Sitting of 25 July 1907

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

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Coventry Corporation Bill [Lords] Humber Conservancy Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords].—As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Tees Conservancy (re-committed) Bill [Lords]. — As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].—Read a second time; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with

107
Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Reported without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time To-morrow.
York (Micklegate Strays) Bill [Lords]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]; Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords]; Midland Railway Bill [Lords]: Portishead District Water Bill [Lords]; National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  CONGO FREE STATE.
  Petition from Chorlton-cum-Hardy, for protection of the Native Races; to lie upon the Table.
  PURITY OF MILK SUPPLIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Reading, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL.
  Petition from Cottesmore, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  WEEKLY REST DAY BILL.
  Petition from Ware and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Proceedings at the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, 2nd July, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3869 to 3871 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Astronomer-Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COASTGUARD STATIONS (CLOSED).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 2nd July; Major Seely; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.]
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 529 (Gibraltar, Report for 1906) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL TAXATION LICENCES, ETC., 1906–7.
  Return ordered, "Of the amount received during the year ended the 31st day of March, 1907, in respect of each administrative county and county borough in England and Wales, for Local Taxation Licence Duties and Penalties and Forfeitures recovered in respect of such duties, and for other Duties and Payments which are directed to be dealt with in the same manner as the Local Taxation Licence Duties (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 316, of Session 1906)."—(Dr. Macnamara.)
  FORESHORES (SALES, ETC).
  Copy ordered, "Of Statement of the Particulars of all Cases in which the rights and interests of the Crown in the shores and bed of the sea and tidal rivers have been sold, leased, or otherwise dealt with by the Board of Trade under the Crown Lands Act, 1866, from the 1st day of January, 1902, to the 31st day of December. 1906 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 259, of Session 1902)."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  AUSTRALIA (BRITISH TRADE).
  Copy presented, of Report upon the Conditions and Prospects of British Trade in Australia by the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence of the Board of Trade [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of List of Public Elementary Schools and Certified Efficient Schools in Wales and Monmouthshire on 1st August, 1906 [by Command; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Private Burial Grounds.
  MR. H. BEAUMONT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any record is kept of the permissions granted to use private burial grounds in connection with religious institutions; and, if so, how many such permissions have been granted during the past five years.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) A record is kept of these cases. Permission was given in seven cases during the five years ended on 31st December last.

  County Councillor's Expenses.
  MR. ROGERS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether instructions are given by the Board to their auditors to allow or to surcharge payment by a county council of the reasonable
  110
  travelling expenses of the members of the council when engaged in the business of the council, or payment by any other local authority, whose accounts are subject to the audit of the Board, of the reasonable travelling expenses of members of the authority when engaged in the business of the authority.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) No instructions have been given by the Local Government Board to the district auditor on this subject. I am, however, advised that, looking to the decision of the High Court in the case of Rex v. Dolby, a local authority are in general not empowered to pay the travelling expenses of members of their body when engaged on the ordinary business of the authority within the district. This view would apply to county councils as well as to other local authorities.

  Southern Hospital, Carshalton.
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a hospital called the Southern Hospital has been erected near Carshalton, in Surrey, by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, that the hospital was finished at the end of 1906, at a cost of more than £180000 for expenses of erection, and that it is standing entirely unused at considerable expense of maintenance and danger of deterioration; whether there are any medical purposes to which it could be applied for the alleviation of infectious diseases; and, if so, whether he will direct the Metropolitan Asylums Board to find some use for this institution.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware that the managers have erected this hospital for fever cases and that it is not at present used for that purpose. The question of its use for other purposes has not been lost sight of, either by the managers or by the Local Government Board, and will be again considered as soon as circumstances permit; but until the existing prevalence of fever has abated it is thought desirable that the accommodation afforded by this hospital should be held in reserve. Meanwhile I am assured that the managers are carefully

  111
  maintaining the building in. proper order and repair. I shall continue to give attention to the matter.

  Broughton School, Hampshire
  MR. YOXALL: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in the case of the Broughton boys' school, Hampshire, the staff consists of a certificated teacher and a monitor, possessing no qualification under the code, who has been refused recognition as a supplementary teacher; and whether the Board will recommend that to this school, containing on the average about forty scholars, who have to be taught in several classes or standards, an additional teacher, possessing qualifications for the work, shall be appointed.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I do not think that this is a case in which I could insist on the appointment of an additional qualified teacher, especially as the school supply of the district is now under consideration by the local authority, who have announced their intention of providing a new council school.

  Cottars Bents in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what steps he proposes to take to secure titles with fair rents for the cottars in the island of Lewis, some 1,500, who have built substantial stone houses on the crofters' common grazing.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) On the general question of land tenure I can only refer my hon. friend to the terms of the Bill now in Committee, which represents the policy of the Government.

  Scottish Education Grants.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what was the amount received during the financial year ending 31st March, 1907, in respect of each of the five sums referred to in the five paragraphs of subsection (1) of Clause 12 of the Education (Scotland) Bill; and what was the total credit balance, if any, remaining in respect of each of
  112
  these sums at the close of that financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The amounts in question were—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Subsection (1)

  40,000

  0

  0

  Subsection (2)

  59,163

  9

  5

  Subsection (3)

  60,000

  0

  0

  Subsection (4)

  37,977

  12

  1

  Subsection (5)

  37,937

  19

  11

  The sums under (1) and (4) were paid into the Fee Grant Account. The credit balance of the Fee Grant Account at 31st March, 1907, was £113,530, 18s. 7d. The sums under (3) and (5) are paid partly into the Higher Inspection Account and partly into the Secondary Education Account. The credit balances of these accounts at 31st March, 1907, were—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Higher Inspection Account

  1,648

  10

  0

  Secondary Education Account

  24,026

  6

  9

  Navy Contracts for Clothing.
  MR. WATT: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the value of contracts for clothing of the Navy during the last financial year which were placed in England.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The approximate value of contracts for clothing materials, etc., placed in England during the last financial year was £190,000.

  Outrages in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the designations of the outrages recorded as agrarian in which firearms were used during the three months ended 31st March, 30th June, 30th September, and 31st December, 1906, and the past two quarters of the present year, distinguishing the counties and districts in which such outrages were committed.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The particulars asked for are given in the subjoined table—

  Counties.

  Districts.

  March Quarter, 1906.

  June Quarter, 1906.

  Sept. Quarter, 1906.

  Dec. Quarter, 1906.

  March Quarter, 1907.

  June Quarter, 1907.

  Firing at the person.

  Firing into dwelling.

  Intimidation.

  Firing at the person.

  Firing into dwelling.

  Intimidation.

  Firing at the person.

  Firing into dwelling.

  Intimidation.

  Firing at the person.

  Firing into dwelling.

  Intimidation.

  Firing at the person.

  Firing into dwelling.

  Intimidation.

  Killing cattle.

  Firing at the person.

  Firing into dwelling.

  Intimidation.

  King's

  Banagher

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Galway, East Riding

  Athenry and Loughrea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  9

  1

  Galway, West Riding

  Gort and Gateway

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Sligo

  Easkey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clare

  Ballyvaughan, Corofin, Kilrnsh, and Sixmilebridge

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1

  Cork, East Riding

  Kanturk and Midleton

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cork, West Riding

  Millstreet

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kerry

  Castleisland, Listowel, and Tralee

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Limerick

  Abbeyfeale

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tipperary, South Riding

  Killenaule

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  4

  5

  6

  13

  22

  Opium Houses in Shanghai
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that 700 opium houses in the native city of Shanghai had been closed, hut that similar houses in the Foreign settlements to the number of 1,920 remain open; and. if so, will he say what is the ground of the distinction; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter.
  (Answered by Secretary Sir Edward Grey.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. According to the latest information received, discussions are still proceeding among the Chinese authorities as to the practical steps that should be taken in the native city; and meanwhile no action is being taken in the Foreign settlements. The Foreign municipal authorities have, however, stated their intention to support to the full extent of their power any practical measures that may be taken by the Chinese authorities. I have asked to be kept informed of any progress in the matter.

  Northern Lights Commissioners
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many portions of land have been acquired for lighthouse and similar purposes by the Northern Lights Commissioners since 1890, stating as regards each case the year of purchase: the locality, character, and approximate area of the purchased portion; the amount, if any, which was paid for it, and to whom such payment was made; and the annual valuation for rating of the purchased portion at the time of the purchase or, if that portion formed part of a larger rating unit, the amount by which the annual rating valuation of that unit was reduced in consequence of the exclusion of the purchased portion.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the number of portions of land acquired by them for lighthouse and similar purposes since 1890 is fifty-nine. The Commissioners' property is exempted from rates under Section 731 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and they have no information regarding the rating values of these
  116
  lands at the time of acquisition. The other particulars desired by my hon. friend are too voluminous to be given here, but I will send him the statement which has been furnished me by the Commissioners on the subject.

  Railway Rates at Cookstown.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the Great Northern Railway Company give secret rebates and free cartage which are not shown on the rate-books of the company, to certain traders in Cookstown, county Tyrone, and other stations; and, if so, will he cause inquiries to be made and steps taken to put a stop to a practice which gives the traders in question an unjust preference over other traders in Cookstown and elsewhere.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) Complaint has been made to the Board of Trade that secret rebates are given by the railway company on certain traffic at Cookstown, and that some goods are carted free of charge. The railway company deny that this is the case, and as the complainants do not wish their names to appear in the matter the Board have not been able to carry it further. The statements made to the Board have, however, been forwarded to the Vice-regal Commission on Irish Railways, by whom the matter is now being considered.

  Belfast Outworkers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that about 50 per cent. of the out-workers in Belfast do not come within the scope of the Factory and Workshop Act; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have no figures showing what proportion of the out-workers in Belfast are not covered by the Home Work Order at present in force, but attention has been called to the fact that there are a considerable number engaged in the household linen trade,' a trade not included in that Order, and I am now considering the question of including that, with some other trades, in a further Order.

  Cloughfin Letter Deliveries
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the district of Cloughfin, county Tyrone, there are only four deliveries in the week from Stewartstown post office; that the English mail reaching Stewartstown on Monday or Wednesday lies at the post office for two days undelivered; and, having regard to the inconvenience caused to the seventy-four householders in the Cloughfin district, will he direct that daily delivery be made in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject; and on its receipt I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  National Telephone Agreements.
  MR. MALLET: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether agreements made for twelve months, with payment in advance, between the National Telephone Company and their renters are now chargeable with an ad valorem stamp duty; and, if so, on what grounds a charge is made in these cases, which is not made in the case of other annual contracts where payment is made in advance.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The agreements in question have been declared by the House of Lords to be chargeable with ad valorem duty under the head "Bond, Covenant, etc.," in the Schedule to The Stamp Act, 1891. No distinction is made between these agreements and others of a similar nature.

  Corn Duty.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Calendar Years.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  Lbs.

  Lbs.

  Lbs.

  Lbs.

  Lbs.

  Direct from India

  4,002,448

  3,904,719

  8,778,634

  10,796,940

  12,278,524

  Re-exported from the United Kingdom

  2,886,445

  3,079,514

  3,567,419

  2,877,885

  8,249,985

  TOTAL

  6,888,893

  6,984,233

  12,346,053

  13,674,825

  20,528,509

  whether he can state the probable cost of collecting the estimated net revenue of £1,067,265, collected upon wheat and wheat flour imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries between 15th April, 1902, and 30th June.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The net revenue referred to in the Question (which, as stated in the corrected reply circulated with to-day's Votes, was £1,167,265, not £1,067,265) was collected in conjunction with other Customs duties as a whole, and it is impossible to say what proportion of the total expenditure of the Customs Department should be regarded as attributable to that particular duty.

  Indian Tea.
  MR. HAROLD COX: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the figures showing how much Indian tea was imported annually into Russia before the imposition of retaliatory duties upon Indian tea by the Russian Government in consequence of the action of His Majesty's Government with regard to Russian sugar, and how much Indian tea has been annually imported since; whether Indian tea imported into Russia via Manchuria was exempted from these retaliatory duties; and how much Indian tea has passed into Russia via Manchuria, and how much by other routes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The imports of Indian tea into Russia by all routes, before and since the imposition of the surtax in September, 1903, have been as follows:—
  The surtax was applied only to tea imported by the Black Sea or European frontiers. The trade Returns do not give the information asked for in the last part of the Question.

  Judicial Floggings in India.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has passed orders on the Report received from the Government of India regarding the prevalence and character of judicial floggings in India; and, if so, whether there is any objection to laying Papers on the Table.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Report is still under my consideration in Council.

  Calcutta Opium Sales.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India what has been the average price of opium at the Calcutta sales, month by month, since January last; and what is the average price estimated in the Budget for the current year.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The average price per chest of opium at the Calcutta monthly sales since January 1907 has been as follows:—

  RS.

  a.

  P.

  January

  1,373

  1

  1

  February

  1,364

  4

  5

  March

  1,511

  8

  8

  April

  1,456

  10

  4

  May

  1,411

  9

  4

  June

  1,427

  8

  1

  The average price estimated in the Budget for 1907 –8 was RS. 1,250.

  Special Police Protection in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of the persons receiving constant police protection, and special protection by patrol throughout Ireland, on 1st January, 1906, and 1st July, 1907, belonged to the class of tenants described as new tenants; whether in the case of new tenants who were afforded such protection the constables employed on duty were extra to the county establishment, a moiety of the expenses of whom would
  120
  have been, as is usual in such circumstances, defrayed equally from local rates and from the Exchequer; if so, what was the amount payable from each such source in respect of the twelve months ended 31st December, 1906; whether police protection was afforded to new tenants on either of the dates mentioned from stations which are held by the constabulary authorities to form centres for ordinary police duty in the districts in which they are situate, inclusive of the duty of giving special protection to new tenants; what was the number of constables exclusively employed in affording protection to new tenants on these dates; and whether his reports from the police authorities show that if the necessity for giving such protection were removed a corresponding reduction could, with safety, be effected in the general police establishment of the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) On 1st January, 1906 (1) ten out of the forty-seven persons receiving constant protection, and (2) sixty-one out of the 178 persons receiving patrol protection were new tenants. On 1st July, 1907, the corresponding figures were (1) thirteen and fifty, and (2) forty-seven and 167. The protection of both kinds afforded to new tenants between the dates named was given mainly by police of the county establishments, and twenty-three extra men were employed upon the same duty for periods between those dates. The statutory charge recoverable from local authorities in respect of the employment of such extra men during the year 1906 amounts to about £160, the cost to the State in the first instance being about £460. In seven cases of constant protection on 1st January, 1906, and in eight case on 1st July, 1907, the protection was afforded from permanent police stations, and in all cases of patrol protection the protection was given from such stations. The number of policemen exclusively employed in affording constant protection to new tenants was on 1st January, 1906, twenty-one, and on 1st July, 1907, twenty-seven. It is hoped that the settlement of the question now under the consideration of Parliament will enable a reduction to be made in the general police establishment of the

  121
  country, not only by releasing the men now employed on protection duty, but also by reason of the generally improved condition of the country which may be expected upon the removal of agrarian troubles. It is not, however, possible at present to estimate, what amount of reduction could be effected.

  Belfast Tramway Contracts.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the refusal of the Belfast Corporation Tramways Committee to consider the complaint of a deputation from the Iron founders Society, protesting against a certain firm receiving a certain contract from the committee without complying with the Standing Orders as to a fair wages clause, and also protesting against the sub-letting of contracts and against contractors doing work by apprentice labour; and whether he will take steps to insist that the provisions of the Belfast Tramways Act are complied with in respect of these matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The minutes of the Tramways Committee of the Belfast Corporation for 10th June show that a deputation from the Iron-founders Society attended and alleged that certain contractors were not complying with the conditions of the contract, seeing that they had sub-let the casting of brake-blocks to a firm which employed apprentices instead of journeymen. The committee were informed by the general manager that, so far as he was aware, there had been no sub-letting, but that inquiries would be made and if there was anything wrong it would be set rght. The Local Government Board have no further information in the matter. They do not know what provisions of the Belfast Tramways Act are alluded to in the concluding part of the Question.

  Case of Artilleryman Dunleany.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that James Martin Dunleany, who served for ten years in the Royal Horse Artillery and was discharged so far back as 1872, rejoined at the time of the war in South Africa and served for some three years at the base
  122
  in the 9th Field Force, commanded by Major Jerome, where he received a fall, injuring the spine of his back, from which he is now permanently incapacitated; and whether, having regard to all the facts, he will now direct that either a pension or some bulk sum be paid to this man to help to maintain him in his helplessness.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) If the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish the War Office with full particulars of this man's service during the South African War (including the name of his regiment, regimental number, and dates of enlistment and discharge), the case shall be inquired into and the result communicated to him.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H.M.S. "Terrible."
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR (Sussex, Horsham): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty on what date H.M.S. "Terrible" broke her propeller shaft; on what date her repairs were completed and the ship commissioned; and where she has been lying during this period.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON, Dundee): The "Terrible" broke one of her propeller shafts on her way back from Hong-Kong on 28th September, 1906. A new shaft and propeller have since been supplied, and repairs of the "Terrible" are in progress at Portsmouth, where she has been lying since her return from China.

    Royal Navy Volunteers.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any intention on the part of the Admiralty to disband the Royal Naval Volunteers.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: There is no intention whatever of disbanding the Royal Naval Volunteers, who are an efficient and essential part of the personnel of the Naval Service. In point of fact we have a Bill before Parliament, which I hope the House will pass unanimously, for strengthening their position.
    MR. SMEATONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that rumours had been circulated to the effect that the Royal Naval Volunteers were to be disbanded; and whether if would not be advisable to give equal publicity to the contradiction of the rumour.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for giving me the opportunity of publicly denying one of these mischievous and baseless rumours concerning the Navy and Admiralty which have been circulated.

    H.M.S. "Blake."
    MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed, and, if so, when, to alter the armament of H.M.S. 'Blake."
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: This is the sixth Question on this subject, and I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. friend the Civil Lord to the last Question on Monday. †

    Fatality to Naval Volunteers on the Tyne.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON (Northumberland, Tyneside): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to state what course the Admiralty have decided to take in respect of the claim for compensation by the relatives of the Naval Volunteers recently drowned in the Tyne while on duty.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The funeral expenses of all four men drowned will be borne by Naval Funds. No claims for compensation on behalf of dependant relatives have been received, except through my hon. friend himself on behalf of the parents of one of the men. This claim is being investigated, but I am not yet in a position to say what the result will be.

    Woolwich Arsenal— Reduced Establishment.
    MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the minimum staff has now been fixed for Woolwich Arsenal; and whether he can state the number to the House.
    †See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 1156–7.
    124
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in fixing the minimum strength of the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, consideration has been given to the work allocated for this year; whether the minimum now fixed will mean that 600 more men will be discharged from one department, viz. the Royal Laboratory; and whether this department has sufficient work to keep the present staff fully employed.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): In reply to my hon. friend it has been found possible to fix numbers beyond which the staff of the Royal Laboratory, Royal Gun Factory and Carriage Department will not vary in either direction, except in case of emergency, namely a minimum of 8,000 and a maximum of 8,400. The numbers employed in these Departments on July 22nd were 9,166 and it will be necessary to reduce this number by 456 during the present financial year. After this it is believed that the number will be brought within the limits fixed, by the natural wastage of the following year. These figures do not include the 3,145 men now employed in the Torpedo Factory, Building Works Department or Central Offices, for which no minimum establishment is at present fixed, and in which no special discharges or reduction are at present contemplated. These figures bring the total at Woolwich to 12,311. Of these a few in the Building Works Department and Central Office are employed at En-field and Waltham. The new limits fixed for Enfield are 1,900 to 2,000 and for Waltham 600 to 650. It is proposed to reduce numbers at Enfield by 48 this year, which will bring it within the limit, and at Waltham by 35, which will bring the numbers there to 700 and leave fifty for reduction by wastage next year. In regard to the second Question of the hon. Member I have to say that, in fixing the minimum, full consideration has been given to all the circumstances as regards work for this year and the future. The minimum fixed for the Royal Laboratory, 4,300 to 4,500, will entail an ultimate reduction in this department of 871. Of this number 371 will be by discharge before the end of the financial year (a figure included in the number of 456 given in reply to the hon. Member's previous Question), and the

    125
    remainder by wastage next year or transfer to the other factories. The work available this year for the Royal Laboratory might possibly suffice to keep the present staff continuously employed till later in the year, but it is desirable to proceed with these reductions continuously in order to arrive at the minimum establishment and continuity of employment at the earliest date possible, and avoid, if possible, discharges during the coming winter or in the course of next year.
    MR. CROOKS: May I ask whether any work which the men of Woolwich are unable to complete will be given out to contract, or retained in the Arsenal, to be finished next year?
    MR. BUCHANAN: There is no intention of giving out to contract any work which has not been completed.

    Army Contracts— Bribery.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, after the infliction of fines upon Messrs. Meyer and Messrs. Stepney for bribery in connection with Army contracts, money was paid over to them without the deduction of the fines; whether the fines have since been paid; and, if not, who was responsible for paying away the security for the liquidation of the fines.
    MR. BUCHANAN: My hon. friend evidently refers to matters dealt with in Section 12 of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. An early opportunity will be given to the House of discussing the Report, and I must ask my hon. friend to defer his Question until the debate is reached.

    The Militia.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask Secretary of State for War when recruiting for the Militia will cease.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Recruiting for the Militia will cease as soon as possible after the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill becomes law, but I cannot at present fix: the exact date, of which ample notice will be given.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will it be possible to fix the date before the end of the session?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I do not think so

    Tidworth Barracks.
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether sufficient barrack accommodation exists for the officers of the Scots Greys at Tidworth.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Of the officers of the Scots Greys at Tidworth, all with the exception of two who are on the lodging list, are accommodated with quarters. A squadron of the regiment with six officers is quartered at present at Dorchester.

    Irish Militia.
    CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state what battalions of Irish Militia it is intended to disband or amalgamate; can he say what the future status of officers and men will be; and is he aware that owing to the delay in issuing definite information on these subjects, recruiting is seriously handicapped and great difficulty experienced in obtaining subaltern officers.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The hon. and gallant Member will readily understand that the selection of Irish Militia regiments for amalgamation will involve very careful consideration. I do not suppose that I shall be in a position to give any definite information on this matter for some time. As regards the status of the officers and men, information was given to the hon. and gallant Member in reply to a Question put by him on the 10th June. †

    Soldiers in Civil Employment.
    MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that during the month of May and the early part of June last, a sergeant of the Royal Irish Fusiliers was employed as a checker at the Midland Great Western Railway, North Wall, goods store; and can he say for what purpose the military authorities are placing men belonging to the Army in such occupations on the railway while so many civilians cannot get work.
    MR. BUCHANAN: This man arrived home from India on the 29th April, and
    † See(4) Debates, clxxv, 1071.

    127
    was as is customary given six weeks furlough pending discharge in order to enable him to seek employment. He obtained such employment as a checker at the North Wall goods store of the Midland South Western Railway.
    MR. HUDSON: Is it not the case that the man appeared on the North Wall daily in his regimentals and did ordinary civilian work while receiving Army pay?
    MR. BUCHANAN: I am not aware. But the man was under notice of discharge and it is customary on return from foreign service to grant a man furlough for six weeks to enable him to look for employment. That is what occurred in this case.

    The Indian Rupee.
    MR. R, DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can give any information to the House in regard to the circulation of the silver coinage of India beyond the borders of that country, whether in countries under our flag or others; and if there is any recognised steady equivalent value of the rupee in relation to the silver coinage of other countries in the East.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): The Indian rupee is used in Ceylon and in various parts of East Africa. The net export of rupees by sea in the five years 1901 –2 to 1905 –6 amounted to RS. 29,798,586= £1,986,600, but I am unable to state the number in circulation in the several Colonies and Protectorates. The exchange between India and Singapore which has a gold standard, is practically stationary; but the exchange with China and Hong Kong, which have a silver standard, is subject to variation, due, no doubt, to changes in the price of silver.

    Plague Inoculation in the Punjab.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSON (Northumberland, Tyneside): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that inoculation for plague in the Punjab of late has been resorted to in increasing numbers of cases and that the death rate from plague is there at the highest, he will take into consideration
    128
    the expediency of abandoning the practice as dangerous.
    MR. MORLEY: The opinion of those who have had experience is that the health of the patients is unimpaired by inoculation even where they are children of poor constitution; and that it confers immunity for a period of from six to twelve months or more. Statistics in Bombay show in the case of municipal labourers that while the percentage of un-inoculated who were attacked by plague was 6 ·7, that of inoculated was only ·19.
    MR. J. M. ROBERTSONasked how the right hon. Gentleman explained the fact that the death-rate was highest where inoculation was greatest.
    MR. MORLEYwas understood to reply that it was quite true that the death-rate in the Punjab was extremely high, but he was not sure that it was also true that the inoculation was practised over wide areas where the disease was prevalent.

    Repatriation of Chinese Labourers.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now say how many Chinese labourers have applied during this financial year for repatriation under the proclamation of last year.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT; Samuel, Yorkshire, Cleveland for Mr. Churchill): The number of applications according to the latest information received is 340.

    Asiatics in the Transvaal.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explicitly state to the House what was the nature of the assurances given to the Secretary of State for the Colonies by General Botha with regard to the administration of the Asiatic Law Amendment Act of 1907; and whether those assurances have, or have not, been observed by General Botha, who recently declared in the Transvaal Parliament that none of the disabilities imposed by the Act would be removed.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Mr. Churchill): General Botha assured

    129
    Lord Elgin that no effort would be spared to make the application and operation of the Act as little irksome as possible, and it was understood that he hoped to be able to provide for the adoption of other methods of registration than finger prints, to which objection has been taken by Indians. The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to certain regulations recently made under the Act by which the system of finger prints is retained. It would, therefore, appear that General Botha did not on furthur inquiry find it practicable to dispense with them, but the Secretary of State will communicate with the Transvaal Government on the subject.

    Colonial Tariffs.
    MR. HOLT: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any of the self-governing Colonies charge the Imperial Government or their contractors Customs duties on stores, provisions, equipment, or other articles imported into a self-governing Colony for the use of the Naval and Military Forces of the Crown and paid for by the British taxpayers.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Mr. Churchill): Exemptions from duty are granted by all the self-governing Colonies on equipment and various other articles imported for the use of His Majesty's Forces.

    Panama Canal Labourers.
    Mr. STARKEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British officials are charged with the duty of inspecting the Trinidad labourers indentured to work upon the Panama Canal, during their absence from the Island of Trinidad.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Mr. Churchill): None, Sir; but there is of course a British Consul at Panama.
    MR. STARKEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the legal holidays to which Trinidad labourers, working under indenture on the Panama Canal, are entitled.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (for Mr. Churchill): The Secretary of State is
    130
    not in a position to give the hon. Member the information asked for in the Question.

    Colonial Governorships.
    Mr. WATT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in future appointments to governorships of Colonies in which trading is the first consideration, he can see his way by administration to separate the offices of commander-in-chief and minister responsible for the commerce of the Colony, so as to avoid having soldiers looking after matters of which they have no knowledge.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir, I am afraid I cannot add to my right hon. friend's reply of the 16th of this month. †

    Labour in the Islands of St. Thom é and Princip é.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say whether any arrangements exist in existing contracts for the repatriation of labourers who leave the mainland to work in the Islands of St. Thom é and Princip é; and how many labourers have gone to each island respectively.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey, Northumberland, Berwick): I would refer the hon. Member for Gravesend to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 9th instant, viz., that the existing regulations contain arrangements for the repatriation of the labourers who go to San Thom é and Princip é. I have no information as to the respective numbers that go to these two islands.

    Freights to Basra.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now say what, if any, differences in the rates of freights exist in the transport of British and German goods to Basra; and whether the German vessels bearing such goods are also subsidised.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Consular Officers at Bagdad and Basra
    † See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 532.

    131
    have been instructed to furnish a Report on the subject, but their replies have not yet been received. In a Report on the Trade of Basra for the year 1906, which will very shortly be published, it is stated that the Persian Gulf section of the Hamburg-American Line is, according to the statement of its agent, unsubsidised. The same Report contains particulars as to freights from Basra to United Kingdom and other ports.

    Hague Conference and Disarmament.
    Mr. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether instructions are still being sent from His Majesty's Ministers to the British delegates at the Hague Conference: and can he hold out any expectation that, before the Conference breaks up, the major questions of a permanent court of arbitration and an international reduction of armaments will be strenuously pushed forward for discussion by the representatives of this country.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: His Majesty's Government are in constant communication with the British delegates on various questions that arise at the Conference. The hon. Member may rest assured that the questions he refers to will continue to receive attention, but the effect given to them must depend upon the general feeling of the Conference, and cannot be decided by the delegates of any one Power acting independently of the rest.

    Kaid Sir Harry Maclean.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what terms are demanded by Raisuli for the release of Kaid Sir H. Maclean.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: Raisuli has not, as far as I am aware, definitely formulated any terms for the consideration of the Moorish Government. Such reports as have been received of his intentions seem to imply that the nature of his terms will be political.

    Lord Cromer.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Lord Cromer was entitled to and has obtained a pension on his
    132
    retirement; and, if so, what is the amount of this pension, and is it charged on Imperial or Egyptian funds.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: A pension of £900 a year has been granted to Lord Cromer from Imperial Funds. This is the pension attached, by the hitherto existing rules, to service as Diplomatic Agent and Consul-General in Egypt. The pension earned in other posts of corresponding importance, such as Embassies, is £1,700 a year.

    Egyptian Garrison in the Soudan.
    MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that the Egyptian Government proposes at an early date to transfer certain native Egyptian troops to the Soudan, and replace them in Egypt by Soudanese troops.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer is in the negative.

    The Hague Conference.
    MR. MALLET: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent vote at the Conference at the Hague in favour of exempting private property from seizure by belligerents at sea, and in view also of the commercial interests in this country which such a decision would protect, His Majesty's-Government will instruct their representatives at the Conference, in future, to support and not to oppose that proposal.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: The Question of the hon. Member, which presumably relates only to the capture of the property of belligerents, raises one part only of a large question, which cannot be considered apart from such questions as blockade. His Majesty's Government cannot send the instruction suggested.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the entire experience of naval war proves that the destruction of an enemy's transport system and supplies is a most powerful weapon for the purpose of ending a war, whether His Majesty's Government will clearly intimate to the representatives of the Powers at the Hague that this country continues to

    133
    uphold the policy of the victorious Power at sea being free to blockade its enemy's coasts and to seize all property which is destined for the enemy's territory.
    SIR EDWARD GREY: I must refer to the Answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire. †

    Income Tax Abatements.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether persons whose incomes do not exceed,£700 a year, and who have already made a claim for abatement for the year 1907–8 on the forms as originally issued, will be required to make a supplementary claim in respect of earned income if all the material facts have been stated in the claim already made.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Mr. Asquith): In the circumstances described the Board of Inland Revenue will be prepared, subject to any inquiries that may appear necessary, to treat claims already entered for the existing statutory abatements as sufficient notice of a claim to relief in respect of any portion of the income included in the claim that may manifestly be earned, and will not insist on the presentation of a supplementary claim.

    Farmers' Vehicles— Licences.
    MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a farmer who uses a conveyance solely for the purposes of his business is required by the officers of Excise to take out a licence for such conveyance; and, if so, whether this is in accordance with regulations issued by the Treasury; and whether in this respect there is any difference of treatment by the Excise officers between a farmer and a tradesman.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Mr. Asquith): The exemption in favour of trade vehicles is confined by law to those which are "constructed and adapted for use, and are used solely for the conveyance of goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry." If the construction
    † See (4) Debates, clxxviii., 1580.
    134
    of the vehicle does not satisfy these conditions a licence must be taken out, whatever the purpose for which it is used.

