that matter. The Act was not mandatory, and it provided no Imperial money for the work. It represented one of the attempts, all too common, to carry out a great social reform at somebody else's expense if possible, and failing that, with as little expenditure of public money as possible. Although some hon. Members recognised when the Bill was passing that the absence of such provisions would make it extremely difficult to carry out, they were kept silent by the assertion that if they attempted to obtain modifications in these matters the whole Bill would be dropped. That was the usual method of getting rid of any Amendment which happened to be tedious or difficult. The intention of the House was that in future, after the Bill came into operation, no child who needed nourishment should go underfed while attending a public elementary school, and various arrangements were made whereby the sordid, neglectful, or drunken parent should be punished later on if his neglect or drunkenness was proved. The Board of Education issued regulations in January last in connection with the carrying out of the Act. The comparative failure of the Act—for it had been a comparative failure—was largely due to the manner it which it was brought before the attention of local authorities. The reply of the President of the Board of Education would probably be that the Act had only been in operation for a short time, but unless the right hon. Gentleman took more active steps than he had done so far it would continue to be a failure. Few local towns had asked to use the rating power in the matter, and London, where by far the greater number of necessitous children were to be found, had not said anything about the Act. The ratepayers of West Ham had been offered facilities for being

119
allowed to pay for the feeding of poor children, a privilege which they possessed before the Act was passed. The circular issued by the Board of Education contained the following—
"The Board will consider the circumstances of the case and the extent of the emergency which has to be met, and will also require to know what sum the authority consider to be necessary to meet so much of the cost of the provision of food for a stated period as cannot be paid for in any other manner, together with the grounds for that view. The Board do not propose to give any permanent sanction or even one extending over a period of years. They will deal in each case with the particular emergency and then sanction will, as a rule, be limited to the raising of a definite sum from the Votes."
Parliament very definitely declared that arrangements were to be made to provide food for necessitous children, and there was nothing in the Act in regard to special circumstances and emergencies. He was sure that hon. Members went away for their Christmas holidays buoyed up with the pleasant thought that under the Act it would be the duty of the President, of the Board of Education to see that every single child attending the schools in future was in a fit condition to receive education. Therefore, he thought it right to ask the President of the Board of Education, even if he could not promise anything in the nature of a monetary grant, to see that a circular was issued more compatible with the desire of Parliament in the matter, and urging local authorities to see that the Act was fully carried out even if it should mean the full expenditure of the ½d. rate allowed by the Act. He wanted to know also what policy was to be followed concerning the administration of the grants to what were called necessitous areas, one of which he was in the fortunate or the unfortunate position of representing. North-West Ham was one of the most flagrant examples of a necessitous area. For two years the Board had given a certain grant towards those authorities which had a high education rate. Over 6d. in the £ a certain proportion of the rate was paid by the central authority. There was no kind of promise made, so far as he knew, by which this grant should be put upon a permanent basis. He did not think the grant was sufficient in its present form, though he agreed that some of the
120
necessitous districts would be absolutely unable to carry on the work of education if they did not get that grant, but he did not think it was a satisfactory solution of the tremendous variation in the incidence of the education rate. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman of one unfortunate effect of his action in the matter, which he should be very glad if he could see any means of rectifying. When the local authorities of East London explained to the right hon. Gentleman the impossibility of carrying on the work of education without some such grant in districts such as they came from, having more poor children than any other district, having a lower rateable value, and having, as new districts without voluntary schools, the greater necessity for expenditure upon building new schools, he repeated practically the advice his predecessor had given; he stated that he would give the grant his predecessor had given, but he very strongly urged, as his predecessor had urged, the representatives of those local authorities to exercise every kind of economy they could in the matter themselves, and he practically established the position that the continuance of that grant depended upon the enforcement of a rigid economy. Filled with a kind of panic at any suggestion of losing the grant, the City Fathers of West Ham proceeded to carry out the advice which they had received from so high an authority, and not being able to make a reduction in their schools or the building of new schools, because the schools were forced upon them by the Board of Education, for which they afterwards had to pay, they set themselves to cut down the scale of salaries of their teachers, and the result was that, a large section of the teachers had now gone on strike, and the town hall was weekly turned into the position of a bear garden. They were fighting the best organised and strongest of the trade unions in the country, and he thought the least the President of the Board of Education could do in the matter, if he would not agree to bear the expense of both sides in this unhappy warfare, was to make an offer to arbitrate between the contending parties and try to put an end to a dispute which, however humorously it might be regarded from outside, was doing

121
infinite harm to the cause of education in one of the most necessitous boroughs in the country. He asked, apart from this dispute, whether the right hon. Gentleman could not give some kind of indication as to his future policy with regard to the necessitous districts. The whole of the local and educational administration of all these boroughs was disturbed by the uncertainty in regard to the grant. In his own borough its absence meant a rate of Is. in the £, and he asked them to believe that the few comparatively well-off residents they had were inclined to move out of the borough on account of the fear that next March, or some other time, there might suddenly come an addition to their rates of 1s. in the £ The third question to which ho wanted a reply was in connection with the organisation of a central medical department of the Board of Education. He did not see any provision in the Estimates for the organisation of such a department. The principle of medical inspection was practically unanimously accepted by both parties in the House last July, but if left entirely to the local authority that inspection would in many cases be carried out in a perfunctory manner. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to make a definite declaration that night that he would see that there was an organised department to supervise the work of the local departments, and to co-ordinate the results and in that way establish what he was certain would be received with gratification by representatives of every Party in the House. His last point was in connection with the Code issued that week. The right hon. Gentleman was familiar with the fact that many members had for some years past been pleading for the introduction into the Code of definite moral instruction. It was introduced by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman last year, and it stood in the Code this year, but it stood as a voluntary subject, with no syllabus and no indication as to what the central authority really meant by moral instruction. But they wanted it made a compulsory subject, as essential as arithmetic or history in the working of the curriculum; and was it not possible that the right hon. Gentleman might
122
redeem this moral instruction from a certain amount of obloquy owing, as he thought, to the unsatisfactory method in which it was sometimes carried out? Many people now thought moral instruction meant studied aphorisms, such as that honesty was the best policy, which was not always true,—he was applauded from the Front Opposition Bench, so he thought he must be right—or discussions upon the effect of alcohol upon the human heart. That kind of arid moral aphorisms would make the children hate the idea of such a lesson, but there could be organised, through history and biography, and the daily course of events in the life of the child, a moral instruction which would also include civic instruction in the love of one's country, and the appreciation of duty, which would have none of the defects which were at present associated with the teaching of morals through religion in our schools, and which, if it ever came to pass, and it might not; be so very far distant when religious instruction was no longer paid for in their schools, and when a certain number of children would not receive religious instruction, would at least guarantee that they received some kind of idealistic teaching beyond that of needlework, handwriting, and arithmetic. He had often apologised in that House for the time he had occupied in these interminable religious wrangles, but he made no apology for the time he had occupied that evening on the question. If the right hon. Gentleman could give them children in their schools well nourished, free from the obvious physical defects which could be cured by medical inspection, clean in body and mind, they would take very good care to look after the religion, quite apart from State action altogether. These were the questions which were the kernel of all social reforms—the hope, the security, and the defence of the nation.
LORD EDMUND TALBOTsaid he rose because the right hon. Gentleman opposite had endeavoured to make light of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Kerry and the hon. Member for Clare when they said that their co-religionists, and his, in this country, would look upon these

123
regulations with regard to training colleges and secondary education as a declaration of war. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he thought the Catholics were going to accept these regulations in anything like a quiet manner he was very much mistaken. They resented very much the conduct of the Government in having brought them forward with so little notice. Notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman with reference to his speech in May last, they considered that they ought to have had more time to consider the regulations. The Government themselves chose that day for the Education Vote. It was only about the middle of last week that they issued the regulations for the secondary schools. The Code was issued, he thought, last Friday, and these new regulations for training colleges only appeared on the pink Paper that morning. They considered that in taking that hurried course the Government were attempting to shirk discussion on the question, and he wished to warn the right hon. Gentleman that at any rate his co-religionists in this country felt very deeply and very acutely the action he had taken. Notwithstanding the extremely short time that the regulations had been made known to the country, he had already received many letters, especially from the North, calling his attention in tones of dismay to what they meant. This was not a matter affecting the rich. The Catholics were divided in political matters, but they were absolutely united as one man on the question of the education of the children of the poor. If these regulations were carried out, it would be the death blow of the Catholic teachers of the children of the poor. They did not intend that they should be deprived of Catholic teachers for their Catholic poor, and he warned the right hon. Gentleman of the nature of the struggle upon which he was embarking.
*MR. YOXALLreferred to the appeal of the hon. Member for West Ham. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman found it in his power or in his heart to attempt to bring the parties in the dispute
124
referred to together round a table, that might be a useful piece of work on his part, and a friendly act indeed. The hon. Member for West Ham had also appealed to the President of the Board of Education to add another subject to the time table of the public elementary schools and to see that moral instruction of a certain kind was made obligatory.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (BY ORDER).
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
MR. T. L. CORBETTmoved that the Bill be. further considered on that day three months. His reason for doing so was that the Bill had been very largely altered since the original measure was introduced A number of clauses dealing with very important sanitary improvements had been struck out. Clause 85, a most reasonable and fair clause, had disappeared altogether. The effect of the clause was that no premises within the county of London should be deemed to be exempt from the Common Lodging Houses Acts, as amended by the London County Council (Powers) Act of 1902 and in other ways, because the people lodging in them were not harboured for hire or lodged for a period exceeding a week at a time. That clause simply gave power to the London County Council to inspect lodging-houses for sanitary purposes. It was a power enjoyed by and wisely conferred on every large corporation in the country in order that they might deal with the lodging-houses in the area under their control. He thought the House might well ask why had that clause been struck out when similar clauses reasonable in themselves and necessary for the health of London had been granted to other municipalities.
LORD R, CECILasked Mr. Speaker whether his hon. friend was in order in moving the rejection of the Bill on the ground that it did not contain a particular clause.
*MR. SPEAKERsaid he thought the hon. Member was entitled to do so.
MR. T. L. CORBETT,continuing,said the reason why this clause did not appear in the Bill as it came down from upstairs was because the Roman Catholic Church party went to the London County Council and said that if the clause were not omitted from the Bill they would block the Measure, which contained various other provisions which were a necessary part of the work of the London County Council, at every stage in the House of Commons. He was not going to say a word against the Roman Catholic Church or their attitude, because the help of that and of all Churches was wanted in dealing with the problem of the poor, but he would ask why this constant policy against inspection was pursued. It seemed to him to be the gravest indictment that could be brought against the Roman Catholic Church, and while he could understand some feeling being aroused about religious institutions and the inspection of convents and monasteries, lie could not understand why there should be any feeling against the inspection of lodging-houses. It came to this: the Roman Catholic Church and High Church institutions happened to own a number of lodging-houses in London, but for reasons known to themselves, and known to themselves alone, they objected to any inspection whatever of those places, and said that at whatever risk to the health of London they must go uninspected. The claims of the Roman Catholic Church and of their ritualistic allies were always high, but when they were going to paralyse the work of the London County Council in carrying out a plain sanitary duty, not only were they high but they became intolerable. It was on that ground that he brought forward this Motion for rejection. He begged to move.
MR. G. A. HARDY,in seconding the Motion, said
126
he felt that this was a very grave matter and that it was a question which ought to be brought before the House. For a great body like the London County Council in its work of the inspection of lodging-houses to be set aside from that purpose because a particular denomination said that they would block a particular Bill at every stage was bringing c Mercian to bear upon the House, and it was far that reason and that reason alone that he was prepared to second the Motion. They knew very well that unless lodging-houses were inspected there was liability to grave misuse of the privileges they had, and he hoped in the interest of London the power of the London County Council, a great and upright institution, might be upheld against the high-handed actions of a particular Church in regard to this measure.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—[Mr. T. L. Corbett.]
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' sand part of the Question."
*MR. CLELANDhoped that the proposal which had been put forward would not commend itself to the House, because if the Bill were rejected it would mean administrative chaos in the county of London. The provision to which the hon. Member had alluded was debated in the House on his own Motion on the Second Reading of the Bill, and he could not help regretting that the hon. Member had thought fit to bring it up again on the Report stage. The Bill had bean subjected to careful criticism and had been improved upstairs, and he hoped the Amendment would not be carried, because if it were a measure which was very valuable, having regard to the good government of London, would be absolutely destroyed. The Bill was vital for the good government of London and would carry out many needed improvements connected with the meat supply, the purity of milk, the cleansing of wells and sewers, the prevention of floods, and the main drainage of London. All these important and non-controversial improvements would have to stand

127
over if this Bill were defeated. The measure also contained certain necessary powers to enable local authorities to purchase land for open spaces, and these, with the other subjects he had mentioned, would be postponed for at least twelve months and would involve these local bodies in serious difficulties in regard to the health of London. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member, having again made his protest, would allow this measure, nine-tenths of which was non-controversial and almost all of which was agreed upon by all the parties concerned, and by members of both parties in the County Council, to proceed.
MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT (Devonshire, Torquay)as Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill, asked the House to reject the Amendment. The Bill had been carefully considered by the Committee upstairs, and what the hon. Gentleman had said in regard to this particular clause never came before them, and he could endorse everything that had been said as to the value of the other clauses which appeared in the Bill. It would be a serious thing for London if the Bill was not passed into law.
*MR. RADFORDdid not think the provision in regard to the inspection of lodging-houses had been dropped out for any religious reason, but because the promoters of charity in London wanted to do charity on the cheap, and he thought the time had come when those who wanted to do charity on the cheap should provide shelters on terms satisfactory to the sanitary authorities, or else they would have to go out of the business. Lodging-houses ran for charitable purposes probably had some ulterior religious purpose into which they need not inquire, but he agreed with the Chairman of the Committee and the hon. Member for Glasgow that there was a great amount of good stuff in the Bill which they could not afford to lose, and he hoped his hon. friend, after his protest would withdraw the Amendment.
MR. T. L. CORBETTfelt it impossible not to respond to the appeal which had been made to him on the ground that if the Bill did not pass the work of the
128
London County Council would be interfered with. He hoped, however, those in charge of the Bill would convey to their colleagues on the London County Council the opinion that there were other parties who had to be considered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, considered.
*MR. LEIF JONES,in moving the omission of Clause 55, said the clause, though it was in a private Bill, was one of far-reaching and national importance, for it would enable the council to set up a supplementary scheme of pensions for any persons now or hereafter in the employ of the council who would be or would become entitled to any pension or superannuation allowance from any source other than the ordinary pension fund of the council. The effect of the clause was to enable the council to set up a supplementary pension scheme for teachers in provided schools. The clause was not in the Bill when it was read a second time in the House. The House had no cognisance of it, and he knew of no precedent for adding a clause of this far-reaching import in Committee. The proposal in the clause was novel, and though that was no condemnation in his eyes he thought its utility ought to be proved. But they had had no word of justification, and before the House voted he hoped to show that the proposal of the clause was unsound financially, and from an educational point of view must lead to disastrous results. In the first place it provided for the possibility of pensions for teachers in provided schools and not in unprovided schools, which was a most undesirable distinction to draw. If teachers in the provided Schools were to have pensions, the teachers in the unprovided schools, who belonged to the same class, should also have them. The pensions should extend to both. But if the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone was accepted, the position would be that the London County Council would be authorised to set up a pension scheme subsidised out of the London rates for

129
people who were not in the employ of the ratepayers, and a principle more unsound financially could not be imagined. He disclaimed at once any hostility to the teachers in this matter, but the teachers were not wholly without pensions. There was already a national scheme to which the teachers contributed, and to which a large subsidy was paid out of the taxes, and teachers of all schools in all parts of the country could acquire pensions under that scheme, although he agreed that the scale of pensions was wholly inadequate. This was a national duty and not a local duty, and he would gladly assist hon. friends in the House to put the teachers on the same footing as other officials of the State. If it was to be done it should be done out of the taxes, and not out of the rates, which were already too heavily burdened. This scheme was likely to add £30,000 or £40,000 to the rates of London, and he could not think that this was the time, when all opinion was moving in the direction of reducing the burden of the rates, to bring in such a scheme. One objection to the scheme of the Bill passed with this clause in it, and if it became a precedent, was that they would have the country divided up into pension and no pension, or good pension and bad pension, areas, which would only enhance the difficulties which local authorities now found in obtaining suitable teachers. Directly a teacher came into a particular area he would be tied to it, because if he left he would lose all the benefit derived under the scheme If they allowed local authorities to set up schemes of this character they would expose them also to great pressure at the hands of the organised teachers of the country. Such pressure might be overwhelming, because the teachers were well organised—they were the friends of the parents of the children in the district in which they taught, and could wield immense influence with those who were the voters. It was not wise to delegate to a local authority a power which the House should keep to itself. The power given under this clause was vague and undefined, and it was undesirable that a scheme for pensigns which should be national and not local should be undertaken by a local authority. He begged to move.
*MR. WOODin seconding the Amendment, said he did so not as a member of the County Council nor as representing any section of its members, but he believed he would have the sympathy of the Fnance Committee of the Council for the course he was taking, and probably of the Parliamentary Committee also. He seconded the Amendment as a Scottish Member, because he believed that this question would come before the House in the same form under a scheme for Scotland. He submitted that it was a very undesirable form of procedure which would prejudice the national question by inserting a clause in Committee in a private Bill. It affected not only England but Scotland. England had provided and non-provided teachers and Scotland had the teachers of the voluntary schools and the teachers of the board schools, and a difficulty arose, when they made a complementary scheme for the board school teachers, with regard to the position of the voluntary school teachers, because it was difficult to see how the boards were to deal with a class of teachers who were not their servants. He himself thought that those who were doing similar service, should not be treated differently; he had never been one of those who believed in making teachers suffer at all because of political matters, and he had always as a member of the London County Council desired to see equal treatment of both classes of teachers. He was prepared to admit that if the clause were passed it would be very difficult to resist the Amendments of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought the clause very unfortunate altogether, and he seconded the Amendment not only in the interests of the local authorities but in the, interests of the teachers themselves, and he believed that some distinguished representatives of the teachers shared his views. This proposal might be of advantage to teachers in London, but it would not be of advantage to the general body of teachers. It placed the teacher in London in an altogether different position, If the clause were passed, undoubtedly the London County Council would have to spend every shilling of the £33.000 which it reckoned it would cost. For many reasons this was unsatisfactory, even in