    Telegraph (Money) Bill.
    MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any contracts have been entered into by the Post Office, or any money expended, in respect of works to be executed under the Telegraph (Money) Bill of this year.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The limit of expenditure authorised by the previous Telegraph Acts has just been reached, and the further expenditure required to carry on the works in progress pending the passing of the Bill now before the House will be met out of moneys advanced by the Treasury from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
    MR. BOWLES: Have any such advances been made?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir.

    Customs Appointments.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many retirements under the age limits have taken place in the Customs outdoor department in each of the grades above that of second-class examining officer during the five years ended 31st March, 1907; and what is the maximum number of officers who will, or have, become eligible for superannuation under the existing retirement condition during the five years ending 31st March, 1912.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The information which the hon. Member asks for in the first part of the Question will be found stated for the several years ended 30th November in the annual Estimates for the Customs. To collect the statistics in one Return and to give the particulars asked for in the last part of the Question would impose upon the Department an expenditure of time and labour which I am unable to authorise. For this reason I must request the hon. Member's indulgence if I am not able to give him full replies to the remaining Questions which he is about to address to me.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what number of appointments have been made to the position of Surveyor of Customs since the 1st January, 1905; how many of the officers promoted since that date were passed over when their turn first came for promotion; what time, on the average, elapsed between the date when these officers were first considered unfit for the position of surveyor and the date of their subsequent promotion; and what is the average age and the average length of service of the officers affected.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that for many years it has been the practice to exhibit in a part of the Custom House to which the public have access, for the information of parties concerned, weekly lists of all appointments and promotions of Customs Officers. The Board of Customs have not readily available the full particulars desired, and in the circumstances I am not prepared to request their preparation.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many of the officers promoted by selection to the position of Surveyor of Customs since 1st January, 1905, failed for the junior position of first-class examining officer once; how many twice; how many three or more times; how many officers are there in the Department with more than twenty years' service who are junior to the last officer promoted to surveyorship, and who qualified for the position of first-class examining officer at the first opportunity; and whether there has been any departure from the terms of Treasury Minute, 24th March, 1901, which stated that a system of promotion entirely by seniority would not be for the public advantage.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on the 6th May last to my hon. friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow, setting out generally the principles on which appointments in the direct line of promotion in the Customs Service since 1891 have been made. The Answer appeared in the Votes of that date. I do not think it desirable to give
    † See (4) Debates,clxxiii., 1318.
    136
    the figures asked for by the hon. Member even if they were readily ascertainable.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what increase in the various grades of the landing and warehousing, the clerical, and the water-guard branches of the Customs Department were made consequent upon the imposition of the corn duty, the coal duty, and the sugar duty; and what reductions were made in the various grades when the duties on coal and corn were abolished.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: As was explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Answer to a Question by my hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the 6th March, 1906, the introduction of the three duties referred to involved an increase of 444 persons and an additional annual expense for pay and allowances, travelling, clothing, and law charges of £57,600. It is not possible to state with accuracy what reductions were made on the abolition of the corn and coal duties, as the growth of Customs business in other directions absorbed to some extent the staff which might otherwise have been dispensed with, and any figures I might attempt to give would consequently be largely conjectural.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the cost of the Customs Jerquers establishment during each of the last five financial years; how many queries were issued each year, and what was the gross amount brought to the revenue as the result of errors discovered by the Jerquer and his staff; and what are the present number, grades, and salaries of the clerks of the Jerquing staff.
    *MR. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what kind of sprightly official the Jerquer is?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Anyone with experience of Customs' work perfectly well knows. I am informed that there is no separate Jerquer's establishment in the Customs, the work of jerquing forming part of the ordinary duties of the Long Room staff at each Port, and it is not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy the numbers of the staff employed

    137
    on, or the cost of, this particular item of work. The Estimates for the current year show the grades and salaries of the clerical staff forming the Port Establishment of the Department by whom the work of jerquing is performed, but no data are readily available for furnishing an answer to the remainder of the Question.
    *MR. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman for the benefit of those without experience of Customs work say what a Jerquer is?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: A man who prepares jerquering notes.
    MR. MYER: What is the literal definition of the word?
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the salaries of the Collector of London, the Principal of the Statistical Office, the Accountant and Controller-General, and the Office Inspector, London; and what are the number, grades, and salaries of the staffs of which they are the respective heads?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the information furnished by the published Estimates.
    MR. C. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs have fixed limits for the position of collectors, inspecting surveyor, and chief officer; and what is the age in each case.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Customs inform me that they have not fixed any definite age limit for admission to the class of collectors, but in the case of junior collectorships, preference— except in very special circumstances— is given to men not over forty-five. No age limit has been fixed for inspecting surveyors. As regards chief officers I must refer the hon. Member to a Question on this subject by the hon. Member for Newton and to my Answer of the 27th February last. †
    † See (4) Debates,clxx., 47.
    MR. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the assistant clerks (new class) in the Statistical Office, Customs, have forwarded certain memorials to the Treasury, alleging that the conditions under which they were induced to enter the Civil Service are not being observed; whether they have been threatened with punishment unless they withdraw the charge; whether they have forwarded a further memorial repeating the allegation and attaching copies of official memoranda in substantiation; and, if so, whether he can state how the matter now stands.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: This matter was discussed in Committee of Supply on the 16th May last, and I must refer the hon. Member to the debate which then took place.

    Irish Jurors List— Revision Fees.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will explain to what Irish account or accounts is the sum of £24,056 raised under the County Officers and Courts (Ireland) Act, 1877, credited; and how does the Treasury dispose of the sum of £2,000 received for fees and duties, and £1,632 received on account of the revision of the jurors lists under Section 21.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: Of the total sum of £24,056 received under the Act of 1877, £20,424, which was received in stamps, was paid in to the Exchequer and merged in the Revenue of the year. The remaining two items of £2,000 and £1,632 respectively, which were received in cash, were appropriated in aid of the Vote for County Court Officers, etc., Ireland, as shown under Subhead H of the Estimate presented to Parliament.
    MR. FLYNN: And is all the money absorbed by the Treasury and paid into no particular Irish fund?
    MR. RUNCIMAN: It is merged into the revenue of the year. It is not earmarked to any particular Vote.

    Vaccination Exemption at Chester-le-Street.
    MR. J. W. TAYLOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if his

    139
    attention has been called to the action of the magistrates at Chester-le-Street, who, on 3rd July, refused to grant to Mr. Robert Ratcliffe, of Beamish, a vaccination order for his child, although he had stated that he had a conscientious objection to vaccination; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of the magistrates at Chester-le-Street who, on 17th July, refused to grant a vaccination exemption order to Henry Farrer, of Edmondsley, Durham; whether the applicant was questioned at length by the chairman of the bench as to why the exemption was sought for, and, after stating his objections, was informed that he had not complied with the law, and that the bench refused to state in what particulars the applicant had failed to comply with the Act; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.): I will answer these two Questions together. I have made inquiries into these cases, but I find that both of the applicants mentioned failed to satisfy the justices that they conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of the children in question. I regret that I have no power to take any action in the matter. The proper remedy for such cases lies, as I have often said before, in the passing of the Vaccination Bill which is now before the House.

    Military Drill in Prisons.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what is the nature and extent of the military drill given to lads under the Borstal system in Borstal, Lincoln, and Dartmoor prisons.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No military drill is given to these lads. They are instructed in the physical exercises laid down in the syllabus for elementary schools which was published in 1905.

    Prison Treatment of Lads.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home
    140
    Department what provision is made for the reformatory treatment in prison of lads who, by reason of bad health or poor physique being unfit for drill and hard work, are regarded as unsuitable for admission to Borstal or Lincoln prisons.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The lads referred to in the Question are treated as far as possible under what is known as the modified Borstal system now in force at all prisons under the Prison Rule of the 13th July, 1906, which was laid before Parliament in draft on the 9th April, 1906, and published as a Parliamentary Paper. They are employed in association at some useful trade or occupation, they are granted special privileges for marks earned, they are instructed for an hour daily until they have attained the fifth standard, and they attend the lectures and addresses given to all lads treated under this system. Special care is taken to obtain assistance or employment for them on their discharge.

    School Hygiene Congress.
    Dr. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the President of of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the fact that several foreign Powers cannot see their way to send delegates to the Second International Congress on School Hygiene to be held in London next month unless they receive invitations from His Majesty's Government; and whether, in the interests of international goodwill and also of education, both in this country and throughout the world, His Majesty's Government will issue official invitations, and so ensure the success of the Congress.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. McKenna, Mon-mouth, N.): No, Sir; I have received no authenticated official information that any foreign Governments have abstained from sending official representatives to the Congress for the reason alleged in the Question. I have verified from official sources that at least one of the principal European Governments in respect of whom the allegation has been made is in fact sending official representatives to the Congress, having apparently felt no difficulty as to the invitation, so that in their case the allegation must be unfounded. I have heard no suggestion, except as part of the allegation above

    141
    referred to, that any other Governments have felt differently in this respect. As to the last paragraph of the Question, in view of the facts I have ascertained, as above explained, I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave last week to the hon. Member for Leicester. †

    Glamorganshire Education Estimate.
    MR. BRIDGE MAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the estimates of the Glamorganshire Education Committee for the year ending 31st March, 1908, in which the estimate for the maintenance of the non-provided schools is limited to the amount of the Government grant, while the provided schools are to receive rate-aid; and what steps ho is taking to stop such differentiation.
    MR. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I gave to my hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the 25th April on this subject.

    Education Department— Medical Bureau.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN:I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if any estimate has been prepared as to the cost of salaries and administration of the medical bureau which it is proposed to appoint under the Board; and whether such bureau will supervise medical questions which may arise in Welsh schools.
    MR. McKENNA: The matter is now under my consideration in consultation with the Treasury. The Answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative.

    Municipal Secondary School Teachers.
    MR. JOWETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he intends to take any steps to remove the disability under which certificated teachers engaged in municipal secondary schools suffer by being excluded from the benefits of the Teachers' Superannuation Act, although their contributions to the superannuation fund have been accepted by the Board of Education for the past eight years.
    † See (4) Debates,clxxviii., 335.
    ‡ See (4) Debates,clxxiii., 275.
    MR. McKENNA: The extension of the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Act to teachers employed in Secondary Schools would require legislation which I am not in a position to undertake, but I may remind my hon. friend that teachers who have contributed to the Deferred Annuity Fund in respect of service in elementary schools will be entitled, on attaining the age of sixty-five, to an annuity based upon such contributions irrespective of whether they remain in recorded service or not.

    Monmouthshire Schools Teaching Staffs.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the comparative expenditure on teaching staff and maintenance in provided and non-provided schools in the county of Monmouth; whether he can account for the difference of 14s. 11d. per child by which the expenditure in provided schools exceeds that in non-provided schools otherwise than by unfair differentiation; and what steps he is taking to correct this differentiation.
    MR. MCKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on the 3rd June to my hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil on this subject. §

    Ranelagh Foundation. Whitefield, Berks.
    *MR. E. GARDNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of the Ranelagh Foundation, Whitefield, Berks, an endowment left for the education of children in the principles of the Church of England and applied under a scheme approved by the Board of Education in December, 1905, to the establishment of a secondary school in which the principles of that Church are to be taught; and whether, if the terms of the scheme are carried out, the grants for secondary schools, either under Articles 36 (a), or 42 to 44 (b) of the recently issued Regulations, will be withheld.
    MR. McKENNA: The new Regulations will not prohibit the giving of denominational instruction in this school to scholars whose parents have requested the
    §See (4) Debates, clxxv., 256.

    143
    Governors in writing to supply it, provided it is paid for from funds other than grants or rates. The existing scheme appears to permit of compliance with the Regulations in this respect. Every facility will be given to the Governors to obtain any amendment of their scheme which is necessary in order to enable them to comply with the conditions prescribed for the higher scale of grants. I may perhaps call the hon. Member's attention to Circular 568 which has been recently issued by the Board and deals with these matters.
    *MR. E. GARDNER: Arising out of that Answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this Foundation has handed over practically the whole of its funds, some £7,000, with the concurrence of the Berkshire County Council and with the approval of the Education Department; whether under the scheme which was granted, certain privileges in connection with giving education in accordance with the principles of the Church of England were conceded; and whether under the new Regulations that teaching will not be permitted?
    *MR. McKENNA: I am aware of the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman, but the Regulations do not prohibit giving that instruction provided the parents of the children wish it.
    MR. E. GARDNER: Yes, but that is not in accordance with the scheme.

    Meals for School Children.
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state in how many areas the provisions of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act, 1906, are being applied.
    MR. McKENNA: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question on the 24th June last. ·In addition to the seven cases there given, the Board have sanctioned the expenditure of rates upon the purchase of food by four other authorities viz., Bath, Bradford, Norwich, and Cannock.

    Building School Grant.
    SIR HENRY CRAIK (Glasgow and Aberdeen University): I beg to ask the
    † See (4) Debates, clxxvi., 902.
    144
    President of the Board of Education whether the special grant of £100,000 for building elementary schools will be subject to the rule imposed by Section 97 of the Education Act of 1870, upon the only Parliamentary grant permissible under that Act, under which rule the conditions for obtaining such grant are to be contained in a Minute of the Board, which is not to be in force until it has lain for not less than one month upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lough, Islington, W.): No, Sir; the conditions referred to apply to the annual Parliamentary grant. The special grant is not such a grant.

    Traffic in Titles.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been directed to an article in the current number of the Saturday Review, entitled "The Traffic in Titles," in which reference is made to one peerage creation during the Rosebery Administration and to two peerage creations during the late Administration; and whether, having regard to the seriousness of the libel contained therein and the punishment which it deserves, unless it be proved to be true and written in the public interest, he will consider the advisability of moving the Public Prosecutor in this matter?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): My attention has been called to the article mentioned by the Question of the hon. Member. Founded as it is on the merest surmise, it is impossible to treat as serious charges, if they can be so described, made on such flimsy and speculative grounds.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLwas about to quote special passages in the article, when
    *MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member need carry the matter further by quoting statements from the article.
    SIR JOHN WALTON: If I may be allowed to say so, I used advisedly the expression flimsy and speculative, because

    145
    the inference is drawn from the fact that it is the writer's opinion that certain gentlemen had been ennobled who had no claim to Royal favour resting on public or other services. He draws from that fact the inference that they must have paid cash down. This seems to me, as I said, highly flimsy and speculative.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But seeing that there is a charge against the Government of the country ought not the writer to be called upon to prove his statement if he can?
    SIR JOHN WALTON: The so-called charge is a mere opinion of the writer founded on the grounds he indicates, which do not bear a serious character at all.

    Public Meetings on Wimbledon Common.
    MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the prohibition of public meetings upon Wimbledon Common; whether the common conservators have the right so to prohibit meetings or to alter the by-laws without consulting the Board; and what steps will be taken in the matter of preserving the lights hitherto held in respect to public meetings on Wimbledon Common.
    The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Sir EDWARD STRACHEY, Somerset, S.): The Board of Agriculture have no jurisdiction in connection with Wimbledon Common, which is controlled by conservators elected and appointed under the provision of a special Act. We have no information as to the by laws in force, and we should not be consulted with regard to any proposed alteration.

    Scottish Agricultural Holdings Act Arbitration.
    MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Law Officers have yet given an opinion with regard to the arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1906; and, if so, will that opinion be presented to Parliament.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The Answer to the first part of my hon. friend's Question is in the negative, and with
    146
    regard to the second part I understand that it is contrary to the usual practice to publish opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown.

    Mahoney Estate, Co. Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the village of Beaufort was excluded from the sale of the Mahoney estate at Dunloe, county Kerry, whereby James O'Connor and Elizabeth Carson were debarred from purchasing their holdings; and whether, in view of the fact that they have now received notice to quit, although rent has been paid regularly, he will request the Estates Commissioners, through whom the sale of the estate was negotiated, to use their good offices to effect the sale of the remaining portion of this estate.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell, Bristol, N.): The village of Beaufort was not included in the estate which was sold by Mr. Mahoney to his tenants. The Estates Commissioners have no knowledge of the service of notices to quit on the occupiers of the village holdings, but they inform mo that in any event the matter does not appear to be one in which they could intervene.

    MR. Upton's Moate Estate.
    SIR WALTER NUGENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say why two evicted tenants, on the estate of H. A. S. Upton, Coolatoor, Moate, have been excluded in the sale of that estate, although the landlord is desirous that they should be included as purchasers, at a price to be fixed by the Estates Commissioners.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have made an offer for the purchase of the holdings from which the tenants referred to were evicted, but the owner has declined to accept the price offered. The Commissioners are therefore unable to take any further steps in the matter at present.

    Outrages in Ireland.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the

    147
    number of outrages recorded as non-agrarian in which firearms were used during the three months ended 31st March, 30th June, and 30th September, 1906, and the past two quarters of the present year.
    MR. BIRRELL: The figures for the quarters ending on the dates named are as follows:— 31st March, 1906, thirteen cases; 30th Juno, 1906, ten cases; 30th September, 1906, nine cases; 31st March, 1907, eleven cases; 30th June, 1907, ten cases.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give the designations of the outrages recorded as agrarian in which firearms were used during the three months ended 31st March, 30th June, 30th September, and 31st December, 1906, and the past two quarters of the present year, distinguishing the counties and districts in which such outrages were committed.
    MR. BIRRELL: I will furnish with to-night's Votes a tabular statement giving the information asked for. †

    Instruction in Gardening in Irish Schools.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that teachers of primary schools in the rural parts of England are allowed 5S. per pupil for the teaching of gardening, and that such teaching of the future labourers and small farmers in Ireland is of importance to the country; have the Commissioners passed a resolution allowing a similar fee to that paid in England to teachers in Irish primary schools for like teaching; and have the Treasury yet sanctioned the proposed expenditure.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is the case that fees for instruction in gardening are given in English primary schools, but not, I think, to the amount mentioned in the Question. I find that last year the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland made a proposal that a special fee of 5S. per pupil should be given for instruction in gardening at rural schools. It was not then considered desirable to entertain the proposal, more especially in
    † See page
    148
    view of the inquiry which was being held into the working of the Department of Agriculture. The Report of the Committee shows that numerous witnesses advocated the establishment of school gardens, but the question of the means to be adopted to that end does not appear to have been determined. Personally, I am quite in favour of school gardens, and will see that the matter receives further consideration when opportunity offers.

    Abbeylara Evicted Tenant.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the eviction of Miss Alice Connor, of Kilbride, Abbeylara, county Longford, by Mr. John B. O'Reilly, of Carngallen, county Leitrim; whether he is aware that this landlord filed a bill of £8 4S. 6d. on this woman for possession of four acres of bad land; and will he undertake so to amend the Evicted Tenants Bill on Report as to include this poor woman's case.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estate Commissioners have inquired into Miss Alice Connor's application for reinstatement, but have not yet decided what action, if any, can be taken in the case. I have no information as to the second part of the Question. If the Commissioners should decide in favour of Miss Connor's claim, the Bill will of course enable them to deal with the case.

    Granard Evicted Tenant.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of James Finnegan, of Ballywillan, Granard, who was evicted twenty-one years ago, and only reinstated because he agreed to purchase his farm at a price, the instalments of which he now finds it impossible to pay; whether any means exist by which this man's annuity could be reduced so as to enable him to pay the instalments as he is willing to do; and will he direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to this case.
    MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are unable to trace the case referred to in the Question. If the hon. Member will name the estate upon which

    149
    Finnegan is a tenant purchaser the Commissioners will have further inquiries made.

    Royal Irish Constabulary— Situation in Belfast.
    MR. SLOANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he had received any information to the effect that 200 men of the Royal Irish Constabulary had held a meeting at Belfast, and threatened to go on strike.
    MR. BIRRELL: I have just received from Belfast a telegram relating to one of the matters referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and I have sought for further information on the subject. I desire not to make anything like a full statement of the facts until I have had further information. I may say that the circumstances seem to be greatly exaggerated. Some cases of insubordination occurred amongst a small body of men— not anything like 200— but they yielded at once to the very wise treatment they received, and I am now assured that all danger may be at once dismissed from our minds. There is some dissatisfaction upon the subject of pay, but full consideration will be given to any legitimate complaint.
    MR. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the district inspectors in Belfast stated that if the police went on strike the Government have 10,000 recruits ready to take their places, and will he, in view of the fact that even according to his own statement information is not of a very clear character, telegraph to Belfast for full information?
    MR. BIRRELL: I am expecting to receive full information every minute.
    MR. MOORE: Does the Chief Secretary consider these (Questions in the public interest?
    MR. KILBRIDE: Write him a letter.

    Political Pictures— The ''Daily Graphic" and Irish Outrages.
    MR WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention had been called to an issue of the Daily Graphic of 20th July,
    150
    which gave a picture purporting to represent a very disgraceful outrage, in which the figures were said to be the actual men committing the outrage. Had he any knowledge of any such outrage having been committed in Ireland, and was there any means of identifiying the men vouched for by the newspaper; also was there any means of protecting a nation from slanderous and gross libels of such a kind which gave an entirely wrong impression of the state of the country?
    MR. BIRRELL: I have seen the picture referred to, and, speaking as Chief Secretary, I must say it was in my judgment a scandalous production. Events take place in Ireland which legitimately give rise to regret, deserve condemnation, and justify anxiety. These events are often exaggerated and misreported, but this is perhaps inevitable. When it comes to publishing broadcast throughout the Empire pictorial illustrations of absolute inventions— and trying to pass them off as historical pictures of actual occurrences, for the purpose of inflaming the public mind, I feel sure all fair-minded men, irrespective of party, will agree in an unqualified condemnation of such procedure. Unfortunately, to libel a nation is an offence not known to the law, and I know of no protection against such libel but the expression of general disgust.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will do his best, as I believe he is in an influential position in the matter, to see that no libellous pictures on any subject are published?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that this purports to be not a sketch, but a photograph, and that in the letterpress under the photograph these words occur: "It must not be supposed that our contributor watched the actual proceedings, but the men in this picture are the real moonlighters, who obligingly re-enacted their drama for the benefit to our photographer."
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the Daily Graphic advertised these productions in the following terms on placards

    151
    in very large numbers throughout London: "Outrage and Intimidation in Ireland. Remarkable Photographs."
    MR. BIRRELL: I have already expressed my opinion in the matter.

    Granard Letter Deliveries.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether any complaints have been received by him as to non-delivery of letters between Granard and Bawn; and, if so, what action he intends taking in the matter.
    CAPTAIN NORTON (for Mr. Sydney Buxton): No complaints on this subject have reached me.

    Land Values (Scotland) Bill.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the declaration that he made on 28th June, in reply to a deputation that waited upon him with regard to the Land Values (Scotland) Bill, to the effect that the Government had no idea of going back upon existing contracts, is to be accepted as applying to existing contracts for the payment of rates in England as well as in Scotland, so that any land values rate that may be proposed by the Government will have to be met by existing ratepayers.
    The PRIME MINISTER and FIRST LORD OF the TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I think my hon. friend had really better wait a little. I can understand that to an active mind there may be something attractive in the idea of drafting Bills by way of Question and Answer, but the pastime has its inconveniences, and I am afraid I am not prepared at the moment to join him in it.

    Appointment of Magistrates.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the number of magistrates who have been placed on the commission of the peace in England and Scotland since March, 1906; how many of these were Liberals and how many Conservatives; in how many cases have the objections of Lords-Lieutenant to certain nominees been overruled by the Lord Chancellor; and in how many cases have appointments been made over the heads of the Lords-Lieutenant.
    SIR H CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The number, excluding Lancashire, is 3,833. It is impossible to state with any precision how many were Liberals and how many Conservatives, but it is believed that there were about three Liberals in every four appointed. The communications between the Lord Chancellor and the Lords-Lientenant are confidential.
    MR. FLAVIN: Is it not the practice in England, as in Ireland, to appoint Tories and landlords to be Lords-Lieutenant?
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: What about the Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Cavan? Is the hon. Member for West Islington a landlord and a Tory?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Landlord, certainly: Tory, no.

    Saturday Sittings.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the advanced period of the session and the determination of the Government not to hold an Autumn Session, he will arrange, as Leader of the House, for Saturday sittings during the remainder of the present session, in order to facilitate the progress of the Evicted Tenants Bill, the Small Landholders Bills, and other important measures which it is desirable should become law this year.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMAN: It is not at all improbable that some Saturday sittings may be necessary, but I cannot yet say anything on the subject.

    Transvaal Loan Bill.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he can indicate at what date or period of the session the Transvaal Loan Bill will be introduced.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the Transvaal Loan Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly, and we shall, therefore, be free to proceed with the introduction of the Bill at a very early date, but I cannot fix that date at present.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make the introduction of the Bill dependent on the

    153
    Transvaal Government not pressing the Bill for the sale of liquor to natives?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no knowledge of that matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the Government would give additional days for Supply.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he would be very willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but the Session would necessarily be prolonged to an unusual date, and if it was to be concluded as he hoped it would be, about August 24, it was impossible to give more days to Supply. The House did not wish to sit into September for any such purpose.
MR. A. J. BALFOURpointed out that the Education Vote was a matter which excited much interest, and that the Local Government Board Vote had not been discussed at all. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take them into account before coming to a final decision. Would he state what was the business for next week?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he thought they had better dispose of this week first. He regretted to say that the Government would be obliged to ask the House to sit on Saturday unless considerable progress were made with the small Bills which were put down for to-morrow. These were the Butter and Margarine Bill, Telegraph Money Bill, Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Bill, Australia (States Constitution) Bill, Probation of Offenders (No. 2) Bill, Released Persons (Poor Law Relief) Bill, Vaccination Bill, and the Merchant Shipping (Tonnage) Bill. They would also wish to take if possible the Vote for the relief of the sufferers in Jamaica. He hoped they might get these to-morrow, and, if so, there would be no sitting on Saturday. On Monday the business would be the report of the Evicted Tenants Bill and the Criminal Appeal Bill. On Tuesday the grant to Lord Cromer and the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. On Wednesday Supply and Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates and the Colonial Services Supplementary
154
Estimate. On Thursday Supply— the Foreign Office Vote.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When is it proposed to take the Lords' Amendments to the Army Bill?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On Tuesday.
MR. MOORE: Will the Third Reading of the Evicted Tenants' Bill (Ireland) be taken next week?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It might possibly be taken on Friday.

MOORE-BAILEY LETTERS.
TEXT OF THE CORRESPONDENCE Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture for Ireland whether he is now prepared to fulfil the pledge he gave to the Leader of the Opposition the other night to product) the entire correspondence which passed between the hon. Member for North Armagh and Mr. Commissioner Bailey.
The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICUTURE FOR IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell, Tyrone, S.): Yes. The House will remember that I gave a pledge that I would communicate with Mr. Bailey, and I gave an assurance that the correspondence should be produced at once. I have communicated with Mr. Bailey, and it appears that four letters have passed between Mr. Moore and himself. He says that he kept no copy of his letters to Mr. Moore, who, so far as Mr. Bailey is concerned, is at full liberty to produce them. I desire to ask the hon. Member if he accepts the copy of the letter published in an evening paper to-night, because if that is so, I shall be able to read the correspondence in a consecutive manner.
MR. MOORE: I will read the original myself, which I telegraphed for and have in my hand. It is marked "Private"— and the House will bear that in mind when they consider that the answer to that letter was made use of in this House:—
"University Club, Dublin, March, 1907.
"Dear Moore,— I see that as a supplemental question you asked the other day whether the

155
delay in land purchase was due to the 'continual absence of Mr. Commissioner Bailey.'"
That was not the Question I asked. [Loud cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member purports to read the letter. I think he had better read it without comment. If any opportunity arises for comment it should be made later.
MR. MOORE: I shall ask for permission when I have read the letter to make a personal explanation. [The hon. Member then proceeded with the reading of the letter]—
"I do not know, of course, what was your object, but it may interest you to know that for the last year I attended more days in the office than either of my colleagues, and that as a fact I did not take much more than half the vacation to which I was entitled. You will thus see that you have been strangely misinformed, and I can only surmise that another of my colleagues was intended.
Faithfully yours,
W. F. Bailey."
I will read the reply to that.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL (interrupting): On a point of order, would it not be better that I should read the correspondence consecutively?
*MR. SPEAKER: I think one Member should read it all. As the matter refers to the hon. Member on my left (Mr. Moore), I think he should read the letters.
MR. MOORE: I have not the original of the letter which the Vice-President read, but he can check my letter as I read. I wrote in reply to Mr. Bailey— I refrain from making any comment—
"Ulster Club, Belfast,
19th March.
DEAR BAILEY—You were appointed by a Unionist Government to see fair play between Wrench and Finucane, and you have sold the pass on every occasion. The first thing my colleagues and I will do when we come back, which will not be far off, is to press for an inquiry into the working of your Department. You can destroy your evidence now, and show this to whom you please.
Yours truly,
W. Moore."
The reply which I received from Mr. Bailey was as follows—
"Mr. Bailey desires to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Moore's letter of the 19th inst. and, inasmuch as it contains grave statements
156
of a threatening and unfounded character, he will take an early opportunity of bringing the matter under notice in the proper quarter."
I wrote in reply to that—
"Mr Moore hopes that when Mr. Bailey publishes the correspondence he will make it, clear that Mr. Moore's reply was directed to a disloyal attack by Mr. Bailey on one of his colleagues in his letter to Mr. Moore. This is all that was omitted from Mr. Moore's reply."
Having read the correspondence, I now ask leave to make a personal explanation in regard to the charges made against me when one of the letters was selected by the Member for South Tyrone, and used in conjunction—I am not suggesting the the hon. Member was not within his rights — and, after previous arrangement—
MR. JOHN REDMOND: No.
MR. MOORE: I am prepared to accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but he stated the contents from his place in the House before the Member for South Tyrone read it.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I saw it months ago.
MR. MOORE: If the hon. Gentleman saw it months ago, it points at once to what MR. Bailey considered the proper quarter. Is a Government official to have his defence made in this House by the hon. Member for Waterford? I asked my Question in the House, when, I think, Mr. Bailey was sitting under the gallery there— I will not pledge myself, but he was there the day before and the day after—because, on no fewer than three occasions coming through the Lobby, I had seen the impartial Estates Commissioner from Ireland in close conference with the Irish Members. I do not say it was not perfectly legitimate— I did not stoop to inquire into their business— but I thought it undesirable in anyone to whom such large administrative powers were confided, and so I asked the Question. I ventured to ask from my own observation what I think was a perfectly legitimate supplementary Question as to whether or not the delay was occasioned by the continued presence away from his office of Mr. Bailey in London. The Question was ruled out of Order, and the next thing I heard was that Mr. Bailey had taken upon himself to challenge my right to ask any Question about his conduct by writing this letter. I should have ignored.

157
that— I have no particular pride in these matters—
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You never had.
MR. MOORE (continuing): But I shall ask any Question which I consider it my duty to ask if it is in order.
A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Ask for the Wyndham letters.
MR. MOORE: I thought when Mr. Bailey went out of his way to say he was not guilty, but that one of his colleagues was— when he knew that that colleague was a personal friend of my own— the name is, of course, Mr. Wrench— when I found his idea as a Government official of loyalty to his own colleague was to say in his letter that I had been misinformed, and that he surmised which he did not, — that another of his colleagues was intended, whoever that colleague might be, I thought it was not loyal of Mr. Bailey to make that suggestion. I felt that it was a grossly disloyal act on the part of Mr. Bailey, especially as he had marked his letter "Private,'' so that I could not send it to the man attacked. I wrote the same evening I got his letter. I may have written with too much heat, but I did it oil' my own bat and I will take all responsibility and all blame for it. There is nobody else to be blamed, and if there is any punishment to be attached to it I will endure it willingly. All I want to say is that it was my own motion whether it was right or wrong, and it is in no sense a Party matter. Feeling that Mr. Bailey had been guilty of breach of loyalty towards his own colleagues by making this attack, I thought I had a right to say what I did. I may have been imprudent in putting it a bit too strong, but when I am told here what I have been told in this House, that I threatened Mr. Bailey with being deprived of his office, and with penalties in future, I can only say that a reference to the letter will show that I made a statement which any Member is entitled to make from these benches with respect to a Department of which he distrusts the management, and, that is to say, that as soon as he can procure a proper inquiry into the working of that Department he will do so. That is all I said. Anyone who reads the correspondence
158
will see, however much they may differ from its sentiments, possibly from its tone, that at least it is a personal matter between two men; and I do not think it was in keeping with the traditions of this House, or the etiquette of this House, that in order not to benefit Mr. Bailey, but because he thought he could do me an injury, the hon. Member for South Tyrone produced one letter from the correspondence, which was provoked originally by Mr. Bailey himself. As Mr. Bailey had marked his letter "Private," I was anxious he should not say I had prevented him showing my letter, so I said he could show it to whom he pleased. I did not contemplate the House of Commons, but I do not complain. So far as Mr. Bailey is concerned I cannot say I left myself any right to object to the entire correspondence being produced. But I hold that hon. Members should not hold me up, as I have been held up, as a person who has abused his position in Parliament to bring improper pressure to bear upon an Estates Commissioner. I simply wrote and told Mr. Bailey what I thought of the working of his Department, and my hope that at the earliest possible opportunity a satisfactory Court of Inquiry would be appointed to investigate the working of it. That is an object which a great many people in Ireland desire. I hope I have not troubled the House too long.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL MR. T. W. RUSSELL rose.
MR. SPEAKER: No debate is possible. If the hon. Gentleman has any personal statement to make he is of course at liberty to make it.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I wish to make a personal explanation. The hon. Member has implied there was collusion between myself and the hon. Member for Waterford. There is no foundation for that suggestion.
MR. MOORE: On that matter—
*Mr. SPEAKER: The House has heard the explanation of the hon. Member.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following

159
Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Helme and Mr. Charles Nicholson (added in respect of the Public Health Bill): Mr. Partington, Mr. Nussey, Mr. Ellis Griffith, Sir Frederick Cawley, and Mr. Adkins (in respect of the Public Health Bill); and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Public Health Bill: Mr. Percy Barlow, Mr. Alden, Mr. Luke White, Mr. Marnham, Mr Lief Jones, Mr. Wills, and Mr. Hedges.
SIR WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Colonel Long; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bowles.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
Report from the Select Committee, with Appendix, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 266.]
Minutes of Proceedings and Appendix to be printed. [No. 266.]

NEW BILL.
  COUNCIL OF INDIA BILL.
  "To amend the Law as to the Council of India," presented by Mr. Secretary Morley; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 292.]

SUPPLY [18th ALLOTTED DAY.]
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1907–8.

  CLASS II.
  £113,817, to complete the sum for Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland.
  *The VICE-PRESIDENT of the DEPARTMENT of AGRICULTURE for IRELAND (Mr. T. W. Russell, Tyrone. S.):said that, owing to
  160
  circumstances which required very little explanation at his hands, the Vote for this, in some respects, the most important of all Irish State Departments had not been frequently discussed in Parliament. The Minister responsible for the expenditure and for the conduct of the Department was not in the House. The Vote had, therefore, to take its chance with others, and, being of doubtful parentage, was jostled out of the arena. Now, after barely two months experience, during which he had been largely occupied in disposing of arrears of work due partly to the disturbance caused by the labours imposed by the Departmental Committee on the principal officer of the Department, he was called upon not only to defend the Vote— which he was quite ready to do— but to meet suggestions for a new policy which, if advisable, would require legislative sanction, and to apply fresh methods, which he certainly did not shrink from, provided fair time was given for their consideration. The debate would probably be largely occupied with the consideration of the majority and minority Reports of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry. That Committee sat for over a year. It sat at the request of the Government, and discharged its onerous duties with great care, with unsparing labour, and with great ability. It held sittings north, south, east, and west in Ireland, and also in London. A vast amount of evidence was taken from all sorts of people— from county committees, municipal bodies, education authorities, stock-breeders, farmers, and officials. For over a year the Committee turned everything in the country upside down so far as the work of the Department was concerned and examined it most thoroughly. In the result there were two Reports, a majority report and a minority Report. It was not to be greatly wondered at in the nature of things and in the nature of the task imposed upon them that these two Reports, full of interesting and suggestive matter as they were, did not add much light to that already in possession of the Government. In almost every particular save one the Reports differed from each other. The one particular in which they agreed was significant, and he would dwell upon it later on. They both agreed in declaring that the present funds of the Department were inadequate for the work, and they both agreed in recommending that these funds should

  161
  be immediately increased. He would refer to this point again. The majority Report found that, on the whole, the work of the Department was good; that it was suited to the requirements of the country; and that it ought to be allowed to continue and develop as it had been doing. They recommended, in fact, no change in it. Evidence was received in criticism of the Department's methods, but it was declared that the weight and volume of the evidence was overwhelmingly on the other side. In short, they recommended leaving things pretty much as they were. Against the minority Report, at any rate, nobody could bring the charge of hesitation to recommend change. It was a very interesting document from many points of view, and one in which remarkable industry and ingenuity had been bestowed. A good deal of it was given up to criticism of the Department's methods, and ho would deal with that part of the Report in the course of the debate. Its positive recommendations, however, might be summarised thus. It recommended that the Department should be broken up and a great deal of its present functions taken from it; that its Representative Boards, the Agricultural Board, and the Board of Technical Instruction, should be abolished; and that three Departments should be established in place of the one which now existed. Those three Departments would be, first the remains of the existing Department reconstructed on lines which Mr. Micks suggested. Secondly, a new Development Department consisting of four Commissioners elected by the Irish Members of Parliament grouped according to provinces, and a fifth Commissioner nominated by the Irish Government. This new Department would have an endowment fund of £1,000,000 a year, and would be "altogether detached and free from the control" either of the Imperial Government or of Parliament. The third of the three Departments suggested was a Forestry Department, which would be also an independent body, separate from the others, and of course possessing an endowment fund of its own, and those three would be in the place of the one that now existed. Whatever view might be taken of these proposals they were, to say the least, not characterised by timidity. In the region both of destructive criticism and
  162
  of constructive criticism they were certainly comprehensive. But they had that day to view the matter as practical men; and without expressing any opinion as to the merits of these positive recommendations of the minority Report it was enough for him to say on behalf of the Government that any such changes as were suggested would require legislation and an amount of consideration such as it had been impossible for the Government to give to them up to the present. Before coming to the one recommendation on which both the Reports agreed, perhaps it would be well if he took up one or two of the points of criticism in the minority Report which had come under his own ken since he had been in the Department. On this matter he wished to say just two things. The first was this. A great machine of administration like the Department in its motion through seven years must necessarily have generated friction at certain points. Moreover, as it was intended, in the words of the Recess Committee, "to make experiments and see some fail," it had made various experiments and had seen some of them i fail. Hon. Members would find that in the minority Report every one of those cases of friction and all those instances of failure, whether of remote or recent date, was taken up, and examined with the greatest minuteness and detail. He did not know whether hon. Members would care to go into these cases. If they did he would try to answer them to the best of his ability. But he would point out that his ability was limited in the matter, and that for what belonged to the past he could not accept any responsibility. A second thing he wanted to say was this. The Report of the majority of the Committee in more than one place, and especially in its concluding paragraph, paid a tribute to the devotion to duty j and the ability of the officers and staff. He had not been long enough in office to speak with full authority on this point, but he could speak of the readiness to help and the ability of which he had been witness, and he felt pleasure in paying this tribute to a body of hard-working officials who thoroughly deserved it. He would now like to call attention to some points in the minority Report which asserted that the public interest had suffered by a lack of business-like methods.

  163
  In regard to this three serious cases were set out by Mr. Micks. The first related to the headmastership of the School of Art in Dublin. By the death of the headmaster a vacancy occurred some two years ago or more. For some reason or other that vacancy was allowed to extend over a period of two years. It was quite impossible that the school should not have suffered by the long vacancy. The vacancy was caused by the death of Mr. Willis— an extremely competent man. The defence of the Department for the delay was this. A Commission was appointed to consider the position of the Hibernian Academy and the Metropolitan School of Art. It sat for a considerable time, and like a good many Commissions planted on Irish soil within the last few years, it had produced two Reports, but it was not considered possible while it was sitting to appoint a headmaster. The view he took on coming into office was this. The Commission disagreed. Their Report had been printed, but no one had paid the slightest attention to it, and he did not see why he should maintain the vacancy an hour longer. He was extremely fortunate in getting an Irishman by birth to fill it. This gentleman had served his apprenticeship at this work in Belfast, and was well able to discharge the duties. He had accepted the position and would enter upon his duties very shortly. This disposed of the School of Art. The second question to which Mr. Micks devoted his attention was the now Veterinary College. Under the Act of 1899 £15,000 were allocated for the erection of a Veterinary College in Dublin and the Department was given discretion to add to that statutory grant. When he reached the Department the £15,000 had been paid with an addition of £5,000. The college had asked for £10,000 more, had asked for a considerable time, and there was a complaint of the delay caused by the Department. He was not going to enter into the question of the delay for which he was in no way responsible, but the fact was that he settled the matter by giving, not £10,000 but £5,000 and a balance of £1,640. That matter was now definitely closed. Thus the second case was settled. There was another matter about which there had been serious friction between the Department and the City Corporation
  164
  — he referred to the grant under the Act of some £50,000 to the city of Dublin for a technical school on the north side of the city. Long before he became Vice-President of the Department he took part in that controversy, and, whoever was to blame, the city had undoubtedly suffered for five or six years by being deprived of this school, and so far as he was concerned he was determined the city should not suffer a day longer than he could help. He knew that the Technical Education Committee of the Corporation had had quarrels about a site, but they now agreed, and, as representing the Department, he now said that that £50,000 was at the disposal of the corporation when it decided to proceed. The Department would take no further responsibility for delay. Another and still more serious matter was the relations of the Department to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. That was a burning question, and it bad given rise to great trouble in this House, in Ireland, and in the Department itself. He wanted to make a plain statement on that matter, and he wanted the attention of hon. Members below the gangway especially in regard to his personal attitude on the question. The Department — that was to say the late Vice-President, the Board of Agriculture, and the Council— had alike been parties to a subsidy— for the present year it amounted to £3,700 —to an outside body called the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. That society was founded before the Department came into being by Sir Horace Plunkett, whose work in this connection deserved grateful recognition, and claimed, indeed, to have been the pioneer and forerunner of the Department. The society existed mainly for the purpose of organising and developing agricultural co-operation, than which nothing could be more necessary not only in Ireland but elsewhere. He observed from the Bill now before one of the Standing Committees relating to small holdings in England that there was a great deal about co-operation. For some time, however, the grant to this society had been the cause of great division and friction in this House and in Ireland. Anyone who desired to know the history of this feud would find it admirably summarised in the minority Report, pages 54 to 66. [A laugh.] The hon. Member for

  165
  North Londonderry smiled, but he said it was an admirable summary of the controversy. The grant to this society was given after a full debate and a division in November, and it was made for one year. The Council would meet again in November next, and he presumed that the matter would then come up for consideration. Indeed it must do so, the grant being for one year only. Personally he held the same view as his predecessor in regard to the value of, and the necessity for, agricultural co-operation. He understood and fully appreciated the necessity in a country like Ireland, where they were literally engaged in the remaking of many things, of an active organising propaganda, and he was prepared to encourage such a policy; but when the real issue came to be covered, as in this case, by the proposition that the State should subsidise an outside organisation whose income had naturally shown a strong tendency to diminish just as the State subsidy increased, and which more or loss came to rely on the State crutch as the principal source of its income —when a condition of affairs like that arose, there was certainly something to be said. To meet that very point the arrangement made last year in acccordance with the resolution passed by the Council of Agriculture fixed the Department's subsidy on a pro rata basis, the Department's grant being given in a fixed proportion to the income obtained by the society from other sources. But, of course, if these co-operative societies were to become general trading bodies, as distinguished from purely agricultural societies, competing with ordinary traders in the country, and not only competing in agricultural implements, seeds, and things of that kind, but competing in general merchandise, then still further reasons might legitimately be required why public money should be voted to prosecute operations of that kind. He understood and approved of co-operation, or even the organisation of co-operation, but co-operation by means of a State subsidy was a wholly different thing, and must be considered on its own merits. He should make it his business to hear fully the arguments of the representatives of the Agricultural Organisation Society and others. He had received a deputation from the manufacturers and traders, and as this important question must be
  166
  considered at the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture, he would be prepared to state then the views he held and the policy that should in his judgment govern the Department in the matter. Now he came to the actual work of the Department in the West of Ireland. There was some difficulty about this matter. Some hon. Members had the idea that the Department was responsible for the distress that might arise in that part of the country, but he would point out to those who held that opinion that the Department was not responsible for the relief of any distress that might arise in the West. When the Act of 1899 was passed the Department was expressly precluded from spending its money in relief of distress in the congested districts or to do any work in those districts. A change in the law occurred in 1903 under the great Act passed by the right hon. Member for Dover in that year. That restriction was removed, and by arrangement the Department took over from the Congested Districts Board those duties in those districts so far as they related to agricultural education. But, unfortunately, when the right hon. Gentleman transferred these duties he transferred very little money with them. All the Department received from the Congested Districts Board for undertaking these duties was £2,000. They had spent, or proposed to spend, that year some £9,700, and instead of that sum they really wanted £30,000 for the work. At present they were obliged to take the £9,700 out of the reserve fund. But instead of £9,700, they urgently required £30,000; and both the Reports said that there was an urgent demand for a grant of something like that sum. It might be asked what they were doing inland.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked if the Minority Report did not ask for £8,000 for the Congested Districts Board and £30,000 in addition.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL:said he would come to that later on. It might be asked what work they were doing in the congested districts of the West of Ireland. Well, here was the Agenda Paper before the Agricultural Board in Dublin last week. They required for the agricultural overseers' salaries and expenses, £2,500; administrative expenses, £1,500; premiums on bulls, £1,830; cost

  167
  of allocating land, £600; maintenance, salaries, depreciation, and cost of improvements, £1,150; expenses of purchase, railway charges, etc., £250; contingencies, spraying potatoes, etc., £850. Take the question of the potato crop. A fortnight ago they were in despair. The season was the worst and most inclement since 1879, and so far as the prospects of the potato crop were concerned, the people in the West of Ireland were in despair. The rain came down day by day and the turf was floating about. Indeed, the state of affairs was very bad. But now the weather had changed; they had had something like a fortnight of exceedingly fine weather, and the effect of that was a change from possible disaster to something like comparative safety. He must confess that had the bad weather continued and distress ensued he would have rather dealt with anything than with such a calamity as that, and it was an absolute relief to him personally that at the present time there was a brighter outlook. They had done all that they possibly could in the way of inducing the people to spray the potatoes. Of course they could not send instructors to every field to do the work; but short of that they had provided every facility for spraying the potatoes, and brought the facilities to the doors of the people. They had authorised the County Committees to purchase sprayers and hire them out at 6d. a day. They had supplied them with the materials — sulphate of copper and washing soda— at cost price; they had published placards and leaflets; and had interested every man in a public position to bring his influence to bear on the people to spray their potato crop There were a large number of people who would not spray at all even when the benefit of it was thrust upon them, and there were some who could not afford to purchase machines but who were doing the work by primitive means. They had done their best. They had drawn from the agricultural colleges and agricultural schools every available man who had the necessary training and sent them to the West of Ireland; and he was happy to say that more spraying was done this year than ever had been before, and that there was every prospect of a great disaster being averted. There was one point which he would like to mention to the Committee. A great deal of money was wasted in administration. He hap-
  168
  pened to be an ex-officio member of the Congested Districts Board, and had done his best to attend its meetings, with the result that he should like to see something like co-ordination in this work and that of the other Departments. There was a great deal of overlapping. Let him give a sketch of what he would like to do. During his journey to the West the other day he visited eleven holdings which had been purchased and resold by the Estates Commissioners. They were sold to eleven sons of neighbouring tenant farmers. Personally he called that an excellent thing, although it did not relieve congestion in the ordinary way. If, however, those eleven stalwart men had been left on their fathers' farms they would all have been in America in a couple of years. They were now each on a thirty-acre farm; they would be married in a year or two, and, as one of them told him, they would get a bit with their wives, so that they would be able to stock their farms, and in a few years rising and prosperous families would be the result. That seemed to him a very excellent way to stop emigration. But let him point out that the Estates Commissioners planted these men down on their thirty acres of laud, but there was no provision for a house or for stock. Here the Department came in and opened an Agricultural Bank which would lend money to put stock on the land; but still when this was done houses and out-offices had to be built and provided. How was this to be done? He thought there was great deal of overlapping which might be avoided, and if the work could be done scientifically, money would be saved. He did not know whether the Members below the gangway realised it quite, though right hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench did, that every Department in Ireland was willing to take over all the work they could get hold of. He had had some experience of these matters at the Local Government Board, and what he wanted to secure was a scientific co-ordination of this work. He wanted to make an appeal to the Committee— not only to Irish Members— on this subject. This was a work which ought to be done. He was speaking, fortunately, that night in the presence of three right hon. Gentlemen who had held the office of Chief Secretary, and he was sure that they would admit that it was work which ought to be done. He

  169
  knew that he would have their sympathy when he said they ought not to be "cribbed, cabined and confined" to the use of a. few thousands from an Irish fund which they had no technical right to spend. He said that they ought to have a fund at their disposal which would enable them to set about the work in earnest and put the people on their feet by starting them in their holdings, which at present they could not stock and could not work. He thought that for this work they would require at least £30,000 per annum. He would not go fully into the question of income and expenditure now, but he might say that there was a general idea that with their income the Department had a gold mine in Merrion Street, and that they had money for anything and everything and were hoarding it up. When the Department was formed it was quite true that for the first two or three years they were not able to spend all their income; they required experience, and for a few years the fund accumulated to a large amount. To-day the endowment fund gave an income of £180,000 and Parliament voted £191,000. He had heard it said that this was an extraordinary amount of money for the Department to get, and he hoped the House would allow him to give some details of this £191,000 and how it was spent. The sum voted was spread over various science, art, and other institutions not strictly connected with but which were transferred to the Department. The Accumulated Fund in July, 1906, was £395,230; on 31st March, 1907, it amounted to £353,296, and of this £53,318 belonged to technical schools, and £42,040 was taken up by fixed charges. On 31st March, 1907, there was a clear Reserve Fund of £134,335, upon which all kinds of raids were attempted. It could easily be disposed of if the Department listened to all the applications made. There were people in Ireland insane on the subject of peat, and who had an idea that, with the expenditure of a little money and the use of their services, Ireland might be turned upside down and made a happy country for all time. A good deal of money had been sunk in the bogs of Ireland, and the Department had sunk some, but he would sink no money in an Irish bog until he could see further. All sorts of other proposals there had been— the
  170
  drainage of the Bann and Barrow districts, for instance —work that undoubtedly should be done, but he refused to give a penny from the Reserve Fund for such a purpose. These, like the distress in the West, were matters that should be dealt with by the State Treasury, and he claimed to keep a tight hold of the Reserve Fund for departmental purposes. If hon. Members would make suggestions as to how the £134,000 should be spent, he would be glad to hear them. There was an idea abroad that the Department ought to promo' e, subsidise, and even start new industries, but that the Department was forbidden to do by the Act of 1899.
  MR. CLANCY: Not as regards rural industries.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLagreed that as regarded rural industries they might, but as regarded other industries they might not. The policy might be right or wrong, and he expressed no opinion upon it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired whether the hon. Gentleman could not follow the precedent set by the President of the Board of Education.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he was not going to take any responsibility for things for which he was not responsible, and which could only be dealt with by way of legislation. He was not there to administer the Report of the Recess Committee, but to administer the Act of Parliament. He was there, not to administer the speeches of Members, but the Act of 1899, and under the Act the subsidising of all industries other than rural industries was forbidden. As the debate went on, the Committee would, no doubt, have a great deal of information from hon. Members representing Ireland, who knew what had been done, and who would suggest what should be done. He could only say he would listen attentively to the debate, and attempt to do what was right. He would say in conclusion that, quite apart from its being the work in which he was most interested, money spent in the West was well spent. He remembered when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition went there

  171
  twenty years ago. He and the right hon. Gentleman were political opponents now, but were not then, and he sympathised with what the right hon. Gentleman did then. They could not expect machinery like this to act all at once, but anybody who went to the West of Ireland twenty years ago and knew what it was like then, and saw it now could not fail to see the enormous change that had taken place, and was still going on. He wished to impress on the Committeee the necessity for spending money in the West of Ireland, and, of course, other parts as well, but principally in the West. The profit that England would gain by doing its duty there would be enormous. Money spent there was well spent, and he hoped the Committee would not allow machinery like this to stand idle for the sake of a few thousands of pounds.
  MR. HAYDENcongratulated the hon. Gentleman on the statement he had made, and the Committee upon having the chief officer of this administrative Department in the House to speak for it. The Department had been in existence for seven years, and the present was the first time they had been able to have a debate of this character. When the Department was created one point insisted upon was that the chief of the office should have a seat in the House of Commons. Circumstances arose which prevented that, and for seven years the Irish Party had been pressing the Government which brought the Department into existence to make some arrangement to enable the head of the Department to be in the House. The hon. Gentleman was there at last, and the Committee had had the advantage of hearing from him a most interesting speech. This subject had been selected by the Irish Members for discussion, because of the disastrous effects of the weather this year, and the possible effect of it on the harvest. They looked forward with the greatest anxiety to a possible failure of the harvest, and desired to press on the Government the necessity of taking steps as early as possible, to prevent a calamity. The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Department recognised the necessity of doing something, and had taken such steps as were thought within the power of the Department of a preventive character. The
  172
  hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Western problem. There was not a Member of the Nationalist Party who was not more or less interested in the problem, because while it was true it related particularly to Connaught and the Western counties, what was called the Connaught problem was applicable to the whole of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman as an illustration of the-urgency of this question had referred to a district in which a number of young men had been planted on a large holding, which had been divided among them, but which previously had provided support for no human being. One of these young men he knew personally, and some of them were making arrangements before this holding was divided to cross the Atlantic and join the millions in America. These men were now settled on the land, and the hon. Gentleman had said the work of the Commissioners was finished when they planted them there. He found now that the work of the Department commenced in assisting them. So far as assisting agriculturists planted on economic holdings was concerned, the Department should devote itself in a special manner to those portions of the country where the occupiers were the owners of their land. One of the reasons for the suspicion which existed with regard to this Department was that men who had long experience of agriculture in Ireland believed that its work would lead to the increase of the rent which landlords wrested from the tenants. But no such feeling of distrust and suspicion could arise in the case of occupiers who were the owners of their holdings. Such men had every incentive to industry, to develop the land, and in those cases there was a full, fair, and free field for the work of the Department. He, therefore, as a matter of policy, suggested that the Department should devote itself in a particular manner to every portion of the country where the occupiers had become the owners of the land, but more particularly to the eases of those persons who had got new holdings, where the untenanted land had been purchased and divided and new holdings created. It was felt in a most particular manner that it was obligatory on a Department such as this to follow up the work of planting the people on the land by using every possible means of education and assistance for cultivating the land in a

  173
  manner profitable to themselves and the community. Apart from the peculiar circumstances created by the condition of the crops during the present year as a reason for having this matter discussed, there was also the reason that the Report of the Committee of Inquiry had recently been issued. The Department had been in existence seven years, and when this Government came into office about a year and a half ago one of the first things they did was to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the Department. That Committee had investigated the subject fully— many thought too fully. There again the suspicions of Irishmen and their representatives were justified, because the inquiry was not called for by public opinion, and it was rushed to such an extent at the start that, before the assembling of Parliament, or before the matter could be ventilated in the House, it was believed that there was an ulterior object in instituting the investigations. One effect it had was to leave the Department without a representative in that House for a year and a half, and some people thought that that had something to do with the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry and also with its prolongation. At the time the inquiry began the Department had been scarcely six years in existence. Two Reports had resulted — the Majority and Minority Reports. The Minority Report also justified the feeling which existed, that the Committee was intended to be one of a whitewashing character. As the hon. Gentleman had remarked it was one which showed that very considerable industry and ingenuity had been used in its production. It was the one Report which was of real interest in connection with a debate of this kind, and for all practical purposes, except as a matter of duty, it would scarcely be necessary to refer at all to the Majority Report. Indeed, it was noteworthy that the hon. Gentleman himself had referred solely to the Minority Report, which contained a very interesting summary of Irish history so far as related to the economic condition of the country. The late Vice-President of the Department issued a work on the same subject, not in the form of a Blue book, as this was, and both he and Mr. Micks traced the reasons for the uneconomic condition of Ireland. The late Vice-President attributed many of the evils in Ireland to causes inherent in the Irish people which could not be
  174
  dealt with or cured. He attributed it to the religion of the majority of the Irish people, to the existence of priests in the country, and to the fact that they spent too much money in building churches. The form of thought in Ireland, according to this philosopher and economist, might have been suitable for Eastern countries a couple of thousand years ago, but was not suitable for Western lands in the twentieth century. The late Vice President also thought the evil of Ireland arose from the fact that the Irish people rather looked to the hereafter to than the present. Mr. Micks, on the other hand, in the minority Report, also proceeded to trace the reason for the present state of Ireland, and he had found the real reason. It was not the particular form of religion or religious thought which accounted for the condition of that country, but, in the opinion of Mr. Micks, the true reason was to be found in the Statute-book of this country. Mr. Micks showed that hundreds of years ago, and down to very modern days, there were industries upon an extensive scale in Ireland, and the people of the country were prosperous. But the people of this country, wishing to raise themselves into a position of prosperity and preponderance in the industrial world, by Act of Parliament passed at the instance of manufacturers of this country suppressed the industries of Ireland, and suppressed them with as little compunction as in these days they suppressed the right of public duty and free speech. Sometimes, when they said that Irish industries had been suppressed by Act of Parliament, Englishmen replied that it could not be the fact. He would recommend Members carefully to read the Report, as was their duty, since they undertook the responsibility of governing Ireland, and they would then find the causes of the uneconomic state of things which existed in Ireland. Many Members perhaps regarded the Report merely as a Blue-book, but sometimes there were to be found within the pages of a Blue-book matters of very great interest, and no more tragic story could be found in the books of the libraries of this great city than was contained in the pages of the Blue-book signed by Mr. Micks. Who was Mr. Micks? He had asked several of his colleagues whether he was an Irishman, and for his own part he did not know whether he was or not, and he

  175
  had not come across anyone who could tell him whether he was an Irishman or an Englishman. This much they did know, that all the years of his manhood he had been an official of the English Government in Ireland. His politics were unknown to any of the Irish Members, and they took his work absolutely for what it was and upon its merits. Mr. Micks spoke with regard to Ireland not as a strong and extreme Irish Nationalist politician but as a Government official of long experience of various portions of Irish administration. He had been an inspector of the Local Government Board, in which capacity he travelled a good deal over Ireland. He had been secretary to the Congested Districts Board, in which capacity he was brought into contact with what the hon. Gentleman had truly described as one of the most interesting and important problems connected with the life of Ireland or of any other country. For some years he had been a member of the Local Government Board, which, as most hon. Members knew, was a completely unrepresentative, irresponsible, and autocratic body who largely ruled the country. It was this man, not a demagogue, not an agitator, who had traced back the uneconomic condition of Ireland to its real cause, and that was the hostile legislation of England in, not discouraging, but suppressing by law and making illegal the woollen industry and industries of that character which existed in Ireland. They were sometimes asked why was a portion of the North of Ireland more prosperous than the rest of Ireland. The one industry which existed in the North of Ireland in those days when Acts of Parliament were passed to suppress industry was the linen industry. There was no rival to the linen industry in England, and therefore the linen industry in the North of Ireland was not suppressed, but was encouraged and subsidised. Of the industries of the other portions of Ireland, the principal was the woollen industry. In the Blue-book they found that the manufacturers of Bradford and elsewhere, jealous of the growth of those industries, petitioned the Sovereign to get his Parliament to enact laws to suppress those industries in Ireland which came into competition with the industries of this country. It was remarkable that these Acts of Parliament which dealt with the industries of foreign countries enacted
  176
  that for the purposes of those laws Ireland was to be regarded as a foreign country. It was the duty of every British Member who had assumed, and continued to assume, the responsibility for the government of Ireland to study documents of this character and take action upon them. There were many matters connected with the Department dealt with in that Report, but there was one remarkable fact or idea running largely through it which for years had been in the minds of hon. Members in that part of the House, and it was that the Department dealt largely in theory and very little in practice. It was true that by law it was prohibited from entering into the industrial domain in towns. His opinion was that it could do a great deal in practice as well as in theory under the present state of the law. The hon. Member for North Dublin had said it was not forbidden in connection with rural industries, but there was in the evidence of Sir Horace Plunkect a statement that the conception of duty which existed in the minds of the Department and its officials was that it was entirely advisory and educational, and could assist so far as advice was concerned but not otherwise. This Department had been the means of spending something approaching £450,000 a year. That was a large sum, and naturally they had been looking for some results. They had allowed this Department considerable time to show some results, and even in seven years of educational work some results ought to be apparent. In his opinion no results were apparent, and the country certainly had not got value for the money spent. The Irish people were sometimes charged by Englishmen with being a sentimental race, and sometimes with being of a rather material character. An instance of that might be found in the Irish Council Bill, when the general opinion was that the Irish people would be willing to swallow that measure on account of the money attached to it. The rejection of that measure showed that when dealing with hard facts they were as ready to face them as hard-headed Englishmen or Scotsmen. Here was nearly £500,000 of their own money being spent every year, and he wished to know if the hon. Member or his officials could show any real value for it. The answer would probably be that there had been an