131
the interests of teachers. He agreed that the present system of superannuation was inadequate, but the real remedy was to make it adequate not only for teachers in London but for teachers throughout the length and breadth of the land. That was the thing at which the teachers should aim, and not a piecemeal advantage which differentiated between teachers and caused great inequalities between those in one locality and those in another. Though teachers were under local management they were really national servants, as was shown by the fact of the State's having set up a national system of superannuation. He could imagine nothing more unsound or undesirable than having a national system and a supplementary local system. It tended to injustice and inequality. He also supported the Amendment in the interest of the non-provided teacher. They could imagine the case of two localities where one had the disposition and ample means to make a complementary scheme and the other had not, so that one set of teachers would receive much better treatment than another of equal merit. As a result they would have localisation of teachers, which was a bad thing. They wanted country teachers to come to London and London teachers to go to the country. But if they had a scheme such as this clause proposed they would keep the teachers in London for the whole of their career. He did not; believe in the system of London for the Londoners, or Manchester people for Manchester, in the case of teachers. He wanted to see the service a national service in which there was a constant interchange between one locality and another. The matter was of such general interest that he could not help thinking that they might have had some declaration from the Government on the subject. He did not think it ought to be dealt with in a private Bill and by a special clause put in with very short notice to the House, because it involved interests which affected every district of the country and should be decided on national considerations.
Amendment proposed to the Bill.—
"In page 37, line 1, to leave out Clause 55." —(Mr. Leif Jones.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the second word 'the,' in page 37, line 7, stand part of the Bill."
*MR. YOXALLsaid the case of the. teachers was so strong that the Committee had inserted the clause although it had failed to pass the County Council His hon. friend the Member for Apple-by had said that the teachers had very great power and influence, but half the teachers were women and had no votes and therefore could not exercise influence on that House or on local authorities. The result was that they could not bring to bear on the Treasury or on local authorities influences, occult, abstract, or practical, which his hon. friend appeared to fear. They had sought a locus standi before the Committee of that House, and the Committee had decided, in order to do justice to their case, on an Amendment of the Bill. It was rather unfair fighting on the part of his hon. friend afterwards to say that influence had been brought to bear of an improper nature.
*MR. LEIF JONESsaid he had never made any suggestion as to the exercise of improper influence; at any rate, he had not intended to do so, and if he had said anything which bore that construction he at once withdrew it.
*MR. YOXALLsaid that had been the impression left on his mind by what the hon. Member had said, but he accepted the explanation of the hon. Gentleman that he did not make any charge of that kind and withdrew it if he did. The London County Council approached the House with a private Bill in order, among other things, to obtain powers to extend the system of superannuation of officers, which went as far back as 1891. In that year the teachers were under the School Board; by the Act of 1902 they came under the County Council. It was unfair to draw a distinction between one officer and another, and teachers were officers of the London County Council. But this Bill made a distinction, and a clerk in the service of the London County Council with a salary of £160 a year was entitled to retire at the age of sixty-five on a pension of £120 a year; whereas a teacher of the

133
same age and with the same amount of salary would only receive a national pension of £60 a year. He said nothing against clerks at all; their work was most important; but he did not think it was quite so arduous or skilled as that of the teacher, and he was quite sure that at sixty-five the earnest teacher would be mote worn out than would the clerk at that age. Teachers were officers of the London County Council, and as officers they ought to participate in the superannuation scheme. The hon. Member's argument about localising teachers had considerable weight. But this was not a precedent. There was a local pension scheme in Manchester, in Newcastle, and at Croydon, and, in all these places, why should they be allowed under private Acts to have local pension schemes, while the London County Council was not to be allowed to have one? The House had been told that teachers were "not wholly without pensions." No, they were not. The teacher employed by the London County Council became a pupil teacher at fourteen years of age, and, with the exception of two years at the training college, from that age up to sixty-five was employed in teaching. At present under the national scheme on retiring there was the magnificent provision of £66 a year for the man and £44 for the woman, two-thirds of the amount, and, in some instances, more than two-thirds, arising from the annuity which was purchased with the contributions of the teachers during all those years. His hon. friend the Member for the St. Rollox division was willing to reward the services of the clerk at sixty-five with a pension of £120, but he would not, for general and national reasons, allow the teacher under the London County Council to retire on a similar pension. Many hon. Members of the House knew the conditions of things with regard to the national pension fund, and how could they expect that in years to come they would so improve that fund as to provide the same pensionable benefits as this Bill would give? That was a simile matter of justice. The Bill itself did not give any pensions; it was simply an enabling Bill. Clause 55, which it was proposed to omit, enabled
134
the London County Council, if they so I desired, to get over a technical difficulty arising out of the existence of the I National Pension Fund. All it provided was that if and when the County Council pleased they might so arrange the complementary scheme that the income of the teacher at sixty-five years of age should, from the complementary and the national pension schemes together, amount to as large a superannuation allowance as he would have had if he had been a clerk or other servant of the council during that period. The clause was not mandatory. When the London County Council pleaded the existence of the national pension scheme, and that I the Board of Education would have a right to say something in this matter and might bring in a veto, the Committee went into the matter with great care I with the representatives of the Treasury and the Board of Education. There were 11,000 or 12,000 certificated teachers in the London area, and therefore there were plenty of opportunities for changing schools. After full investigation the Treasury and the Board of Education said they took no exception to this proposal, and it was willingly adopted by the Committee. The proposal, which was passed unanimously by the Committee, merely enabled the County Council to do an act of justice. He did not think the House had any right to exclude, for the abstract reasons which had been put forward, the teachers from receiving the same benefits as were given to clerks and others in the employ of the London County Council. They heard a good deal about good-will toward teachers and a high appreciation of their work. When one reflected upon how they were paid and superannuated, one did not wonder that there was a shortage of teachers for public elementary schools. Money was being spent upon bursaries and scholarships in order to try to remedy this state of things, but those efforts would be futile because they were artificial, and the way to remedy the evil was to improve the position of the teacher in regard to pay and pensions. It would pay the London County Council and the nation in the end to adopt this Bill foe London, and he hoped the House would refuse to adopt the Amendment.
*MR. CLELANDsaid it was perfectly true that this clause was not in the Bill when it passed its Second Reading, but when the question of superannuation was being discussed upstairs the claim put forward on behalf of the teachers so impressed the representatives of the London County Council that this clause was brought up as an agreed clause between the representatives of the Council and the teachers. Consequently this was not a case of a Committee having put something upon unwilling promoters. He had very little doubt or hesitation in prophesying that if this Bill were passed it would be put into effect in the London district. Not merely the pressure of the teachers, but the pressure of popular opinion would be brought to bear upon the Council in regard to the unfairness with which the teachers were being treated as compared with the clerks in the service of the Council. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox division had stated that the teachers were not the servants of the Council. He did not know whether the hon. Member's law was right or wrong, but he knew that the London County Council were held responsible under the Workmen's Compensation Act for anything that might happen to the teachers, and although they might not technically be servants of the Council they were in this respect in the same position as the clerks employed by the London County Council. The hon. Member for the Appleby division had stated that the rich districts would bring forward a proper scheme of superannuation and the poor districts would not be able to do so. He did not see why that should be a reason for handicapping a district which was prepared to put its hand in its pocket and pay for education the need of which was so evident. Be that as it might, by omitting this clause they would not prevent a district which was not willing to contribute to these pensions from attracting the best of the teaching profession. The hon. Member for Nottingham had told the House something in regard to the position of these teachers. He would take one case to show the exact position in which the teachers were placed at the present moment. An Act of Parliament was passed in 1898 called the Elementary Schools Instruction
136
Superannuation Act, under which male teachers contributed £3 5s. per annum to a fund and women teachers £2 4s. per annum. If they took it that a man started paying into this fund at the age of twenty-three and a woman at the same age, when they retired after more than forty years arduous service the male teacher would be entitled to a pension of £37 8s. per annum out of this fund and a woman teacher to £19 4s. 4d. The Treasury had recognised the inadequacy of this fund and they were now supplementing it by an allowance of 10s. per annum of recorded service, and so the maximum sum after more than forty years service would be a little under £60 for a male teacher and £40 for a female teacher. The hon. Member had pleaded for delay and had asked that this question should be brought forward by the Government and dealt with as a national question. He had a good deal of sympathy with that point of view, but as a Scottish Member he could not help recollecting that for the last five years they had had successive Education Bills for Scotland brought forward and this year they had got another, and there did not seem to be any great prospect of its being passed into law. In the interests of education he hoped the House would not delete this clause. He favoured the acceptance of an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone because he believed that if this clause was carried even as it stood, and more especially if carried as it was proposed to amend it, it would place an opportunity within the power of the rich districts to make the teaching service a thoroughly well-remunerated one and of attracting to the metropolis the best available teachers.
SIR HENRY CRAIKsaid he was prepared cordially to support this clause. He did not, however, think that the inconvenience was quite got over by the argument which had been used by last speaker. It was one thing to pay a larger salary for a particular locality, but it should not be forgotten that if they organised the teachers in this way under a superannuation system there would be a danger that they might prevent them

137
from having that free movement over the country which was for the advantage of the teaching profession and the country generally. So strongly did he feel the need of some improvement in the superannuation system that he should vote wholeheartedly for this clause. In so doing he wished to point out that he would be returning a good action for a very bad one. When the Superannuation Act of 1898 was passed, acting in accordance with the wishes of Scotland, he was extremely anxious that the Scottish school boards should retain their power of adding to the superannuation grant out of their own funds. That power vested in the school boards of Scotland under the Act of 1872, but it was subsequently repealed. He thought Scotland was treated unfairly in the matter. He asked lion. Members to remember that the Government of the day acted under pressure brought by the National Union of Teachers in England; he stood up for the Union of Elementary Teachers in Scotland as long as he could. He would support the clause on the distinct understanding that there were to be no invidious distinctions, and that what was proposed would be extended to all classes of teachers.
*MR. RADFORDsaid his experience as a member of the Education Committee of the London County Council did not enable him to admit the claim as to the modesty of teachers in advancing their demands. On the contrary, he should like to say that, next to the clergy, teachers appeared to be the most sturdy and clamorous beggars to be found in the country. In regard to Private Bill legislation and other matters the organised teachers were very well able to look after themselves. His objection to this clause was that it was an enabling clause. It was being forced upon the County Council by the teachers. He wanted to know what was the scheme with respect to which the London County Council and the organised teachers had conic to an agreement. He thought it was proper that the House should have an opportunity of considering that pension scheme. There was no such scheme before the House; they were asked to give the London County Council and the teachers a blank cheque.
LORD R. CECILprotested against the view that apparently existed among hon. Members as to the kind of procedure that took place before a Private Bill Committee. The hon. Member for the Appleby division did not make any charge against the impartiality of the Committee, but he appeared to think that the Committee had been influenced by considerations other than those represented to them in the speeches of counsel.
*MR. LEIF JONES: What I intended to say was that after this Bill left the House influences were brought to bear on the London County Council, and that an "agreed clause" was presented to the Committee upstairs.
LORD R. CECILsaid he understood now what the hon. Member meant. He did not wish to let it go abroad that a Private Bill Committee were subject to any influences except the arguments which were presented to them. The hon. Member for East Islington had suggested that the House should have the details of the superannuation scheme before it passed the clause. Surely the hon. Gentleman could scarcely be serious in saying that the House should enter on the details of the scheme. That might be a proper matter for the Committee upstairs, but it would be impossible for the House to arrive at a fair judgment as to whether the scheme was a proper one or not. The London County Council had already a pension scheme for their other employees, and he could not conceive why teachers should be less entitled to pensions than the other officers. That appeared to be the whole case for the clause. The hon. Member for the St. Rollox division had argued that it was improper that the London County Council should be allowed to set a precedent in this matter for the rest of the country. He himself hesitated to accept the view that the greatest education authority in the country should be debarred from doing what was now proposed. Whether a superannuation scheme would or would not be right for the whole country was a question which the House was not at present considering. Almost everything the hon. Member had said as to the disadvantages of variations in pensions in different places applied also to salaries.

139
He had always thought that there was a good deal to be said for throwing the expense of teachers upon a central fund and not upon the rates.
MR. LAYLAND-BARRATTsaid that as Chairman of the Committee who considered the Bill he would like to make a brief statement as to the reasons which actuated them in coming to their decision. The Amendment which his hon. friend had moved was not put on the Paper, and he was therefore in the awkward position of not having had an opportunity of consulting the other Members of the Committee except one. The decision of the Committee was absolutely unanimous in regard to the insertion of this clause. He therefore supported the retention of the clause in the Bill. There was no scheme in the Bill because this was only an enabling clause giving the County Council power to deal with a particular situation when it arose. The Committee after carefully considering the clause came to the conclusion that they were justified in allowing it to be inserted in the Bill. It was an "agreed clause," but he hoped the House would not think that it did not receive the careful consideration of the Committee. The noble Lord opposite, who had practised before Private Bill Committees, would support him when he said that Committees were always more careful about agreed clauses than about others.
LORD R. CECILmoved an Amendment placing teachers in non-provided schools on the same footing as those in provided schools under Clause 55 of the Bill. The non - provided school teachers were paid by the county councils, and it seemed to him that if the provided school teachers might have a pension, there could be no other than a technical reason why non-provided teachers should not receive a pension. They ought to stand on the same footing, and he, therefore, trusted the House would accept the Amendment which stood in his name.
SIR F. BANBURYseconded.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
"In page 37, line 7, after the word 'of,' to insert the words 'or employed in institutions maintained by."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. CLELANDdeclared that he was authorised to say on behalf of the promoters of the Bill— although they had not yet as a body had an opportunity of coming to a decision on it—that the two most important Committees concerned in the matter agreed with the effect of the Amendment. He thought, therefore, he was justified, both as representing the promoters there, and, also from his own point of view, in stating that whatever might be their views with regard to the educational policy and the Education Act passed by the late Government, and, however much they might desire to see that amended at the earliest possible moment, it could not be just or fair to penalise the teachers of the non-provided schools who had no responsibility in regard to the passing of the Act.
Bill to be read the third time.

SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES).
Postponed Proceeding on Motion made on consideration of Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £6,593,646, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the salaries and expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including Grants for the Building of new Public Elementary Schools and sundry Grants in Aid:—"
Which Motion was, "That Item A (1) (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Boland)— resumed.
*MR. YOXALLsaid he gathered to his surprise that the hon. Member for North West Ham was prepared to supplant

141
some portion if not all of the instruction now given in the Christian faith in the various schools in the country, by a process or syllabus of moral education which, he supposed, would occupy the time now given to the Bible lessons, and if the right hon. Gentleman should decide to make, obligatory a course of moral education, whether by texts, or by proverbs, or by mottoes, he was sure it could only be made obligatory during the hours at present devoted to the Scriptural system of instruction in the schools. He did not suppose that any considerable body of opinion in that House, except on the Labour Benches, would be in favour of devoting a portion of the time now taken in giving Scriptural instruction to a course of organised moral instruction. He would take that opportunity of protesting against the idea current among certain Members that, unless they placed a subject on the time-table, with a syllabus for it, and a name, and definite and regular hours in the day or week to teach it, and a careful examination in it, and reports upon it by local and Government inspectors, the subject could not possibly be taught. There was no teacher in the public elementary schools to-day worth his salt, who was not all day long and every day giving moral instruction in the best possible way, not by text or proverb, but by example and by the emanation of personality, and that was the only proper method, both as regarded moral instruction and hygiene and temperance. He begged the right hon. Gentleman not to codify and syllabify these subjects, because if he did their very object would be defeated, the letter would kill the spirit which at present in so many eases was alive. He did not join in the criticisms which had been made against the right hon. Gentleman with regard to secondary schools and training colleges. He thought he had taken a step in the right direction by democratising their secondary school system, and so long as he democratised that system and made it efficient, he did not care about other considerations. Similarly, with regard to the training college arrangements, though he thought in practice the fears expressed that night would be by no means realised, after all, in providing that the selection of the
142
entrants to a training college should be made upon their educational merits, and upon that alone, in cases where, other things being equal, there were too many candidates for one place, the right hon. Gentleman would make the colleges more efficient for the teachers and would remove a standing source of injustice and irritation, whereby a teacher, high up in the list on merits, had been unable to obtain admission, because his place was filled by a candidate low in the list on merits, who happened to fulfil a denominational test which the higher candidate did not fulfil. His right hon. friend had done well with regard to the secondary schools as a beginning, and he hoped he meant to go on in the same way. He had done well in respect to the training colleges, and now he must turn his attention to the elementary schools. He thought that night, wise as was his speech, cautious as was his attitude, and cogent as were his reasons, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was a little too much afraid of what was the real opinion of the local education authorities. He knew that discretion was the better part of valour sometimes, but sometimes also valour was the better part of discretion, and he should like to see him a little more valiant in demanding from the local authorities those improvements which could be obtained by pressure applied by the Board of Education. He would like to refer next to the question of air space. The minimum now allowed in a council school of ten square feet of air space on the floor and fifteen feet above that per child, was loss than the air space required for a man in prison or for the inmate of a workhouse. They talked about national decay, race suicide, diminishing height and weight, but the real thing was to begin with more sanitary conditions for the child, and they could not have any improvement if from 9 a.m. till 12 noon, and from 2 p.m. till 4.30 p.m., the child had to swelter in a crowded room, over-packed, with an air space which at the best represented about as much air as was contained in a yard and a half cube. If they put a boy into a school-room which, built for sixty or seventy children, contained ten square feet on the floor, and fifteen feet above, air space for him.

143
but into which were crowded 80 to 130 children, where did their ten square feet basis come in then? A boy could not breathe in that area. That was going on all over the country and not by any means in the non-provided schools alone. It existed again and again in the council schools and provided schools, and if there was an excuse for it in the non-provided schools because they had not been built out of the resources of the ratepayers, there could be no excuse for the local authorities in the case of the provided schools, with the full resources of the rates at their disposal, refusing to give the children a proper supply of air. He knew of schools not far away where 100 and 103 children were packed into rooms built and intended and measured out and authorised for sixty alone. The delay of reform was sometimes asked for in the name of economy and on behalf of the ratepayers. But he did not believe that plea was a sound one, and he was sure the whole of the ratepayers would rally in favour of his right hon. friend in the policy he had adopted, and he hoped he would do as much for the cause of education in the coming year as he had done in the past year.
MR. SNOWDENwho was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that they must never lose sight of the fact that it would be a very long time before any but a very small proportion of children could look to any other education than that of the elementary school. Yet they were now engaged, he understood, in building up the secondary rather than in improving the elementary school system. The scheme of the code seemed to be devoted more to the improvement of the secondary schools which were used by the richer classes than to the elementary schools which were frequented by the children of the poor. In his opinion he would be a very bold man who would maintain that the state of things was satisfactory in the elementary schools today. On looking at the papers which dealt with the number of children in the elementary schools, he found that there were 6,000,000 children of whom only 1,000,000 were above the age of twelve.
144
He assumed from that that five out of six of the children left school under the age of twelve. [Mr. MCKENNA: No no!] Then, as to the figures in regard to secondary schools, it appeared to him, from the smallness of the numbers, that the efforts which the department had put forth in recent years in regard to the provision of secondary schools could only be taken advantage of by one child in 100. The provision of floor space in the elementary schools was 8 feet or 10 feet, but in the secondary schools, it was provided that there must be 15 feet. That was 50 per cent, more air space in the secondary school than was considered to be sufficient for the poorer children in the elementary. Then again, as to the teaching staff in the secondary school, the teacher only had under his or her charge twenty-five or thirty children, and it was specially enjoined that there should not be more than thirty-five. That regulation was not applied, however, in the case of the children in the elementary schools who were not counted as individuals at all, but simply dealt with in the lump. The regulations in regard to elementary schools were simply to the effect that the number of children in charge of the teacher must be an average number, and that average number * was something like double the extreme limit permitted in the secondary schools. Then again, in regard to the grant, the difference between the elementary and the secondary school was also apparent; the maximum sum apart from that to be earned for special subjects was in elementary schools 22s., but in secondary schools it was £2 between the ages of twelve and fourteen, and between fourteen and fifteen, £5 a head. Thus children in secondary schools of the same age as those in elementary got in one case double and in another case nearly five times the amount which was considered sufficient in the elementary schools. Mr. MCKENNA: "No, no!] In regard to free places also, there was a marked distinction between elementary and secondary schools. He might be the eldest child of a large family. He had often seen parents come before the education committee of the local authority with which he was connected, and

145
in the most shamefaced way, as if poverty was a disgrace, confess that it was impossible for their child to take advantage of the scholarship he had won. Higher education would never, therefore, be available to any extent for the children of working people, unless maintenance scholarships were provided in very large numbers. His whole protest was that, at present, considerations of caste entered far too much into the administration, not only of the local education authorities, but also of the central body. Although it might be impossible for a large number of the children of the elementary schools to take advantage of the secondary schools, much might be done by extending higher elementary teaching in the elementary schools. If opportunities were afforded to the parents to keep their children at the elementary school a little longer the difficulty might be got over by giving this teaching in the elementary school. The idea seemed, however, that elementary education had reached its maximum, and that nothing more required to be done. The new code permitted public elementary schools with not more than sixty children in attendance, to be in charge of an untrained teacher, but he contended that it was more important to have a thoroughly efficient head teacher in a small school, than in a large one, because he was so much confined. The number of un-certificated and untrained teachers in the elementary schools was increasing much more rapidly than the number of certificated teachers. At present there were 100,000 of them, and what results could any reasonable person expect from their work? There was plenty of room for revolutionising the public elementary school system by administrative methods. Local authorities were paying much more than they ought towards the cost of education, which was not a local but a national matter, and should, therefore, be made a national charge. He contended that a larger expenditure of public money for the education of the children was the best investment the country could make. He had considerable experience of children's schools, and he considered that the children had to leave school at too early an age, and, within six months after they left, they had forgotten all they had learned,
146
except how to read and to write. The people had now the power in their hands, and, though he spoke as a democrat, he would say that the danger of ignorance under an oligarchy was not so great as that which might arise from an ignorant democracy. Therefore it was the duty of the State to give the people such an education as would enable them to use their power wisely and well. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his present position, and he hoped that when he ceased to hold office he would be able further to congratulate him on a record of really substantial work.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman had just published had excited a feeling, certainty of apprehension, if nit dismay, among the people whom he and his hon. friends around him represented. As an Irish Member he fought the Bill of last year so long as he thought it unjust, and he supported it when he thought it had been so amended as to make it a fair, reasonable, and just compromise. He felt inclined to say of the two great English Parties, "A plague on both your houses." It was quite true that the Minister for Education had issued something like a declaration of war against a certain type of schools; he knew that the right hon. Gentleman did not so call it, but it was certainly so considered by the community which he represented in that House, and especially by the city a part of which he represented. The right hon. Gentleman had gone to the utmost extent of his powers as against the other House, and he could not altogether acquit of blame the Party which had forced upon them this policy by what he regarded as an abuse of their power over the other House. What he had to deal with was the state of affairs which had been produced by what he considered the disastrous mistake of having rejected the Bill of last year. He spoke particularly for the schools and training colleges of the Catholics. What made him condemn the treatment of them more than that of others was that they deserved it less. The Catholic school was separated from other schools, not like Protestant schools from one another, but by an impassable gulf of irreconcileable doctrine. As a result the Catholics of this country and

147
many other countries had imposed on themselves a heavy tax in order to maintain their schools and the religious teaching given in them; and they did so with more energy and zeal because they were a small minority in the midst of a great majority. The Catholic community were not only a minority of the community, but they were the poorest minority of the population. Proportionately to their wealth the Catholic minority had subscribed more generously to their schools than any other body of people in the country. He went further and said that not merely did they subscribe more proportionately, but they subscribed more absolutely, than other bodies. He did not want to make any odious comparisons, or to offend the susceptibilities of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway with whom on this question he was in general agreement. But at the same time lie hoped that they would forgive him for pointing out that the communion which they represented was a wealthy communion compared with the Catholics, who as a body were poor. He had a Return giving the amounts received from 1863 to the year 1905, and he found with regard to the Church of England schools that the amount received from voluntary subscriptions was £508,000 out of a total of £4,563,000, or one-ninth of the whole. He found also that the Wesleyan body, which also was largely well-to-do— ["No"]—well, some were rich and some were poor, but there were very few rich people among the Irish Catholics in this country, certainly there were not nearly so many that were comfortable as there were among the Wesleyan Methodists. The Catholic community had subscribed voluntarily £93,549 out of a total of £409,134, or roughly about one-quarter of the whole. He wished to speak of this with special emphasis, because one of the most important of these training colleges was that of Mount Pleasant in the city of Liverpool. He thought the figures he had quoted showed that the Catholics had the courage of their religious convictions and displayed generosity and self-sacrifice, because out of their poverty they had subscribed very largely for their own schools. It was true that those schools were being treated like the schools of other communions, and the proposition which the right hon. Gentleman applied
148
to one particular form of school must also apply to others. Under these new regulations anybody belonging to any communion whatever would have a right to demand entry into these training colleges and schools, and if they were denied entrance that school or college would first be fined and might finally be extinguished as far as the grant was concerned. The first time he heard that there was a large number of Protestants being educated in Catholic schools he at once denied the statement, but he had since found that he was wrong. As a matter of fact, there were a large number of children being educated in Catholic schools, and why were they sent to those schools? It was because the parents of the children approved of that particular form of education which was given them. Some time ago he travelled home on board ship with a number of Mormons, and he found that a large number of their young ladies had been educated in a Catholic convent. Of course that did not affect their convictions in regard to the multiplicity of wives. The doors of Catholic schools were open wide to all comers, and anyone who knew the inner working of those schools would agree with him when he said that no attempt at proselytism had ever been proved. What would happen under these regulations? He would take, for example, the training college at Mount Pleasant in his own constituency. Religious practices and exercises were to those in Mount Pleasant College as much a part of the education, and in some respects a more essential part of the education, given to the teachers than the secular instruction, because the fundamental principle of a Catholic school was that religion should not be a separate or isolated part of education. He was not at all overstating the Catholic ideal—and with a little change of words he believed it would also be the Protestant ideal—when he said that the training of Catholics in manhood, morality, and virtue was regarded as far away the most important part of education. They were under those regulations in this convent school at Mount Pleasant, but nevertheless they were obliged to open their doors to the Protestant child. He found no fault with that if it did not bring along with it the disqualification that the very fact of those teachers coming in would derange the

149
whole machinery of the establishment. In a Catholic training college it was an essential part of the instruction and discipline of the school that teachers who were to go abroad to teach Catholic children Catholic doctrine and practice and ideals should be compelled, if necessary, to attend the religious exercises and devotions of the college. Under these new regulations all that would be upset. One could imagine a case where a number of Nonconformist children in a place like the West Riding of Yorkshire might possibly send so many applications for admission to a Catholic school as would change the school from its exclusively Catholic atmosphere and make it entirely undenominational and Nonconformist. These proposals were filling the people he represented with alarm and also with a strong sense of indignation. These Catholic colleges and schools had been built largely out of the pence of the poorest of the poor, and this was a poor return for the generosity they had shown in maintaining very largely these schools out of their own pockets. He thought it was very hard that they should now be penalised by the unjust regulations which the President of the Board of Education had issued.
Lord R. CECILsaid there were one or two observations which he desired to make. Upon the question of training colleges he did not wish to add anything to what had been said. The question was a very serious one. He agreed with the remark that the Board of Education little knew the storm of indignation which had already been raised and which would undoubtedly go on increasing on account of the provisions which had been put into the regulations with respect to training colleges and secondary schools. He regretted that the Government had thought fit to add one more religious question to those which already encumbered the subject of education. The President of the Board of Education had said that it would not be right for him to overrule existing legislation. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the fact that his regulations dealing with secondary schools did overrule existing legislation in spirit, if not in letter. Secondary schools were to receive a smaller grant unless they were put on a
150
wholly undenominational basis. That appeared to him to be going distinctly in the teeth of two statutory provisions. The Endowed Schools Act, 1869, said that schools with a religious or denominational foundation should not be the subject of a scheme including provisions of the character of those contained in the regulations. Then there was Section 4 of the Act of 1902. It was evidently the intention of the Legislature that denominational and undenominational schools should be treated on a precise equality so far as county council assistance was concerned. In the prefatory memorandum to the new Code there was the following paragraph—
"Questions hive been asked as to whether compliance with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (commonly known as the 'Cowper-Temple clause') is at present required either by the Education Acts or by the Code to be one of the conditions fulfilled by all public elementary schools in order to obtain a Parliamentary grant. In order to make the position quite plain, the Board have inserted a provision making it a condition of annual grant that every school must comply with the regulations of the Education Acts in so far as they are applicable to the type of school in question, which, therefore, makes compliance with the 'regulation' contained in Section 14 a condition of grant."
He did not quite understand this paragraph. He remembered that a deputation of Nonconformists waited on the Minister of Education and complained of the syllabus prepared by the local education authority. This alteration was then promised in order to meet the views of the deputation.
MR. McKENNA: The noble Lord must not say that. The change was made before the deputation came.
LORD R. CECILsaid he supposed the change was made before in order to mollify the wrath of the deputation. He asked the Committee to consider what the change meant. Under the existing law it was for the Courts to consider, on proper proceedings being taken, whether or not the Cowper-Temple clause had been complied with, and he understood this to be put in in order to create a concurrent jurisdiction in the Board of Education. He confessed to a considerable distrust of the view of the present Board towards the Cowper-Temple clause. As to education in

151
Wales, it was the duty of the Board to see that the Welsh local education authorties did not, in the exercise of their Nonconformist acerbity, so far oppress the non-provided schools as to make the teaching in those schools inefficient. He had had submitted to him a vast quantity of evidence which convinced him that that condition was not observed in a very large number of schools in Wales. It was a regular thing to have differential rates of salaries between provided and non-provided schools. In Glamorgan, not only did they differentiate between the two classes of schools, but they had actually gone so far as to reduce salaries in non-provided schools to a lower rate than was being paid before the Act of 1902. Then there was the question of under-staffing. That was another method of petty persecution. It was a regular practice of the local education authorities in certain districts of Wales deliberately and intentionally to under-staff the non-provided schools in order to starve them into submission. He would take the case of the Usk school. In 1901 they had a headmaster, an Article 68 assistant, and two trained pupil-teachers; in 1907 they had a headmaster, two supplementary teachers, and a monitor. That was a considerable reduction. In the infant school in 1901 they had a headmaster, three Article 68 teachers, one pupil-teacher, and one monitress, and in 1907 that was reduced to a headmistress and two supplementary teachers. And in more than one case they had gone on under-staffing the schools until they had been compelled by a threat, sometimes by the Board of Education itself, to deprive them of grants unless they increased the staffs. In his judgment it was the duty of law-abiding citizens to carry out the law even if they did not approve of it. One of their favourite methods was to try and seize an opportunity of getting a school declared unnecessary because for some short period of time the attendance fell below thirty. Then, of course, there was the familiar plan, sometimes, recommended in that House which consisted in insisting on repairs in order to compel the closing of a school. That had teen done in Anglesey, and in many other cases. He asked the atten-
152
tion of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Committee to the system of petty malignity prevailing in Wales, which was a scandal to the administration of education. It did not fall on the hated Church of England; it would be bad enough if it did; but it fell on the teachers and children, and it was a perfect outrage that it should be allowed to continue. He could not conclude without pointing out to the Committee that it was not only in Wales, in the administration of elementary schools, and in the regulations which had been reported to the Committee that afternoon, but in every respect the administration being carried on by the right hon. Gentleman or under the pressure of his extreme supporters was characterised by hatred of denominationalism. This bloodless administration was nothing but the fruit of bigotry and intolerance, and it showed that the Nonconformist could be as great a bigot as the Jesuit. It appeared to him that in this matter, the undenominational majority of the House was using its power deliberately to oppress the denominations of the country, and when the country realised it, as it was beginning to realise it, it would sweep from power the present administration. He asked hon. Members opposite to consider the effect of a policy of this kind. They were in power at this moment; they were able for the moment to oppress those who held opposite opinions; but if they went on they would, without a doubt, arouse a very strong feeling of indignation against themselves, and when his Party was returned to power it would be returned with embittered feelings and supported by a section which might be as bitter as the Nonconformist section which supported the present Government, and it might be that the Treasury Bench of that day would be as little able to resist those extreme supporters as the Treasury Bench of the present day were able to resist theirs. He did not see what prospect of religious peace there was unless the Government definitely turned their backs on the policy which they were now pursuing, and based themselves on the principle, the only sound principle, that the parent should decide what the religion of his child should be, and abandoned once and for all the miserable and malignant

153
policy which they had, in England to some extent, and still more in Wales, hitherto pursued.
MR. McKENNAremarked that the noble Lord had used very strong language as to the education administration in Wales, and his only reply was that those observations ought to have been addressed, not so much to himself, as to the hon. Baronet opposite who represented the Board of Education when the Act of 1902 came into force. Whatever was happening in Wales now happened under his administration; there had been no jot or tittle of change. Had the noble Lord been in the last Parliament he would have known that every complaint he made now was equally capable of being made under the administration of the last Government.
LORD R. CECIL: And at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. McKENNAsaid that the noble Lord denied that what he said was right, and then said it was right because he (Mr. McKenna) instigated it. Would the noble Lord make up his mind which answer he was going to adhere to? He could assure him that whatever happened now, happened then.
SIR W. ANSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman had charged him with enduring the, maladministration in Wales of which the noble Lord complained, but supposing it to be true, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have attempted to redress the grievance.
MR. McKENNAsaid that he was making as great efforts as the hon. Baronet did in that direction.
Lord BALCARRESasked what the right hon. Gentleman was doing about the questions of understaffing and under - paying of teachers.
MR. McKENNAsaid that he was acting according to the decisions arrived at by
his predecessor, and had done nothing that that was not warranted by those decisions. As to the Roman Catholic colleges, he could not subscribe to the view of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, that Nonconformists would be anxious to go to denominational colleges and by means of a kind of concerted action on the part of a number of students seek to obtain admission wrongfully with the object of subverting the discipline of the college. Such fears were absolutely without foundation. The fears of the hon. Member for Blackburn that, because the Board of Education had been directing their attention to secondary education, therefore they had been neglecting elementary education, were absolutely groundless. The hon. Member had argued that elementary education was in a perilous condition because only 1,000,000 children out of the 6,000.000 who attended them remained at the elementary schools after twelve; but he had forgotten that the 6,000,000 included children from five to fourteen, and naturally, therefore, the children between twelve and fourteen would be only one-sixth of: the whole. Similarly, the inferences the hon. Member had drawn from the grants made in respect of elementary school children had no relation to the facts. The fears of the hon. Member with regard to the intentions of the Board were entirely groundless. In answer to another criticism, the circular issued by the Board to the local authorities with regard to the feeding of school children was solely with the intention of inciting them to act up to the spirit of the Act. With regard to medical inspection, it was the intention of the Board, if the Bill now before Parliament passed, to establish a medical bureau, which would guide and advise the local authorities as to the nature of the work they would have to do under the Act, and he hoped that when the names were published the House would be fully satisfied.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes, 220. (Division List No. 276.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F

Ashley, W. W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George-

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Balcarres, Lord

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hills, J. W.

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hogan, Michael

Percy, Earl

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Houston, Robert Paterson

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Bull, Sir William James

Hunt, Rowland

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Joyce, Michael

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Butcher, Samuel Henry

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Keswick, William

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Kilbride, Denis

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Cave, George

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Sheehy, David

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

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

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

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

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Lundon, W.

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

Crean, Eugene

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Starkey, John R.

Duffy, William J.

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

Faber, George Denison (York)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fell, Arthur

M'Killop, W.

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Fletcher, J. S.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Valentia, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Meagher, Michael

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

Gilhooly, James

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Gretton, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Halpin, J.