  177
  improvement in the breed of cattle, horses and poultry, but he would like to have some facts and figures as to that improvement. A great deal of money had been spent upon officials, of which there was a huge army connected with the Department. Some years ago a Return of those officials was published, and he would like to ask that that Return might be brought up to date. When that Return was issued on the last occasion it was quite a revelation to many of them to find what a vast army of officials existed, and he understood that the number had been largely increased since. He urged the Chief Secretary to give an order for the issue of that return up to date as a Parliamentary Paper. Mr. Micks, in his Report, referred to some questions of great importance, and one of them was winter dairying. With that there was connected another question of great importance to every part of Ireland, which bore upon the subject of emigration. Tillage on a much larger scale must take place, and that would involve a great deal of employment. One of the most important agricultural industries undoubtedly was the butter industry. In past years Ireland held a high place in the butter markets of this and other countries, and it was recognised that in order to hold the market they must be able to supply butter all the year round. Their supply in Ireland was very largely a summer supply. They had now been brought into competition with Denmark, where they were able to hold the market because they gave an all the year round supply. This question had engaged the attention of the Department, which had consulted, debated, advised, and resolved, but had not acted. Everybody connected with the Department recognised the advantage, if not the necessity, of winter dairying. The matter was brought before the Agricultural Council in April, 1904, and a resolution was unanimously passed in favour of winter dairying, and urging the Department to take immediate action. For over two years there was nothing to show that this matter had been discussed by the Department or by the Board of Agriculture. This Committee of Inquiry came into existence, and evidence relating to the necessity of winter dairying was given by a Limerick merchant. Then for the first time the matter was brought by the Department before the Agricultural
  178
  Board. Since then nothing had been done, although they had had pious expressions of opinion in favour of winter dairying. He thought £450,000 a year was a little expensive for the expression of pious opinions. The Agricultural Council was simply a debating society, and had no power to act. He thought this was a matter which ought to be taken into serious consideration by the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLwas understood to say that he had brought this question before a meeting of the Agricultural Board, and that the question was not being lost sight of.
  MR. HAYDENsaid that was a most satisfactory statement. That in itself was a proof of the necessity of having the Department represented in the House. Under the circumstances he thought he need not further urge the subject. As to the question of transit, he thought it would be hard to find a matter of greater national importance to all parts of Ireland. What was the Department doing in connection with that subject? The Act of 1899 conferred upon the Department certain powers of a limited character, but such as they were they had never been used. The Department had failed up to the present to realise the vast importance of the subject. The railway charges in Ireland had hindered the development of industries, and certainly they had prevented the creation of many. The Department was divided into several sections, but there was no section specially charged with the supervision of matters relating to transit. The transit question was treated in a sub-department of the veterinary Department. Men who were called veterinary inspectors were sent out to fairs in the country, but in most cases they knew absolutely nothing of veterinary science; while cattle were being loaded they stood on the railway banks to see that the boxes were clean. That was very important work, but it was not work for which a veterinary inspector should get £350 or £400 a year. In his opinion it was work which could be done by a good class of labouring men at £1 a week. He admitted that, though the veterinary inspectors knew little about veterinary work, they knew something about railway work. As showing the red

  179
  tape character of the Department he said that the inspectors' reports had to go through several channels before they reached the Vice-President. He suggested that the Vice-President should consider whether or not all officials, even those holding minor posts, should be brought into immediate contact with himself. It was a matter of satisfaction that a representative of the Agricultural Department in this House could now he asked for information at first hand by the representatives of the country on such a question as the subsidy to the Agricultural Organisation Society. He had no doubt that this debate would have a beneficial effect on all concerned in the agricultural development of Ireland.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid the Report of the Departmental Committee had been looked forward to with exceptional interest. It had now appeared, and included a Majority Report signed by four members of that Committee, and a Minority Report signed by Mr. Micks alone. The evidence, indeed, had not yet been issued; that they must regard as the habitual method of the Government in such inquiries. But the Report as it stood shed great light on subjects on which light was most needed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Roscommon declared that the Committee was appointed merely in order to bring out a "whitewashing" Report, and that the majority had now discharged this duty. The names of the gentlemen who formed the Committee were a sufficient answer to the suggestion that they could lend themselves to such a service. The Department of Agriculture in Ireland had been vehemently attacked in certain quarters. It came into collision with two sets of persons—on the one hand with representatives of trade interests, who were hostile to the cooperative movement; on the other hand with Nationalist politicians. In the course of the inquiry, which was publicly held, one of the interesting facts which had come out was that in all parts of Ireland the weight of public opinion had been east in favour of the Department. The Report of the Committee endorsed and fortified that favourable opinion. He would rapidly run over some of the points in the Report. First, the conclusions reached as to the constitution of the Department and scope of its
  180
  powers testified to the sound and far-sighted judgment of Mr. Gerald Balfour, who set it up. Only slight modifications were here recommended. Next, a remarkable tribute was paid to the work done by the Department in the last seven years. The magnitude of the task was sometimes forgotten; it was nothing less than to build up from the foundations the whole system of agricultural and technical instruction. The results achieved were striking; but, still more important, the methods pursued were pronounced to be the right methods, and special praise was given to the elasticity and variety of method which had marked the Department's policy. Some mistakes had admittedly been made, but these did not detract from the main conclusion, that the Department was working on true lines of development and progress. Moreover, not only was the central work of the Department approved, but the Report bore witness to the harmonious relations between the offices in Dublin and the local Committees of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. This deserved to be emphasised, because the hope of the future lay largely in enlisting local interest and effort. One word, too, as regards the staff. Sir Horace Plunkett had been sharply criticised for importing aliens from England or Scotland in order to act as expert advisers of the Board. But most Irishmen were now agreed that he had done rightly in bringing in the best men, wherever they were to be found. These experts from outside were each year turning out a large and well-trained body of Irish men and Irish women to carry on the work of education. The whole staff of the Department were spoken of by the Committee in these terms of striking recognition—
  "In point of zeal, devotion to duty, and practical good sense and ability, the staff of the Department, so far as we have had an opportunity of forming a judgment, is entitled to a high place in the records of the Civil Service."
  The Majority Report of the Committee was surely a final and authoritative answer to the carping criticism levelled against the Department for several years past. The hon. Member for East Mayo had spoken in the House not long ago of—
  "the comparative failure of the work of the Department, which had been in a large

  181
  measure due to the personality of Sir Horace Plunkett;"
  and he added—
  "that the amount of practical work which the Department had to show for this vast expenditure was positively ludicrous."
  Similarly the hon. Member for North Camberwell had declared that—
  "the Department had spent nearly £200,000 a year and its whole function had been to teach hens how they ought to lay eggs !"
  They could have no better illustration of the unfair manner and mind with which some hon. Members approached this question; but such irresponsible talk was no longer possible.
  There was one point of special interest on which the two Reports were in agreement; it related to the position of the Vice-President of the Department. The Majority Report recommended that the Vice-President of the Department should henceforth hold a non-Parliamentary office; experience had shown that his proper place was in Ireland rather than at Westminster. In the Minority Report there appeared to be no dissent from that view. Here he could not help reminding the Committee of a, statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in April last. The right hon. Gentleman then said that—
  "the position was intended by Parliament to be, and in fact is, a Ministerial and Parliamentary Office. … It is the fixed intention of the Prime Minister that the office should be a Ministerial Office. … From that view and that intention we do not intend in any way to depart."
  But not many weeks afterwards the Irish Council Bill was introduced and it was there provided that the post should no longer be a Parliamentary one. So rapid was his conversion when once Sir Horace Plunkett had been got rid of! What was the upshot of it all? The late Vice-President had been dismissed from office for having committed the sin —the unforgiveable sin in the eyes of some Nationalist politicians—of having diverted the minds of the people from politics to industry. He had been re-placed by an hon. Gentleman who had played many political roles, but had never deviated from party politics on the one side or the other. This was all that had been gained by yielding to the envenomed attacks made on Sir Horace Plunkett.
  But to pass to the two alternative policies which the two Reports repre-
  182
  sented. The policy supported by the majority of the Committee was the policy of the Department, namely, that technical and agricultural education in its largest sense was the main agency on which they must rely for calling forth self-reliance and personal initiative, and so leading to the promotion of industries. The other alternative, represented by the Report of Mr. Micks, was to take certain short cuts to prosperity by the direct subsidy of industries. The policy of the Department had been to train skilled workers in schools and in workshops and also to provide expert advisers in the preliminary stages of industrial development. They believed that given well-trained workers with industrial aptitudes, capital would be attracted into various localities. It was true there were certain marginal cases in which it was not easy to say whether State aid for technical instruction did not pass into State aid for a given industry. Educational work on its practical side might sometimes be of a definitely trade character. No unvarying rule could be laid down. The Department had sought to judge the cases each on its own merits. Now and then they had in the opinion of the Committee exceeded their powers by financing such an industry as the Kilkenny Woollen Mills; but this was contrary to their usual practice, which was not even indirectly to aid any enterprise so as to bring it into rivalry with existing trades. The Vice-President referred to that part of Mr. Micks' Report in which he condemned the Department for granting a subsidy to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. But in so doing the Department had not subsidised a trade concern, but had merely given money for the teaching of the principles of agricultural co-operation.
  Yet Mr. Micks, who held this strict view about the use of public funds in a particular instance, propounded a vast scheme for creating and fostering State-aided industries. A million of money a year for twenty years from the Imperial Exchequer should go to Ireland for this purpose. The State was to start industries and build factories. No more unwise or dangerous policy could be proposed. If the subsidised industry failed, the public money spent on it would be wasted, and if it succeeded, there would be an outcry from

  183
  all the unaided industries, and trade jealousies in England and Ireland would be aroused. England did indeed owe reparation to Ireland. She owed her large amends for the past. How could she repay the debt? Englishmen had shown that they desired to make all reasonable amends. The simplest way, no doubt, was for them to put their hands in their pockets and ladle out money—the simplest way, but also the worst. It was not unnatural for people in Ireland to say, "England has ruined our industries; let her repair the injury; let English gold flow in and give us salaried employment." But surely that method was the wrong one. England could make lasting restitution in one way only—by encouraging self-help, self-reliance, and the habit of industry. This itself meant money, but money was not the main necessity. What was needed was that Ireland should be put in possession of all the intellectual instruments by which she might revive old industries or create new ones. Let her receive the best industrial education, the most skilled advice that experts could furnish. Let no form of scientific experiment be grudged her. But no more fatal kindness could be done her than to give direct subsidies to set. up ready-made industries. Instead of restoring industries it would merely paralyse the industrial spirit. Above all was this true in a country with a past like that of Ireland, where it had become only too habitual to look to the State for everything. That policy of doles was a policy of pauperisation. It was bad enough to have killed Irish industries in the past by selfish greed; still worse would it be, with mistaken good intentions, to kill out the newly-born spirit which Sir Horace Plunkett and his Department have fostered—the spirits of self-reliance, self-respect, and self-help.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that listening to the hon. Member they must come to the conclusion that he was not so much a statesman as a University don addressing University students. The more they heard of him the less they liked him. He wished to protest against one or two expressions which the hon. Gentleman used which involved a gross misrepresentation of the facts of the present situation.
  184
  The hon. Member had spoken of the policy of Sir Horace Plunkett having had the effect of developing the will power and helping the self-respect of the Irish people. The Irish people had far more self-respect than England had been able to destroy, and if she had not more to-day it was due to the system of Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was so enamoured. The hon. Member spoke of doles having been made to Ireland by this Parliament.
  MR. BUTCHER: I did not say anything about this Parliament.
  MR. CLANCYsaid the hon. Member had referred to doles, and if he did not refer to this Parliament he referred to other Parliaments. He denied that the British Parliament had ever given doles to Ireland. Doles implied something given out of the funds of England, and through the generosity of England, to which Ireland had no right. From the Act of Union down to the present time Ireland had not obtained anything of the sort, and every penny she had obtained was money of her own; and not only that, England fraudulently retained from Ireland millions more to which she had no title. It was a strange thing to hear such statement seven from an Anglicised Irishman, when the late leader of the Unionist Party, Colonel Saunderson, and the majority of that Party and MR. Lecky repeatedly endorsed the view which he had expressed. It was an insult to the Irish people to have such statements launched at them as were made by the learned professor to whom they had just listened. He resented the often repeated statement, that there was local government in the Department, and that the expenditure was in the hands of the Agricultural Board. The truth was that there could be no expenditure without the approval and consent of the head of the Department. If he did not agree with an estimate the money went back to the reserve fund. The Board had no real authority at all in the matter of expenditure, and it was humbug to talk of their having it. They were always treated once or twice a year to a grand discussion which was fully reported in the papers at the meetings of the Agricultural Councils, but in: those Agricultural Councils, which might be attended with useful results, there had been a procedure which he hoped the

  185
  present head of the Department would not continue. As he had said, these meetings might be useful if members of the body were allowed to discuss matters fully. But, first of all, they had a long address from the President, Sir Horace Plunkett, which he had previously prepared at the expense of the Department, and then instead of allowing the Councils to discuss the subjects mentioned in that address, what did the President do but put up one of his underlings, whom he had previously inspired, to read a paper on an abstract subject, such as tillage versus grazing, upon which discussion was invited, but the really useful matters were scarcely touched upon, and there was no time in which to discuss them. The fact was that the Agricultural Department had become an annexe of Dublin Castle, and ought in its present position to be wiped out. One would imagine that local committees like that of County Dublin would be able to discharge their own business without the assistance of these great and mighty authorities set up in this Agricultural Department and overlooking the whole sphere of agriculture. Such committees were not, however, allowed to decide upon such matters as the salary of their own secretary, and the whole idea of the Department entertained by the hon. Gentleman seemed to be absolutely wrong. The main ideas of the Department appeared to be co-ordination and education. After they had co-ordinated, however, they would not obtain the object of the organisation. The first idea seemed to be that they should have a complete staff in every Department with telephones in every room, complete command of the telegraph and means of instructing their subordinates, and then gather back the network into one organisation. That seemed to be the end and aim of the whole organisation as far as he could gather, but at present so long as they had inspectors appointed to go round and report on something which they did not understand the effect was futile. He did not accuse Sir Horace Plunkett or anybody else of insincerity, but the fact seemed to be lost sight of that the real object of the Board should be to provide employment for the people. They might do it directly or they might do it indirectly, and the Act allowed subsidising of rural industries. What was the use of Irish technical education and nothing
  186
  else? He was in favour of education, but the result of the technical education now given was that those who received it left the country because they could not find employment. When they had educated the people they had no work for them to do, and they took their technical knowledge to America and elsewhere. It was said that they wanted education and coordination, and no doubt they did, but above all the one thing that was necessary was to provide employment in the country, and the Chief Secretary ought to be very careful indeed how he employed this £30,000. Let him point out at the same time that it would not do to be merely educating and spending money on education. The hon. Gentleman said he was not allowed to do anything more in the region of technical instruction, because that was the law. If that was the case, then the sooner the law was altered the better. But apart from that, it was a fact that the law did not extend to the region of agricultural and rural industries, and what he wanted to know was, would the hon. Gentleman inquire why there was not more solid work done in that region in the way of creating, and, if necessary, subsidising industries? He agreed that the hon. Gentleman ought to be very careful not to compete with existing industries. That ought not to be done. It had, however, been done by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, which had most audaciously attempted to become the rival of certain branches of trade in the country. But apart altogether from those doubtful experiments and inexpedient devices, there was room for good, solid real work, not merely by education, in helping the agricultural community in Ireland to save itself. He thought the hon. Gentleman would probably do more to recommend his administration to the good will of the Irish people if he changed the system inaugurated by Sir Horace Plunkett, and devoted more money and time to creating industries, where ho was allowed by law to create them, provided he did so within proper limits, and less and less time in training people for foreign countries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that, though an English Member, he was not debarred from taking some part in this debate. He had the deepest interest in those economic

  187
  questions connected with Ireland which were, or ought to be, primarily the subject of discussion on an occasion like the present. He frankly doubted, interesting as was the statement of the hon. Member in charge of the Department, whether the debate, so far, had shown very clearly either what was the policy of the Government or what hon. Members below the gangway believed should be the Government policy. Some time had been devoted, and devoted very ill, to criticising Sir Horace Plunkett. He did not mean by that the hon. Gentleman had done anything in that direction to which he raised the smallest objection. [AN HON. MEMBER: We did not first introduce his name.] It was quite true that his hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University had first mentioned the name of Sir Horace Plunkett, but if all the references to that gentleman had been in the tone and temper of the observations of his hon. friend he certainly should not complain of the tone of that criticism. He thought himself that most scant justice had been done by Irishmen to the work of an Irishman, undertaken undoubtedly in the most unselfish spirit, carried through with the most persistent energy, and directed, at all events, by a perfectly clear idea of the ends to be attained and the means of attaining them, through many years of consistent work. The policy which Sir Horace Plunkett and the Board of which he was so long the distinguished head endeavoured to carry through was a policy of education, which should direct the energy of the Irish agriculturist in channels through which a wider experience than was open to the ordinary Irish farmers and agriculturists, as shown in other countries, could bring great wealth to an energetic and instructed population. No one would deny that Sir Horace Plunkett had striven consistently to carry out that aim. This policy had undoubtedly been successful in other countries, not only prosperous industrial communities, but actual rivals of Ireland in the markets of Great Britain and Ireland in the very products with which Ireland ought to establish her position. That plain and undoubted fact was borne on the face of the majority Report which had been referred to. How anyone could lay down that education in that sense was not a most hopeful way of increasing agricultural wealth and prosperity in
  188
  Ireland passed his comprehension. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House was indignant with his hon. friend the Member for Cambridge University because he advanced the proposition, surely not a dangerous one, that it was better for the ultimate interests of Irish agriculture that they should be promoted by a system of education largely conceived than by a system of doles. The hon. and learned Gentleman had immediately got up and said that it was a monstrous suggestion; there never had been such a thing as a dole by England to Ireland, because England had always owed Ireland a great deal more money than she had paid to her, and, therefore, though the British Chancellor of the Exchequer might open his purse strings, England would never be able to liquidate the debt which had been for centuries accumulating. In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman, objecting to the word doles, dragged, quite gratuitously, into a debate on Irish agriculture the vexed question of the financial relations between England and Ireland. His hon. friend clearly was not referring to doles from England to Ireland, but to grants of public money generally. His point was that they would not improve the economic condition of Ireland by doles of public money. He wished to know whether the Government differed from him, and whether they agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman below the gangway.
  AN HON. MEMBER: We do not ask for doles.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he would drop the word "doles," and use the word "subventions," which meant the same thing, though it was a longer and less injurious phrase which he would use for the remainder of his argument. The Government had not given as clear a lead upon this subject as he should have liked to have from gentlemen of well-known economic views. 'The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Department had tried to give the go-by to the question by saying that, whatever his own views or those of his colleagues or a Committee might be, it did not come before this Committee of Supply, because the Department under discussion was specifically forbidden, by the Act establishing it, from giving a subvention

  189
  in aid of industries other than those strictly agricultural. That was an ingenious way, and might, a few weeks ago, have been a valid way of getting out of the difficulty. It was clearly not valid now that a new principle and practice had been established. It was well known that the Government were going to give this year £100,000 of Irish as well as of English and Scottish money, directly in the teeth of an Act of Parliament, for the purpose of carrying out an object, good or bad, in connection with education in England. A Government which would do that in connection with the education fund for England were clearly not precluded from giving what they pleased in Committee of Supply in subvention of any industry in Ireland or elsewhere. The legal barricade which the hon. Gentleman sought would have been an admirable protection a month ago, but it had been blown up and ruined by his right hon. friend the Minister for Education. When he heard part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he sheltered himself behind this he ventured to make a small interruption indicating the argument which he was now respectfully developing. What said the hon. Gentleman? The hon. Gentleman said the Government was in watertight compartments. How were they to deal with a Government in watertight compartments? What arguments could be addressed to a member of a Government who said, "I agree these are the opinions of a colleague of mine, but in my watertight compartment we have a different principle"? It was perplexing to find consciences so different as those of the Vice-President and the Minister for Education. The one said that in his Department they broke the law, but the other was more scrupulous in his watertight compartment, and was obliged to toll hon. Members below the gangway that it was not even necessary for him to discuss a question they raised, because the law, which was so easily overcome by his right hon. friend, prevented him. He hoped the Chief Secretary would mediate between his two colleagues and tell the Committee in which watertight compartment he found himself, so that it might be known whether he would follow the policy of strict legality favoured by his Irish colleague or the looser principles and the happier and easier methods of the
  190
  Minister for Education. He was not merely attempting to gain a Parliamentary score. His point was really an important one, because if the legal difficulty raised did not exist, as he had shown it did not, the hon. Gentleman was bound to answer the question, did he, or did he not, think that the policy of giving subventions to industries in Ireland was the way to repair the wrongs which 130 years ago, or earlier, England did to Ireland. He had never attempted to minimise those wrongs, though he was bound to say that the interesting historical preface of Mr. Micks put only one side of the question. Whether Ireland would have been happier had she been separated from England, she would certainly have suffered almost as much from the jealous commercial policy which was in favour in every civilised country.
  MR. FLYNN: It was done by statute, not by competition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was for that reason that he did not lay down the proposition unreservedly. There were some statutory iniquities, but he thought the chief operative cause of the injury to Ireland was the policy of commercial jealousy universally prevalent at the time. He did not think anybody could fairly understand the relations between England and Ireland unless they studied the relations between England and Scotland. A great many of the phenomena complained of in Ireland appeared before the Union and after in the connection between England and Scotland, and the reason why it was useful to study the question in reference to Scotland was that in Scotland there were none of those religious differences which were such a horrible addition to the inherent difficulties of the situation. It was possible that after the Union Ireland might have suffered by being joined to a free trade country like England when she might have liked protection herself. Many Irishmen took that view and Mr. Micks took it, but he did not know whether that was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite. At all events Ireland had not suffered since the Union from any deliberate fiscal injury like those of which she justly complained before the Union. He greatly doubted himself whether, Ireland having had the same advantages, broadly speaking, as any other part of the kingdom for 107

  191
  years, they could attribute so much weight as Mr. Micks attributed to the iniquitous policy which came to an end in 1800. How many countries had developed great industrial prosperity, not in 100 years but in a couple of generations? He thought it was folly to say that there had been anything in the condition of Ireland to make it impossible for her to have done the same; indeed, it had been done in Belfast, and he never could see why that which had been done in Belfast could not be done elsewhere. He did not himself believe that the difficulties from which Ireland had suffered could be attributed simply to the fact that she was an island without coal or iron, and that she was subjected to oppressive fiscal legislation 130 years ago. Did this free trade Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented England think with hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that it was by the subvention of industries that Ireland was to be made prosperous? When they proposed to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas, was that one of the ideas which they proposed to employ? He thought they had a right to know from the Government and the Chief Secretary whether it was so or not. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "What is your idea?"] His own idea was that Sir Horace Plunkett was probably right when he said that the way to deal with Irish agriculture, at all events in the South and West, was the way in which Danish agriculture had been dealt with—the means by which Denmark was made. for its size, almost the most prosperous community in Europe, a process which was in the main due to education.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: Then you are against subventions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly do not see any plan of subventions to aid industries on a large scale.
  MR. CLANCY: The Act of 1899 authorises subvention in the case. of agricultural and rural industries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that that was perfectly true. He thought it was probably right to draw the words of the Act so that the Board of Agriculture might have the freest hand in dealing with these industries, and he supposed
  192
  providing proper sires was a form of subvention. If he were asked whether they could really turn Ireland from an agricultural community into a manufacturing community, and do that healthily and successfully by means of subventions, he would say that he regarded it as a chimerical project. He asked either the hon. Gentleman who had already spoken or the Chief Secretary to give the Committee a perfectly clear lead as to the intentions of the Government upon what was the only question that interested them for the future— namely, the policy of the Agricultural Board, not as it had been since its establishment, but as it was to be under the new régime.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for the City of London commenced by stating that he had not indicated clearly any alternative policy. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that he went to the Department to upset Sir Horace Plunkett'* policy? What reason had ho in anything the Government had said or done to imagine anything of the kind? He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what he had in his mind in regard to policy. He had never been among those who had undervalued the work of Sir Horace Plunkett. The policy of Sir Horace was assailed only once in this House, and he spoke in favour of it, and voted for it, and lost no opportunity of expressing his opinion regarding it. Sir Horace Plunkett's work was an admirable beginning. The Department he established was essentially a great Department, and they were bound to speak of him well for what he had done. He had not become Vice-President for the purpose of upsetting the policy pursued by the Department. His duty was to extend and consolidate its work wherever he found it to be on proper lines, and to amend it where it was not. For example, the poultry scheme had been sneered at by some people, but the difference between the export of eggs from Ireland in 1905 and in 1906 amounted to £355,000. That was not a small matter for a country like Ireland, and it was due to the work of the Department. The breed of poultry had enormously improved, and in a country like Ireland that was a great matter for the small farmer. The Department was now

  193
  engaged in collecting figures of imports and exports for Ireland. Nothing of the kind had been done before, but he rejoiced that it had been done, and as they were official figures they would carry weight. He had mentioned the poultry scheme in order to show that the Department did help the small farmer. Complaint had been made that the work of the Department was principally educational. He would speak perfectly frankly on the question of technical education. When this Department was started would anyone deny that technical education had practically no existence in Ireland? Surely his hon. friends could not complain of a Department that had done its best with insufficient funds to develop technical education. Let them not run right in the face of facts and knock their heads against a stone wall. In technical education the work done had been invaluable. In many towns technical institutes were to be found springing up. The Department had given an incentive to all these where they had not contributed and they had contributed to many. That work was necessary if the people of Ireland were to hold their own in the battle of life. The agricultural schemes were educational to a certain extent. He instanced the question of horse breeding. There was not much chance of getting unanimity on that subject. At all events he could say that an enormous improvement had taken place in the breed of horses in the last seven or eight years. He could give an example of that. He went to county Mayo the other day and the motor startled every horse they met. He was there twenty years age and then it would have taken an earthquake to startle a single horse. What was true of horses was true of all kinds of cattle. The breed of cattle had enormously improved, and that was due to the Department in supplying sires. All that was absolutely necessary. They had been told that Denmark was Ireland's great competitor in butter, but Denmark owed everything to education.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: And free government.
  *Mr. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that he did not know about the government, but he had studied the question of education, and he ventured to say that the position of Denmark was very largely the result
  194
  of the education given by the State in agricultural matters.
  MR. KILBRIDE: In colleges and not by itinerant instructors.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was perfectly fair to ask whether itinerant teaching had not been carried too far and whether the education ought not to be given in colleges and schools, but what he said was that this education had been necessary in the past, but it did not follow that that itinerant teaching would be necessary on the same scale as during the past year or two. But education they must have if the agricultural industry was to be a success. He had been twitted because he had not given a very clear explanation of the views of the Department with regard to the question of subsidising industries. The right hon. Member for the City of London wanted to know if he (Mr. Russell) was content to stand behind the legal barricade of the Act of 1899. What would the right hon. Gentleman like him to do? Would he like him to break the law? The Act of 1899 forbade-him to subsidise industries other than rural industries. Mr. Micks wanted a million a year for an indefinite period outside the control of Parliament. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman if he was in favour of Mr. Mick's scheme.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he should like to ask whether, if a clause in an Act of Parliament prevented the Government from voting a certain sum of money, they ought not to stick consistently to that. If they did not think that the clause prevented them they ought not to quote the Act of Parliament as forbidding them.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the Act of Parliament forbade the Department to expend money upon the subsidising of industries other than rural industries. He intended to obey that Act of Parliament until it was altered. [IRONICAL CRIES OF "OH!"] Well, he had never yet broken an Act of Parliament, so far as he was aware. [A Member on the OPPOSITION BENCHES: McKenna would not.] He was in favour of getting every farthing from England for Ireland that he could get. And in getting it he did not think that Ireland was getting any favour at all. He

  195
  held the same opinion as to the question of the financial relations between Eng land and Ireland that was held by the majority of the Irish people and by the Royal Commission. In view of England's past and the way she had strangled Irish manufactures, Ireland had a moral claim upon her. The right hon. Gentle man thought that England had always been right since the Union. The Royal Commission did not think so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not refer to the financial relations between England and Ireland. On that point he knew they held views different from those of the hon. Gentleman. What he referred to was the fiscal relations.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that he was a free trader himself and he was not in favour of interference with industries. But at the present moment they were engaged in Ireland in more ways than one in absolutely remaking many things. Everything had been thrown down. Everything had been neglected, and now their task was slowly and painfully to re-build it. There had been free traders— notably Mr. John Stuart Mill —who had considered that bounties under certain circumstances were permissible. He personally was a free trader, pure and simple, and he could only say that when-ever he got a chance within the Act of Parliament of assisting rural industries, he would avail himself of it, even at the expense of education. He hoped he should take nothing away from educational funds that was necessary. It was to be remembered that when the Congested Districts Board was established in 1891—the right hon. Gentleman was a free trader then—he gave the Board absolute power to promote and subsidise industries in the West of Ireland. As he had only been two months in office he could not be expected to marshal all facts, but at present there were 320 young men and women in Ireland going all over the country engaged in teaching the people. If there were any abuses they should be corrected. He was grateful to the hon. Gentlemen below the gangway for the fairness with which they had treated him. In this work he would be glad of the assistance of hon. Members, and he would not be deterred from his work
  196
  because some hon. Members might see him walking through the lobby with Nationalist Members. After all, the Nationalists were the representatives of the great majority of the people, and he would be most glad of their counsel. He had undertaken a great work under very peculiar circumstances, and whatever happened he would do his best to serve Ireland while he remained in office.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he wished to say a word on one particular matter in which he was interested. The Leader of the Opposition had stated that they had never had anything to complain of in Ireland since the Union. But in 1831 an Act. of Parliament was passed prohibiting what was then a very promising industry —the growing of tobacco. He contended that that was a gross injustice to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman referred to the records of Parliament for the year 1830, he would find the proceedings of a Committee composed of gentlemen who were Unionist in politics, and Protestant in religion, in which a strong protest was entered against any interference with tobacco-growing in Ireland. However, that promising industry was crushed by the Act of 1831. He appealed to the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture to give full and fair play to the attempts which were being made in different parts of Ireland to give employment to young men and women in tobacco-growing and curing. He knew that it was a dangerous thing to be seen talking to a Minister, after the speech of the hon. Member for North Armagh, who rated Mr. Bailey for probably asking a Nationalist Member for a cup of tea on the terrace. He himself never saw a Minister in private; but in public he would ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone, who had come freshly in his Department, to give every opportunity for the encouragement of tobacco growing in Ireland. He had found in one district between thirty and forty young men and women who had been employed all through the winter months in tobacco curing and sorting. He knew that some hon. Gentlemen in Ireland were rather inclined to look with incredulity on the possible success of tobacco cultivation there, but all he asked the hon. Gentleman was to give it fair play.
  *MR. BARRIEsaid that he offered his congratulations to the hon. Member for South Tyrone on the manner in which he had a quitted himself in a very delicate duty that afternoon. He thought, however, that the now Vice-President in the course of his interesting statement did not mention that according to the Report recently issued that young Department had already 43,590 students in Ireland. That surely was a record of which any Department might be proud. These students belonged to every class. The technical side had been pursued with success quite equal to that of the agricultural side. Sir Horace Plunkett had always carried out his work on the highest grounds apart from party feeling, and with the one desire of benefiting the country in all he did. There had been complaint as to the appointments he had made, but it must be remembered that at the beginning young men with the qualifications required were not in the country, and they had to go to England and Scotland for them. Let it not be forgotten, however, that even in making these appointments the local committees had the largest share. He might claim to know something of the work done, and he must say he had never known Sir Horace Plunkett, in spite of the great powers he held, override the nominations of one of these local committees. The Committee to which reference had been made was composed of five members, and four of those gentlemen, after careful inquiry, agreed that the Department came through the ordeal to which they submitted it with very great credit not only to the officials but to its chief. He regretted that it was only the Minority Report which had interested Nationalist Members, and he regretted still further that the new Vice-President had found it so much more interesting than the Majority Report, judging by his repeated references to it. The reason for his greater interest in the Minority Report appeared to be that Mr. Micks its author had dealt with nothing but the alleged weak points of the work of the Department. The whole of the Minority Report was carping and ungenerous in tone, and it showed a strong desire to minimise and belittle the work of the Department. He felt that this Minority Report by an unknown man dealing with the work of one who deserved so well of
  198
  his country as Sir Horace Plunkett was not likely to be long remembered or to have the slightest effect in the direction of weakening the good effects of the seven years of hard and strenuous work which Sir Horace had done. Sir Horace was one of those men who did things without saying much about them. He was surprised that Sir Horace had been so criticised, for no less than ten Nationalist Members had been working harmoniously with him, and had given him great assistance in carrying out the work of the Department. Criticism of the Department implied criticism of those Members. He regretted what had been said about the Agricultural Organisation Society. That Society was the first work that Sir Horace Plunkett put his hand to, and it had now at work in the country 900 co-operative societies with 90,000 members. It was evident that the opposition nominally against that Department was really opposition to the line upon which the Department had been conducted by Sir Horace Plunkett. He was glad that nothing had fallen from the new Vice-President indicating that he was going to tear up the Department's present lines and work it as many of his Nationalist friends would like him to do. He hoped the Vice-President would with that care and discrimination which he possessed think twice and go slowly and cautiously before he altered, even in minor i matters, the present schemes which he had found at work. It could not be doubted that the money at present granted to the Department was not adequate. The use of the present funds could not be criticised. The Department was getting full value for the money. County councils and urban district councils had made contributions towards the work of the Department to the amount of £55,000 a year. That money was raised all over the land. There was not a single county in Ireland that had refused to fall in with the schemes of the Department. There could be no finer tribute to the work which had been done by the Department than the fact that this assistance had been given to it and this large sum of money raised locally.
  *MR. HUGH LAWhoped that the warnings which the inclement spring had given would not be forgotten by the Department. The