Nield, Herbert

Young, Samuel

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Hay, Hon. Claude George

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Boland and Mr. William

Helmsley, Viscount

O'Malley, William

Redmond.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clough, William

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Clynes, J. R.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Alden, Percy

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

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

Hall, Frederick

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Cooper G. J.

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow.)

Harvey, A. C. C. (Rochdale)

Astbury, John Meir

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

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Helme, Norval Watson

Barker, John

Cowan, W. H.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Barnes, G. N.

Crooks, William

Henry, Charles S.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crossley, William J.

Higham, John Sharp

Beauchamp, E.

Curran, Peter Francis

Holt, Richard Burning

Bellairs, Carlyon

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Hudson, Walter

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Idris, T. H. W.

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

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Bertram, Julius

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Jackson, R. S.

Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romford

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

Jardine, Sir J.

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

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

Jenkins, J.

Boulton, A. C. F.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Brace, William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Branch, James

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Brigg, John

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jowett, F. W.

Bright, J. A.

Elibank, Master of

Kekewich, Sir George

Brodie, H. C.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kelley, George D.

Brooke, Stopford

Erskine, David C.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

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

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, George

Bryce, J. Annan

Everett, R. Lacey

Lamont, Norman

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Fenwick, Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ferens, T. R.

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Byles, William Pollard

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Lehmann, R. C.

Cameron, Robert

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gill, A. H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Churchill, Mt. Hon. Winston S.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Cleland, J. W.

Grant, Corrie

Lough, Thomas

156

157

Lyell, Charles Henry

Radford, G. H.

Straus, B. S (Mile End)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Summerbell, T.

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk Bg'hs

Rees, J. D.

Taylor, Theodore C, (Radcliffe)

Maclean, Donald

Rendall, Athelstan

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

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Renton, Major Leslie

Tomkinson, James

M'Kenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampton

Toulmin, George

M'Micking. Major G.

Richardson, A.

Walsh, Stephen

Mallet, Charles E.

Rickett, J. Compton

Walters, John Tudor

Markham, Arthur Basil

Ridsdale, E. A.

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

Marks, G. croydon(Launceston)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

Marnham, F. J.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Wardle, George J.

Massie, J.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robertson, J. M. ((Tyneside)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkhey)

Mond, A.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Waterlow, D. S.

Montagu, E. S.

Rose, Charles Day

Whitbread, Howard

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall).

Rowlands, J.

White, George (Norfolk)

Morrell, Philip

Runciman, Walter

White, Luke (York, E,R.,)

Morse, L. L.

Russell, T. W

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Murray, James

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Wiles, Thomas

Myer, Horatio

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wilkie, Alexander

Newnes. F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Seaverns, J. H.

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Nicholls, George

Seddon, J.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncaster

Seely, Major J. B.

Wills. Arthur Walters

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Shackleton, David James

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

O'Grady, J.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

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

Partington, Oswald

Shipman, Dr. John G.

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

Paulton, James Mellor

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Soares, Ernest J.

Winfrey, R.

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

Spicer, Sir Albert

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Perks, Robert William

Stanger, H. Y.

Yoxall, James Henry

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Steadman, W. C.

Tellers for the Noes—Mr.

Pollard, Dr.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Whiteley, and Mr. J. A.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Pease.

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Original Question again proposed.
And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
*MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)resumed his speech on the new clause which he was submitting when Progress was reported on Tuesday night. The clause was as follows—
"In addition to the deductions of one-eighth, and one-sixth allowed under Section thirty five of the Finance Act of 1894 there shall also, for the purposes of collection, be allowed the cost of insurance and a deduction for expenses
158
of management not exceeding five per centum of the gross annual value."
The hon. Member said he first desired to refer to the sad news which caused the Prime Minister the other evening to interrupt the business of the House, and on behalf of himself and his friends he wished to say how very much they deplored the tragic manner in which a Member was suddenly taken away from them, and they deeply sympathised with the family and friends in their loss. With regard to the clause which he moved, under Schedule A. a landowner paid income-tax on the gross rental of his estate, less deductions for land tax and of one-eighth on land and one-sixth on buildings. After these deductions the rental which was left was supposed to be the rental which the landlord received. But as a matter of fact, landowners, not merely those owning thousands or hundreds of acres, but even small landowners, men owning a few acres, paid not only their fair share of taxation but more than their fair share, and largely out of proportion to their

159
revenue from the land. To illustrate his argument, he would take three estates. On one of them the calculation was made for the years 1902 to 1907, and in that period the income-tax had been at the average rate of 12·3d. in the £ but the landlord had paid 14·8d. on his net income; that was to say, he had paid 2·5d. in the £ in excess of that which he was legally required to pay. On two other estates on which an average had been taken for nine years, the average of the income-tax for that period was 11·11id. in the £ and on one estate the landlord paid in excess l·27d. in the £, and the other had paid in excess 2·44d. in the £ and he thought that, from those figures, one might very fairly conclude that the landlord paid an average rate of about 2d. in the £ in excess of the amount of income-tax which he ought to pay. These figures had been calculated on the bare up-keep of the estate, and no allowance whatever was made for the cost of management. He submitted that the allowance of one-sixth and one-eighth ought to be considerably increased, or else the landowner ought to be allowed to render each year an accurate account of the income of his estate and be assessed to income-tax under Schedule D., as proposed by his hon. friend the Member for Oswestry. Landowners had felt for some time past that they were suffering under a grievance, but the injustice had been brought to such a pitch by the present proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was necessary to point out how great it was. The right hon. Gentleman's distinction between earned and unearned income introduced a further inequality, because the income of a landowner was to be considered as unearned, equally with that of shareholders of a company. But the gross profits of a company before they were assessed to income-tax were subject to deductions in respect of repairs, salaries, directors' remuneration, expenses of insurance, local rates and taxes, auditors' fees, bad debts, banking charges and allowances for depreciation of plant and machinery. All these things were deducted from the gross income of the company before it was assessed to income-tax, whereas the landowner was only allowed the deductions of one-eighth or
160
one-sixth, and he submitted that if the landowner was to be placed in the same category as a shareholder in an industrial company, then in common fairness he ought to be allowed the same deductions from his gross income, so as to bring his net income within the same assessment. The deductions he had referred to of one eighth and one sixth were introduced into the Finance Act of 1894, but they were not adequate then, and he was quite sure they were inadequate now. Those who knew the wages paid on estates now and those which were paid thirteen years ago would be fully aware of the fact that they had increased considerably. Not only that, but repairs generally cost a good deal more now than they did thirty years ago. In asking that some additional allowance should be made for the expenses of management, he did not think he was asking for anything excessive by putting it down at 5 per cent. The shareholder of an industrial company had very little to do to earn his income, but if a landowner spent no time at all in the management of his estate and employed nobody to look after it, it would deteriorate very rapidly and that would bring ruin not only to the estate but also to those who were employed upon it. Under the Finance Act of 1894 in Clause 7, Subsection (5), it was provided that in estimating the value of an estate there should be a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding 5 per cent, of the gross annual value. It was upon that clause that he had based his new clause. He thought he had taken a very modest estimate, and he was afraid that he should be told by his hon. friends that he had placed it too low. He thought, however, by drawing up his clause on the basis of Clause 7 of the Finance Act of 1894 he was following a good precedent. In regard to insurance, industrial companies were allowed to deduct from their gross profits the cost of insurance, and he did not think he was asking too much in providing that the landowner who insured his property should be allowed to deduct the cost of the insurance. If the right hon. Gentleman considered it more feasible to add a small percentage instead of the actual cost to the deductions already allowed he would be

161
quite willing to accept it. He submitted that in putting this new clause before the House he was only asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put the landowning class and the holders of shares in an industrial company upon equal terms. He begged to move.
New clause—
"In addition to the deductions of one-eighth and one-sixth allowed under Section 35 of the Finance Act of 1894, there shall also, for the purposes of collection, be allowed the cost of insurance and a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding five per centum of the gross annual value."—(Mr. Hicks-Beach.)
Brought up and read a first time.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith,)said he thought the hon. Gentleman would not be surprised when he heard that he could not possibly accept this clause. The contentions the hon. Gentleman had raised had been equally valid for the last thirteen years, during ten of which Conservative Governments had been in power.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the injustice had been accentuated by differentiating between earned and unearned incomes.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that was not so. Sir William Harcourt gave to the landed interest by way of partial compensation the very large concession which was now contained in Section 35 of the Act of 1894 under which for the purposes of Schedule A they were allowed the right to deduct one-eighth on land and one-sixth in regard to repairs. That was a very large percentage as compared with the state of the law which previously existed. Under this Bill investments in land and industrial companies stood precisely on the same footing as in 1894. No one was more qualified to speak for the landed interest than Lord St. Aldwyn, but he never sought to give effect to the propositions the hon. Gentleman had advanced, nor did either of his two Conservative successors. What was good enough for them was good enough
162
for him, and he should shelter himself behind them.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (Worcestershirc, E.)said he was afraid the tone which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted would not make it easy for them to conclude this debate in a reasonable time. The right hon. Gentleman had chosen to adopt a most aggressive tone of which he was a past master, and he had proceeded by the method of argumentum ad hominen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had included him in the various predecessors whose example was good enough for him. If the right hon. Gentleman would always act on that principle, his action would be good enough for him, but he was not consistent. He only pleaded the example of his predecessors when it suited him for the moment. He could not speak for his predecessors. He was himself not satisfied upon this particular point, but he deferred taking action pending the Report of a Committee which he appointed. He was not able to act on any of the recommendations of the Committee, their report coming too late for him to take action. A certain allowance was made by the Act of 1894. That allowance was a percentage of the whole. Agricultural rates had not risen since then, but the cost of labour had. Building operations might be carried out now in towns more cheaply than thirteen years ago, but agricultural buildings could not be erected more cheaply now than then. The tendency of agricultural rates was to fall, and that of agricultural expenses to rise. Therefore, prima facie an allowance which was no more than adequate in 1894 was less than adequate in 1907. He thought they had arrived at a period when they ought to reconsider this matter. In recent years they had been taking away the special privileges of land, and therefore they should also take away the special disabilities. His hon. friend had shown that other forms of property wore allowed deductions which were not allowed for land, and the only answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that that had been going on a long time. So had the anomalies which the right hon. Gentleman had sought to remove.

163
He asked him to deal out even-handed justice all round. That was the minimum and the maximum of his claim.
MR. LANE-FOXsaid the answer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not meet the argument of his hon. friend. It was not a complete answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was doing what Conservative Governments had done. They did not expect an enlightened Liberal Government to do the same thing. He did not think that there was anything unfair in asking that land should be treated in exactly the same way as other forms of property. After outlays had been deducted, he thought that in most cases landlords put into their own pockets considerably less than 80 per cent. of the gross rental. What he objected to was that the present system of assessment gave a premium to the bad landlord who did not choose to spend much money on his estate. Good landlords who spent money in improving their estates should be encouraged, and he hoped that in the course of the year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to this anomaly with a view to land being treated in the same way as other forms of property.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had used an argument to the effect that the longer justice was delayed, the more unnecessary redress became, and he thought that if instead of sheltering himself behind previous Chancellors on that side he had followed the example of Sir William Harcourt on his own side, he would not have been able to take the line that he had taken. He had said that there was no particular reason why this grievance should be removed now more than in any previous year, but he could give him one reason for comparing this year with 1894, and that was that in both years there was a large increase in the death duties, and he believed it was largely owing to that increase that Sir William Harcourt did introduce what the right hon. Gentleman described as the very generous treatment of the landlords under the Act of 1894, as to compensation. If Sir William Harcourt had
164
followed the argument of the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that it had gone on for a long time and therefore nothing need be done, he thought he would not have found very much support; but his argument was that, although Committees had reported in favour of this as long ago as in the sixties and nothing had been done, he thought it ought to be done in 1894. When the Committee reported in favour of this particular reduction of one-eighth and one-sixth wheat was at 60s., labour and the cost of repairs were very much less than now, and the case was in no way parallel to the present conditions. But the repairs and necessity for making repairs on estates remained exactly the same; if anything, they had increased, and where the landlord managed his property well he certainly spent more on it, and suffered more under this particular system. They had been constantly told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that landlords ought to manage their property in a more businesslike manner, but why did not the Government allow them to do so? Why not allow them to produce their accounts and pay taxes according to their net income? They were also told, especially by the Drury Lane School of Agriculture, that the best landlords were those who had the largest number of small holdings on their property. Everyone knew that the repairs on small holdings were very much more heavy than where the property was divided into large farms, and, therefore, what they were doing now was to tax the man who, they said, was doing the best for his property about twice as much as they taxed the man who, according to them, was managing his property very badly indeed. The right hon. Gentleman also said that his proposals in regard to unearned incomes did not come into the question now being discussed at all, but he begged leave to differ as to that, and he would give a concrete instance which must make it perfectly clear as it was now under the Bill. He would take two lawyers, both earning £1,200 a year. One of them enjoyed an income of £700 a year out of funds left to him, or which he had accumulated; the other one was a landed proprietor with a gross rental of £1,200, of which he netted only £700. The result of the alteration under this Bill was that the

165
man who had £700 a year net income from land did not come below the £2,000 a year limit, and therefore did not get any relief at all, because they did not allow him to pay on his net income. But the other man did, and it worked out that, both men earning the same amount and both having the same income unearned, one of them paid £32 10s. more income-tax than the other. To say that the question of unearned income did not affect the point raised by his hon. friend was wholly inaccurate, and he thought the point in question could not have been properly understood by the Chancellor.
LORD WILLOUGHBY De ERESBYsaid he had always understood that before the Finance Act of 1894 certain extra taxes in the way of death and succession duties were placed upon landed property, to which personalty was liable but from which real property was exempt that real property had been so exempt, owing to the fact that land was rated, and personal property was not rated, and for the first time by the Finance Act of 1894 those duties and the whole of the duties payable on an estate at death were equalised as between landed property and personal property. Therefore, all the argument which had been used that night as regarded concessions made by the Finance Act of 1894 were brushed away by the fact that then for the first time real property was brought on the same footing as personal property. The point now before them was the fact, perfectly well known to everybody, that the deductions on real estate now allowed did not in the least cover the cost of maintenance and of management, and the Amendment of his hon. friend was to make some further allowance for the cost of management and maintenance and other outgoings. He was always pleased to quote on this question the greatest authority on finance of the last century, the late Mr. Gladstone, and anybody who read Mr. Gladstone's Budget speeches must see that he recognised the injustice that was being done to real estate as against personal estate. In his famous Budget speech of 1853, he distinctly laid down what deductions should be
166
made for real estate for the purposes of the income-tax, and they were these: charges for repairs, building, fences, drains, etc.; secondly, insurance and law charges; thirdly, the cost of management; and fourthly, arrears of rent. The different deductions which ought to be allowed had, therefore, been laid down, and he was certain that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to take any estate, and take into account the deductions which Mr. Gladstone said should be allowed, he would arrive at the same conclusion as Mr. Gladstone as to the net income. The income-tax at that time was 7d. in the £, and Mr. Gladstone said that every landowner would pay not 7d. but 9d. They asked that the subject should be inquired into and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should try to meet them in some manner. It was perhaps a perfectly fair retort for the right hon. Gentleman to say that previous Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer had refused to move in this matter, but for himself he regretted that they had not done so. A few years ago he spoke on this subject to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was afraid that he spoke to deaf ears. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman who now occupied the position would give a more favourable consideration to his suggestion. They were not now talking of "wars and tumults of war," but were confining their attention to agricultural improvements and such like matters. They were now "in the piping times of peace," and talking about getting people back to the land, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should, in order to do justice, take these matters into account. He had heard it stated that the income derived from land was not a precarious income, and therefore if they paid a little more than other people they ought not to grumble; but those who knew anything about land knew that the income was very precarious and dependent upon whether the sun shone or the rain fell in adequate quantities. It was not so many years since the question of the taxes on land was considered by a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a great concession was made by allowing the income of farms to be assessed under

167
Schedule D instead of as formerly under Schedule B. He thought that nobody could deny that it was right that the farmer should have that concession, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not make any concession to them in this Budget he asked him to look into the matter himself and see if he could not do so next year. He would see that it was an undoubted fact that the income derived from lands and the income upon which the tax was paid were quite different amounts He was sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to raise taxation.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that he would of course consider the matter, and if the case was as stated, he would not be slow to do what he could to remove any grievance. What he had said was that a large concession to the land was made in 1894, and he had not heard any argument which proved that that concession was inadequate.
MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)was sure they would all welcome the second statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they would have been wanting in their duty if they had not raised this question at the present moment. The other Chancellors of the Exchequer to whom reference had been, made regarded this income-tax as an annual one, but the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledged that it must be a permanent tax. That was the difference which existed between the present condition of things and that which existed in 1894, and upon that ground alone it was certainly necessary that his hon. friend should bring it forward. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to view the matter in a favourable light, it made a great difference. The right
hon. Gentleman had referred to the Act of 1894, but if the tax fell heavily upon industries in one form and another, it also fell heavily upon agriculture. No allowance was made to landlords in regard to dairy and cow-shed regulations, which involved a very large expenditure upon buildings and maintenance. Rents also had fallen, and he thought the case of the landowner demanded the favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. HICKS BEACHsaid the first speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was certainly not pleasant to those sitting on that side of the House, although his second speech was more sympathetic. There were some of them who felt that a landlord who spent a considerable time in the management of his own estate or employed a person to manage it for him did considerably more than the man who invested his money in an industrial concern and did nothing but draw his dividends. What they asked therefore was that the landlord should be put in the same position as the man who invested his money in an industrial concern. They desired that the landlord who did the work himself or employed a man to do it for him should get some allowance. A relative of his who had occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer for many years was of the same opinion, and he thought that a person who was assessed under Schedule A should in common fairness be treated in the same way as to earned and unearned income as a person assessed under Schedule D.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 50; Noes, 192. (Division List No. 277.)

AYES.

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

Cecil Lord. John P. Joicey-

Hills, J. W.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ashley, W. W.

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hunt, Rowland

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Fell, Arthur

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

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Fleteher, J. S.