  199
  authorities were far too apt to allow things to drift for a long time until famine came, and then to rush into ill-conceived relief measures which involved the waste of public money. He trusted that the Department would, therefore, devote itself to the consideration of what measures should be taken to meet the possibility of similar pestilence another year. The Vice-President would do well to keep in close touch with the people of the localities in connection with the matter. It was most desirable to enlist their interest in the work of the Department. As to the position of the Vice-President, it was obvious that unless the Vice-President was in close touch with Parliamentary work many of the most necessary adjustments for which legislation was required must necessarily fall into arrear. But if the Department, as under the Council's Bill, was transferred to Dublin, there was no use in keeping the Vice-President. at Westminster. He was not in agreement with some of his colleagues with regard to the relations between the Agricultural Department and the Agricultural Organisation Society. He was a firm and unrepentant believer in the virtue of co-operation. He entirely agreed with the Vice-President that the work which Sir Horace Plunkett did before he went to the Department as an organiser of co-operation in Ireland was beyond all praise. As a Minister he had never had very great admiration for him; but now that he had become once more a private person he and the Members on both sides would be content to allow personal issues to pass into oblivion. He had always been, although on the committee of the Agricultural Society, against subsidies. He believed them in the long run to be thoroughly bad for co-operation. If co-operation was to succeed it must do so free from Government interference, and free from any suspicion of being used as a political instrument or the tool of a Government Department.
  MR. POWERsaid he rose to call. attention to a point quite foreign to agriculture, but which was at the same time connected with the Department represented by the right hon. Gentleman. Last year a Question was asked with regard to the contribution which was made to Scotland for the protection of the fisheries and the action
  200
  taken by His Majesty's ships in following the trawlers. The Gentleman who spoke for the Scottish Office said that the Admiralty were going to withdraw the assistance they had given in this matter. He hoped that was not so, because the ships which now did their duty were wanted. The point he wished to press on the hon. Gentleman was that the Irish Members had over and over again asked for assistance to protect the fisheries of Ireland, and that assistance had been refused by the Admiralty. At present the Admiralty had only two gunboats at their disposal for this purpose, but eight years ago they had four, and he asked the hon. Gentleman to press the Admiralty upon this point. He also desired to ask whether the hon. Gentleman charged with the Fisheries Department of this country could not take into consideration the trawling question. It was notorious that during late years the yield of the North Sea had fallen 30 per cent., and great quantities of miniature fish were destroyed by these trawlers which trawled 1,500 square miles every day. At present, line fishing was most unprofitable on the coast of Ireland, and he asked the serious attention of the Government to that matter. The Dutch Government suggested a few years ago that the territorial water limit should be extended to twelve miles, and England appeared to favour that idea, but could not get the other-Powers to regard it as an advantage. But such was the scarcity now of fish in the North Sea and elsewhere, that the majority of the supplies landed in,this country came from the Portuguese Coast, and from as far as Morocco. These were matters of great moment, and could not be decided by the Department over which the hon. Gentleman presided, but at the same time he thought they were subjects that should be gone into by his Department in connection with other questions,, because they were of vast importance, not only to sea fisheries, but he believed also largely to the inland fisheries of the country. He knew that the hon. Gentleman was pertinacious and pugnacious, and he was sure that in advocating their cause the Vice-President would approach the Admiralty in his pugnacious spirit, for there was nothing to be got out of them by obsequiousness; and he ventured to hope that the result of the hon. Gentleman's taking office would be that

  201
  he would gradually and with success effect the protection and improvement of this industry.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of local colleges instead of itinerant instructors.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLwas understood to say that the matter was being considered, and he added that the Government were under an obligation, according to arrangement, to withdraw this Vote and bring on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid that, as Lord Mayor of Dublin, he wished to express his feeling of satisfaction at the statement which the hon. Gentleman had made in reference to a matter that had been in dispute between the Dublin Corporation and the Agricultural Department of the Government. He welcomed that statement, and on behalf of the corporation he begged to thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which the matter had been dealt with.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he understood that the Government -were under an obligation to withdraw the Vote. He wanted them to understand that he was not under any obligation. He protested last year against this being done, and insisted on the closure being moved, and he wished to renew-that protest. He did not agree with this practice, which was adopted for the first time last year. He would not, however, stand in the way of the Government's carrying out the arrangement they had made, although he must safeguard himself by protesting against this practice which had been established against his protest, and certainly must not be allowed to grow into a precedent.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid he must raise his protest against the hon. and learned Member for Waterford's attitude. The Members from the North of Ireland, though of different politics from those of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, were entitled at all events on one occasion during the year to have their grievances considered in Committee of Supply, and he was quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that they had some right
  202
  to consideration, and should be allowed at least one occasion for discussion of the questions they desired to bring forward.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that of course hon. Members from all parts of Ireland were entitled to bring forward their grievances. Nobody objected to that at all. On every occasion when Irish Estimates had been discussed Members from the North of Ireland had taken a very large part in the debate. The custom which was invariably carried out by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he was Chief Whip of his Party was to allow them to fix a particular Vote to betaken. That arrangement had been broken for the first time last year. The Government were under an obligation this year, and he would not stand in the way of their carrying it out, but it must be understood that he was not a party to it.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17,750, 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 Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG:said the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had raised his protest against time being given to Unionist Members from Ireland. A total of three days he believed was allocated under the Standing Orders to Irish Supply, and he desired to enter his emphatic protest against what had been advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It seemed to him laughable to hear any Member of the Nationalist Party trying to criticise the Government in this matter. It was true that Nationalist Members until last year bad selected what Votes were to be taken in the three days allotted to Irish Supply, but the Committee must realise that the situation had altered between then and now. A Unionist Government was then in office, and the Nationalist Members were the Opposition; it was, therefore,

  203
  natural and perfectly proper that the Nationalist Party should have every opportunity of choosing what Votes should be discussed. A Radical Government was now in power, and was in close alliance if not fusion with the Nationalist Members, and for the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary, or anybody else to tell them that hon. Members below the Gangway were in Opposition was absurd. The true opposition to the Government's policy came from the Unionist Members for the North of Ireland, and from a purely mathematical point of view, they were entitled to at least one of the three days during the session. In almost every division throughout the session Unionist Members for Ireland had voted against the Government, while Nationalist Members had voted with the Government. In these circumstances it was perfectly futile and absurd to say, as the Prime Minister did the other day, and as no doubt the Chief Secretary would say to-night, that the Nationalist Members were the real Opposition, and were the persons who had the first claim to say which Votes should be discussed. He protested strongly against that view, and he would renew his protest on every occasion until Unionist Members from Ireland had a fair share of the allotted three days. Having entered that protest, he would submit that the most important of the Irish Votes was that for the Chief Secretary's Office. The questions which had been raised that day did not in any way approximate in importance to the questions which could be raised on the Chief Secretary's salary, and in former days, he thought he was right in saying that that Vote was given a full day according to the invariable practice which had existed for fifteen or twenty years since the system of allotted days came into force. But now, on the third of the three allotted days, more than one half had been given up to subjects which no doubt were important, but which could not be considered as of anything like the importance of the Chief Secretary's Vote. It was too late apparently this session to do anything, but he hoped that next session hon. Members opposite would be impressed with the reasonableness of the claim of Unionist Members for the North of Ireland. So important was the Vote they were about to discuss that every year there should be a day for the
  204
  discussion of the Chief Secretary's salary without the necessity of asking anyone to put it down. The Prime Minister indicated the other day that he could not move from the decision he had come to in regard to this Vote. Up to that time he had the idea that the administration of the Government in Ireland would form a definite vote of censure, but today it appeared very doubtful whether they would get that opportunity at all. Ho had been expecting to have the opportunity of placing his grievances before the House on that occasion, and he confessed that, so large was the field to be covered and so many were the details, he was not now in a position to enter into the subject in the way he should have been ready to do had they been given a whole day for the purpose. He wished to protest against the very short time which had been given to them to discuss these matters. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You have the House to yourself now.] For a long time they had been laying up bad marks against the Government which they hoped to be able to deal with more fully than was possible at Question time. The serious indictment they wished to bring against the Government could not be put by one Member. He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of the Bann drainage. This was a question which had been brought before the Committee repeatedly for the last fifty or sixty years. To Louth Neagh and the Bann and the counties affected the flooding was a very serious matter. Lough Neagh was the largest lake in the United Kingdom and its basin was of immense size. It was eighteen miles long and twelve miles broad. Around the lake there was a large quantity of low-lying land and there was only one river to carry off the water, whilst no less than twelve rivers flowed into Lough Neagh. In the year 1847 Parliament consented to carry out considerable works intended to remedy the undoubted damage done by the serious flooding which occurred in the low-lying districts around the banks of the lake and along the banks of the river Bann. That work was carried out by the Board of Works,, but unfortunately the estimate of £109,000 was very much exceeded, and the time of carrying out the works coincided with the famine. Consequently much of the work was carried out as

  205
  relief work, which was not economical, and instead of costing £109,000 no less a sum than £109,000 was spent. It was true that the Government remitted the difference between the original estimate and the actual cost, but whereas the work was estimated to take three years it took twelve years, and the amount of interest largely increased. Since that time no less a sum than £170,000 had been paid in respect of these works. For the first ten years those works were successful, but after that the damage from flooding began again, and it was now as bad as ever. The people who lived in those low-lying districts were led to believe that the large amount of money spent would cure the flooding, and they consented to pay the money, but subsequent investigation had shown that the works wore not carried out as originally designed, and many obstacles still remained which impeded the free flow of the water. For the last twenty years they had been pressing the Government to remedy this state of things. Sir Alexander Binnie had reported that a complete cure of the existing state of things could be effected for £76,000. The Report which had recently been issued from Mr. J. D. Bell appeared to be rather against the claims which they put forward, because he said that if the original works were carried out completely the value of the land would only be £750 more. But the mere increase in money value was not everything, for he could produce extracts from medical officers' reports and others showing that the prevalence of this flooding caused very great injury to the health of the people in the counties affected, as well as to the crops of the farmers. He had seen at certain periods of the year about 7,000 acres under water. It was very fair tillage land, and only a few trees and the upper portions of cottages were to be seen above the water. A large number of people suffered severely every year from this cause. It was complained that on the Southern end of the Lake in counties Antrim, Tyrone, and Deny, and on the banks of the Bann itself a very considerable amount of land was affected in the same way. They had been buoyed up for years with promises of all sorts. It was impossible to collect statistics as to the annual losses affecting crops of hay, and it was equally impossible to get accurate figures as to injury
  206
  to health, but that there was a very great injury to health especially in the autumn and late winter there could be no doubt. He trusted that the Chief Secretary would give the matter his very careful consideration in the hope that the Irish people would not see another Government coming in and going out of office without having done something to remedy a condition of things which all classes of Ireland wished to see improved. It was a pressing grievance, and if the right hon. Gentleman really wished to do what he could for the North of Ireland he would quickly attend to it.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that no one could be Chief Secretary for Ireland without hearing of the Bann and the Barrow. But past history did not always encourage one to indulge in expenditure on a drainage scheme. The hon. Member had pointed out that in 1847, £170,000 was spent on the drainage of the River Bann, in the hope that it would get rid of the damage occasioned by flooding the low banks, and that the Bann would thus recede from the dreams of succeeding Chief Secretaries. These works were comparatively successful, but for the last twenty years things were as bad as they were before. There had been engineers' reports on this subject, and Sir Alexander Binnie's had mentioned the sum of £170,000. The Government could not, however, be satisfied that this figure was in any way to be relied upon. Then there was Mr. Bell's report which was a little bit dispiriting. Mr. Bell made a careful survey of the land in the immediate neighbourhood of this river for whose benefit the work would be done, and he came to the conclusion after most careful inquiry that even if the money had been spent the total increase in the annual value would be only £750 a year. That would be a miserable return for the capital sum that would have to be expended. He did not consider that Report to be in any way conclusive on this matter, or as forbidding the Government if they got the money, from considering whether it could be usefully expended.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGstated that the area of the land amounted to 130,000 acres. The neighbourhood was thickly populated and the question of health was certainly important.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he had no doubt that the question of health did come into consideration. It would undoubtedly require a very large expenditure of money, and he did not think £100,000 would be an adequate sum for the carrying out of Sir Alexander Binnie's Report. His tenure of office had not yet reached six months, and his difficulty was to get money from the Treasury, and, if he got a promise of money, to be perfectly satisfied that this was the best way to spend it. He did not wish to raise false hopes in the minds of hon. Gentlemen. It was not a Party question. It had nothing to do with religion. If he were addressing millionaires who wished to spend money usefully and agreeably he really honestly believed that they could not spend their money better than by employing it on the drainage of the Bann, and he hoped also the Barrow whose claims were just as great. It was also difficult to decide in Ireland between 100 rival schemes which was the best way to spend the money provided the Treasury granted it.
  MR. J. DEVLINsaid he wished to know whether the Chief Secretary had received any information from Belfast in regard to the progress of the strike there, and also in regard to the rather sensational incident which occurred last night when a meeting of the Royal Irish Constabulary was called and when there was a chance of mutiny. There was considerable feeling in Belfast in regard to the position of those on. strike in their relationship to the police. The police had been instructed, he understood, to put every obstacle in the way of those engaged in the entirely legal occupation of picketing. He thought that the revolt which had taken place among the police was an indication that really the right hon. Gentleman would have to take some practical step to see that the forces of the Crown were not used entirely in favour of one of the parties to the dispute, but that they were called upon to act impartially. He wished to call attention to the appeals which had been made to the right hon. Gentleman to do his best. He was quite sure of the interest which the right hon. Gentleman had not only in the general welfare of Ireland, but in the progress and development of the great commercial and industrial capital of the north of Ireland. He would urge upon
  208
  him with all the intensity he could the essential need for someone in a reasonable position to exercise his influence in order to avert this crisis becoming greater and more intense and to bring about a settlement of the unfortunate situation now existing. The strike seemed to be developing as it was allowed to continue. He understood that arbitration would be accepted by the men engaged in the dispute. He did not propose to discuss the merits or the demerits of the strike. He simply wanted to say that not only were employers and employed suffering, but the general trade, and even people who were not directly or indirectly associated with the strike, were suffering. Widespread misery was caused to the masses of the people and great injury was being done to the industrial progress of the city itself. He knew that the Chief Secretary had most generously offered himself as arbitrator if both parties would accept him. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to try to devise some means by which the strike could be brought to a close. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to think out some plan which, apart from the interest of the men and the employers, but in the interest of good government, would bring the strike, the continuance of which would be of the greatest danger to the city, to a close. He did not wish to prolong the discussion on the Chief Secretary's salary. The hon. Member for South Antrim had stated that the Ulster Unionists represented one-third of the inhabitants of the country. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain with that marvellous accuracy for which he was famous, the foundation for that statement. How could ten be a third of a hundred?
  MR, CHARLES CRAIGsaid he could explain. The Irish were divided into two parties—one-third Unionists and two-thirds Nationalists.
  MR. J. DEVLINsaid that that was a most magnificent and profound explanation. It was only another example of the splendid powers of clear exposition of the hon. Gentleman. There were 103 Members for Ireland and there were ten Unionists from Ulster. He supposed the hon. Gentleman spoke for the ten, but none of the Ulster Unionist Members were present except the hon. Gentleman

  209
  himself. Oh! yes; the leader of them, the right hon. Member for South Dublin, was present. That right hon. Gentleman had transferred his attractions from Bristol to South Dublin. The Ulster Members wanted not three hours but three days to discuss all the malversations of the Government, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary came there to meet his assailants they heard nothing but a cold, if useful, speech from the hon. Member for South Antrim. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not the sensational Member of the Ulster extravaganza. He supposed the sensation was confined to the morning performance. The hon. and learned Member for North Armagh was formerly one of the Members for North Antrim, but the Unionists there found that his sensational attacks on the most vital public interests of the country were not the best form of representation they desired, and so he was transferred from an impartial arena to the more obscure arena of Portadown.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the Motion before the Committee.
  MR. J. DEVLINsaid that at any rate there did not seem to be anybody troubling himself about the Chief Secretary. It seemed that someone should add to the gaiety of the evening, and why not he? He only regretted that the occasion had not been marked by some characteristic speech from the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, because some of them had neglected their dinner to listen to such an effusion.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the hon. Gentleman had amused the House as he always did, and had interested thorn with his eloquence. The hon. Gentleman had been good enough to refer to himself as transferring his services from Bristol to South Dublin. He was the victim of that policy with which the Government had been identified themselves, viz., the policy of compulsion. The hon. Gentleman had sacrificed his dinner in order to come and listen to the sensation of the evening, of the year, of the century! The hon. Member had been the victim, as many others had
  210
  been, of sensational announcements or of his own imagination. He did not think there had been any suggestion of a sensational demonstration on that occasion. There was a general desire, not confined to Irish Members, that there should be an opportunity for discussing the Irish policy of the Government so far as that policy could be discussed. It was necessary that the Irish Vote should be divided into classes, and when they were discussing, say, technical education in Ireland they were limited in scope. The object they had in pressing for a discussion on the Chief Secretary's salary was that it was the only occasion on which they could review the whole policy of the Irish Government for the time being. When this Government came into office there was a considerable flourish of trumpets. The right hon. Gentleman was not then Chief Secretary, and there was considerable doubt as to whether any improvement had taken place in the condition of Ireland, or as to the advantages which would flow from the altered system of administration. They were told that there was to be an administration that would produce contentment and peace, and that such changes would be made as would entirely alter the relations between this country itself and Ireland. He did not think the Irish Government had been singularly fortunate in the efforts made in that direction. They had adopted the view that there was some middle course which might be taken that would satisfy the Irish people, and at the same time be in conformity with the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom. The Government had raised hopes in Ireland that they were going to deal with the government of the country, but when it came to the realisation of those hopes they had produced a plan which had been condemned almost before the ink was dry on the paper on which it was written. For his part his withers were unwrung. He had always held that there was no choice of a course between the two policies—Home Rule and the maintenance of the Union. That was proved by the untimely fate of the effort of the Government in the Irish Council Bill. Further, the Government had indicated their intention of dealing with the Irish University question, and they put an announcement in the King's Speech that they had arrived at a definite policy

  211
  on the question, and were prepared to put it to the test. They had heard no more of that, except that the Prime Minister had stated that the Chief Secretary was to spend the autumn in Ireland to try and find a solution of the higher education question which would please all parties. In the Irish Council Bill they produced a plan which fell far short of what the Nationalists desired, and in regard to higher education they had to confess that they had to go back to find a solution. That was not a great record for the strongest Government of modern times. His hon. friend had said that there was some ground for complaint at the way in which the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary had been treated, and he supported what his hon. friend had said in that regard. He did not remember any session in which the Chief Secretary's Vote had not been put forward in the very forefront of the Estimates, and given the fullest time for discussion. Why had the Vote not been put in its ordinary position on this occasion? It was because the wishes of the Irish Party had to be obeyed by His Majesty's Government. The Government had failed utterly to satisfy Nationalist Members with regard to legislation, but they had more than satisfied them by the methods and manner of their administration. The body who had been responsible for the government of Ireland would not hastily or rashly take action in that House which was likely to embarrass the Chief Secretary. He maintained that Mr. Bryce had left to his successor a legacy of trouble. He had left Ireland in such a position as to add greatly to the burden which the Irish Minister had to boar. Mr. Bryce bad shown that there had been a steady and increasing improvement in the condition of Ireland during Unionist administration. He regretted that the present Chief Secretary had not thought it beneath his dignity, and the dignity of the great position he occupied, to make offensive charges against Unionist Members, when all they had done was to bring to the notice of the House, and to the notice of the Government of the day, evidence of the condition of things in some parts of Ireland which they believed was not receiving proper attention from the Government, and which they knew constituted a great danger to the people of Ireland, and to
  212
  the security of the people who lived in those parts. Nationalists who were naturally at political warfare with Unionists—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: When we supported you, you were always glad to get our support.
  MR. WALTER LONG:said that they had more often than not been in political antagonism. Nationalists had charged Unionists with seeking to blacken the character of their countrymen because they had asked the Chief Secretary questions regarding events in Ireland the occurrence of which he had not been able in the vast majority of cases to deny. The Chief Secretary had in a few cases been able to show that the numbers of the crowd and the extent of the injury had been exaggerated, and he had taken full advantage of any such discrepancy as that. The Chief Secretary had had to admit that, in nine cases out of ten, the questions asked him had been based on fact, and that the efforts of the Government to deal with the trouble had failed. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee now, what his predecessor told them a year ago, that in all respects the condition of Ireland was better than it was twelve months ago; would he give the figures dealing with the various classes of offences which were peculiar to the part of Ireland involved, and which were no doubt due to those agrarian difficulties with which they were familiar? The right hon. Gentleman had more than once disputed the accuracy of and belittled their statements and treated them with contempt and ridicule. Would he-deny that there was in parts of Ireland evidence of a condition of things which must be a discredit to the Irish Government and productive of the gravest anxiety and alarm to the people obliged to live in that country? Did he not get hundreds of letters from men and women, often in poor circumstances, compelled to live in their own homes or make great sacrifices if they left? Did he not receive letters telling him of the dangers under which they lived, and the dangers to which they were exposed, and begging for the protection of the Government, invariably ending as the letters he also had received with the pathetic and unfortunate prayer that,

  213
  whatever was done on their behalf, let them not give way to the Nationalists that their condition might not be made worse than it was.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: They are forged letters.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid they were not forged letters. He would undertake that the great bulk of letters which he and other Unionist Members had received described the condition of the country. They were genuine letters written by people who truthfully described the condition of the country. He asked the Chief Secretary with his legal advisers beside him whether he believed the letters which he received were forged letters.
  MR. BIRRELL:said he did not suggest that there were not a number written of a perfectly genuine character, but as the right hon. Gentleman had challenged him he was bound to say that he was shown a number of letters purporting to be signed by different people and that a close examination showed that one man signed the whole.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to make that reply and everybody knew perfectly well that in matters not connected with Ireland it was not unusual for one person to sign a number of letters or a number of names to a petition But that was not his question to the right hon. Gentleman. His question was, did the right hon. Gentleman believe that these were forged or bogus letters.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he must decline all responsibility for the correspondence; no doubt many of the letters were genuine, but the right hon. Gentleman must not apply to him to give a character to the whole of them.
  MR. WALTER LONGsaid he regretted that when the Committee were dealing with a matter of the gravest moment, when they represented what was common knowledge in the United Kingdom and was in the knowledge of anyone who had visited Ireland and seen the condition of things there, the right hon. Gentleman should throw this kind
  214
  of discredit on the statements he (MR LONG) had made. The right hon. Gentleman must know that men and women in the position of the writers of these letters could not allow their names to be made public, because their lives would be made intolerable. He asked whether there had been during the year an increase in agrarian offences, such as threatening letters, boycotting, and cattle-driving, and in the number of farms surrendered because the occupiers found it impossible to carry them on with safety to themselves and their families. A Minister, if determined to do so, could prevent these crimes, but it required strenuous efforts. Had the Chief Secretary a police force strong enough for the difficult work of the constabulary in. the more lonely parts of Ireland? Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the men in the force were sufficiently experienced? He had heard the police criticised in this House, and accused of partiality in the execution of their duties, but nobody who had not studied on the spot these difficult Irish questions could realise how difficult was the task which devolved upon the Royal Irish Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to check this class of crime and failed to discover the perpetrators and bring them to justice. If it was shown that the police were insufficient in number or that there was an improper proportion of short service men among them the blame would rest not with the police but with those who were responsible for the disposition of the force throughout the land. If it was the fact that for a considerable period there had been an increase of this kind of crime, ho maintained it was the first duty of the Government to put it down. Had the Government used all the powers at their disposal in order to cope with and put an end to this kind of crime? The Government had taken credit to themselves for not having had recourse to the Crimes Act of 1887, and yet they had availed themselves of a statute of Edward III. The Government at this moment were dealing with the Evicted Tenants Bill in order to remove one of the causes of Irish discontent, but ho ventured to say that, whatever might be the method which they adopted, whatever legislation they passed to ameliorate the condition of the Irish people, there was at the same time a prevalent belief that lawlessness would

  215
  be—he would not use the word permitted, but at all events that it would not be put down with a strong, firm, and determined hand. All their legislation for ameliorating the condition of the people was so much waste paper and must fail if they allowed the continuance of a condition of things which would of itself bring about the failure of their measures. He knew that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had denounced their views as to the condition of Ireland, and pointed out that it was freer from crime than any other part of the United Kingdom. He was thankful to remember, as he had done on every occasion, that in the record of those crimes which they usually associated with the word "crime," Ireland was freer than other parts of the United Kingdom, and nobody was prouder than he was to bear in mind that record. Still, that was no excuse or justification for a condition of things in which the liberties of the people were interfered with, in which the ordinary avocation of a section of the people were made impossible, and in which there came the cry which they were compelled to voice on behalf of these people that there should be even-handed justice to all from the Government of the day, whatever might be the demands made on Parliament either for money or for legislation—demands which he believed would always be cheerfully met by Parliament in answer to petitions from the Irish people. Whatever might be the answer to those demands, unless, at the same time, every possible effort was made to secure for the Irish people real law and order, the Government of the day, however benevolent, would fail in their efforts. It was because they believed there was a demand for a stronger interference with those who were themselves interfering with the orderly and peaceful life of the people of Ireland, that they had asked for a discussion on this Vote, upon which alone the general administration of the Irish Government could be considered. In order that he might regularise the proceedings and to mark his view of the present situation in Ireland he begged to move the reduction of the Chief Secretary's salary by £100, and to assure the right hon. Gentleman that in doing so he did not want, far from it, to add to the difficulties that he knew too well that he had to
  216
  face, nor to add to the burden which he had to bear; but because he believed that it required more determination, more recognition of facts as they were, if they were successfully to cope with and to remove those difficulties which now stood in the way of the peaceful development of Ireland, and which so long as they existed were the curse of the lives of many of the Irish people.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Salaries, Wages, and Allowances) be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Chief Secretary."— (Mr. Walter Long.)
  *MR SHACKLETONsaid he did not want to take part in the general debate, but simply desired to support the hon. Member for West Belfast in the appeal ho had made to the right hon. Gentleman as regarded the present dispute in that city. They had made this appeal before, and owing to the information they had to hand, they were very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should do his very best in regard to matters that had arisen in Belfast. The people on strike were doing their very best to treat the dispute in the proper way, but they felt that the police were acting somewhat on one side. That was the feeling they had, and he thought the action of the police on the previous night indicated that the police themselves felt that they were not acting quite impartially. He did. not want to put it any stronger than that. It was a question for the Belfast people themselves. They forwarded information, as the Labour Members had no means of obtaining the information for themselves, and they depended on what was sent to them. They had Englishmen in Belfast, persons whom they could trust, who had given them information which had conveyed to them the same impression as the information sent by the people of Belfast. The trouble being experienced in Belfast was one which was never thought about in this country. What was now occurring in Belfast at the present time was the sort of fight they used to have fifty years ago in this country. The question of recognising trade union officials ought never to be raised now. It ought to have been recognised long ago in Ireland, as

  217
  every employer of labour in this country with few exceptions, recognised it; it was a matter of every day business in this country, and he was inclined to think that there was something behind the dispute which the public had not realised. When one found that eight of the smaller companies had come to terms with the men and that only three of the larger railway companies were holding out, one was apt to wonder what they were driving at. When one knew that there was an agitation of railway men for recognition—for it was the only point which they were raising at present—and when one remembered that the railway companies of Ireland were fighting this point in Belfast, while the real fight was in this country, and that the weaker body there was having to bear the brunt of the struggle which it could be seen was coming in this country, it would be for the men of England to assist their fellow-workers in Ireland in obtaining a recognition of the principle for which they were fighting. He hoped that it was not true that the fight in Ireland was in anticipation of a fight in this country, but if it was true, then they realised that they must go to the help of those in Ireland who were fighting the big railway companies. The men had offered arbitration, and they would accept the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else chosen by him to act as arbitrator. Surely, they were not standing on their dignity. In the cotton trade disputes were settled by conciliation — six on each side —and they never thought of arbitration. But when arbitration was offered freely, the companies ought to accept it as the next best thing to conciliation. If this was the sort of treatment the Ulster Members were going to mete out to the Belfast people then the trade unionists in England were prepared to back the men of Belfast in their action. In all sincerity, however, they had no object to serve except the peace of Belfast. The men had a reasonable case, they were prepared to give it reasonable consideration, they were prepared to accept arbitration, and it appeared to him that the trouble that was going on ought not to be allowed to continue without protest. It was entirely in the hands of the employers to make peace in twenty-four hours, and when the workpeople were ready to go the length of settling this question it was time some
  218
  protest was made against the action of the companies.
  MR. GEORGE CLARKsaid he rose to speak for the first time in, that House, in support of the Motion for the reduction of the Vote. It was not because he grudged the Chief Secretary his £100 that he supported the motion, as he was fully alive to the fact that anyone who had anything to do with the administration of Ireland fully earned the salary that he got. Though he had the honour to represent an Irish constituency, he was not an Irishman, but a Scotsman born. Ho often regretted that he was not an Irishman, because ho always envied the Irish people the ease and the fluency with which they were able to give expression to their ideas. He only wished that they had the Chief Secretary more often in Ireland; he wished that the right hon. Gentleman knew more about Ireland, or that he had lived there for some little time, because he was satisfied that he, like every other Britisher of his acquaintance, would become a Unionist. The two peoples they knew had no community of ideals or community of purpose. The Unionists were British to the core, and they were determined that at all costs Ireland should remain an integral part of the United Kingdom; whereas he was sorry to say the Irish Nationalists wished to have Ireland for the Irish alone, and they made no secret, in fact they were accustomed to boast in season and out of season, of their antipathy to Britain and everything British. There was one point on which he believed that the two peoples wore in agreement, and that was in their cordial dislike of the present British Government. The Nationalists disliked him, although it suited them to appear to like him, because he was British, and Unionist disliked him because he was not British enough. They did not seem to have that sense of fair play which was associated with the British name all over the world. To the ordinary man the methods of the present Government in connection with both Ireland and England were past comprehension. They appeared to be trying to please everybody with the usual result that they were satisfying nobody. There was one thing which they were doing well, and that was that in the measures they had passed and were endeavouring to pass they had succeeded in.

  219
  setting class against class, creed against creed, capital against labour, landlord against tenant, Nonconformist against Churchman, and Protestant against Catholic. When he introduced the Irish Council Bill the Chief Secretary told them that Ireland was fairly peaceful and fairly loyal, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that. He had not the slightest doubt as to the result of English administration and British laws wisely and firmly administered. He regretted that British laws in Ireland were not now being administered as firmly as they ought to be. When British laws were wisely and firmly administered people were beginning to understand each other better, they appreciated each other's good qualities, and they paid less heed to that curse of Ireland, the agitator. The unfortunate strike in Belfast had been referred to by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast. He could assure the Committee that personally he was as anxious as anyone else that that strike should come to an end, because the suffering in Belfast in consequence of the strike was not pleasant to contemplate. But he failed to see how they could assist in bringing the parties together. Arbitration had been suggested, but before they could do that they had to get both sides to agree to that course. He returned from Belfast last night, and before he returned ho went down to the docks and quays to see for himself the position of affairs. With regard to what had been said about peaceful picketting he saw over 200 men and more than half of them were armed with heavy sticks, and they were going about Belfast in that way at the present moment. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is not peaceful picketing."] Unless matters were handled differently there would be considerable trouble in Belfast, and he was sure the Labour Members would regret that result just as much as anyone else. He was glad to notice that the Chief Secretary had arranged that the authorities were to have all the help they required in maintaining law and order. If there was one thing which ought to be strictly maintained in Belfast it was law and order, and it was the duty of the Government to see that people were allowed to go about their business without molestation from anybody. The Chief Secretary had told them that Ireland was fairly prosperous and fairly loyal. There
  220
  might be considerable trouble in Belfast unless the situation was judiciously handled. He was glad the authorities would have all possible help in maintaining law and order. If, as the Chief Secretary said, Ireland was fairly prosperous and fairly loyal, why not leave well alone? Did they want to raise hell again in the country? The Irish were a highly imaginative and excitable race, and it was not fair or just to lead them to expect things they could not possibly get. This might lead before many months were over to serious trouble.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid that, although he was glad to congratulate his countryman on the opposite side of the House on his very considerable gift of lucid speech, he was afraid, as Chief Secretary, he could not recognise in him a recruit who was likely to make his task any the easier: As to his own miserable salary, he could assure the hon. Member that whether they cut it down by £100 or altogether, if any good was to be done to Ireland thereby it was entirely at their service. With regard to the subjects that might fairly be discussed upon the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary, these might well occupy the attention of the House, not for a night, but for the six or seven years of a Parliament. There was the question of the health of Ireland. The figures with regard to that were simply terrifying, alike as touching consumption, tuberculosis, and the increase of lunacy. He had already stated the figures, which were they given of one of our Crown Colonies, of the West Indies or St. Helena, the conscience of the House would be so profoundly touched, its sense of duty would be so stirred, that it would, instead of treating them with comparative indifference, set to work to do something at once. It was the same with education, primary, intermediate, and University, the administration of the Poor Law, the position of piers and harbours, industry, and even their old friend the Bann. These were questions which might very fairly occupy the whole of more than one evening.
  MR. FLAVIN: Why one evening?
  MR. BIRRELL: Why only one evening? Because they tried to do in the

  221
  Imperial Parliament work that ought to be done in Ireland by Irishmen themselves. Attention had been drawn to the condition of things in the West of Ireland. Lawlessness undoubtedly existed there; but it was a very small and limited question as compared with many other questions which he believed to be of greater importance—such as the questions affecting land, which had a sort of pre-emption and perpetual privilege in this House, as if it were alone a matter of primary importance. The reports he received from the police and other persons revealed the condition of Ireland generally as to peace and order as being very satisfactory. More than three-fourths of the country was free from serious ordinary crime—which was the worst crime—and agrarian crime. The Judges in the summer assizes had stated in their charges that they found the state of the country peaceable and orderly save in certain limited areas. He did not desire to underrate for a moment the importance of the question because the area to which acts of lawlessness wore confined was limited. In Galway, Roscommon, part of Tipperary, part of King's County and Queen's County and Leitrim they found a considerable amount of disturbance. It was a mere accident under whose particular rule questions of this kind assumed greater or less importance. It was not due to the personality of the individual Chief Secretary; it was not due to the constitution of the particular British Government in power at the moment; it obeyed other laws and other considerations than that. He disclaimed the right of hon. Members opposite, therefore, to speak to him as if he were responsible for all that had been done in Ireland for the last 700 years, or as the personification of English rule. Nothing of the kind. He had been but six months in the Irish Office, and he had to deal with the situation which had been largely created by the House in the land legislation of the past thirty-seven years. Hon. Members might "motor" into Roscommon, and the sight they would see could not be equalled in any other part of the United Kingdom. Nothing but land for cattle, with a few habitations, and the people cramped into bog land not suitable for the grazing of beasts. He was not saying that the grazing of beasts was not a perfectly reasonable and lawful occupation. But he could say
  222
  that the legislation of 1903 had imbued the minds of the Irish people with the idea that the desire was to transfer the land from the landlords to the tenants by voluntary arrangements in the first instance, and in 1903 British credit was drawn upon to an uncertain amount for the purposes of that voluntary arrangement. There was a convinced feeling among the people that sooner or later the tenants were to become the owners in fee of the soil which they cultivated. They could not expect that these poor people should be content for ever to live outside these lands which not long ago were tillage land supporting a population while their neighbours were owners of their own holdings. But the condition of things, as far as statistics were concerned, was not, so satisfactory now as in Mr. Bryce's time. From a casual expression ho had dropped some hon. Members seemed to imagine that he did not disapprove of cattle-driving. What was cattle-driving? It must be distinguished from cattle-lifting, so frequent in ancient border story. It was an intimidatory process, and, as such, it received no support of any kind or shape from him. It was not a predatory process. In former days cattle were not only lifted but murdered on the spot, which afterwards reeked with blood. The people did not steal the cattle. When one remembered the discontent in the minds of the people because they believed that Parliament was willing to transfer these lands to them were it not for the action of graziers, these deeds should not cause any great measure of surprise. [OPPOSITION CRIES OF "Oh."] Hon. Members might take a more exalted view of human nature, but he, at all events, did not live in those hyperborean regions, but regarded human nature as it really was. During the six months of the present year there had been forty-one cattle drives. They wore illegal, of course, things to be put down, and the Irish authorities had done and would continue to do their very best to put them down. [OPPOSITION' CRIES OF "OH."] The graziers wore for the most part butchers carrying on business in the neighbouring towns. He did not deny that they were amenable to pressure. As tradesmen, if they were exposed to unpopularity, they would lose their trade. Accordingly, they yielded to pressure, because their trade suffered. But what could the Irish Administration do with

  223
  people who had feelings of that kind? It was said, "Use the forces of the law." They had used them, and were using them. [OPPOSITION CRIES OF "OH."] There was not a single one of those persons who applied for police protection who had not received it. Wherever the authorities got information of an intended cattle drive, there they planted police. They had sent between sixty and seventy police into Galway, and an inspector and seventy-five men into Roscommon. But it was not possible on dark nights to have a policeman at the head of every one of these beasts. [OPPOSITION CRIES OF "OH."] In the provision of extra police to protect these people the Irish Administration had considerably strained their reserves; but if further police were necessary to be recruited they would be recruited, and the force would be kept up at any cost to whatever strength it required in the discharge of its duties. But these graziers had grown so much into the habit of having police protection that they would do nothing to protect themselves. Often when the police gave them notice of a contemplated cattle-drive from their lands, they neglected to turn up to assist the police even in the most important work of the identification of the offenders. That was not the way business was done in this country. These people had learned to rely on the Irish Constabulary, and had neglected their own powers of defence and their own instincts of preservation. He would not say they should take firearms for their defence, but at least they should be there to assist the police against the ruffians of the neighbourhood and to identify their own property. In these matters the Government had done all they could in the way of protection, and this they would continue to give so far as circumstances would allow. But on a dark night over a wide area it was not always possible to prevent cattle-driving or to identify the people committing the offence amongst sympathising neighbours. It was always cowardly to assail an Administration for not always succeeding in a task in which he was quite sure hon. Gentleman opposite would have been not one whit more successful. Punitive proceedings were being taken under legal advice, and it must not be assumed that, because they did not always succeed, and because sometimes the jury disagreed,
  224
  they wholly disregarded the evidence, they could not say that unless they were present at, and took part in, the trial. The Government had put the ordinary law in force, and would continue to do so when advised there was a case to go to a jury, and in some cases a change of venue had been obtained. That was all he had to say upon cattle-driving a serious offence he did not deny, not predatory, but intimidatory, and in a considerable number of cases it had succeeded in its purpose, and men had been induced to give up their land. Sometimes it had been because of loss of trade, sometimes from a desire not to run counter to the feeling of the people among whom they lived, sometimes from mixed motives, sometimes it was intimidation, and sometimes it was not entirely so. The fact remained that a number of persons did give up their lands in consequence either of actual cattle-drives or threats of cattle-drives. The cattle were returned. He had no doubt technically they did undergo injury. As to that, he had no evidence and he was not sufficiently acquainted with the habits of animals to say.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid he had never heard of a technical injury to cattle.
  MR. BIRRELLsaid he meant to suggest slight injury. He was willing to admit it did not do the animals any good. But it was an element in the case that these cattle - drives were not for the purpose of gain, but for the purpose of intimidation, though he did not mean to minimise that offence in any way. All that was said on this question led up to the question at the back of the head of the right hon. Gentleman, Why did they not put the Crimes Act in. force? The Government thought that on the whole they were far more likely to do the one thing in Ireland that was worth doing—to make the habits of these people law-abiding permanently—if they adhered to the ordinary law, and they were not ashamed at the same time to recognise the case for the division of these lands as soon as it could properly be accomplished. The Opposition would not hesitate themselves if in office to do what they could to purchase as many grazing lands as possible.
  MR WALTER LONG: By the aid of terrorism?
  MR. BIRRELL: To avoid terrorism. If after 87 Coercion Acts right hon. Gentlemen opposite still believed in coercion, history had been written for them in vain. If the right hon. Gentleman believed that he and his friends could, by the simple expedient of sending a number of men to prison on the judgment of removable magistrates, secure that not a cow would be driven, not a sheep removed, he said their belief was vain. By the courageous exercise of the ordinary law, if they would only give them a little time, he believed they would be able to make the inhabitants of Roscommon and Galway as law-abiding citizens in the matter of the land as they were in all the other obligations of life. There were constantly under police protection fifty in June, 1907, forty-four in 1906, and thirty-three in 1905. The number of cases of protection by patrol was 157, compared with 158 in 1906, and 141 in 1905. He did not think these figures justified any strenuous argument against the present Government. He did not believe the action of the present Government had anything to do with it. He believed these things arose out of the desires and feelings and aspirations of the country side population, and they expressed their feelings in an illegal manner against which the Government strove with all the forces of the police at their disposal. They hoped to persuade these people that in their own interest it was the greatest mistake to take this course, and they wished to do the utmost they could to punish those who engaged in these practices, and to prevent their multiplication, while pursuing the remedial measures which, after all, offered the only method of making this country-side population a law-abiding population. He wished to say a word about the Belfast matter. In the first place, in the matter of pickets, he was satisfied that the police had exercised a perfectly sound judgment. With regard to what was
  226
  said by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, from his information it was a very difficult task to hold the balance evenly between different contending parties, but he could not but believe that the police had done their part exceedingly well, and he besought hon. Members to remember that the obligation of the police and of the local authority was to secure the general welfare of all parties and the general peace of the inhabitants. They could not go out of their way to consider the rights of one party or the other. Therefore he did not really think that at the present time there was any case to be made against the police. With regard to the small trouble that arose in the force, he had had some further information, and he found that the trouble was smaller even than he had expected. It was confined to about 50 men. Nobody was assaulted, and, though undoubtedly there were some small acts of insubordination, the men readily responded to the appeal that was made to them and agreed to make their written complaint to the Inspector-General. That officer was perfectly satisfied, and the men were now again in perfectly good trim and temper. He would not feel it right to withhold any advice or help he could give in a matter of this sort, but this was not a matter primarily for the Irish Government at all. They were bound, as every citizen was bound, to give assistance to the local authority if they demanded it. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances, he would always be willing to give the House any information which ho received from time to time and which might properly be given. He hoped this affair would be brought to a speedy conclusion by the good sense of all concerned.
  *MR. BARRIEsaid he felt sure the Chief Secretary had every intention to uphold the law in Ireland, but in every speech the right hon. Gentleman made he used qualifying phrases which in Ireland were interpreted into giving latitude for

  227
  disregarding law and order and which made the position very difficult for people living in certain parts of the country. He had told the Committee that Ireland was peaceable. That could only be so in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's own admission if they left out of count all the reported cases in which no arrests had been made. A large portion of that regrettable result was due to the right hon. Gentleman's lack of acquaintance with the island over which he ruled where there was a prevailing opinion particularly in the disaffected centres, that the Government was not determined to enforce law and order as it should be enforced. The representatives of Ulster constituencies were aware that many sympathised with their views in isolated parts of Ireland who at present felt that they had not the security of life and property which they were entitled to receive from the Government. The duty was laid upon them to ask that there should be a closer determination on the part of the Government to see that this evil which so widely prevailed should cease. He had nothing to complain about as regarded the statement of the Chief Secretary in reference to his action in Belfast. He had acted judiciously, and he hoped the trouble would soon pass away. The matter was exceedingly difficult. He had listened with the utmost satisfaction to the guarded answers the right hon. Gentleman had given to the suggestion that there was any disloyalty on the part of that splendid body the Royal Irish Constabulary. He had known that body for many years. He had come into close association with them and had the greatest admiration for them. [Laughter.] He was not surprised that Nationalists laughed, but he was surprised the Attorney-General should see any humour in that remark.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. CHERRY, LIVERPOOL, EXCHANGE): I was engaged in conversation with an hon. Member behind me.
  *MR. BARRIE: I certainly thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman saw some humour in the remarks I was making.
  MR. CHERRY: I saw nothing.
  *MR. BARRIEsaid the matter under consideration was much too serious for any light treatment. He regretted exceedingly that they could not compliment the authorities on the state of the country as a whole at present. Ho hoped as the result of still further failures of justice in certain parts of Ireland the Government would no longer hesitate to order a change of venue to secure convictions; and thus make the law respected as it formerly was under a Unionist Government,
  *MR. BYLESsaid he hoped to persuade the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He thought after the manly, frank, and vigorous speech to which they had listened none of them wanted to reduce the income of the right hon. Gentleman by £100 He would just permit himself one remark on the question of the difficulty the police were encountering. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a picture of the difficulties to which small police barracks in Ireland were exposed, but it was equally so when the police were many. He bad taken part with Members opposite in proclaimed meetings. There were big battalions of police around the place where they had announced the meeting to be hold, but they went on with their meeting nevertheless, though the police were armed with batons, swords, and he knew not what. In Ire-land the people were not, as in England, on the side of the police London could be goverened by a handful of police compared with Ireland; in this country people of a village could get along with one constable, simply because the people assisted him, whereas, if they were against

  229
  him the one constable would be of no use at all. He wondered that it had not boon driven home in every way to hon. Members above the gangway opposite that what was wanted in Ireland was a policy of pacification, giving the Irish people power to rule themselves, a policy which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had encouraged by introducing at any rate an instalment of self-government in the Irish Council Bill, which, if it failed, was only because it was not strong enough. They should go on in that direction, trusting the Irish people, believing in their honesty, believing that they knew better how to rule themselves than we knew how to rule them with our miserable century of failure. It was only by such measures as they had passed in Committee yesterday, by measures of pacification and not of coercion, not by police and force, that we should be able to bring the Irish people into harmony, fellowship, loyalty, and cordial friendships with the people of this country.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid ho was very sorry to join in any criticism of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He admired his literature, but he regretted his position, and he was sorry to say that since he had become Chief Secretary the right hon. Gentleman had given his sympathy entirely to hon. Members below the gangway.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee also report, Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Whiteley.)
  *MR. BOLAND)said he desired to take the opportunity, of which
  230
  he had already given notice, and which was the last opportunity of the session, to call attention to what Catholics in this country, especially the Irish Catholics and their relatives in that House, regarded as a test case in connection with the Board of Education in reference to the recognition of the Catholic school at Low Valley, near Barnsley, in Yorkshire. It raised in a definite way the whole question of the future of now Catholic schools in this country, and that was his real reason for having framed his questions in that House, in order to get, if possible, satisfactory replies from the President of the Board of Education before raising the question on the Motion for the Adjournment. This school, ho considered, was unfairly struck off the grant list in September of 1905. Since then, for practically two years it had boon maintained by the pence of the poor Irish Catholic minors in the district. Not a penny of State grant or of local giant had come to the school. What had been done in this instance by the Catholics was an earnest of what they would do in the future for the maintenance of their schools, in spite of rules meant to destroy denominational education; it was a proof of what the Catholics wore prepared to do out of their own pockets. It was a proof of what his country people were prepared to do out of their pockets. The other day when this question was raised on the Education Estimates he gave a rough summary of the facts of the case. He merely desired now to recapitulate them briefly. They showed, to his mind, two outstanding facts. In the first place, the dilatoriness of the Board of Education had had the effect of strengthening the hands of an unfair local education authority. The application for this new school was made in January 1906. It was six months before an inspector was sent down by the Board of Education to inquire, and the Report of the inspector was made at the end of July. It was another nine months before the decision of the Board of Education was given. In other words, fifteen

  231
  months were allowed to elapse. But the serious point about this was that meanwhile the local education authority had applied for and had obtained leave to get a new site to build a new school which would be too large unless the Catholic school doors were closed. At the present moment no building whatever had been erected by the local education authority, and at the very least a year probably would have to elapse before the local education authority would build a new school. It would be easy to give a resume of what had happened in this matter, but he would merely refer to the words of the inspector to the Board of Education. It would be remembered that under section 9 of the Education Act of 1902 there were three points to be considered when a new school was applied for, namely, the wishes of the parents, the interests of secular education, and the economy of the rates. So far as he knew there was no reason why prominence should be given to one of these three points as against the other two. He said that by way of preface. The inspector in his Report said—
  "The desire of the parents for a Roman Catholic School was very clearly proved at the inquiry, and the evidence on this head was not contested by the local education authority. There are at present 114 children in attendance at the unrecognised Roman Catholic School, and the parents contribute according to their means in the cost of maintaining the school and paying the teachers. The schedule questions addressed to the parents of all the children at the school was signed by forty-nine parents, representing 112 children, and, in every ease the answers included the statements that the parents sent their children to the school to be taught the Catholic religion, and that they would not send them to a school of any other character.
  "The case is therefore one in which the wishes of the parents are on the one side, and regard for the interests of secular instruction and the economy of the rates is on the other, and the decision of the Hoard as to the necessity of the proposed Roman Catholic School must depend on the relative value given to the three considerations mentioned in (Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902. It should be said, however, that while the wishes of the parents for a Roman Catholic School were incontrovertibly demonstrated, it was not shown that recognition of the proposed school would be seriously detrimental to the interests of secular instruction, or would involve more than a slight additional charge on the rates."
  232
  The Board took nine months to act upon that Report, but meanwhile the Catholic. school at Low Valley was kept going by the pence of the miners in that district, and if he knew the spirit of the Catholic people in this country, it would be kept going no matter what happened. In addition to that, the Anglican school was closed, with the result that in the neighbouring schools forty-one children were unable to find accommodation. He did not know what would happen if 120 Catholic children in the existing Catholic school in the Low Valley were turned out on to the streets. He maintained that the dilatoriness of the Board of Education had been altogether to the advantage of the local education authorities, who were allowed to build a temporary structure before the 1st of September. Under these circumstances ho really failed to see how the right hon. Gentleman could say that the Board of Education stood as fair umpire between the Catholic schools and the local Education Committee in the West Riding. The Catholic people in that district had maintained their school for two years out of their own pockets, and ho urged in the interests of peace and justice that these Catholic schools should be recognised, and that the wishes of the parents should be given effect to, even at the cost of a small portion of the rates. He was sure that on the point of secular instruction they would not suffer
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. MCKENNA, MONMOUTHSHIRE, N.)said he had nothing to complain of in the temperate statement of the hon. Gentleman. It was a statement of facts so far as the Catholic school was concerned, and was reasonable and accurate. But in regard to the hon. Member's reference to the action of the Board of Education, he did not think that the case was quite as sure. What had happened? The Catholic school in Low Valley was a recognised school until 1905, when by the action of the late Board it was, no doubt for good cause, struck off the grant list. It was not his doing, but

  233
  was done under the authority of the late Government, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University would have admitted had he been in his place. In 1906 the West Riding County Council, under the Act of 1902, gave notice to build a new school, and to this no objection was taken. Now, under the provisions of a section of the Act of 1902 any person was allowed to object to any proposed new school, but in this case no objection was taken, and after the lapse of the statutory period, the county council had the right to build the school. They allowed the statutory period to elapse, and consequently at the close of that statutory period, the county council of the West Riding acquired an indefeasible right to build this school. On this point he did not think there was any difference between the hon. Member for South Kerry and himself. The West Riding County Council proceeded to acquire a site for the erection of the school. Delay had been caused by difficulties in the way of transfer, but those difficulties had been removed during the present week, so there was now no difficulty in the way of acquiring that piece of land. The County Council wanted to erect a school of a particular sort upon, a particular plot of land at a considerable cost to the ratepayers, and it seemed to him that another school would be clearly unnecessary. As this particular school had! not been maintained the duty was thrown upon the county council to build a school out of the rates and there was no reason to interfere with them. If it was the fact that there was insufficient accommodation for the children of the district, and the county council failed in their duty to provide accommodation, then he should consider the claim of this school for recognition. But he was informed that there was sufficient accommodation for all the children of the district, and that the county council were prepared at a moment's notice, if insufficient accommodation was shown to exist, to put up temporary buildings in order to meet the demand until they had time to build a
  234
  school. All that he could say, therefore, in answer to the hon. Gentleman was that he did not see how, as the administrator of the Act of 1902, he could do otherwise than give the county council every chance to carry out their duty under the Act. If he found as a fact that there was not sufficient accommodation, and that the county council were unwilling to supply it, and that in other respects the Low Valley school was a suitable school to place on the grant list, he should have no hesitation in placing it there. If the county council had provided sufficient accommodation for the children of the district it could not be reasonably called upon to maintain out of the rates a school which, by its own action, had lost the right it had previous to September, 1905, to be recognised as an existing school.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid the Low Valley school was closed in 1905 not because there was no necessity for a Roman Catholic school, but because the buildings were insufficient and unsuitable for the accommodation of children. He did not think those responsible for the management of the school were happy in the action they took, but that was quite a different thing from there being no necessity for a Roman Catholic school. He had always recognised that given suitable buildings the Roman Catholics of the district had ample claim for a school of their own under Section 8 of the Act of 1902.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid he thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it was the duty of the managers of the school to raise the objection which they never did raise.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSONsaid he agreed that it would have been prudent of the managers to have raised the objection, but the Council knew perfectly well that there were 120 Roman Catholic children whose parents desired school accommodation. The Council had obtained their land, but he believed they had not yet

  235
  put a brick on the site, although they knew of these circumstances. If Section 8 of the Act of 1902 was not to be a dead letter, surely the parents of the 120 children who desired school accommodation for their children should have a school of their own. Everyone knew that a multiplication of small schools was not the best thing for secular instruction; everyone knew that the addition of a school was so much more on to the rates, and before the section of the Act of 1902 was put into operation the education authority ought to weigh what were the wishes of the parents, to consider how many children were concerned, and how earnest the parents were in desiring the special accommodation. There could' be no doubt that 120 children was a number which justified their having a school of their own. There could be no doubt that the parents in this case had shown by their action that they were fully in earnest in desiring that there should be this school; and though this belated authority were to provide a school which could not be said to be wanted by Roman Catholic children, which might be wanted possibly on a smaller scale by the children of other denominations, and which had not yet been built, such a circumstance ought not to stand in the way of any legitimate desire of the Roman Catholic population in the area. He ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman was not justified in not putting into operation Section 8 of the Act of 1902 on behalf of the Roman Catholic population.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the question was whether the right hon. Gentleman was lending himself to a local device of an oppressive and an anti-religious character. In his judgment the right hon. Gentleman was. The Liberal Party ought to make up their minds on this question, whether they
  236
  were going to give the Catholics fair play or not, because if they thought that, by dangling before them political advantages of any kind or sort or description, they would be diverted from their object, he told them that the device would wholly fail, for, as against any political advantage which the Liberal Party might offer, they would stick to their schools and to their religion. If this were a case of 120 Jews in the City of London the right hon. Gentleman would not dare to do what he had done, and if there were a cry as to oppression of the Jews, how long would he hold his position? When the responsible body obeyed the law and put the school buildings in proper order, and therefore were once more entitled to receive the grant, what were they to think of the central authority which connived at a most bigoted and oppressive kind of action? He was bound to say that the authority concerned was, he believed, the only body in broad Britain who, because of a failure on the part of the Catholic managers, would pretend that it was going to build a school, and a Liberal Government for nearly two years had connived at its want of action; so that to-day, while there was not one brick resting on the top of another, the Catholics who had put themselves in full efficiency and in full title so far as their buildings were concerned for the grant, were told by a Liberal Government "No; we will give you no grant, because the West Riding body are going to erect a building which will be capacious enough to hold all the Catholics of the district."
  And it being half-past Eleven of the clock MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill.—Moved, That the order made on the 20th day of March last. "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 18th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
South Wales Mineral Railway Bill.— Read 3a, with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation Bill.—Read 3a with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill (Chelmsford Order); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13 Bill (Norwich Order): London County Council (General Powers) Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.):—
D. Sutherland,
E. Dartrey (chairman),
L. Abinger,
L. Seaton,
L. Armstrong;
agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Board of

3
Education Scheme (Hulme Trust Estates Educational) Confirmation Bill. —House in Committee (according to order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Monday next.
Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle Schoolroom, etc.) Charity Bill; Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity Bill. —Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway (General Powers) Bill. —Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Borthwick and the Lord Oriel (V. Massereene) be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Manners and the Lord Lyveden read, and agreed to.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 529. Gibraltar (Report for 1906).
  AUSTRALIA.
  Report upon the conditions and prospects of British trade in Australia, by the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence of the Board of Trade. Based upon information collected by their Commissioner, Mr. R. J. Jeffray.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  List of public elementary schools and certified efficient schools in Wales (including Monmouthshire) on 1st August, 1906.
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Report of proceedings at the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of Representatives of Authorities under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888. Tuesday, 2nd July, 1907.

  ASTRONOMER ROYAL (GREENWICH OBSERVATORY).
  Report of the Astronomer Royal to the board of visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, read at the annual
  4
  visitation of the Royal Observatory. 8th June, 1907.

  TRADE REPORTS: ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3869. Egypt (Alexandria).
  No. 3870. France (St. Pierre and Miquelon).
  No. 3871. United States (Finances of the United States for the year 1906).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

LIGHTS ON VEHICLES BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I almost feel that some apology is due from me for the fact that I am in charge of this Bill, because it is practically a Government measure. The clauses in the Bill cover 103 lines, of which seventy-one, or over 70 per cent., represent Amendments introduced in another place on the Motion of Mr. Herbert Samuel, the representative of the Government. It is a Bill for which I hope I shall be able to show there is considerable necessity, and it will, I believe, be of considerable value in protecting the public. The present condition of affairs, as I understand it, is that whereas motorists and cyclists are under certain statutory obligations to provide themselves with and to use a lamp or lamps at certain times, other vehicles are merely subject to by-laws whenever they happen to be made. These by-laws differ very much in different parts of the country, as has been proved by Papers which have been laid before Parliament. This is not a motorists Bill—I am not the proud owner of a motor-car myself—but it arises from the enormous number of accidents that occur to all classes of vehicles through the absence of lights. I have here a shoal of cases, a great many of the Papers in my hand comprising records of accidents all over the country due entirely to the absence of lights on the public roads at night. There are accidents between motors and motors, between motors and other vehicles, between cycles and other vehicles, between traps and traps, and between

5
carts and pedestrians, and as I have said they come from all over the country. In view of the important debate which is to come on in the course of this sitting, I will not go into the cases in detail, but I do not think it will be denied that accidents are frequently occurring through the absence of any provisions such as are ordained by this Bill. Everybody. complains of the fact. This Bill is supported by three or four very powerful associations, who obviously have based their support on wide experience. I have Papers which show that the Bill is supported by the Motor Union, by the Roads Improvement Association, which works in conjunction with the Motor Union, by the Cyclists Touring Club, representing 32,000 cyclists, by the Central Chamber of Agriculture, which thought it worth while to issue a whip in favour of the Bill when it was down for consideration on Second Reading in another place; it is also supported by several municipalities and by the Urban District Councils Association, whose only objection to it seems to be that it does not in their view go far enough. Therefore, I think I have not been exaggerating in saying that almost everybody— at any rate a very considerable section of the public—is in favour of the Bill.
I will go very briefly through the main provisions of the Bill. The first clause enacts that lights are to be carried by vehicles at night, which is more or less from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise. That is the same provision as is necessary for motor-cars. It also makes it necessary for any vehicle the contents of which extend to any considerable length to carry a tail light, and it ordains that lights shall always be kept properly lighted and trimmed. Clause 2 provides for the provision of penalties. Clause 3 gives power to make exceptions. There are certain cases in which exceptions are necessary. Your Lordships will see that Sub-section 5 makes an exception in favour of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The Liverpool Docks are very largely used by carriers of cotton, and cotton and other goods of that inflammable nature should receive special protection at all times. Therefore, power is given to except cases
6
in which the use of a light continually would be dangerous. Clause 4 defines what a vehicle is and repeals existing by-laws, the object being to secure uniformity throughout the length and breadth of the country. That is practically the whole Bill; at any rate those are the main principles of the measure. As far as we know there are no opposing voices, the few objections that were made in another place having been, I think, generously met by the promoters. The Bill left the House of Commons with the unanimous recommendation of that body, no dissentient voice being raised against it. It is difficult to understand why legislation of this kind has been for so long delayed. I believe the Bill will result in very little hardship to individuals, and it will be a very great advantage to the public safety, and it is for these reasons I ask your Lordships to read it a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now re; 2a"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: Before this Bill is read a second time there is one small point to which I should like to call attention. The Bill provides for an exception being made from the provision that lights shall be necessary, in favour of farmers during what may be called the harvest months, when the road passes through a farm which the farmer occupies. It is quite necessary that there should be some such exception, for it would be absurd and even dangerous to require a farmer to put lights on a wagon carrying hay, or straw, or corn. Of course, such traffic should be exempt from any such provisions. But I do not think that in the Bill as it stands the exemption is quite wide enough. I think some provision should be inserted to extend it to other months, which will include the hay harvest, for example. I merely commend that point to the attention of my noble friend.
LORD AVEBURY: I have no desire to enter any opposition to this Bill, but I have had representations from the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and other bodies in Liverpool with reference to the particular area adjoining the Liverpool Docks. There are about seven miles