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Forster, Henry William

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gretton, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cave, George

Helmsley, Viscount

Renton, Major Leslie

Cevil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Valentia, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Hicks Beach and. Mr. Lane-

Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

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

Fox.

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Pearce, Robert (Stuffs., Leek)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

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

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (South'mpton

Armitage, R.

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Pollard, Dr.

Astbury, John Meir

Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.

Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Central)

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Helme, Norval Watson

Radford, G. H.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Barker, John

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Henry, Charles S.

Richards, T. F.(Wolverhampton

Barnes. G. N.

Higham, John Sharp

Rickett, J. Compton

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Holt, Richard Durning

Ridsdale, E. A.

Beale, W. P.

Horniman, Emslie John

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Beauchamp, E.

Hudson, Walter

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Illingworth, Percy H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonport

Jardine, Sir J.

Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradford

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

Jenkins, J.

Robertson, J. M (Tyneside)

Bennett, E. N.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Berridge, T. H. D.

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Rogers, F. L. Newman

Bertram, Julius

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rose, Charles Day

Brace, William

Jowett, F. W.

Rowlands, J.

Branch, James

Joyce, Michael

Runciman, Walter

Brigg, John

Kelley, George D.

Russell, T. W.

Brodie, H. C.

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Brooke, Stopford

Lambert, George

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bryce, J. Annan

Lamont, Norman

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Scott, A. H.(Ashton under Lyne

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Seaverns, J. H.

Byles, William Pollard

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Seddon, J.

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Seely, Major J. B.

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

Lehmann, R. C.

Shackleton, David James

Churchill Rt. Hon. Winston S.

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

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

Clough, William

Levy, Sir Maurice

Sheehy, David

Clynes, J.R.

Lewis, John Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cobbold, Felix, Thornley

Lyell, Charles Henry

Silcock, Thomas Ball

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

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Cooper, G. J.

Maclean, Donald

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

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

Macpherson, J. T.

Steadman, W. C.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cowan, W. H.

M'Micking, Major G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Crean, Eugene

Markham, Arthur Basil

Summerbell, T.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Crooks. William

Marnham, F. J.

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

Crosfieid, A. H.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Toulmin, George

Crossley, William J.

Massie, J.

Verney, F. W.

Dalziel, James Henry

Micklem. Nathaniel

Walsh, Stephen

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Montagu, E. S.

Wardle, George J.

Duffy, William J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Morrell, Philip

Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Morse, L. L.

Waterlow, D. S.

Elibank, Master of

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Ellis. Rt. Hon. John Edward

Murray, James

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Esslemont, George Birnie

Myer, Horatio

Whitehead, Rowland

Everett, R. Lacey

Nicholls, George

Whiteley, John Henry (Halifax)

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wiles, Thomas

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilkie, Alexander

Fuller, John Michael F.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Gibb, James (Harrow)

O'Grady, J.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Goddard, Daniel Frod

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Grant, Corrie

Partington, Oswald

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

170

171

Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

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

Winfrey, R.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

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

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Pease.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that what he proposed by his Amendment was that in calculating the duty to be paid on any estate, in regard to which reliable accounts were produced, the allowance for maintenance should be the amount which such accounts showed to have been the average annual expenditure for maintenance for the last ten years. He hoped the Committee would recognise that he asked for this concession only when reliable accounts could be produced. Those accounts would have to be supported by vouchers, and they might be inspected by any officer whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer cared to send down. How did things stand at the present moment? When an estate came up for treatment they had to depend upon the presumption that a certain percentage would be deducted, but they had no knowledge at all what that percentage would be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably tell him; that all these things were submitted to the reasonable discretion and fair-mindedness of the officers of the Inland Revenue, but that was not quite the same thing as the concession for which he asked. He wished especially to call the attention of the Labour representatives to this point. What was the expenditure in regard to which he desired to have these reliable accounts? In a very large degree the expenditure was incurred in the provision of cottages which would really be sanitary and a credit to the owner, and consequently those who occupied them would be substantially benefited. Another part of the expenditure would be in the promotion of all the various industries which would be encouraged by estate expenditure. This expenditure also went directly for increasing the productive capacity of the land and the fertility of the soil, and it gave those occupying the land the best possible chance of securing a remunerative return for their labour. It might be said that the proposal was not justified on strict business lines, but that only affected the position of the man who, for the time being, was spending that revenue. The community and the people at large benefited by the owner-
172
ship of land being in the hands of men who made it their practice to expend money largely upon their own estates. He believed that a man who spent money in his lifetime rendered a greater service to the community than a man who accumulated wealth and bequeathed it to others at his death. He would briefly illustrate his argument by quoting figures, for the accuracy of which he could vouch. In the case of a small squire's property the gross rents received amounted in fifteen years to £62,800 in round figures. The rates, taxes, and other charges amounted in the same period to over £10,000. During the fifteen years the expenditure upon improvements and repairs had been over £23,000. That meant that in those fifteen years over 40 per cent, of the income of the estate had been spent on improvements and repairs alone. The item of outdoor wages to workers employed on the estate during the fifteen years amounted to £20,000. Therefore, when these different charges were added together and the sum deducted from the gross rental, it appeared that the expenditure amounted to over 80 per cent, of the income derived from the estate. Besides all that there had been these particular estate charges, amounting to over £1,500 a year, and they were making the ownership of that land for those fifteen years result in not only not a profit but a considerable loss. He was asking that where an estate of that sort could show those figures in a way which absolutely satisfied the most stringent critic of their correctness, those figures should be taken as the amount to be deducted from the estate's net income in order to show the real amount on which it would be fair to charge the duty. Hon. Members would recognise that the expenditure was not selfish expenditure; it was directly for the good of the countryside and for the good of the objects they all had at heart, and therefore it must be a matter of importance, to be considered favourably, that those who were willing to spend in that way should be encouraged rather than discouraged. The work was genuine; it was not nonsense work. Every penny was spent on real improvements, and on carrying out in the

173
highest degree that which was put before them as the ideal at which owners of land ought to aim. Would it not therefore be fair that they should encourage such treatment of an estate by the owner, and as long as they absolutely safeguarded themselves from any possibility of fraud or exaggerated estimates or overdrawn statements, that they should fall in with his suggestion and say that under those circumstances they would allow that the fair deduction would be that which the estate accounts showed, so long as they were based upon the average of a sufficient number of years to make them reliable? He had suggested ten years, but if the Chancellor would rather take fifteen years, or a shorter number of years, well and good. But whatever number of years he took it should be sufficiently long to ensure the estate not losing because of the expenditure of some special sum in one particular year, and to make it certain that they were really giving a relief which had been fairly earned. He thought he had made a case which would justify the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he would be satisfied if the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that if that consideration led him to the belief that such action as he suggested would be beneficial to the estate and really good for the maintenance of the system under which the country was carried on now he would endeavour another year to meet him at all events in some degree.
New clause—
"In calculating the duty to be paid on any estate, in regard to which reliable accounts are produced, the allowance for maintenance shall t)e the amount which such accounts show to have been the average annual expenditure for maintenance for the last ten years."—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he was not going to complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had presented his case, and he quite agreed that there were in the present law provisions under which cases of hardship might arise, nor had he any difficulty in giving him the assurance which he asked for at the end
174
of his speech, that this question should receive the most careful consideration. He must, however, point out again that the scale of deductions had been in force for a considerable number of years, and none of his predecessors had seen their way to increase them. No doubt an argument of that kind did not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was, of course, not conclusive, and he was quite ready to consider the question independently of any decision of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. He must also point out that he was assured by those responsible for the Inland Revenue that they had no hard and fast rule as to what were necessary outgoings and that they would take into account any bona fide expenditure incurred upon the estate during the year preceding the death of the testator. If then, there was a statutory deduction under the Act of 1894 for management not exceeding 5 per cent, and all those other considerations were taken into account, there was no unfairness, particularly when the reasonableness and elasticity which the Inland Revenue officers applied was considered. Further, the language which the hon. Member used was not such as could be put upon the Statute-book. He therefore suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn on his assurance that he would consider this point.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid it would be discourteous to resist the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had no intention of doing so. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal with this question with a fair and open mind. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would understand that if his object was attained, it would be to the advantage of the country. He would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. FELLmoved a new clause to provide that every company or corporation which was chargeable with income-tax on its profits should be assessed only in respect of such profits as were distributed among the shareholders of that company or corporation.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the matter had already been discussed.
*MR. FELL: said he would be very short, but it was felt to be a hardship by many people that the profits of a company which were not divided among shareholders should have to pay income-tax. There was a marked discrepancy in the way in which profits were assessed. The Court of Chancery, on the one hand, declared that the profits of a company were only those which were made after the capital of the company had been maintained. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, on the other hand, said that none of the profits of a company might be applied for the purpose of keeping capital intact, but the whole must be treated as profit and pay income-tax. He thought the Committee would agree with him that the Court of Chancery took a more sound financial view of the subject than did the Commissioners of Income-Tax. If a company was to be a permanent institution carried on for the benefit of shareholders, the first object of the directors must be to keep the capital fully maintained and to distribute only the profit which remained over and above that amount. The Commissioners of Income-Tax did not allow the deduction, and the shareholders therefore had to pay ls. in the pound on the sum put aside for reserve. They never received that money. If they did many of them would be able to get the ls. back, because their income would come within the limit of abatement. Under the present arrangement, however, they had no chance of getting it back, and therefore a company paid to the income-Tax Commissioners a larger sum than really would be obtained if the money was distributed amongst the partners or shareholders of a company. That was one of the points he wished to press. There was another, namely, that the directors of a company might be relied upon to distribute as much as possible to the shareholders. He should; say that they put their best foot forward in most cases, and the Courts had agreed with this, because they did not allow the shareholders to propose at the annual meeting that a larger dividend should be distributed than that which the directors themselves suggested. The clause was framed on the assumption that the directors always would distribute the very maximum sum they were justified in distributing on the profits which might; be reasonably held to be made in each
176
year, and even if they did put something aside the income-tax derived the full benefit, because it was to be supposed that the sum would be employed and, consequently, would earn further income on which income-tax had to be paid. He thought they might rest assured that the directors would always distribute as much profit as might safely be distributed, and the Income-Tax Commissioners should not tend to make the directors distribute more than they ought. It would be sounder finance, therefore, if they only charged a company the tax on the profits which the shareholders received.
New clause—
"Every company or corporation which is chargeable with income-tax on its profits shall be assessed only in respect of such profits as are distributed among the shareholders of that company or corporation."—(Mr. Fell).
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he was sorry the hon. Gentleman had raised this point again, because it had been discussed only a few days ago. He did not want to repeat the speech he made then, in which he dealt very fully with the arguments the hon. Gentleman had just used. He would briefly recapitulate his views. In the first place the clause sought to make a difference between a statutory company and an individual. But what was law for a company ought to be law for an individual also, and if they were going to allow a company to escape assessment for income-tax on that part of its profits which were placed to reserve the same rule must be applied to an individual. That in itself was sufficient to dispose of the clause, but, quite apart from that, it was contrary to the fundamental principles of our taxation. The tax was assessed on profits. The moment a sum was ascertained to be a profit it became chargeable to income-tax: the person who received it had nothing to do with it. It might be placed to a reserve fund, distributed in charity, or spent in reckless and riotous living—all these things were absolutely immaterial. The moment it appeared in the character of profit it was subject to the definition of the income-tax law. On these two

177
grounds, which were fully set forth the other day, he could not assent to the clause.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINhoped his hon. friend would not proceed to a division on the clause. He could not support it in the form in which it stood, and it was perfectly true they had had a discussion on the same point, which ho thought had not been wholly useless. The only further hope he would express was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a little attention to the subject. What was said by his right hon. friend the Member for Dublin University first of all, and afterwards concurred in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the real question was how profits should be arrived at. He thought that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an open mind with regard to injustices of the income-tax, he might profitably spend a little time in examining the definition of profits, with particular reference to wasting capital. Part of the reserves were really the replacement of wasting capital. Part of them were nothing of the kind, but were additional capital placed in the business. If they were for the equalisation of dividends it might affect the Chancellor of the Exchequer's revenue in a particular year, but not in the long run, because if the revenue received too little one year, the Chancellor would get the tax whenever the reserve was utilised for the equalisation of dividends.
MR. FELLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved a new clause providing that on and after 1st January, 1908, the customs duty of ld. per 1b. on cocoa should cease to be payable. He thought in this matter he might claim the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because in a former speech this session the right hon. Gentleman stated that the duty was not defensible, and moreover, it only brought in a small amount and would not interfere as the sugar duty would with the Budget. The yield in raw' cocoa in 1906, amounted to £184,952, and that was the item he asked the Chancellor of
178
the Exchequer to remit after 1st January next. This year it would only amount to £46,000, and therefore would not interfere with his Budget in any way. Cocoa was produced in the tropics only; it could not be produced in this country. It was produced in our own Possessions in the West Indies. It was an article of food and was also used in the manufacture of chocolate in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 18th April said that this duty was a small and not very lucrative tax. The right hon. Gentleman also thought there was a good deal of the flavour of protection about it, and that it was not defensible though it was a very small affair. If it were a very small affair he asked the right hon. Gentleman to accept this clause. He simply asked the right hon. Gentleman to repeal the duty on the raw cocoa, and not on the other forms of cocoa. He thought if this country were commencing afresh its customs duties, it would not adopt the system at present followed. We were raising at the present time about £13,500,000 on articles of food imported,, and which did not compete in any way with the products of this country. While doing that we allowed to come in absolutely free last year as much as £131,000,000 worth of articles wholly or mainly manufactured. Those articles competed with our own manufactures and labour.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid the clause did not relate to manufactures.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he was giving a reason why it seemed to him absurd that we should adopt a system, whereby we taxed articles of food coming into this country which did not compete with what we made. He would not, of course, go further into that. The argument was used by Members on the other side of the House, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they who held the views he himself did were placed on the horns of a dilemma, because if a duty were imposed and the goods still came into this country we got no protection for our manufactures; but, on the other hand, if the goods were kept out we got no duty. Here was a case which met that argument. We were receiving at the present time from manufactured cocoa, £70,616. That was just an instance where a small duty of 2d. per lb. did not prevent the manufactured goods coming

179
into the country, but brought a revenue to the Exchequer. He did not propose to interfere with that in his clause. What he was asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do—and it was only a small request —was to remit the duty on raw material, which only brought in £184,000 odd last year; and, assuming that the same amount would be realised this year, it would only mean remitting the sum of £46,000. The right hon. Gentleman could easily do that, because he had a large increase recently. The clause would not interfere with the Budget or dislocate it in the slightest way, and the right hon. Gentleman by taking this step would give satisfaction to consumers of cocoa in this country. It was a temperance drink and he was quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have the support of his followers if he acceded to this request.
New clause—
"On and after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and eight, the duty of customs of one penny the pound on cocoa shall cease to be payable, and so much of The Customs Tariff Act, 1876, as refers to this duty is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not suppose the hon. Gentleman expected that he would consent to this clause. He had said what he had to say on the subject in his Budget speech. He thought there was a slight flavour of protection in this duty, but it had passed the scrutiny of free traders so severe as Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Goschen and Sir William Harcourt. He was not sure that he did not take rather a stricter view himself than they did on the matter. In some ways he thought the duty interfered injuriously with the food of the people, but the hon. Gentleman, although he naturally minimised his proposal because it involved only £46,000, and although he had been kind enough to postpone the operation of this clause until 1st January next, did not give a reason why if the thing were injurious it ought not to be begun at once.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he suggested 1st January in order to give manufacturers an opportunity of getting rid of their stock.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he would rather give them a longer period—until 31st March. It made not very much difference to the manufacturer or consumer, but it made a good deal of difference to him, because, if he once assented to this proposal, although he would only part with £46,000 this year, it would mean a prospective loss of £200,000 in the year following, and he did not feel inclined to tie himself to that extent. Therefore, without entering into the general merits of that question or the various deductions which the hon. Gentleman was disposed to draw, he should ask the Committee to allow him to be free in this respect until the time came for the next. Budget.
MR. HUNTsaid he would have thought all the Members on the other side of the House and below the gangway would have supported this Amendment, as they were always accusing the Unionist Party of wishing to tax raw material. It seemed to him that if it were wrong to tax very slightly part of our wheat supply, it must be still more wrong to tax the whole of the raw cocoa very considerably. Cocoa, after all, was undoubtedly a food, and here was the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only taxing it heavily, but, so far as he could make out, he was to go on taxing it. Cocoa was very largely used by the very poor, and they considered it both food and drink. It was moreover very nourishing, and it had none of the disadvantages of tea and coffee. His opinion certainly was that it was used very considerably by the poorest class in Shrewsbury, and he believed it was the same in the other large towns. We could not produce it in this country, and consequently the people who bought it had to pay the whole of the tax. Why was it a terrible wrong to talk about putting on a tax of less than one-fifth of a farthing per lb. on about half the supply of wheat coming into this country, and quite right to put a 1d. a lb. on all cocoa, and another 1d. a lb. on all imported manufactured cocoa? This seemed to be breaking all the rules of what the Government were pleased to

181
call free trade. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would excuse his saying so, but it appeared to him a particularly warm performance, seeing that the head of one of the largest cocoa manufacturers in this country was reported to have given to the Liberal Party £20,000 for the last general election. He thought that gentleman was very wise in his generation; he got a tariff himself, and he was going to take thundering good care no one else got it. Liberals said they must stick to free trade in order to keep politics pure. He hoped they would take this matter into their consideration
The Government might at least have taken off the duty on the raw cocoa that came from the Colonies. Surely by so doing they would have got nearer to real free trade. It would not; have cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very largo sum, and they could hardly have been accused of making.my sort of use of what he believed the Prime Minister called squalid bargains.
Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 36; Noes, 170. (Division List, No. 278.)

AYES.

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

Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

Ashley, W. W.

Helmsley, Viscount

Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staff'sh.)

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Summerbell, T.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hills, J. W.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Hunt, Rowland

Thomson, W.Mitehell-(Lanark)

Carlile, E. Hildred

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

Valentia, Viscount

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Macdonald, J. R (Leicester)

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Duffy, William J.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Samuel Roberts and Mr.

Fell, Arthur

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Claude Hay.

Forster, Henry William

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Gretton, John

Salter, Arthur Clavell

NOES.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Cooper, G. J.

Hemmerde, Edward George

Ainsworth, John Stirling

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Higham, John Sharp

Armitage, R.

Cowan, W. H.

Holt, Richard Darning

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Crean, Eugene

Horniman, Emslie John

Astbury, John Meir

Crosfield, A. H.

Hudson, Walter

Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

Crossley, William J.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jardine, Sir J.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Davies. Ellis William (Eifion)

Jenkins, J.

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Barker, John

Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Elibank,. Master of

Kelley, George D.

Beale, W. P.

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

Esslemont, George Birnie

Lambert, George

Bennett, E. H.

Evans, Samuel T.

Lamont, Norman

Berridge, T. H. D.

Everett, R. Lacey

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bertram, Julius

Fenwick, Charles

Lea, Hugh Cecil(St, Pancras, E.)

Brace, William

Ferens, T. R.

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Branch, James

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lehmann, R. C.

Brooke, Stopford

Fuller, John Michael F.

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Bryce, J. Annan

Gill, A. H.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lewis, John Herbert

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Lough, Thomas

Byles, William Pollard

Gulland, John W.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Lynch, H. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

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

Maclean, Donald

Cherry, Rt, Hon. R. R.

Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

Macpherson, J. T.

Clough, William

Harvey, W. E.(Derbyshire, N.E.

M'Crae, George

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

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

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

Helme, Norval Watson

M'Micking, Major G.

Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

Renton, Major Leslie

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

Marnham, F. J.

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

Tomkinson, James

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Rickett, J. Compton

Toulmin, George

Massie, J.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Ure, Alexander

Micklem, Nathaniel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Verney, F. W.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Walsh, Stephen

Montagu, E. S.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wardle, George J.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Morrell, Philip

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Rose, Charles Day

Waterlow, D. S.

Murray, James

Rowlands, J.

Watt, Henry A.

Nicholls, George

Runciman, Walter

White, George (Norfolk)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Russell, T. W.

White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

O'Grady, J.

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Whitehead, Rowland

Parker, James (Halifax)

Scott, A H (Ashton under Lyne

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Seaverns, J. H.

Wills, Arthur Walters

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Seddon, J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

Shackleton, David James

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

Philipps, Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

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

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

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Pollard, Dr.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Winfrey, R.

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

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

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

Strachey, Sir Edward

Radford, G. H.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Sutherland, J. E.

Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

Raphael, Herbert H.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Pease.

Bill read the third time, and passed.

MR. H. H. MARKSmoved a new clause to ensure, first, that payments should be made under the Workmen's Compensation Act without deductions, and, secondly, so far as one could ensure it, that income-tax should not be paid in respect of those portions of a person's receipts which he had to part with by reason of the enactments of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under the original Income-Tax Act of 1799 taxpayers made a general return, and it was within the knowledge of the Committee that some important changes had taken place since that time. Under the original system the income-tax payer deducted from the total income the statutory exceptions, and thus arrived at the chargeable income upon which he had to pay the tax. Since then the process had been changed, and the tax was now deducted in the course of business. Under the Act of 1799 the taxpayer returned his income after deducting from it any sum paid by way of annual interest. Thus, if his income were £1,000and he paid away £100 in interest or annuity he returned only £900 as chargeable for income-tax. Under the present system he returned £1,000, but he had paid the £100 less income-tax, and he had therefore got the £5 tax on the £100 in hand. He paid the same amount under the new system as under the old, and the principle was the same, namely, that he was not charged on what was not his income.
184
But let them take the case of a man who under the Workmen's Compensation Act paid £200 or £300 in compensation. Either he had to deduct income-tax, in which event the recipient suffered, or if he did not deduct the tax he himself had to pay it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head, but if he was under a misapprehension on the point he hoped he would be corrected. The point, however, was not entirely clear, and was of sufficient importance to justify elucidation, and with that object he moved the clause.
New clause—
"(1) It shall be lawful for any employer, within the meaning of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in estimating the amount at which he is chargeable for income-tax, to deduct there from any payments made by him during the year preceding the year in respect of which he is assessed—(a) by way of compensation to any person under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906; or (b) by way of premium in respect of any policy of insurance against liability under the said Act; or (c) by way of contribution to any scheme of compensation benefit or insurance duly certified by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the said Act. (2) In making payment to any person of any money payable to him as compensation under The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the payer shall not deduct income-tax."—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)—
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
*MR. ASQUITHcould not help thinking the hon. Gentleman was under some misapprehension. If an employer engaged in a business paid compensation to a workman or premium on insurance against liability to pay such compensation, that would be treated as part of the expenses of the business, and would be deducted before arriving at the assessable profits. That was the law as it now stood. This clause, therefore, was not necessary.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there were any words in any Act of Parliament which carried out what the right hon. Gentleman had said, or whether it was merely a question of practice. All that was desired was that it should be in black and white on the Statute-book.
*MR. ASQUITHsaid the law with regard to deductions of income-tax was very peculiar in this respect. What the Statute did was to prohibit certain deductions from being made; it did not enumerate the deductions which were allowed. It had been the uniform practice to have regard to these prohibitions and to treat as not prohibited, and therefore allowable, all expenses which were reasonably incident to a business before arriving at the profit, and these payments had always been included as allowable deductions under the Act.
MR. H. H. MARKSsaid in view of the important statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
*SIR A. SPICERmoved it new clause relating to deductions by clergymen or ministers of religion in respect of dwelling houses in certain cases. He said he desired to ask that clergymen and ministers of religion should be placed in the same position as medical men, who were allowed to make a deduction for the value of their consulting rooms. Ministers and clergymen were allowed under the Act of 1853 for some years in some parts of the country to make
186
these deductions, but in recent years they had not been allowed to make them because they could not always show that their studies were wholly and exclusively used for the purpose of carrying on their profession, and in one or two cases where it had been shown that a Minister's golf clubs, for instance, had been kept in his study—
MR. ASQUITH (interrupting)said he would agree to the clause. The principle, he thought, was quite right, but the clause would require reconstruction on Report.
New clause —
"Nothing in the Income tax Acts or the schedules thereto contained shall restrain any clergyman or minister of religion who shall rent a dwelling house, a part whereof shall be used by him mainly and substantially for the purposes of any profession or office, by the said Acts or schedules charged, from deducting or setting off from the stipend, salary, emoluments, fees, or profits of his profession or office, such sum not exceeding one-eighth part of this rent bona fide paid for such dwelling house, with the appurtenances, as the Commissioners shall on due consideration allow, and the Commissioners shall have authority to allow such deductions as in other cases, and to assess such persons accordingly.'"—(Sir A. Spicer.)—
Brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. CLAUDE HAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the declaration he had just made covered the point in the clause standing in his name relating to the deduction of income-tax and compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he did not exactly know the object of the clause
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid the idea of the clause was that it was quite possible that a workman might receive by way of compensation a sum of money which, together with other sources of income, might necessitate his having to pay at the rate of unearned income upon the amount he received as compensation.
New clause—
"It shall be lawful for any person, in estimating the amount of which he is chargeable

187
for income-tax, to deduct there from any sums received by him during the year preceding the year in respect of which he is assessed (a) As compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, for any injury to himself or to any person on whom he was dependent within the meaning of the Act; or (b) Arising out of the investment or application of any sum paid or awarded to him as compensation under the said Act."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid the sum received as compensation would not be treated as profit. The second part of the clause was, of course, another matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. CLAUDE HAYmoved to make the stamp duty upon a policy of sea insurance one penny. He said this was a clause which ought to meet with the warmest sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
New clause—
"The stamp duty upon a policy of sea insurance for or upon any voyage shall be one penny."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid there were several other Amendments to the same effect. He agreed that the present scale of stamp duties on policies of marine insurance was not defensible and ought to be altered. The question was, however, rather a complicated one. The only reason he had not produced a clause as he had intended was that there was a Committee considering the whole question of indemnity for loss, particularly in case of war, and he thought it was desirable to have their Report before finally bringing the Government proposals before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman might, therefore, be quite sure that the matter would be dealt with next year. He was entirely in sympathy with his object.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, in which he gathered that ho pledged himself to deal with this matter substantially next year so that marine insurance might be relieved of its present onerous condition, he certainly would not press his Amendment, and he hoped next year there would be a very important step forward in marine insurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he understood, from private communications, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the clause standing in his name, and therefore he moved it with no explanation.
New clause—
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 10 of the Revenue Act, 1883, and subject to the conditions there set forth, gold and silver plate imported into Great Britain or Ireland may be delivered into the hands of the officers of any assay office selected by the importer though it be not the assay office nearest to the port of importation, and may, upon security being given to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs, be removed to the assay office without being in charge of an officer of customs."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain).
Brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. H. H. MARKSmoved a new clause to make stamp duties on insurance policies where the premium did not exceed £5 one penny. He said he moved the clause pro forma in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of stating definitely his position in regard to a point discussed at an earlier stage.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he would try to meet the hon. Gentleman. He did not want to go into details. He thought they might be a bit more generous than they were in this matter, and therefore he would be prepared to accept a penny stamp where the premium paid did not exceed £2.That was a very substantial consideration and would cover the case of those who were poor.
MR. H. H. MARKS: said he would gladly accept the suggestion and would move the clause in the new form.
New clause—
"The stamp duty on any policy of insurance, or indemnity against liability incurred by employers in consequence of claims, or possible claims, upon them by workmen who have sustained personal injury, where the premium paid does not exceed two pounds, shall be one penny."—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)
Brought up, and read a first and second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. FELL,who had a new clause on the Paper with respect to the abolition of duty on sugar from the Colonies, said it was so important and would require so much discussion that he did not propose to move it at that hour of the night.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he did not want to detain the Committee, but he would like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the Question raised in the clause standing in his name. In the second answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury—
*The CHAIRMANsaid he was afraid he could not allow this irregular discussion. He must have a Motion before him.
*MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was moving his clause, and if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point he would not trouble the House with any long speech. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would look into the whole question and enquire as to how seriously the landlords of poor agricultural land were affected by the present system, and try to do something to meet it another year, in which case he would be quite satisfied.
New clause—
"It shall be lawful for any persona owning land and hereditaments to elect to be assessed to the duties of income-tax, chargeable under Schedule D, and in accordance with the rules of that Schedule, in lieu of assessment to the duties under Schedule A. The election of such person shall be signified by notice in writing
190
delivered personally or sent by post in a registered letter to the surveyor of taxes for the district within two calendar months after the commencement of the year of assessment; and from and after the receipt of such notice the charge upon him to the duties of income-tax for such year shall be under Schedule D, and the profits and gains arising to him from the ownership of the lands shall for all purpose be deemed to be profits or gains of a trade chargeable under that schedule."—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had already promised that this matter should receive full consideration.
MR. BRIDGEMANasked leave to withdraw the clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. RAWLINSONmoved a new clause to add the incomes of husband and wife together and divide them by two for ascertaining the exemption or abatement of income-tax. He said the matter was brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. The point was that where husband and wife were living together their incomes should be taken as that of separate people and not of one person. In the case of a husband with £500 a year, and a wife with,£300 a year, if they had remained single both would have been entitled to exemption, but being married their joint incomes came to £800 a year.
New clause—
"Incomes of husband and wife shall be added together and divided by two for the purpose of ascertaining the exemption from or abatement of income-tax to which they are respectively entitled."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
Brought up, and read a first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
MR. ASQUITHsaid he must give the same answer that was given by every Chancellor of the Exchequer. The theory

191
of the law was that where two persons became domestic partners they became members of one household and their two incomes were fused together. Such a change as that proposed in this clause would involve the Revenue in a loss of most enormous magnitude.
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he would bring the matter forward on some other occasion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported.
Bill re-committed in respect of an Amendment to Clause 16.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

FINANCE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 13, at the end, to insert the words 'Provided that if in any year owing to any alteration in the rate of duties the rate of any such duty is higher than the rate in force at the commencement of this Act, and the proceeds of that duty in that year as so calculated are less than the average proceeds of the duty for the three years ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seven, the proceeds of the duty instead of being calculated as aforesaid shall be deemed to be the amount of those average proceeds, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall give their certificates as to the sums ascertained to be the proceeds of those duties accordingly.'"—(Mr. Asquith.)
Bill reported.
As amended in Committee, and on recommittal, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 275.]

LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
Amendments proposed, and agreed to without discussion—
"In page 2, line 3, after the word 'pounds' to add the words 'Provided that no person charged with an offence under this Act shall be convicted thereof if he proves to the satisfaction of the Court that such offence arose through the neglect or default of some other person whose duty it was to provide such a lamp as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-sections.'" —(Mr. Gill.)
"In page 2, line 24, at the end to add the words '(5) The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board shall as respects the area under their control have the same power to make an order of exemption under this section as the council of a borough have as respects their borough, and the powers of the council of a borough under this section shall not extend to any part of the borough which is situated within that area. In the application of this section to the area under the control of the Board, the Board shall be substituted for the council of the borough and the funds at the disposal of the Board for the borough fund or rate.'"—(Mr. Austin Taylor).
"In page 2, line 34, to leave out the words 'or wagon drawn by the locomotive.'"—(Mr. Runciman.)
"In page 2, line 37, after '1898,' to insert the words 'or wagon drawn by that locomotive.' "—(Mr. Runciman.)
"In page 2, line 38, at the end to insert the words '(e) any vehicle carrying farm produce to stack or barn during the months of August, September, and October.' "—(Major Renton.)
"In page 3, line 4, after the word 'there under,' to insert the words ' by a local authority'; line 5, after the first word 'shall,' to insert the words 'so far as respects vehicles to which this Act applies'; line 8, at the end, to insert the words '(4) this Act shall apply to vehicles in the public service of the Crown, subject to any exceptions which His Majesty may make by Order in Council in the interests of the naval or military service of the Crown, and in the case of any such vehicle the person whom the Department in whose service the vehicle is used names as the person actually responsible shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the person who causes or permits the vehicle to be in any street, highway or road.'"—(Mr. Runciman.)
"In page 3, line 9, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Mr. Watt.)
And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, on Thursday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes before Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the followings Bills have been complied with: — Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3). Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13).
The same were ordered to lie upon the Table.
London United Tramways Bill. Read 3a, and passed.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [H.L.];(Fleetwood Victoria Pier Order). Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [H.L.]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [H.L.].
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INDIAN (TEXTILE FACTORIES).
  Report of the Textile Factories Labour Committee, appointed by the Government of India December, 1906, to inquire into the conditions of factory labour in India; with Appendices.
  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3856. United States (Philadelphia).
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND), 1906.
  Part II. Civil Statistics.

  OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
  Tables which have been prepared in connection with the question of old-age pensions, with a preliminary memorandum.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN (COUNTY AND BOROUGH COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  [The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]
  Clause 1: —
  Lord MONK BRETTONmoved an Amendment which, while enabling women to be elected aldermen, would prevent them from being elected as councillors. He reminded their Lordships that the Lord President of the Council in introducing the Bill described it as a modest measure, whereas the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out that all the arguments which had been urged in its favour might equally apply in regard to the Parliamentary suffrage. Whether or not the noble Earl considered the Bill was an instalment of woman suffrage, he thought it would be agreed that the woman suffrage party in the country regarded it as an important measure, a conclusion which was borne out by the position it had been given in the Press. It was a curious thing that a Bill which actually did so little should attract so much attention, particularly when they had the example of the urban district councils before them, and found that on the urban district councils, which were the bodies most nearly resembling the county and borough councils, only two ladies in the whole of England and Wales sat as members. Whatever its object, the Bill would give a considerable impetus to the woman suffrage movement, and because he thought his Amendment an important one from that point of view, he desired to say a word on the broader question. The effect of woman suffrage in Australia had been to create a great disproportion in the representation of the different classes. It had been found there that the women's votes practically doubled the vote of the
  4
  Independent Labour Party, while it added only a comparatively small fraction to the vote of the upper classes, and a very small fraction to the vote of the middle classes. That tendency would be still more marked in this country, where the middle classes were far more numerous than in Australia. He did not wish in any way to suggest that they should strike a blow at the Independent Labour Party; he merely drew attention to the injustice of the disproportionate representation. He regretted that Lord Belper's suggestion for a Select Committee to inquire into the use of ladies on borough and county councils had not been accepted, as there was the greatest diversity in the various local bodies. In the recent debate Lord Londonderry had said that he knew a case in which a lady member of a board of guardians had been of great assistance, inasmuch as she had discovered that a child had no socks on inside its boots. That doubtless was a very useful function as a guardian, but it was no qualification for a member of a town council. Lord Belper had gone very fully into the functions of the various committees of county and borough councils, and had clearly shown that with regard to county councils only the education committee, the asylums committee, and the sanitary committee were those on which ladies could be of service. They were already on the education committee by co-optation; they might be of use on the asylums committees in regard to female lunatics; while on the sanitary committee there was the one small branch of midwifery in connection with which they might be of service. On the finance and the standing joint committees ladies would be of no special service. In regard to borough councils, there were three functions concerning which ladies would be useful, namely: Infant Life Protection, the Housing of the Working Classes, and the Shop Acts. The arguments in favour of putting ladies on any other committees would equally apply to the Parliamentary franchise. He regretted that the proposed Select Committee had not been appointed inasmuch as it would have shown what use women could be on the various councils, and the desire or otherwise of those local bodies to have their assistance. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack declared that the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee

  5
  would mean its loss for the session; consequently the proposal was not persisted in. It was in these circumstances he had decided to move his Amendment, under which county and borough councils would be enabled to obtain the advice of women on any of their committees. It would enable ladies who were members of the education committee to be co-opted on to the council, and thereby would meet the argument that ladies who had been allowed to state their views in committee should be enabled to reinforce them on the council. Further, county councils would be enabled to decide whether they wanted those ladies at all. One objection to the Amendment was that under the law as it stood, to be eligible for appointment as aldermen on county councils persons must be county electors. Therefore, the number of ladies who could be elected aldermen was very restricted. If, however, that was the only objection to the proposal, it would be very easy to surmount it, inasmuch as while the present clause was before the House it could be so amended as to enable county councils to elect as aldermen any ladies, whether electors or not. He believed that if the principle of the Amendment were agreed to, it would result in more ladies being elected to county and borough councils than would be the case under the Bill as it stood, as the number of ladies qualified to be councillors was very few, and consequently there would not be many aldermen elected. If the only way in which ladies could be elected to a county council was by being appointed aldermen, he thought the county councils would be much more likely to co-opt ladies who were now working on the education committees and to make use of them on other branches of their work. Therefore, the Amendment, reinforced by the further suggestion which he had made, would lead to far greater efficiency in the working of the Bill from the point of view of the Government itself. There was, however, one thing which such an Amendment would not do—it would in no way pander to the agitation in favour of universal suffrage. If their Lordships desired to amend the Bill for the purpose of improving the working of local authorities, it could be done in the way he suggested; but if they desired to pass the Bill in order to open the door a little more widely to the lady suffragists who were
  6
  coming along, his Amendment would not help them.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words 'a councillor or,' and to insert the word 'an.'" '—Lord Monk Bretton.)
  *The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (The Earl of Crewe): I hope the House will forgive me if I do not enter into the somewhat wider discussion to which the noble Lord devoted a part of his speech—a discussion which I think would have been more appropriate in some ways to a Motion for the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading. In particular I do not propose to follow the noble Lord in his remarks on the question of women and the Parliamentary suffrage. Several noble Lords, of whom I was one, explained on the Second Reading of the Bill we did not admit that there was any real analogy or connection between the two matters, and 1 have no desire to repeat what was said on that occasion. As regards the Amendment before the House, I trust your Lordships will not accept it. In the first place, the form of the Amendment would not, I think, carry out the noble Lord's object. His proposition is to leave out the words "a councillor or," the intention being that the only office upon either a county council or a borough council which could be filled by a woman should be that of an alderman. But at present nobody can be an alderman unless he can be a councillor. Therefore, by striking out the words which enable ladies to become councillors, the noble Lord would also prevent them being aldermen. That applies both to county councils and to metropolitan borough councils. This, however, deals only with the form, and no doubt the noble Lord could devise words which would achieve his object in a different way.
  As regards the substance of the Amendment, I equally trust your Lordships will not accept it. The principal object for which I understand it is desired that women should be limited to the position of aldermen, is to avoid their being subjected to the turmoil of election. That argument was freely used on the last occasion when the question was before us. One would almost suppose that it was the custom in this

  7
  country when municipal and county council elections were going on for barricades to be erected and cavalry charges to take place. In ninety-nine cases out of 100 these elections are of the most quiet and harmless character, and have very little rowdyism connected with them. So far as the feelings of women are concerned, you must leave it to them to say whether or not they are too nervous or too frightened to take part in such contests. The noble Lord alluded to the analogy of the urban district councils, and gave that as a reason for supposing that very few women would be elected to county or borough councils. If that is so, the noble Lord will, no doubt, be perfectly satisfied. He objects, apparently, to ladies getting on to these councils at all by election, and if they do not stand, or if they are not elected, the noble Lord's view will be largely carried out. But as regards the curiously small number of women who have been elected to urban district councils, there is this reason for supposing that this small number does not represent what might happen after this Bill passes, as I trust it may. An urban district always hopes to become a borough, and it tries to be as like a borough as possible. Women cannot sit on borough councils; therefore, there is a distinct indisposition on the part of urban district councils and those who elect them to stamp themselves as being in some way different from a borough council by electing woman members. I can well believe that this fact has had a considerable effect in limiting the possibility of women sitting on those particular bodies.
  The noble Lord would limit the election of women to the position of aldermen—that is to say, only one-fourth of an ordinary council and only one-sixth of a London county or borough council being aldermen, the effect would be to reduce by three-fourths or five-sixths the possibility of women getting on to these councils. You have further to consider that you would limit it even more, because it is not proposed to increase the total number of aldermen, and the indisposition to stand for election so far as it exists at all applies also to a considerable number of men. There are always a certain number of men put on these councils as aldermen because they do not want to go through an election.
  8
  Either those men would have to stand out because of women being put on or the women would not get on at all. Therefore the limitation is really greater than appears at first sight.
  Another argument used was that the method proposed in the Amendment is the way to get the right kind of women on to these councils. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent women of the right kind being put on as aldermen, and I do not know what reason there is to suppose that the women who would stand for election would not be of the right kind, The women who went through the School Board elections, which were sometimes of a fairly animated character, were by common consent very much of the right kind. It is a very old argument—as old as the Reform Bill of 1832. It was always said that if you did away with the nomination boroughs you would do away with the chance of getting the right kind of men into the House of Commons. Whatever that argument may be worth, we now in all forms of government in this country rely to a very great extent upon the method of popular election. The noble Lord suggests that something might be done to enable women to be elected aldermen whether qualified to be councillors or not. That is a compromise we could not accept. It would be a very serious interference with the whole system of the franchise, and one which I do not think this House would be willing to make. It opens up a very wide question indeed. We simply stand on the ground if you once admit—and the House has undoubtedly admitted—that it is desirable that women should sit on these bodies, the burden of proof rests with those who decline to allow them to go through the ordinary methods of election. I do not believe that a very great number of women will stand or be elected to any of these councils, but if they desire to do so, I cannot conceive what sound reasons there are why they should not be permitted so to do.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE:When this Bill was under discussion on a previous occasion I indicated to your Lordships—I hope with sufficient clearness—the reasons which led me to prefer, to the plan embodied in the Government Bill, the plan suggested by my noble

  9
  friend Lord Belper—a plan under which women should be co-opted to a greater extent to committees connected with these municipal bodies. We deferred the further consideration of the measure for a considerable time partly in hopes of obtaining from the Local Government Board information which might serve to enlighten us upon the subject. That information has not been of a very satisfying kind, but in the meanwhile we have lost three weeks of the Session, and the position of the Bill would certainly become much more precarious if we were to insist on referring it to a Select Committee: the course recommended by Lord Belper. But quite irrespective of that, I am bound to say that, having paid some attention to the arguments which I have heard, both in and out of this House, I have come to the conclusion that the case in favour of the Government proposal is stronger than I had supposed it to be. If I may summarise what I conceive to be the argument in favour of the employment of women on these councils, I would say in the first place that women feel that the councils are constantly in the habit of varying and reviewing the decisions of their committees, and that therefore it does not follow that because they have been fully consulted in the committees they have any opportunity of following up in the council the advice they have given and of obtaining adequate consideration of their views. There is also this to be said, that the subjects in which women are so largely interested are discussed, not in one committee alone, but in a number of committees, and it is only when the matter comes before the whole council that it is possible to take a general and comprehensive view of them. In these circumstances women desire, and I think naturally, to be in closer contact at one end with the councils and at the other with those by whom the councils are elected. They also plead, and I think with force, that so long as they are merely co-opted to these committees, they are serving, as it were, on sufferance, and that their tenure of office is necessarily precarious. Therefore, I am not ashamed to confess that I am to a great extent a convert to the view embodied in the Government measure. I have said these few words because they seem to be a natural preface to what I have to say in regard to the Amendment of my noble friend. I feel
  10
  that if this Bill is to be accepted, and if women are to be given a place upon the councils themselves, it would be an unwise and unfortunate restriction to say that they should serve only as aldermen. There is, of course, the technical difficulty which the Lord President has pointed out; but quite irrespective of that it is obvious that to say that women shall be able to serve as aldermen, but not as members of the councils, would be a very great curtailment of the rights to which they attach so much importance, and which this House, I believe, is ready to give them. For that reason if my noble friend presses his Amendment I shall with regret vote against him.
  * THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid he would not have intervened but for the fact that that was the only opportunity which the thirty-three Members of their Lordships' House who voted against the Second Reading of the Bill had of endeavouring to make the situation as favourable as possible from their point of view. The number voting against the Second Reading would probably have been considerably larger had it not been for the expectation of the appointment of a Select Committee. He believed that the Amendment, if inserted, would go a long way to meet the views of many who were opposed to the Second Reading of the Bill. If the number of ladies now serving on county councils was not greatly increased, it was extremely probable that all those who were now co-opted members of committees would be elected as aldermen, and so have an opportunity of expressing their views at meetings of the whole council. A cogent reason why the Amendment should be accepted was the fact that a limitation was imposed upon what a lady might or might not do. Under the Bill she was to be allowed to be a councillor, but although she might have all the necessary qualifications she could not be a justice of the peace. As far as he could make out, there was no real mandate for the Bill; he believed the number of ladies who wished to serve on county and borough councils was exceedingly small, and that those who had that wish had raised a very loud cry. He was asked the other day by a lady who was strongly opposed to the principles embodied in the Bill why the House of Lords had taken such a

  11
  favourable view of the measure; and this lady answered herself by saying that she supposed they were afraid that the gentle sex would repeat those persuasive measures which they had adopted in another place. He hoped their Lordships would not be deterred from voting for the Amendment even though they took the risk of having their proceedings disturbed as had been the case elsewhere.
  LORD JAMES of HEREFORDsaid he was unwilling to come into conflict with both Front Benches, and perhaps it was rather a hopeless thing to do, but he wished particularly to express his view that those who opposed the Bill ought not to take up a non possumus attitude, but should accept the decision of the House in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought, however, that the discussion afforded justification for those who wished the Bill to be remitted to a Select Committee. Several matters had been raised which might, with advantage, have been thrashed out before a Select Committee. Those who opposed the extension of the Parliamentary suffrage to women did not in the least wish to hinder or restrict the good and efficient work of women in municipal affairs. So long as the majority of the children in the schools were girls, women ought to be allowed to assist in the educational arrangements. So long as under the Poor Law there were more female paupers than male, it was an advantage that boards of guardians should have the assistance of women. He only desired to see the utility of women's work extended, and the opposition to the Bill was not an opposition to the due extension of that work. He believed that if it were properly considered, the Amendment before the House would assist that work. The Lord President of the Council had himself admitted that if the Bill were passed, very few women would get on to those councils by popular election. What then was the object of the Bill? It was not to satisfy a sentiment, or to serve any political tactics, or any Party object. He assumed that the object of every Member of the House was to utilise, as far as they could for the general benefit, female efficiency and female control, and if the Lord President of the Council was right that they would not obtain any substantial number of women on these councils
  12
  because they would not go through an election.
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: They can also be elected aldermen under the Bill.
  LORD JAMES of HEREFORDsaid that the noble Earl's statement was that they would not get any large number on the councils by election. He had also said that municipal contests were of the mildest character and did not represent party strife. If the noble Earl would attend some evening about ten o'clock upon the 1st of November in certain localities in Lancashire or Yorkshire, he would find party spirit running in the highest degree and feeling excited to almost as great an extent as in a Parliamentary election. Further, if he would read the newspapers on the 2nd of November he would find the result of the elections claimed as a proof of the extension of party power on one side or the other, and as showing that there was a wave of popular opinion going against a particular Party. What was wanted upon these local authorities were good administrators, and if women were placed upon them they should be persons of good judgment and tact, and persons whose influence would be beneficial. Was it thought that the electors who entered into these political contests and followed the "caucus" would be good selectors of women of the type required? He would have thought that the councils themselves, who knew the duties to be discharged, and the object with which the assistance of women was required, would be far better selectors of the persons whom they should elect. The electors would simply select a woman because she wore a red or a blue colour, and not because she was a good administrator. If the method of election were insisted upon, they could only elect persons who were ratepayers. That would involve shutting out a great number of women whom they would wish to see on the councils. At present in most cases the husband was the ratepayer, and so married women would be practically shut out. Surely that was exactly the opposite of what they who desired to obtain the benefit of women's work on administrative bodies wished to see. The proposition of the Amendment was that the councils themselves should choose their aldermen, and he

  13
  understood that they would go further than selecting people who were eligible as councillors, and would appoint any whom they thought fit. That would enable to be appointed those married women who at present devoted themselves to educational and social work. These considerations caused him to think that the Amendment was well worthy of consideration. It would meet the objection of those who desired to keep women out of the sphere of political contest and controversy; it would enable county councils who knew the class of women required to select suitable persons. The opposition to the Bill did not arise in the slightest degree from any antipathy to the good work which women might do; in his belief they would do much to further that good work if they accepted the Amendment.
  *THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid that the attitude of supporters of the Amendment was rather curious. They were opposed to the Bill and would like to see it thrown out altogether, and yet they supported the Amendment because they said it would ensure the presence of more women upon the councils. They freely admitted the good service which women could perform upon the various local authorities, but they seemed to forget or to leave out of account the great strength which people had on a representative body when they were freely elected. That was why he was in favour of the Bill as it stood. He believed the object of the measure was to ensure that women should not be debarred from asking their neighbours whether they would support them upon these councils, and it surely could not be a good thing to leave it entirely to the councils to co-opt women as they chose or not. He himself was an alderman and not an elected councillor, and he was sure his position would be much stronger if be were elected. It seemed to him that there was only one course open to the House. They had passed the Second Reading of the Bill and rejected the idea of a Select Committee mainly because the appointment of such a Committee would have meant the postponement of the Bill for this year. Therefore he held that they ought now to pass the Bill through Committee as it stood and not try to minimise its effect.
  Earl RUSSELLdisagreed with Lord James of Hereford as to there being no demand of sentiment for this Bill. The measure was demanded by the sentiment of ordinary justice for women, and it was that sentiment which led many Members of their Lordships' House to support the Bill on grounds quite apart from the question of whether or not women would do useful work on these bodies. The point of view from which women regarded the question was that they were cut out from a certain portion of public life. They were rated and taxed, but they were not allowed to sit on the bodies which had the spending of the money and the administration of affairs. Women did not wish to sit upon these bodies by the favour of the men already there. They wished to sit as ordinary members with exactly the same mandate and authority as the directly elected representatives of the electors. That was a matter of mere abstract justice, and women were entitled to that concession.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDagreed with the noble Earl that there was a great principle lying at the bottom of the Bill. But it was a principle which would lead to conferring the Parliamentary suffrage upon women. There was not one word which the noble Earl had said but would be equally valid in support of the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to women. He understood that His Majesty's Government had repudiated that view. Consequently they had two sections in the House supporting the Bill upon totally different grounds. He was amazed to hear Lord Jersey say that since he had been an alderman he had not had the authority and the confidence which he would have had if he had been elected.
  *THE EARL OF JERSEY: I said that I should have been in a stronger position.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDwas astonished to hear it. He could only say that that was not his experience. He had been a councillor of a county council for several years before he became an alderman; he had since had the honour of being chairman of that council for a number of years, and had uniformly received the utmost support and confidence.

  15
  He was certain that his being an alderman had not given him less power or authority than he had as a councillor. A very curious picture of municipal elections had been drawn by the Lord President of the Council. It was true that no barricades were erected or soldiers called out, but he had not known that that was the usual experience in Parliamentary elections. If the noble Earl had ever sat in the Lower House he would have found that a contested election was a very rough-and-tumble affair. The object of the Amendment was to save women from these rough-and-tumble contests, which did no good to them, or their characters, or their influence. He did not believe that the women of the country were increasing their proper influence by the modern fashion of engaging in work which had hitherto been confined to men. He did not mean to say that every lady who took part in public affairs necessarily lost that influence. It was a matter largely dependent upon personal character; but looking at the question as a whole, he believed that women were losing their influence through the modern fashion of engaging in public affairs. It was rather unfair to charge the opponents of this Bill with inconsistency because they supported the Amendment. What they objected to mainly was not the presence of certain ladies upon these councils; they all admitted that there were instances— he believed they were exceptional—where the advice, knowledge, and experience of women were useful. But what they wished to avoid was the friction and the hardening and roughening effect involved in passing through contested elections for seats on the councils. They were asked why, if a lady was sufficiently "un-nervous" to stand at an election, she should not be allowed to do so. His answer was that he would like her to be sufficiently nervous not to do it. His opinion was that if women shrank from public struggles and contests they would be the better and not the worse for it. All this legislation had a bad tendency from beginning to end. The Lord President of the Council appeared to have the very curious view that all urban districts aspired to be boroughs. If that were so, they must be the most sanguine of public bodies. A large number of urban districts with which he was acquainted were very difficult so far as area
  16
  and population went to differentiate from rural districts. They were somewhat more populous, and there were certain reasons which made it desirable that they should have urban rather than rural district council powers. But it was an extraordinary statement to say that they all aspired to be borough councils, and that that was why they had not elected women. The adoption of the Amendment would be an advantage as an experiment. He would have thought that those who were anxious to see women taking part in public affairs would have gladly gone step by step and proved their ground, and for that purpose the Amendment would have been valuable. If they were to embark on this new extension of female operations he supposed they must do it, but he hoped the noble Lord would divide on the Question in order that those who objected to the proposals of the Government might record their protest.
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: I do not desire to make anything in the nature of a general reply, but merely to touch upon two points which were mentioned by Lord James of Hereford. The first was in regard to my observation that I did not think the number of women elected under the Bill would be very large. That was in reply to a statement made on a former occasion that there was a risk in some cases of these bodies being swamped by women. As a matter of fact, while I hope there are some councils where a very fair proportion of women would gain seats, I quite admit that there are others where that is not likely to happen. I do not expect, for instance, that many women, although I should hope that here and there there would be a few, will be elected to' the councils of our great cities. Nobody would expect that there would be a large proportion there, but I was anxious to make that statement in view of what the noble Lord said. The second observation is with regard to the proposition that all women, irrespective of qualifications, should be allowed to become aldermen. If you are talking of revolutionary changes, I should have supposed that to place on a public body to spend the ratepayers' money people who are not ratepayers was an infinitely more revolutionary proceeding than anything we proposed to do.
  On Question, whether the words "a councillor or" should stand part of the clause,

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Halifax, V.

  Elgin, L (E. Elgin and

  Hill, V.

  Kincardine.)

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Eversley, L.

  Milner, V.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Glantawe, L.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Ailesbury, M.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  [Teller]

  Lansdowne, M.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Haversham, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Allendale, L.

  Hindlip, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Armitstead, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Balinhard, L. (E. Southesk.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Carrington, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Cawdor, E.

  Boston, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and

  Macnaghten, L.

  Craven, E.

  Kinghorn.)