7
of road there which are very brilliantly lighted, and these bodies submit that it is quite unnecessary for carts in that particular district to carry lights. They are very anxious that the local authority should have power to exempt that area from the provisions of the Bill. No doubt there is a provision enabling local authorities to exempt particular carts, but very often the carter in this instance really does not know whether his cart contains imflammable material or not, and the Liverpool bodies to which I refer think it extremely desirable in the interests of public safety and the trade of the port that there should be power to the local authority to exempt the seven miles of road along the Liverpool Docks. There may probably be other cases of the same character elsewhere, and I will ask y noble friend before we go into Committee to consider the representations which have been made in this respect.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, legislation of this important character has been long desired by a large number of people, and not only by those who are concerned with motors. This Bill has passed the other House, as was truly said by Lord Donoughmore, with general assent. Of course, at this period of the session it is not possible to amend a Bill of this kind to any extent, although I may say there are some Amendments which I should have liked to have seen made. For instance, the Bill does not provide that as a matter of course vehicles shall show a red light in the rear, but it does provide that if the lamp is constructed to show a light at the back that light shall be red. I think we may assume that in regard to all vehicles that use the roads regularly—not agricultural vehicles travelling from one field to another—they will be fitted with lamps, and it will probably be found just as cheap in practice to provide in the lamp a little circle of red glass at the back which will effect the object desired. There is one immense advantage in this legislation, and that is that it secures uniformity. Not only are all vehicles to be lighted, but the regulations are to be uniform. At present the various by-laws in force in different parts of the country vary among them-
8
selves in many ways, and people who go from one district to another can hardly tell for certain whether they are observing the by-laws in force in that particular district or not. For instance, in a parish of Lincolnshire, I happen to know that a very serious accident was caused upon the Great North Road owing to the local regulation not requiring a vehicle to be lighted at all during the summer months. In consequence a vehicle was quite invisible to another and thereby a serious accident was caused. Your Lordships may be sure that the result of this legislation will be to save several lives and a great deal of property every year. Therefore, I hope the Bill will pass into law this session.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I rise on behalf of the Home Office merely to say that they will be very glad indeed to see this Bill pass into law, and to assist the noble Earl in achieving that result. I have very little doubt that as a result of negotiations arrangements will easily be made to meet the various points raised by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord opposite. Your Lordships will be able to deal satisfactorily with these matters in Committee. Perhaps the main benefit which this Bill will confer is that mentioned by the noble Earl behind me—that of securing uniformity throughout the country. It is really a curious study to see a map of the country with the various counties marked according to the different by-laws which they enforce. I have no doubt at all that the enforcement of uniformity in this direction will be a very great boon to all those who use the roads of the country.
On Question. Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

LEEDS (SOUTH PARADE CHAPEL) CHARITY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WEARDALE: My Lords, this is one of three Bills which have been introduced by the Charity Commissioners

9
and passed through the other House. The first Bill, the Second Reading of which is now asked for, and the next two Bills on the Paper—the Kingswood (Whitfield Tabernacle School Room, etc.) Charity Bill and the Longton (Caroline Street Chapel) Charity Bill—are all based on the same principle, and the reasons for intorducing them will be found in the Report of the Charity Commissioners, in which it is said that the main object of the scheme in each case is to authorise the variation of the trusts so as to bring them into accordance with the doctrine generally held at the present time by the congregation or denomination to which the chapel belongs. In that Report a very lucid explanation will be found of the grounds in each case on which the Bills have been drawn. They have passed through the House of Commons without any opposition, and without any kind of objection on the part of the interests affected. Therefore, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with any further explanation. I will simply ask that the Bill may now be read a second time.
Moved. "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(Lord Weardale.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, these schemes are of a very interesting character, because, although they proceed upon the Motion of my noble friend opposite they are strictly denominational in every respect. I gather that under these schemes it is sought to fix by Act of Parliament what religious doctrine shall be taught in connection with the particular property with which each scheme deals. I am glad to find that the Church of England is not the only denomination that has to come to Parliament for sanction to deal with its own property, and that, notwithstanding what is supposed to be the comparative freedom of the non-established religious bodies, they also have to depend upon Parliament for the disposal of their property. Another striking circumstance with regard to the present Motion of the noble Lord opposite is that the Motion is not made by an official Member of your Lordships' House. Although this Bill deals with the rights of property of the particular
10
denomination concerned, the Motion is made upon the responsibility of a private Peer. Although I do not imagine for a moment that any private Peer could have been selected by the Charity Commissioners who would more deserve the confidence of your Lordships' House, still it is a striking circumstance that the Bill has not been moved upon the official responsibility of the Government. The Bill is a very detailed matter and depends upon a certain Report of the Charity Commissioners. I do not pretend to have made myself familiar with that Report, but I would ask that, before we proceed with the further stages of the Bill, the noble Lord should give us time to realise what is in that Report. I notice one very significant clause in the Schedule of one of the Bills—"Indemnity to non-consenting trustees." That may be merely common form, in which case there is no more to be said about it; but if it is intended to cover a difference of opinion in the denomination itself about which Parliament is asked to decide one way or another, then it is a matter of some importance and will require consideration We ought to know what these dissenting trustees have to say for themselves, and I merely ask that the noble Lord shall not take the next stage of the Bill until we have had an opportunity of considering it.
LORD WEARDALE: The Committee stage of the Bill shall be fixed to meet the convenience of the noble Marquess opposite.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Bill has already passed your Lordships' House, and I think the noble Lord the Marquess of Salisbury can claim the parentage of it. It was passed again last year, when the late Lord Davey,

11
whose decease has been a great loss to your Lordships' House, was one of its strong supporters. It has also passed a Select Committee of this House. It was not supposed to have much chance, but, fortunately, through the diligence of a private Member, it has found its way through all its stages unaltered in the other House, and I hope your Lordships will now be able to finish the work which you have already endeavoured to accomplish in former years.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD ASHBOURNE: I see no objection to the substance of this Bill, but I would ask my noble friend to get the draftsman to run his eye over the first two paragraphs, because the phraseology appears to me to be more like that of a memorandum than of an Act of Parliament. It plunges at once into a general statement—
"A married woman is able, without her husband, to dispose of, etc."
It states the result of an Act of Parliament, not the Act itself. The next section also is more in the language of a memorandum—
"This section operates to render valid and confirm all such dispositions,"
and so on. I am sure the Bill has been placed before your Lordships in absolute good faith by my noble and learned friend, but I think some attention should be given to the phraseology.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will leave the parents of the Bill to defend their offspring. I believe it is the outcome of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I was not a Member of that Select Committee, and I cannot commit myself to saying whether I approbate or reprobate the language used; but certainly we shall be most happy to consider any objections or criticisms which may be made. After what has been said I will look into it again, but it is exactly the same Bill that was passed before, and the other House have returned it unaltered. Therefore I hope we shall not lightly depart from it.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I decline to be regarded as a fault-finder.
12
In the most innocent way I called attention to the phraseology of two paragraphs. But if my noble and learned friend tells me that he is satisfied, and the House of Commons were satisfied, I shall not make any great disturbance over the matter. But, certainly, the phraseology to which I have directed attention is not usually found in Acts of Parliament, and I merely suggest that before it is too late the draftsman should be asked to take a hurried look over it.
On Question, Bill road 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMPORTED WATCH CASES BILL.
Read 3a, (according to order), and passed.
QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN" (COUNTY AND TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL B. L.
Read 3a, (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THE MILK SUPPLY.
LORD KENYONrose to ask the Minister of Agriculture what course the Government propose to take in regard to legislation affecting the dairy industry, and in response to the deputation which waited upon the Board of Agriculture on 27th February last. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I crave your indulgence for a few minutes while I try to explain the Question which stands in my name. First of all, I must say how sorry I am that Lord Carrington, to whom the Question is addressed, is not able to be present, because he is suffering from a cold; but I understand that the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board is prepared to give a reply. In February of this year a very important deputation waited upon the Board of Agriculture. That deputation consisted of representatives of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, of the leading dairy associations, of forty-six affiliated societies, and sixteen outside bodies, their object being to try to secure from the Government a promise of legislation which would affect the distribution.

13
of milk all over the country. They felt, in the first place, that it was the desire of everybody that the milk supply of the kingdom should be pure, and that the present Model Milk Clauses, which were the outcome of an inquiry held in 1899, had not in anybody's opinion succeeded in effecting this object. The cause of this is that the clauses are not compulsory. Although they may be applied in one district, there is no reason why the animals affected should not be moved to another part of the country. I do not wish to go into the question as to whether milk from a tuberculous cow is dangerous to human beings or not, but I think it is quite reasonable to assume that it is not and cannot be a wholesome food for anybody. What the deputation desired I would like to read to you in a very few words from the report of the deputation. Mr. Middleton, representing the Central Chamber of Agriculture, said—
"We earnestly hope that at an early date the Government will take upon themselves the duty of passing a comprehensive measure relating to the control and the production and the sale of milk. We consider that the Dairies, Cow-sheds, and Milkshops Orders of 1885 and 1889, if carried out, fairly meet the case and are ample protection, but they are not adopted everywhere. We ask that they should be made compulsory and should be strictly enforced throughout the whole country under the supervision and control of a Government Department."
Mr. James Sadler who also represented the Central Chamber of Agriculture and the Cheshire milk producers, said—
"In one important particular we are of opinion that the model clauses do not go far enough. They give power to inspect the cattle, they give power to sample the milk, they give power to isolate the cows the udders of which are suspicious, but they do not give power to slaughter the animal. The net result of this is that the cow that has been isolated and cast out from one herd may quite easily be drafted into another dairy herd, and the milk from that condemned cow may find its way after all into the milk supply. Now, whether it is true or not that tuberculosis can be conveyed through the medium of cow's milk to human beings, am not going to presume to offer an opinion on. What we say is this: that the tuberculous milk, whatever else may be said of it, cannot be regarded as wholesome, and therefore it ought not to be sold for human food. Therefore every cow that by any possibility can give tuberculous milk ought to be immediately slaughtered. We would therefore advocate that power should be given in a general Bill promoted by the Government, and
14
backed by the Board of Agriculture, that all cows which show symptoms of tuberculosis of the udder should be immediately slaughtered; that, having been slaughtered, compensation should be paid for them out of Imperial funds."
On such lines as these we hope the Government will introduce a Bill very soon. The various bodies concerned are anxious for some legislation, and I trust that we shall receive a favourable reply.
*LORD ALLENDALE: My Lords, I have been asked to reply to the noble Lord's Question in the absence of my noble friend Lord Carrington, and also partly because the Question is to a large extent concerned with the question of public health as well as the dairy industry. In fact the main points raised by the deputation which waited on the President of the Board of Agriculture, from the report of which the noble Lord has read some extracts, concern the Local Government Board rather more than the Board of Agriculture. The deputation to which the noble Lord has referred urged that there should be an end of piecemeal legislation on the subject of milk supply. I think most of us will be agreed that this is very desirable. As your Lordships are aware, there is a series of clauses known as the Model Milk Clauses, which have been inserted in a number of local Acts dealing with the subject of milk, and are specially intended to guard against the risk of the spread of tuberculosis through the consumption of milk from diseased cows. Whether they have that effect entirely I would not like to say; but I am rather inclined to agree with Lord Kenyon that they have not secured that result as far as we might desire.
The deputation urged that any further legislation on the subject should be dealt with in a Government measure applicable to the whole country. They went so far as to suggest that cows even suspected of suffering from tuberculosis of the udder should be slaughtered and compensation paid out of Imperial funds. On that point, raised by Mr. Sadler, I will not follow the noble Lord. It is a large and rather a thorny question, and I have often heard it discussed in another place when the question of compensation under local corporations' private Bills

15
was being considered. That certainly is a matter on which the Treasury would have a good deal to say, and I am not prepared to follow the noble Lord in regard to it at present. There are also in force Orders made under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 and 1886. These Orders, made by the Local Government Board and their predecessors (the Privy Council), are called the Daries, Cowsheds, and Milk-shops Orders, and relate to various matters with respect to dairies and cowsheds and the sale of milk, and empower local authorities to make regulations on these subjects. All these matters are referred to in the report from which the noble Lord opposite has quoted. Some of the points urged by the deputation were not so strictly concerned with matters of public health, but the other points which are have received and are receiving the attention of the Local Government Board. Moreover, the attention of the Board has in other ways been drawn to the subject and especially by the second interim Report of the Royal Commission on Human and Animal Tuberculosis, issued at the beginning of this year, in which the Commissioners state that—
"A very considerable amount of disease and loss of life, especially among the young, must be attributed to the consumption of cows' milk containing tubercle bacilli."
They add that their results clearly point to the necessity of measures more stringent than those at present enforced being taken to prevent the sale or consumption of such milk.
All this is receiving the careful attention of the Local Government Board, who have come to the conclusion that legislation at an early date should be undertaken by the Government on the subject of milk supply, and they propose during the recess, in consultation with the Board of Agriculture, to give their careful consideration to the whole question, but of course where the question of compensation is concerned the Treasury would have to assent. I cannot pledge the Government or the Local Government Board as to the exact proposals of any measure which they may introduce. In framing their proposals their object will be, whilst doing what they can to secure the purity
16
of the milk supply, not to press unduly on the dairy industry. All the points urged by the deputation are engaging the earnest and careful consideration of the Local Government Board and will continue to do so in the preparation of their Bill. But it must not be understood that the Government commit themselves to the acceptance of the suggestions, or of any particular suggestion put forward by the deputation.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the announcement which the noble Lord has made will give a measure of satisfaction to those who are interested in this question. It; is a question of very great importance, not only to the business mainly concerned, but also to the health of the population at large, and I am sure that the House will welcome the announcement that His Majesty's Government intend to deal with the subject at an early date. But there was one matter mentioned by my noble friend behind me, namely, us to the compensation to be paid for cows which may be found to be affected with tuberculosis, to which the noble Lord opposite did not, refer further than to say he did not intend to follow my noble friend into the question. But that is one of the most important questions that can be dealt with, and we should like to know what is the view of the Government upon it. Is the cost of compensation for the animal slaughtered to fall upon the taxpayer or upon the ratepayer in the locality concerned? Your Lordships may be aware that in London the London County Council alone amongst all the authorities has an Act of Parliament which enables it to give compensation, not for the whole but for a proportion of the value of the animal destroyed. I very much hope that the Local Government Board, when they are dealing with this matter, will very carefully consider the question upon whom the cost of compensation is to fall.
The noble Lord referred to what are known as the Model Milk Clauses. These clauses were settled after very careful consideration by the parties concerned, and in my Department of

17
the Private Bill Office we have always closely scrutinised any attempt to depart from the Model Clauses which were agreed upon at that conference. They have never been departed from until this year, when the London County Council introduced a Bill in which they proposed to give compensation to the dairyman when he is summoned to come up to London to give evidence. That was a concession to the dairying interest to which I did not feel justified in offering any opposition. But until the Government introduces some general legislation dealing with the whole subject, I very much hope that your Lordships and the other House of Parliament will not materially interfere with the Model Milk Clauses. I will not go into the general question now, though it is a very interesting and important one. I will merely say that I hope the Government will deal with it at an early date. A general Bill was introduced in which this question would have been dealt with, but I understand that at the instance of the Local Government Board it was taken out of that Bill on the understanding that the Local Government Board would deal with the matter at an early date, and I hope your Lordships will see a Bill dealing with the whole subject placed upon the Table early next Session.

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYrose to draw attention to the recent action of the Government, and to ask:—(1) Whether the Board of Education will have any legal power to distribute to local authorities any part of the sum of 1100,000, recently voted for providing new public elementary schools, until Section 96 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, has been repealed; and (2) Upon what grounds, educational or otherwise, the Board of Education have reversed their policy of neutrality in religious matters in the sphere of secondary education by their recent regulations for secondary schools and training colleges. The noble Marquess said: I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions standing in my name, and in doing so I think it is hardly necessary for me to impress upon your Lordships the great
18
importance that I lay on the two Questions of which I have given notice, because the Board of Education have recently taken action on totally new and novel lines. As these lines were, as far as I have been able to ascertain, entirely without precedent, I considered it to be my duty as a past Minister for Education to take the first opportunity of raising this important question in your Lordships' House, and thereby not only to endeavour to extract some explanation from His Majesty's Government, but also to draw the attention of the country to what I think is a most remarkable course of action. Your Lordships will have noticed that I have put down my two Questions under one heading. I have done that because the session was drawing to a close, and I thought that we might be limited with regard to time, and that consequently it might better suit your Lordships to discuss the two Questions on the same day. I trust, however, that those who reply to my Questions will deal with them fully and clearly and separately, as they are not in any way connected one with the other except by the fact that they are both associated with the Board of Education. I trust, therefore, that it will be fully explained to us on what principle the Board of Education have acted in these matters, whether they are acting with perfect legality, and. what will be the method of the administration of these new rules and regulations.
I will take first the question of. the proposed sum of money which is to be given for the building of public elementary schools. I at once say that I do not cavil at that proposal in the least. I am one of those—and I believe I speak for others on this side of the House—who recognise that in single school areas—whether the single school is denominational or undenominational—there is a certain amount of hardship. We recognise that fully; we do not disguise it. But what I wish to ask His Majesty's Government is how they propose to spend this £100,000. Ts it to be given fairly and impartially to denominational single school areas and undenominational single school areas, or is it to be kept simply to erect council schools in denominational single schools areas for the purpose of

19
squeezing out the denominational school? That is a question which the noble Lord opposite will not wonder at my asking, and it is one to which I think I have a right to expect a full reply.
Then I turn to the manner in which this £100,000 has been obtained. I say that the manner in which this money has been obtained is without precedent and unconstitutional, and, in my opinion the distribution of the money as the law at present stands will be illegal. This is a point I would particularly put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I commence by saying that the procedure in obtaining this £100,000 is unconstitutional. I remember well—I was not a member of the Government—but in 1897 when the Parliamentary grants were given there were two Bills, one to assist necessitous voluntary schools and the other to assist necessitous board schools. On each of those measures the question was discussed at great length—I believe, speaking from memory, that the discussion occupied something like twenty-two days. The question of obtaining £100,000 for this purpose would not have taken that length of time, and I want to know why this unconstitutional method was adopted instead of bringing the matter before Parliament and obtaining the money in the ordinary way.
I say, further, that I doubt the legality of the proceeding of the House of Commons. Section 96 of the Education Act of 1870 lays it down that no Parliamentary grant shall be made in aid of building, enlarging, improving, or fitting up any elementary school. In March last, when this question was raised in the House of Commons, this was pointed out very strongly to the President of the Board of Education, and it was declared that the Vote was illegal until that section had been repealed. In the course of the debate Mr. McKenna, and also the Attorney-General, expressed considerable doubt as to whether they were acting legally in thus obtaining the money. I have epitomised what I gather from their speeches, and I think they admitted that the mere Vote would not by itself entitle money to be paid to any local authority, but at the same time they mooted the theory that the
20
matter would be put right by the Appropriation Act, which would provide that the money voted should be appropriated to the purpose for which it was voted. Later in the debate Mr. McKenna seems to have resolved definitely to take up the position that the expenditure would be legal, thanks to the Appropriation Act, but the legality only applies to the particular sum voted, and the section of the Act of 1870 remains in force. That is a question I put to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I venture to say that the Appropriation Act has never before been used for any such purpose, and what I wish to ask is, if the Appropriation Act enables Mr. McKenna to obtain this £100,000 from the Consolidated Fund to the Treasury and from the Treasury to the Board of Education, and if the clause to which I have referred holds good, are the Board of Education justified in distributing that £100,000 to the local authorities exactly as they think fit? When we have this difference of opinion and this uncertainty as to the legality of the action of the Board, I think I have a right to ask the question, and the noble and learned Lord would be the last to deny it.
I now turn to what I think is the more important and serious part of my question, and that is the new principle involved in the regulations recently issued by the Board of Education. In the first place, what I find fault with chiefly in the proposed change is that for the first time in our educational history there is introduced into colleges and schools other than elementary, the principle of religious strife. We have all regretted for many years past that there has been considerable religious strife in elementary education; but I am thankful to think that up to the present there has never been any religious strife in the secondary schools and training colleges. On what grounds then is this new element to be introduced into these other spheres of education? I have frequently heard different classes of the community uttering expressions of hope that the religious controversy would be brought to an end. No one has more cordially concurred in this hope than I have, but I want to point out that so far from bringing the religious trouble to an end the action of

21
the Government under these regulations will introduce this controversial spirit in regard to religion into the training colleges and secondary schools. On this point I would ask the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council, who—I know he will not repudiate it—with his colleagues is responsible for the action of the President of the Board of Education, upon whose advice did the right hon. Gentleman act when he submitted these proposed changes to his colleagues? Whom did he consult? Having myself been President of the Board of Education, I know full well that many sources of advice of a most valuable character are always open to the President of the Board of Education. There is the Consultative Committee, a most able body, composed of people fully qualified and occupying responsible positions, who devote their time, energy, and convenience to the consideration of any question that may be submitted to them by the President of the Board of Education. I speak from experience on that point. Did the President of the Board consult the Consultative Committee before he made his alteration in the regulations? In dealing with the secondary schools, it would have been perfectly possible, and I think it would be his duty, to consult the headmasters of the various grammar schools in the country. There is such a body who could have given him most useful advice. Did the right hon. Gentleman consult that body? Again, the right hon. Gentleman has many experts whom he can consult on these points. I ask, did he consult any of them, because innovations such as these in our system of education should not have been made without the greatest care being taken, and every possible opinion of value on the points at issue collected.
Now, my Lords, what do the new regulations do to the secondary schools? In this I speak subject to correction, as it is somewhat difficult to arrive at an accurate figure. There are something like 600 secondary schools in the country; and I believe that out of those about 450 will be affected by the new regulations. A large number of those schools owe their existence to the generosity of those who endowed them and others who have helped to maintain them.
22
For many years past these schools have been and are now doing a great and good I work, which has always been recognised by the State. The State has been glad to assist and to subsidise these schools; the State has encouraged people to spend i money on them, and on account of that encouragement many people have done i a great deal to assist the schools in the course of instruction in which they most firmly believe. It has been recognised, very justly no doubt, by the Board of Education that higher grants are necessary for promoting or maintaining the efficiency of these schools. Of that nobody will complain at all. It is absolutely necessary to assist these schools to maintain a high state of efficiency. But are these higher grants to be given for the promotion of efficiency in education and nothing else? I deny it entirely. They are not, at the present moment, proposed to be given for the promotion of efficiency in education. To my mind they are offered on totally different grounds. I believe—and, I think, not unjustly—that they are proposed to be given purely for political purposes.
What are the grounds on which these extra grants will be given? In order to receive an extra grant the school must accept local control, altering entirely its former representation. This alteration is an entire departure from the expert opinion and the opinion of those who have studied the subject in years past. It has always been considered by expert opinion that secondary schools should be carried on, if I may use the expression, in an elastic manner. It has to be remembered that secondary schools are different from elementary schools, for this reason: there is no compulsory attendance, and by giving elasticity to the government of these schools it is made easier for them to meet the requirements which are considered adequate by the parents, and consequently to make the school more attractive to them. This was the line carried out by the Bryce Commission in 1894. This is the principle which underlay the Report of that Commission, and the subsequent development of the secondary school system has been based upon the idea that the State should welcome and encourage every secondary

23
school, no matter how founded or controlled. The scheme adopted by the President of the Board of Education has been brought forward, to my mind, because it will introduce into these schools for the first time an undenominational atmosphere by making the majority of the governors representative. It is a deliberate attack on these schools to make them alter their system of religious education which has been in force up to the present time.
Now, my Lords, let me give an illustration of what I mean—a concrete case showing how a secondary school has been treated by the Board of Education. It is only this morning I had the case put into my hands, though I read a short account of it yesterday in The Times. The school to which I refer is the Ranelagh foundation. Lord Ranelagh's school was founded in the 18th century as a school for boys and girls. From time to time regulations have been framed by the Charity Commissioners for the application of the money, but it has always been recognised that the endowment is of an ecclesiastical character. The governors applied a few years ago for a new scheme in order to utilise the endowment for a secondary school which was urgently needed in the locality of East Berkshire. A scheme to enable the capital of the endowment to be utilised in building such a school was sealed on 21st December, 1905, after the present Government had come into power—I ask your Lordships to notice that. A clause in this scheme provided that religious instruction in accordance with the doctrine of the Church of England should be given in the school, subject to a conscience clause. In accordance with the scheme plans have been prepared, which have received the sanction of the Board of Education and the County Council of Berkshire, for the erection of a school, which is now being built; the county council aiding by a grant of £2,000 and the Ranelagh governors contributing £6,000. By the new regulations respecting secondary education no grants will be receivable for the maintenance of this school when completed unless the denominational character is abandoned. It was on the faith of this character being maintained that the governors accepted the scheme
24
of 1905, and unless it had been put into the scheme they would certainly have strenuously and unanimously opposed it. The matter was brought up before the Berkshire Education Committee on Saturday last, and, according to The Times, Alderman Ferard said—
"Then came the new order which swept away the whole understanding between the trustees, the council, and the Board of Education. The result was that the old trustees had been deliberately defrauded of their capital. They hoped when they parted with their funds that there was some reasonable chance of finality, but the result was that an important district around Windsor had been robbed for some political reason. If education was to be conducted with variations from time to time, owing to the political opinions of the Government for the time being, he did not know what was to become of it, for it was of the very essence of educational schemes that there should be finality."
I have ventured to read that extract because I think it is a practical illustration of what is being done at the present time and most undoubtedly will be done in the future.
Another step of a most extraordinary character taken with regard to secondary schools in these new regulations is that where Parliamentary grants are increased only Cowper-Temple teaching is to be given. I think this is a most extraordinary departure. Not only does it show the animus of the Board of Education against denominational teaching, but it is an entirely new departure from the manner in which Parliamentary and local grants have been distributed hitherto. Up till now in the distribution of Parliamentary grants no consideration has ever been given to the question of religious instruction. They have always been given on the ground of efficiency. Now the Board of Education propose to make Parliamentary grants a question of religion. A more dangerous proposal than to bring the religious controversy into this question cannot be imagined. Local grants are now given entirely irrespective of religious considerations. This was a factor very carefully laid down in the Act of 1902, but from that the present Government propose to depart. In Clause 4 of the Act of 1902, it was stated that—
"A council in the application of money under this part of the Act shall not require that any particular form of religious instruction or worship or any religious catechism or formulary

25
which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall or shall not be taught, used, on practised in any school, college, or hostel, aided but not provided by the council, and no pupil shall on the ground of religious belief be excluded, etc."
Therefore I ask the noble Earl, on what grounds have His Majesty's Government by their action and their regulations repealed that section which we consider of such importance in the Act of 1902.
Then, my Lords, there is a still further danger with regard to the future of secondary schools. I have heard it-rumoured—I have no authority for the statement—that it is quite possible that some local authorities may insist that if secondary schools do not earn the fullest grant obtainable they shall not continue to receive contributions from the local authority. What does that mean? It means that if they are to earn the fullest- possible grant they must give up their present system of teaching, and give only Cowper-Temple teaching. I think this is a danger—I do not say it is before us at the present moment; I do not, say it is in force; but I like to look at possibilities even more than probabilities—and,. that being the case, I think it is well we should have before our minds the danger that may arise of a double penalty being paid by secondary schools, should they refuse to be restricted to Cowper-Temple teaching, and thereby be precluded from receiving the fullest possible grant.
To my mind the position of the Board of Education on this subject of secondary schools is a most remarkable one. The Board of Education at the present-moment are the Charity Commissioners, whose duty it is to watch over and preserve the interests of the endowed schools and closely to guard their trusts. That is the duty of the Charity Commissioners who are the Board of Education. But what are the Board of Education doing? They are ignoring their position of trustees as Charity Commissioners, and in their capacity as Board of Education are offering bribes to the secondary schools to break their trusts: they are encouraging them to do so by making the conditions so much easier for them if they do. What would be said of the trustee of any property if he took up this dual position? I had
26
hoped that Lord Barnard, who is an expert in this matter, would have been present to go fully into the question; I merely raise it as one which might escape attention. It may be said that the matter is very simple; that the secondary schools are in a very good position, that they have a way out, that they can contract themselves out by doing certain things. What are those things—
"If as regards the conditions set out in Articles 5, 18 (b), 23, and 24 (but not as regards the conditions set out in Article 20) of these regulations, the local education authority pass a resolution informing the Board of Education that the school is in their view required as part of the secondary school provision in their area, and that one or more of these conditions may be waived with advantage in view of the educational needs of the area, the Board of Education may, if they see fit, pay the grants in full under Articles 36 to 41 of this chapter."
What does that mean? It means that there must be a discussion of the individual case before the whole of the council—a discussion which will be not only full, but open to the Press and to everybody to criticise, and it will raise contention in the education body on a subject in regard to which it has never been raised before. I believe there are on these education committees a great many Nonconformists holding views of a fair character who would have no objection whatever to assisting the maintenance of these schools in the condition in which they were, but if their names are to be published and the line they take advertised they will feel that there is a hard and fast line drawn between Nonconformists and denominationalists which has not been drawn before, and the result will be most injurious and unjust to these schools.
Now with regard to the effect of these regulations on training colleges. For the training college, unlike the secondary school, there is no way out whatever—there is no contracting out clause. I am not going to deal with this question at length, because your Lordships will, I hope, have read the great speech delivered on Saturday last by the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury on the occasion of the deputation to the Prime Minister. It would be pressumption on my part if, after that speech, I were to attempt to say anything in

27
defence of the training colleges; and I am also in hopes that the most rev. Prelate will himself deal with the subject to-night. Therefore I propose to say only one or two words in regard to the manner in which training colleges are to be treated. I cannot but think that the line taken in the regulations of proposing to fine gentlemen of the calibre and ability of heads of training colleges £100, or to withdraw the grant from them should they not conform entirely to the wishes of the Board of Education, is an insult to those gentlemen. I see that even Mr. McKenna later on seemed to have some hesitation as to whether he had been wise in introducing this paragraph into the regulations.
But there is another point in regard to the training colleges on which I would like to touch. Nonconformists complain that their teachers are handicapped all through their career because they have to forego training and consequently do not command the highest salaries that are obtainable. I have gone into the figures with regard to the numbers of students who attend the various training colleges, and I cannot but think that the complaint of the Nonconformists is not justified. I take the total number of denominational and undenominational residential training colleges, day training colleges, and hostels, and I find that for students who take a two years' course there are vacant each year 2,110 denominational places and 2,581 undenominational places. In addition to this, ten local authorities actually have schemes for the provision of training colleges, all undenominational, and seven other local authorities have the matter under consideration. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that the complaint of Nonconformists that their teachers have not the same advantages as denominationalists, and that consequently these regulations are necessary in their favour, falls to the ground.
In conclusion, I may say that in these remarks I have endeavoured not to go into detail, but to deal with the question of principle. To my mind the principle running through the action of His Majesty's Government is to endeavour by every possible means in their power
28
to conciliate their extreme Nonconformist supporters, and to wreak vengeance on the Church supporters of denominational religious education because of their refusal to accept the Education Bill of the noble Earl last year. It may be asked why I make such a statement. I cannot forget the threat held out by the noble Earl on the last stage of that Bill in your Lordships' House, when he said—
"During the coming months a great many harsh things will be said on both sides, and I am afraid some harsh things will be done."
The President of the Board of Education went further, for on the 1st of this month, at Pontypool, he said—
"The Government went to the House of Lords with a peace-offering in their hands; but the next time they went, it would be with a sword."
We know now what the sword is: it is an endeavour on the part of the Government to crush denominational education under foot, and to hand over religious education entirely to undenominational ideas. We know now exactly what we have to expect. I say that the introduction of these changes in the regulations by the Government to please their Nonconformist supporters is a policy of vindictive spite. That may be said to be a strong expression for a past Minister for Education to use. Gladly would I withdraw and apologise for it if I could receive such a full explanation from the Lord President of the Council as would prove to me that the charge was false. But unless I receive such an explanation, full and complete, I shall adhere to the expression, which I believe will be endorsed not only by every Churchman in the country, but by every fairminded man, no matter to what sect or denomination he may belong.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Marquess, speaking with all the weight of an ex-President of the Board of Education, has dealt at large with the greater part of the subject now in controversy, and the noble Earl who is now the Lord President must have felt that some at least of the difficulties which have been raised are difficulties which require an answer—that some of these points are very real, and that they press with