  Muskerry, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Newlands, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Burghelere, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Lindsey, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Onslow, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Plymouth, E.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Russell, E.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Churchill, V.

  Dingy, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  Esher, V.

  Dunning, L (L. Rollo.)

  Weardale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Northbrook, E.

  James, L.

  Romney, E.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and

  Northumberland, D.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Mount-Earl.)

  Somerset, D.

  Westmeath, E.

  Kensington, L.

  Killanin, L.

  Camden, M.

  Cross, V.

  Leigh, L.

  Zetland, M.

  Falkland, V.

  Monk Bretton, L. [Teller.]

  Goschen, V.

  Newton, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Hardinge, V.

  Ponson by, L. (E. Bessborough)

  Cathcart, E.

  Ravensworth, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Abinger, L.

  Rothschild, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Atkinson, L.

  St. Levan, L.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Avebury, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Barnard, L.

  (E. Galloway.)

  Malmesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Barrymore, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Hay, L. (E. Kinnoul.)

  THE EARL OFCAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment to provide that a woman shall not be elected chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough. It seemed to him that though a woman might perfectly well be a councillor or alderman, it was not desirable that she should be put in a position where questions of order arose, and where it would be necessary for her to exercise authority. One or two ladies who had written him in regard to the Bill had declared that they would be content with a limitation of the
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents, 73; Not-Con tents, 46.
  kind proposed, and that they would not consider it as in any way derogating from the position they would obtain as members of the council.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'if,' and to insert the words 'shall not be.'" (The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: This is not a very large matter—not nearly so large as that on which the House has just

  19
  expressed its opinion. The noble Lord proposes that so far as the chairmanship of a county council or borough council is concerned, a woman should not be eligible. We have simply gone on the analogy of the district councils. By Section 22 of the Act of 1894 it is provided that the chairman of a district council should be a justice of the peace, unless a woman or personally disqualified, and that is the same limitation and restriction that we have adopted in this Bill. My own view of the matter is that it is a pity to place any grudging limitations of this kind in such an Act. I do not think the cases in which a council, either county or borough, would elect a woman as chairman would be otherwise than rare; they would be so few, in my opinion, that the effect of the limitation would not be great. It is really a matter for the House to decide; I have no very strong feeling either way, except on the ground that as we are doing this it seems a pity to place any limitations upon it. But I am quite content to abide by the decision of the House in the matter.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhoped the Government would accept the Amendment. The noble Earl had admitted that it was not probable at all that a woman would be elected chairman of a county council; and it was even less probable that she would be elected mayor of a borough, and there was no doubt whatever that there were some public functions which a woman could not perform. That was admitted by the Bill itself: she could not be a justice of the peace, and it was proposed to exclude her from that office. There was no real reason, as far as he could see from the arguments which had been advanced, why it should be possible for her to be elected mayor of a borough. She could not be knighted, as all proper mayors desired to be; therefore, by the very nature of things, she was excluded from that which was the object of everybody in attempting to arrive at the position of mayor. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid there were two material and substantial reasons why the Amendment should not be accepted. By the division just taken the House had decided that in the matter of being elected councillors or aldermen women
  20
  should be on an equality with men. It was now proposed that quite unnecessarily they should go out of their way to stamp such women councillors with a special little mark of inferiority. It was admitted that the contingency was very remote, but the stigma was quite unnecessary. The second consideration, which ought to weigh very much with the House, was from the point of view of the local authorities themselves. The effect of the Amendment was really this: A council of thirty persons might be unanimously of opinion—it was unlikely, but it might happen—that a particular woman was most fitted to be chairman of the council, but Parliament interposed and said they should not have the right to manage their own affairs and elect their own chairman. He could not see why the local authorities should not be trusted to do what they thought best, and he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
  LORD COURTNEY of PENWITHsaid that while he did not regard the Amendment as one of practical importance, agreeing with the Lord President that it would come into operation only in the rarest possible instances, he thought there was some weight to be attached to the argument that it in effect declared that if a particular member of a county or borough council had shown herself so capable of managing business that the council desired to place her in the chair they should be incapable of doing so. He might give, as an illustration, an analogous case. As their Lordships were aware, many women were members of school boards. In one distinguished school board—a body not inferior to any in Great Britain—a lady who had served as a member of the Board since its inception, a period of more than twenty years, so proved her capacity as a woman of business and sense, and so acquired the respect of her colleagues, that, on a vacancy occurring in the chairmanship, she was elected to the position, which she retained down to her death. In such a case as that of Miss Flora Stevenson, were the School Board of Edinburgh to be disqualified from electing to be their chairman a woman who had proved her capacity for the position by her services on the board? Surely it was not worth while to make these little niggling Amendments! The

  21
  larger and better policy was to allow freedom of action to the councils themselves.
  THE EARL OFCAMPERDOWNsaid the Amendment was not of much practical importance either way. Personally he was rather in favour of it, and he would be guided in the course he took very much by the relative volumes of sound when the Chairman put the Question.
  *THE EARL OFCREWE: I am very much in the same position. After what I have said I do not think I should record my vote either way, but, under the belief that the noble Viscount
  opposite represents the majority of the House, I am disposed to ask my noble friends not to divide. Of course, if they are of a different opinion, it is within their competence to take a division. As regards the noble Viscount's statement that ladies were incapable of being knighted, I am not sure that he is historically correct. At any rate, there was one case in history—I am not sure whether it was in the reign of King Charles—in which a lady was made a Baronet.
  On Question, whether the word "if" should stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents. 49; Not-Contents, 61.
  On Question, the proposed words "shall not be elected" were there inserted.
  THE EARL OFCAMPERDOWNmoved to omit the words declaring that a woman shall not by virtue of holding or having held the office of chairman of a county council or mayor of a borough be a justice of the peace. He pointed out that this Amendment was consequential on the decision just taken.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out from the word 'borough' to the end of the sub section"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported to the House.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 109.)

  ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2: —
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved an Amendment limiting the power of local authorities to make by-laws for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising to cases where such hoardings or structures "exceed twelve feet in height." He pointed out that the effect of the Amendment would be to restore the Bill to the form in which it passed their Lordships' House two years ago and in which it was introduced in the House of Commons in the present session. The limitation had been a matter of general agreement and acceptance, but in the Committee of the other House the words were omitted against the desire both of the promoters of the Bill and of the representative of the Home Office. He
  24
  hoped the House would restore the Bill to its original form, in which it would do all that was necessary, and be less in restraint of trade.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, after the word 'advertising' to insert the words 'when they exceed twelve feet in height.'"—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD BELPERasked what was the particular virtue of twelve feet. As far as he understood, the proposal related to those hideous advertisements which were put alongside railways and in places where they spoilt the amenities of the neighbourhood. If the effect was simply to compel those who erected the advertisements to make them 11 feet 6 inches instead of 12 feet, he did not think it would improve the situation to any great extent.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the whole Bill had been a matter of considerable discussion between the bill-posting industry and the promoters of the measure. Twelve feet was a very well-known height in the trade, many advertisements being printed for hoardings of that size. As the particular height was a compromise between two parties, in consequence of which the bill-posters withdrew their opposition to the Bill, he thought the noble Lord was well advised in seeking to restore the words.
  LORD BELPERsaid it was no answer to his question to say that two people had agreed to a proposal. Nothing would be easier than to cut off a few inches from the bottom of these advertisements, and if the object of the Bill was to secure control over advertisements, it seemed to him that that object would be largely frustrated by limiting the height in the manner proposed.
  LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGHsaid that, so far as abstract principle was concerned, there was nothing in the regulation as to 12 feet, except that many urban district councils and other authorities already had control over advertisements above 12 feet in height, and it was not unreasonable that, as the principle was to some extent established, general control should start at that height. He did not like to plead agreements made outside Parliament, as the

  25
  House might naturally say that people had no right to make agreements interfering with the freedom of either House of Parliament. The promoters, however, were under an honourable obligation not to proceed with the Bill if the omission of these words was insisted upon. The Bill passed by their Lordships two years ago contained these words; it was introduced in the House of Commons in that form, and those interested in the trade abstained from opposition on the understanding that the words would be adhered to. While he could not fetter the absolute freedom of the House to do as it chose in the matter, if the omission of the words was insisted upon the promoters of the Bill would be placed in an extremely difficult and delicate position, and would feel honourably bound not to proceed further with the measure.
  LORD BELPERdid not think the answer which had been given was a very satisfactory one for those who had hoped there would be power in the Bill to deal with the unsightly advertisements to which he had referred. He did not wish to wreck the Bill, particularly at that stage, but he would take the opportunity of considering whether at a later stage words could not be introduced to make the provision more effective.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to amend the provisions exempting hoardings and similar structures in use for advertising purposes for a period not exceeding two years, by substituting "five" for "two." The period of five years was originally in the Bill, and the case for its retention was very strong, inasmuch as some of the individuals interested in advertisement display had made contracts for a period of years, most of which would expire before five, but not before two years had elapsed. Under these circumstances, it being a matter of considerable importance to the trade he thought it expedient that the words; should be restored, and ho moved accordingly.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 1, line 9, to leave out the word 'two,' and insert the word 'five.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHmoved to insert the following new subsection: "The expression 'pleasure promenade' shall not include any road or street mainly used for business purposes." He said that the Amendment had been suggested by the London Chamber of Commerce. Some of those interested in the trade feared that the words "pleasure promenade" as they stood in the Bill were too vague and might lead to litigation. A member of the deputation of the Chamber of Commerce declared that the advertisements in certain thoroughfares in London were to him a source of positive delight, and that he went along those streets for the purpose of looking at them. It was a somewhat curious taste, and the fear was expressed that such a street might be termed a "pleasure promenade." He thought the argument rather far-fetched, but the words could not do any harm, and in order to show that it was really intended to confine the strict regulation of advertisments to places which were for pleasure and not for business he suggested that the Amendment should be accepted.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new sub-section: 'The expression 'pleasure promenade' shall not include any road or street mainly used for business purposes.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNpointed out that no allusion had been made in the course of the debate to the right of the private owner of a house or shop or land with which a local authority under the Bill might interfere. He did not want to defend the hideous advertisements which were to be seen in some parts of the country; he would be very glad if the Bill put an end to them; but there must be cases where purely business advertisements had been put up almost from time immemorial on private houses or at the corner of a street which would not be covered by the proposed Amendment.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid that in the view of the Home Office the Amendment was somewhat superfluous. Roads and streets used mainly for business purposes would not in any case naturally become pleasure promenades, but there might

  27
  possibly be difficult cases. For instance, it was always a pleasure to walk along Piccadilly, which was also a place of business. Perhaps the noble Lord would think it better to reconsider the matter and propose words more carefully thought out in Standing Committee.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid he was in the hands of the Home Office, who had given him considerable help both two years ago and in the Standing Committee of the other House. Personally he did not think the Amendment necessary, but it was put down in good faith to allay the apprehensions of those who thought the Bill would unduly interfere not only with what they thought was legitimate business, but with things ornamental in themselves. With regard to that point raised by Lord St. Aldwyn, he could not conceive that advertisements which were purely temporary in their nature would ever be subject to regulation by the local authority. They must assume good sense on the part of the local authority, regulated by the superior power of the Government Department. He was anxious to get the Bill through with as little friction as possible, and if the noble Viscount would, at a subsequent stage, suggest words to carry out his view he would endeavour to accept them.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he would rather the words now proposed were not inserted.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid that under the circumstances he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, and if the noble Viscount could at a later stage suggest words which would not be objectionable he would be glad to consider them.
  THE EARL OFHALSBURY,in the interest of those who would have to decide the question, asked what was supposed to be meant by a "pleasure promenade." Could the noble Earl give an instance in London of what he considered a pleasure promenade where advertisements might be displayed?
  EARL BEAUCHAMPpointed out that the clause was not confined to London, but dealt with other places also.
  THE EARL OFHALSBURYsaid he had only mentioned London for the purposes of illustration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AVEBURYsaid he had been requested by the Borough Council of Islington to ask why the powers given to Scotland under Clause 5 should not be given to England under the clause now before the House.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHreplied that as first drafted the clause referred to had application to England also, but the Home Office pointed out that the law as it stood was strong enough to meet the case, whereas in Scotland it was not so. In England the owner of private property had sufficient power to stop the advertisements in question, but that was not the case in Scotland; hence the difference in the clauses.
  LORD BELPERsaid the question seemed to bear on the point he had raised earlier in the debate. The local authority would have power under the clause to make by-laws for two purposes —first, for the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising when they exceeded twelve feet in height, and, secondly, for regulating, restricting, or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places and in such manner, or by such means, as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of a landscape. Those two provisions naturally ran side by side, but did the limitation of twelve feet apply to the second? His objection would be very largely met if it did not. The advertisements to which he referred were those which disfigured the natural beauty of a landscape or injuriously affected the amenities of a public park and so on. If in those cases the local authority could absolutely do away with advertisements whether they were over twelve feet or no the would be to a large extent satisfied.
  Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid he thought the point was so obvious that he had not mentioned it. The restriction applied only to the first part of the clause. There was no restriction as to height in the second subsection, except

  29
  that the by-laws had to be confirmed by the central authority.
  LORD BELPERdid not think the point was so obvious as had been suggested. The first part of the clause referred to hoardings generally, and they might be supposed to include hoardings in the places referred to in the second part.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  LORD KILLANINmoved the insertion, after Clause 3, of a new clause providing that it should be the duty of every metropolitan borough council within its own area to enforce the by-laws made under the Act, and to defray the expenses incurred in connection therewith. He had been asked by the London County Council to propose the Amendment, which carried out a resolution passed unanimously by that body. The object was to meet a difficulty which it was anticipated would arise. It appeared that in other Acts of Parliament, especially under Section 84 of the London Building Act, 1894, powers as to hoardings were given to and exclusively administered by the metropolitan borough councils. It was thought advisable, therefore, that the administration of by-laws made under this Bill dealing with hoardings should also be in the hands of the borough councils, otherwise there would be a certain amount of dual control which might be very confusing and lead to the inefficiency of the Act.
  Amendment moved—
  "After Clause 3, to insert the following new clause, 'In the application of this Act to the administrative county of London, outside the City of London, it shall be the duty of every metropolitan borough council within its own area to enforce the by-laws made under this Act, and any expenses incurred by a metropolitan borough council shall be defrayed as part of the expenses of that council.'"—(Lord Killanin.)
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsaid he would like the advice of the Home Office in this matter. Two years ago the Home Office and the Local Government Board had a conference with the promoters of the Bill, and as a result of that conference the Bill, so far as it concerned the action of the local authorities, was drafted in its present form. Since the resolution to which reference had been made was passed by the County
  30
  Council he had received a representation from the borough of Southwark that if it were given effect to they would want something else. He hoped the Bill would not be imperilled so far as it affected the rest of the country by any contest between the different authorities in London. Doubtless they each had their own rights and privileges to conserve, and he would be guided by the advice of the Home Office, who had expert knowledge as to how far the different authorities were in the right.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid he must ask the House not to accept the Amendment, largely on account of the dual control it would set up. The Bill provided that the authority to make the by-laws should be the county council and the noble Lord proposed that those by laws should be enforced by the metropolitan borough councils. The view of the Home Office was that on the whole it would be better that the body which made the by-laws should also enforce them. That was the usual custom in regard to bylaws of this description, and it would be advisable to adhere to it in this case. The powers with regard to hoardings given to the borough councils under Section 84 of the London Building Act, 1894, had no reference whatever to advertisements, but concerned the safety of the erections and the length of time they were to remain; hence there would be no dual control in the matter of advertisements. The Bill affected considerably more than mere hoardings. It referred, for instance, to the advertisements mentioned by Lord Belper, and it was not thought advisable that the metropolitan borough councils should have the control of those advertisements, for the reason that their area of jurisdiction was not very large, and it might very easily happen that the advertisements would disfigure a promenade or public walk in the area of another borough council than that in which the advertisement itself appeared. On the whole it was better that the matter should not be considered as one of purely local concern, but that it should be in the hands of a larger authority than the borough council. No request had reached the Home Office from any metropolitan borough councils asking that this power should be given them, and under the circumstances he hoped

  31
  the proposed new clause would not be accepted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved the insertion, after Clause 4, of a new clause with the objection of making it perfectly clear that this general law would not repeal provisions in local Acts of special importance to the localities concerned. Edinburgh, for instance, had power to prevent advertising on the Castle Rock; and Dover had a right to restrain a syndicate from the other side of the Atlantic from advertising a certain preparation on the cliffs above Dover. Other places had local provisions of special importance to themselves, and while it was not certain that the clause was necessary, it could do no harm, and it would ensure that those places which had been foremost in securing their own protection would not be placed in a worse position than at present.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert the following new clause: 'The powers and provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers or provisions of any local Act of Parliament, and the powers and provisions of any such local Act may be exercised and enforced in the same manner as if this Act had not been passed.'" —(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6: —
  LORD KILLANINmoved to amend the definition by making the London County Council the local authority within the "administrative" county of London. He pointed out that the administrative county of London included portions of three counties.
  Amendment moved—
  " In page 3, line 15, after the first 'the' to insert the word 'administrative.'"—(Lord Killanin.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the Home Office were not responsible for the exact wording throughout the Bill, but in Standing Committee they proposed to move the omission of the words "and within the county of London outside the city of London the London County Council," as being unnecessary.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHsuggested that as the Home Office were going to move certain drafting Amendments the noble Lord would do well to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD DENMANmoved to omit the words "or Ireland" from the subsection defining the expression "local authority" within any municipal borough in England or Ireland to mean the council of that borough. He explained that words already in Subsection (4) included municipal boroughs in Ireland, and therefore, in order not to overload the clause, it was proposed to omit the words "or Ireland" from Subsection (2).
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 17, to leave out the words 'or Ireland.'" —(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7: —
  LORD DENMANsaid the Amendment he now proposed was merely a matter of drafting, the substitution of the Public Health (Ireland) Acts for the Public Health Acts being necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 31, after the word 'State' to insert the words the Public Health (Ireland) Acts 1878 to 1900, 'shall be substituted for the Public Health Acts, and any references to a borough shall not have effect.'"—(Lord Denman.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 110.]

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL, [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to order); Drafting Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Three o'clock.