29
unexpected harshness and unfairness, possibly through inadvertence, on a great number of those interested in education. I do not propose to follow the noble Marquess into the constitutional questions which he has raised. I shall deal entirely with the second part of the question on the Paper, and especially with that part which relates to training colleges and hostels. The noble Marquess has referred to a speech—if it may be called a speech; it was more or less of a conversational character—which I made on the occasion of a deputation to the Prime Minister on Saturday last. That speech was reproduced at most unexpected length as far as I was concerned, and I hope your Lordships have not done what the noble Marquess trusted you had, namely, read that speech, as I must to some extent traverse the same ground to-day. I am most anxious to avoid in this matter mere technicalities. The subject is a very intricate one; I do not know that I have ever known a question in which it was more difficult to place the issues quite simply and clearly before those who are of necessity unfamiliar with the practical working of our training college system. The details are most important, but I desire as far as possible to leave them on one side, and to deal with one or two large principles which seem to me to underlie some of the proposed changes, and to be eminently worthy of the attention of the House and of the country.
May I first restate in outline some of the facts as to the system of which our training colleges are a part? There are now seventy-four training colleges in England, besides one—a college for the blind—which I need not touch upon; fifty-two of these are residential and twenty-two non -residential. Of the residential colleges, thirty-three belong to the Church of England, seven to the Roman Catholics, two to the Wesleyans, and ten are quite undenominational. The twenty-two non-residential colleges are all undenominational The students in the resident colleges are 5,363, of whom, roughly speaking, 3,300 belong to the Church of England and 1,100 are undenominational. The Church of England has thus about three times as many places in residential colleges as there are undenominational places. There are 269
30
Wesleyan places and 629 Roman Catholic places. Nearly all the residential colleges were originally provided from voluntary funds, although of course there were considerable building grants in their aid some forty years ago. All the day colleges, I think, are provided from public funds. Without troubling you with more figures, I may say that if your Lordships will add up the details you will find that there are at this moment 2,000 more places in the undenominational colleges, including residential and non residential, than there are in those which are confined to members of the Church of England. It is well to mention that fact, because people sometimes speak as though there were no openings now for undenominationalists in the training colleges of the country.
Now, my Lords, who go to these training colleges, and how do they qualify to get there? Until a few years ago nearly all those who applied for admission to our training colleges had been pupil-teachers, having gone through the ordinary course of four or five years training, and, having finished that course, were qualified to sit for what was then known as the King's Scholarship examination. They were arranged in order of merit and in classes when the examination lists were published, and from them the selection was made of those who were to go into the training colleges. But now the position has become much more complicated, because, most rightly and properly, in recent years men and women have been allowed to qualify for admission to training colleges by many other, processes than passing through the stage of pupil-teachership; they may, for instance, matriculate at London University or pass the Oxford or Cambridge higher local examinations. The conditions which must be satisfied by candidates are set out in these Regulations, and it will be seen how varied they are, and how extraordinarily difficult it is to choose from among the applicants those who ought to be admitted, to decide between the relative merits of those who have qualified in different ways—for instance, between those who have matriculated and those who have passed through the pupil-teacher system—and to place them in order of merit. A large power of choice must necessarily rest somewhere, if

31
persons qualified in such a variety of ways are ultimately to be selected to be placed in the colleges to which they aspire to enter. The rule hitherto has been that among those thus qualified the training college authorities have had to make a choice, and in making it they have, as far as I know, always tried to look to the general fitness of each man or woman to receive the full good which the college offers, both in secular and in religious matters; they have had to consider all the facts belonging to the training and life of the particular candidates, and to judge which would be best fitted to become really competent teachers at the end of two or three years training in the college. Until recently they were very greatly helped in doing that; indeed, half the work was done for them by the class list, which showed what the position was of the various candidates. But recently that has been entirely abolished, and the whole list of names—some 10,000 in the women's department—is now published alphabetically, without any order. Anyone who will consider what that must mean in the endeavour to make a selection by rule of thumb out of the candidates who may apply, in the order of their application, will see that it is practically an impossible task. There is a hint given in these regulations that some change may be necessary in the mode of making the results of that examination public, in order to facilitate the ultimate choice for entrance to the training colleges. That is a mere hint, not a promise, and at this moment the list is literally such that the persons who have to make a choice in regard to particular applicants have to grope their way without any guidance. What it was announced a little while ago that a change was to take place the training college authorities were warned that the list would be published without the classes, and told that this would throw on them a greater responsibility in the way of finding out for themselves the relative merits of applicants. That happened, I think, eighteen months ago, and the training college authorities are perfectly ready to accept that responsibility, and to make their choice, with the additional help of examination or otherwise. I should add that in the colleges belonging to the Church of England the accepted applicants must be mainly—not entirely, because there is at least one exception,
32
and there may be more—members of the Church of England. There, of course, lies a large part of the gravamen in regard to these changes, and on that a great deal necessarily turns.
Then, my Lords, I must ask your attention to another point, which is really a vital one as regards the question of fairness or unfairness. During the last few years a new development has taken place. We were asked informally whether our training colleges would be prepared to admit students from outside who need not be members of the Church, of England, and who might take advantage of everything the college offers, except the religious side, which they did not want. That is to say, they might be resident in a hostel or other establishment outside our training college and come to it day by day and take all its advantages, social, recreative, or educational, with the one exception of the religious side, which they did not want. I was able a year ago to inform the President of the Hoard of Education that all our colleges were prepared—not at once, for it would take a little time to make such arrangements—so far as it was locally and topographically possible—to enlarge their buildings adequately to receive students who should thus come into them. We set to work to do that and have spent money in doing it. We have been preparing our colleges for those who would come in from outside, and to meet, as I think, the difficulty which the Nonconformists feel by giving them in the residential training colleges all the advantages the colleges offer except the religious instruction. We intend to do that; of course it has not been done to any great extent yet, we are waiting for the influx. It will take a little time to arrange about the change in our buildings, and large sums have been expended in the endeavour to do it. About ten years ago a great college was founded in South London, St. Gabriel's, Kennington; there it was arranged with the Board of Education from the first that half the students should belong to the category I have described, those living outside coming in for everything except the religious teaching and worship. The whole college has been started, and built at a cost of £60,000, on those lines, and the whole of the

33
arrangements have been calculated on the theory that that will be continued. That is an extremely important element in regard to the allegation we make that what is now proposed will press upon us with undue harshness. But look at it quite apart from how it presses on us. Remember that every one of those places thus acquired for non-Church people within our walls would have been new and would make some addition to the present deficient supply of training college places, whereas, as the regulations are now drawn, there is no addition whatever made to the number of places for students; there is merely a shifting of the grievance, if there be a grievance, from one set of shoulders to another. Not a single additional place is provided by the regulations laid down. And moreover, all those new places connected with our colleges would have been undenominational.
Now, my Lords, coming to the new rules published a few days ago, I will state their purport, leaving details aside, not because they are unimportant, not because I am unfamiliar with them, but because I want to state the case in the most general way. For the colleges now in existence the rules and management are allowed to remain as before —denominational in character as regards authorities, teachers, chapel services, and the rest. But the following new restrictions are laid down:— In entering a -college no religious question is allowed to be raised as regards the candidate coming in, and anybody may come in, be his or her attitude towards religious life what it may. In the second place, there is to be no consideration of what are called "social antecedents or the like." Now, my Lords, although I have had the benefit of the kind endeavours of the President of the Board of Education and the Prime Minister, upon whom we waited the other day, I still find the greatest difficulty in knowing how, if I were the principal of a training college and had to make the choice, I should know what is meant by "social antecedents and the like." A great many of us have been trying for some time past to make our training college work such as to facilitate the entrance of those whose general knowledge apart
34
from the mere examination was of a higher kind than was customary before. We have tried to get those who come from the more cultured surroundings, surroundings which have enabled them from childhood onwards to have a larger knowledge of the facts of life and education in all its different branches, so that they are better fitted to exercise that kind of influence which we want exercised upon the little children in our schools than would be even some of the cleverest and best if they came from a different atmosphere and had not had these advantages. Do not suppose for a moment that I or anyone on whose behalf I speak desire to make it difficult for the clever and capable child from the humblest ranks of society who is able to rise to the dignity and splendid position of a teacher by sheer force of character and merit. We shall always find places for those; we welcome them and regard them as some of the best ingredients we could possibly have, but at the same time we do not want rules laid down for the guidance of those who have to make the selection which will force them to exclude altogether any consideration of the more general attributes, powers, and attainments of the candidates apart from the mere examination test. But that is one of the rules here laid down—that there shall be "no consideration of social antecedents and the like." I hope we shall hear from the Government to-night that it is to be so interpreted that we are not to rule out altogether these considerations.
Then we are told that no examination of any sort or kind, written or oral, may be imposed by the authorities of a college in order to test the relative merits of those who have passed the qualifying examination. There is a hint that we arc to have the aid for the future of a classified list as formerly instead of a non-classified list as at present of those who have passed the usual examination. But we have still the difficulty that the authorities of the training colleges will have to form an estimate of the relative attainments of people trained in totally different surroundings, by totally different processes, and arriving at the ultimate goal—the presentation of their credentials such as they arc. Without the power of applying some

35
test as to their relative merits, how can anyone say which of two men or two women would be the better?
Then we are told that great attention is to be paid to the order of the applications as they come in. If it is to be a mere question of rule of thumb as to the order in which applications come in, your Lordships can at once see what the difficulties will be. Another new rule is that all information as to the qualifications of candidates which has been received by the college authorities, either prior or subsequent to the application, must be forthcoming to the Board of Education. Are those words to be taken literally? The head of a training college is generally an educationist in touch with a number of other educationists, and receiving private information, exactly as the head of a college receives information as to candidates who may be coming up to matriculate at Oxford or Cambridge. If these words mean that the ultimate rejection of a candidate must not turn upon information which cannot be produced, I can perfectly understand the rule, and would not be prepared to dispute it; but if it means that any letter or message or any information of any sort or kind which reaches the college authorities, either directly or indirectly, respecting a candidate, must be handed over or made or produced to the Board of Education, then it is one of the most perplexing directions ever given to a person who is in the habit of receiving confidential and private as well as public communications in such matters.
Then, we are told that, should the head of the college, in making his or her choice, unfortunately make a mistake, and should the grounds upon which a candidate has been rejected be, in the view of the Board of Education, unreasonable—
"the college or hostel concerned will be liable to a reduction of its total grant for the year, not exceeding £100 on the first occasion, and to its removal from the list of recognised colleges receiving grants on a second occasion."
["Shame!"] I say without fear of contradiction that no rule ought to have been so worded for application to people of the highest culture and attainments who are giving their lives to this work. At all events, if it be really necessary to prescribe financial penalties, the rule might have been worded in a somewhat different tone.
36
I have endeavoured to avoid technicalities, but I think your Lordships will have seen how exteremely difficult will be the task imposed upon the training college authorities in making choice amongst the candidates. What I wish to contend is this—and I say it with the deepest seriousness and with a full sense of responsibility—that these changes, if carried out as they stand, would gravely imperil the religious character of the elementary education throughout the country; and further, that they would imperil our educational life and progress in the schools by lowering the probable type of teacher whom we are likely ultimately to obtain. Feeling that, I am bound to warn the House of Lords, and, so far as one's voice extends, to warn the country, of a peril, which is not a question of denomination, but which concerns all those who have at heart the religious life of England, and who care about educational progress in our elementary schools.
I will give my reasons for those two contentions to which attach such importance. We have heard again and again—and I have always been thankful for the assurances we have had from the Government—that our schools are to remain schools in which a religious education may be given, and that the secular system has not been adopted—that it has been, as one member of the Government said, smashed. The secular system has been rejected by the Government deliberately, and our elementary schools are to retain a religious character. But on whom is it to depend whether or not that religious character is given? On whom is instruction in the Bible, putting aside for the moment the denominational question, to depend? It must rest upon the teachers who are to be put into the schools. Who are these teachers going to be? They must be those who come out of our training colleges. Once let a training college cease to have a religious character impressed upon it, and cease to give within its walls the training in that most difficult art of all—the imparting of religious knowledge to little children— how can you maintain that religious character in your schools which in all your educational projects you rightly—and I am thankful for it—boast that you have [maintained. It cannot be.

37
denied that with the increase of day training colleges there will be an increase of places in which it is practically impossible that religious education can be given, or, to say the least, in which it is exceedingly unlikely that religious education with any definiteness at all will be given. As a matter of fact, in the day training colleges now being established by county councils there is no religious training at all; they are, I think, largely of necessity, secular training places pure and simple. If you are going to prevent throughout England the security of the existence of a certain number of training colleges in which from beginning to end there will be a religious basis to the education given, and if you further prevent religious hostels being attached to undenominational colleges, then you are taking away just that security which was offered by these means against the purely secular training which would otherwise be prevalent throughout our training colleges.
I certainly understood that we were encouraged to establish these hostels, and I was not surprised, because I recognise to the full the difficulty there must be in the Government's—either through the Board of Education at the centre or through the local authorities throughout the land—undertaking the extraneous task of training teachers to give religious instruction. When we offered, to put down hostels of a religious kind which should be boarding houses in connection with undenominational training colleges, when we offered to look after the religious life of their inmates, and see that those who came into them were those who wanted to profit by the religious opportunities provided, then not merely were we helping the teachers themselves, but we were doing the very thing which the Government ought specially to thank us for doing. We offered to do something which could be done by voluntary effort but which cannot be done so well by any State authority, and now we are told that all these denominational hostels which we desired to establish around the undenominational training colleges are to be forbidden. Those which have been established are to be allowed in a sense to go on, but their doors are to be open to everybody, and there will be no reason why the inmates should
38
care the least about the religious teaching offered, while for the future we are not to be allowed to found any such places at all. We shall doubtless be told by the noble Earl that we may not call them hostels, but that we may call them lodgings. If your Lordships will look at the rules in detail you will find that whereas the inmates of hostels are to be allowed to have a certain sum paid for them by grant to the hostel, those who are in lodgings are to be allowed a much smaller sum. The difference is £15 between the sum paid for a man in a hostel and the sum paid for a man in a lodging. Why is every man who comes into the place which has a religious stamp upon it to be fined that £15? It may sound a very small matter to those who are dealing with huge sums at the centre. But our plan is that each of these hostels should give accommodation for thirty candidates—that is to say, we shall have to pay an additional £450 a year for each such hostel because we are doing something which, instead of being censured, ought to be received with gratitude—because it is the very thing which the Government find it difficult to do for themselves, and have to look to voluntary bodies to do for them. But, instead of being encouraged, we are being hampered and set back by the manner in which difficulties are placed in our way. I do not honestly believe that the country wants that at all; I do not believe they want these hostels to be made so expensive that we shall practically be unable to go forward with the work for which they were intended. So much for what I have contended, that these regulations, if they are passed, will impair the religious character of our elementary education.
Now I pass from the religious side of the Regulations altogether, to their effect upon educational efficiency. Is it really to be the case that we are to act virtually by rule of thumb, or by chance, with regard to the candidates whom we are to choose to go into the training college and get the coping-stone set upon the education that they have had in the schools or in their preparation for matriculation? I honestly do not see at present how any other method can be followed than that which will virtually be the order of application, which is more or less a matter of

39
chance. That method will cripple immensely the power of the authorities of the training colleges to judge whether or not a man or woman who offers himself or herself is qualified to get the full advantage of the college. We heard a great deal last year, and I agree with it to the the full, about everything depending upon personality of the teacher. That personality is not a thing that begins at twenty-five; it begins much earlier than that, and it is a thing which the skilled judgment of the authorities is able to test and understand when candidates come forward. Are we to be debarred from looking at that question of personality, or from considering whether or not he or she seems to be the kind of person who will make the sort of teacher the country really wants? We are to be debarred from doing that, because we are not to be allowed to make any choice except in accordance with the order of delivery of applications in the post. I do not believe that a rule of thumb of that kind will ever select the kind of teachers required by the authorities, or by the country.
It has been said, and I have no doubt we shall be told again, that, after all, we must remember that we are dealing with public money. "There is the real difficulty," we shall be told, "of the whole question It is not as if it was a question of private money: you are dealing with public money and practically nothing else." It is not fair, because the actual maintenance of the college work day by day is largely mainly met from public sources, to forget the enormous expenditure which we have been voluntarily put to in providing these colleges to do the work which you are now going to impair or even prohibit. There was a letter the other day in The Times from no less a person than Dr. Macnamara, who, if anybody in England does, really understands this subject. He called attention to the fact that our colleges had received grants sixty or seventy years ago towards their building, and that we always ought to remember that that grant gave the public a great right over them; but the fact that we had built up the rest of the building, beyond the Government grant—which, after all, was even then less than one-third of the whole—a long time ago could not be allowed now to
40
give us any claim for particular rights in this matter. Here are his words—
"Is the proposition, then, this, that because the Church partly built these colleges fifty or sixty years ago it is for ever to put a ringed fence round places now, at any rate, and for a long time past almost entirely maintained from Government grants and students' fees?
To an expert the deceptiveness of that sentence lurks in the word "maintained." It is true that as regards the maintenance of the college day by day the Government grant goes far to do it. But has Dr. Macnamara not forgotten—I will not say he is ignorant, it would be insulting— has he not accidentally omitted to state that, in addition to our expenditure of sixty or seventy years ago, a similar expenditure is still going on, and that the co t has been enormous down to the present time? Take the college of St. Gabriel, Kennington. Sixty thousand pounds was spent a few years ago in founding that college, and we have been enlarging in any of our colleges even more recently. Within the last few months one of these hostels has been finished by the National Society. It cost between £5,000 and £6,000. It was built to take in denominational students who are attending a day training college close by. It is placed near other hostels, built by the County Councils of Kent and Surrey, which are quite undenominational, and in regard to entrance it will hence forth stand in exactly the same position. Does anyone suppose that we should have spent £5,000 or £6,000 to put a hostel there unless we thought it would have this character and that we should be able to ask applicants for admission whether they cared to profit by the religious training we offered, as well as the secular training? I am not able to give the complete sum of our recent expenditure, but I have some figures for the last twelve years, and there is no difficulty in arriving at something like £250,000 which we have spent purely voluntarily during these years on the part of the Church of England alone, for setting forward this particular cause. Are we, then, to be told by a gentleman whose name as an expert carries weight throughout the country that, although fifty or sixty years ago we bore more than two-thirds of the cost of building these colleges, and although we have kept up the buildings and rebuilt them, and have been spending during the last

41
few years very large sums, you are now by und to debar us from doing this work? At the very least I can give an account showing that in the last twelve years we have spent £210,000 for setting forward this kind of education, which will now be made ten times more difficult than before. This is not a mere question of money. We spent the money gladly, and we would do so again, but why did we spend it? We spent in order that the religious side should be secure. You find great difficulty, and you will find increasing difficulty, in the new day colleges in giving religious training. We spent that money in order that we might be able to do that which you would have found it difficult to get done without our voluntary effort. We paid that money to secure the inmates who would make the best use for the common good of the opportunity which the residential college affords.
Now, my Lords, why was it that these regulations were so suddenly sprung upon us at such brief notice? A fortnight ago, when our colleges had broken up or were breaking up, and the principals were going or had gone abroad, when it was impossible to summon the college council, these regulations were issued, and to some extent they come into operation on 1st August next—that is next week. Was there any reason in the nature of things why we should not have had a few months notice that this was going to be done? Is there any reason now why the operation of these regulations should not be postponed? It may be said, "You have not got to do anything very practical on 1st August next." But I have been in daily intercourse with principals of our colleges, and I find they are in a condition of utter perplexity as to what, practically, they are to do. I was present yesterday at a long meeting of all the principals of training colleges who could be got together at such short notice and in such circumstances, and I was struck by their loyalty to the public good, by their anxiety for educational progress, and by the way in which they subordinated all petty considerations to the principles of educational progress, secular and religious. They, one after another, told us of. the great difficulty they had of knowing what to do with these regulations, which come into operation to a certain extent next week.
42
There is, naturally, in their minds for the reasons I have stated, an intense depression as to the educational outlook, even apart from its religious side, but they care intensely, primarily perhaps, for the religious side, in the large sense of the term, and they are tempted to say there is something very like a breach of faith, when, having, in response to the encouragement given, extended our colleges in order that these people outside might come in, we find that the hostel will not be differentiated in any way from the college itself. They feel it still more as a hardship with regard to our denominational hostels in connection with secular colleges. They feel it on educational grounds, because it will be practically impossible on the lines now suggested to secure those best qualified to take advantage of the training the college offers. As a mere matter of administration, they are indeed nonplussed. There is the whole question of trust deeds. I am not prepared to say what exactly is the effect of each trust deed upon this particular question. It may turn out that some of our trust deeds will not be violated by carrying out these regulations. But we think there are trust deeds that will be violated by what it is proposed to do. What are the principals to do when the applications begin to come in? Are they to consider this question as a practical one? Are they merely to return an answer that it is impossible to give any reply at all? Is it possible to consider these trust deeds before 1st. August? Why were we not given a few months notice in order that we could understand what we were to do?
But I pass from this minor matter to the bigger question. Mr. McKenna toll us the other day that all these regulations obliged us to do was to buy a register. I was sorry for that expression, because it seemed to miss the real feeling which is at the bottom of this matter. These people cannot be guided by what they set down in a register, they must be guided by the principles they were set there to promote, to get the men and women best qualified to take advantage of the college. The inconsiderateness of the whole modus operandi is one of the worst symptoms of the spirit which would seem to

43
lie behind it. Do not let it be said we are against the new regulations as a whole, either as regards training colleges or secondary schools. I could easily point out some which seem to me to be a great gain. I am one of those who are for progress in educational matters all along the line. Wherever the regulations give us help towards educational progress, towards making our educational system extend wider and deeper into our common life, I am thankful for that help. Wherever they promote educational gain, these regulations will be welcome, but we feel that the new departure, both as regards secondary schools and as regards training colleges, is not educationally helpful, either secularly or on the religious side. The administrators are discouraged and depressed in what they do, the educationists—not the denominationalists alone—are everywhere puzzled. I think it is an open secret that the county councils are already finding themselves in the greatest difficulty as to how they are to work the new regulations. Is there to be any local choice allowed as regards the applicants? Is a county council which has a training college in Essex or Sussex to be obliged to accept candidates from Yorkshire, or, if in other respects they are of equal merit, are they merely to take the candidate whose letter arrives first by the post, showing no preference to candidates for their own county? It is quite possible that that kind of difficulty might be overcome, but we ought to have had time to do it. But we have not been allowed time and the whole thing has been sprung upon us in such a way as to render it intolerably difficult to make it work. If, in face of all that, we were to be silent now, we should be told afterwards, why did you not speak out at the time? Therefore, we protest now against that anti-religious trend—I fear I must use the phrase—which extends throughout the regulations both in regard to the colleges themselves and to the hostels and against the disastrous educational result which we believe must follow. I believe, with regard to the religious side, we should have with us, if this thing were only better understood, a vast number of the keenest and warmest-hearted of our Nonconformist brethen. What you are damaging is not so much denomina-
44
tionalism as religion. It is the religious side which we have all been thankful to feel was going to be preserved in our schools, which it will be impossible to preserve adequately if these regulations are maintained in the form in which they now stand, and we believe that the protest that we make against some of them will have a wide and far-reaching echo amongst the English people generally.
*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of CREWE): My Lords, His Majesty's Government have certainly no complaint to make of the fact that this debate has been initiated by the questions of the noble Marquess opposite. On the contrary, feeling, as we do, that the general effect of these regulations has been, to some extent misunderstood, and, to some extent, exaggerated—and I am bound to say that in the speech of the noble Marquess it was impossible to avoid noting sign of the latter defect—we are very glad that the matter should be fully discussed in your Lordships' House. I am quite certain we all, on whichever side of the House we sit, admire not only the singularly lucid manner in which the most rev. Primate stated all the facts of the case, but also the general moderation which characterised his remarks.
I desire first to deal with the question of the noble Marquess as to the £100,000 grant. I think the noble Marquess first asked me what were the conditions, and what was the manner in which that grant would be distributed. In the first place this grant of £100,000 will only be payable, perhaps, almost as a matter of course, to local authorities who desire to erect schools. In the second place, it will only be payable in cases where the Board of Education have completely satisfied themselves that the proposed new school is needed to meet the existing demand; that is to say, that where the ordinary duty falls on the local authority of supplying a school as, for instance, in some cases where there is a numerical deficiency the Board of Education would not think proper to allocate any part of this £100,000 for that purpose; that is to say, it must be proved that this school

45
is needed over and above the ordinary numerical sufficiency of places in order to meet the very special state of things which I need not now describe, because the condition of affairs in certain districts was so fully gone into by the House during the Education Bill discussion of last year.
I may remind your Lordships that the period during which this money will be available for expenditure will be a very short one. The money will only be payable up to 31st March next and it will not be payable yet, because three months notice from the time of the passing of the Appropriation Bill of this year will be required under the existing Education Acts. Therefore your Lordships will see clearly that the time during which this particular sum of £100,000. or any part of it, can be spent, is not long. The noble Marquess then went on to speak of the general principle involved, and he asked the question whether the Board of Education have any legal power to distribute to local authorities any part of this £100,000. The legal position was, I think, very fairly stated by Mr. Speaker in another place, when the matter was raised there as regards the competence of the House of Commons to deal with the matter in this particular way.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: He said the House of Commons could break the law, I think.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: I do not remember whether Mr. Speaker used that particular phrase. The view which is taken by His Majesty's Government and I assume would be taken by others outside, of the transaction is simply this. A certain sum is placed in the Estimates, but, of course, does not become available until an Act of Parliament is passed. The effect of that Act of Parliament is to suspend during one year a certain section of an existing Act of Parliament—Section 9(3 of the Act of 1870. That may or may not be a desirable proceeding, and upon that, of course, difference of opinion is perfectly legitimate. I do not profess to speak as a lawyer, but, speaking as a Member of one of the Houses of Parliament, I do not see anything strange
46
or unconstitutional in passing a second Act of Parliament which repeals the provisions of a former Act. As we all know, the thing is continually done. The peculiar thing in this case is that the annulling is only temporary, but in other respects it is exactly on all fours with what is done in every session—that is to say, annulling the provisions of former Acts by passing a new one. I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will respond to the appeal which was made to him by the noble Marquess, and state his opinion on the purely legal aspect of the case. Of course, as I have said, the propriety of what everybody admits is an unusual proceeding is and must be a pure matter of opinion. We admit that the proceeding is unusual, but we also maintain that the circumstances are of such a character, and the urgency of the case is sufficiently great to warrant a departure from the usual proceeding. The noble Marquess asked why we did not proceed by Bill. Perhaps if we could have had an assurance from noble Lords opposite that such a Bill would have passed we might have taken that course, but we shall await any such assurance before admitting that we are in any sense wrong in taking the course that we have taken.
The most rev. Primate dealt very fully and in a most instructive manner with the whole question of training colleges. I should like to say one word upon a matter which he mentioned, and which has also been mentioned very often in this and in similar connections, as to the claim made by those who have either entirely or in part erected buildings for certain denominational purposes, to retain the perpetual management of the institutions carried on in those buildings. We are told that buildings of this kind were erected on the faith that the kind of teaching that existed in them would be allowed to go on permanently, and that they were encouraged by Government grants. That, if you come to think of it, lands you in a singular paradox, because I suppose the greater the grant the greater the encouragement; and you find yourself at last in this position that a building almost entirely erected by the Government grant receives

47
so much encouragement that it ought to remain permanently denominational.
The LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: Is it I who am supposed to have said that?
*THE EARL OF CREWE: Oh, certainly not. But I said it is a paradox into which the people who hold that view might easily find themselves landed. The fact is that the argument is precisely that with which we are so familiar in the case of the elementary schools. Certain people, at some time or another, erected buildings for a particular purpose. They have, in some cases, added to and repaired them. In consequence, however large the share of public money which is applied now to the maintenance—and, of course, an increasing share has been in almost all cases so applied—however great that share, the purely denominational character of the training college, or school, or whatever it may be is to remain until the world's end. That is an issue on which, I admit, we are sharply divided, and it is one on which I am afraid, from all my experience in the past, we are not likely to arrive at any agreement. The main grievance, in the case of training colleges, arises out of the application of the Conscience Clause to them. Here, again, we are sharply divided. Noble Lords will certainly not convince us, and, I am afraid we are not likely to convince them. The fact, which we hold to be a fact, that the application of large sums of public money compels the application of a conscience clause, and that by supplying the money the State is entitled to impose a conscience clause as a condition, is one to which we most strongly hold; but it is one which, as I have said, I am afraid noble Lords opposite will not be disposed to admit. Then the noble Marquess complained that, whereas neutrality had reigned in the past in these cases, we have introduced religious strife, both in the training colleges and in the secondary schools. It is easy enough to avoid religious strife if you give the preference which noble Lords would like to give to any one particular denomination. You avoid religious strife if you limit your school or college to people of one denomi-
48
nation, on the principle of the Spanish Minister, who, when asked on his death bed if he desired to forgive his enemies, replied that he had none, as he had shot them all. If you have no boy or girl or no student who differs from the religious views of the school or training college, it is perfectly obvious that you do avoid religious strife, but, as we think, at a very great cost.
The grievance with regard to training colleges consists, in the first place, in what the most rev. Primate would consider the enforced admission of outsiders. That is, I know, an objection which is held, if possible, more strongly by those who are entitled to speak for the Roman Catholic Church. I had the honour this morning of being present at a deputation at which the noble Duke opposite, the Duke of Norfolk, was also present in the company of those best entitled to speak for the Roman Catholic community in England, and, from what they said, it is quite evident that they do regard the introduction into the training colleges of those who do not hold their faith as a very serious matter.
It has been suggested that, after 1st August, the denominational training colleges might be flooded by applications from all parts of England, and that serious inconvenience and great difficulty might be caused in dealing with a large number of applicants as to whom nothing was known. My right hon. friend has recognised that difficulty, and he proposes that every student who applies for admission to a training college should accompany that application with the payment of a small fee—I think 10s. was the sum which he suggested as reasonable. That fee could be returned if the applicant entered the college, but, in other cases, the college would retain it. The effect of that, as your Lordships will see, would be to prevent an applicant from sowing letters broadcast to a great number of colleges in the hope of being taken in at one.
We do not for a moment believe that the consequence of these regulations will be to flood denominational colleges with students who desire to exercise the conscience clause. In the first place, as regards the case of those who might go to a denominational college with a

49
directly hostile intention, which has been suggested as a possibility, it would, in our opinion, very easily be dealt with, because it would not be a case of religious distinction, but such a person could always be excluded—excluded beforehand, if his intentions were known—excluded, after he is there, if his action proved his sentiments, simply and solely on grounds of discipline. He would not be turned out merely because he is a Nonconformist or Agnostic, but because he was an aggressive person whose action was destructive of the discipline of the college.
In fact, it certainly seems to me that, where students of another faith enter a residential denominational college, the prospect will be infinitely more in the direction of the college being likely to convert them than of their in any way damaging the college. Everybody admits, I think, the great charm of the religious teaching, enforced, as it is, by the high character of those who give it, which obtains in denominational colleges, and I think it exceedingly likely that the student who had gone there belonging to a different faith, and, possibly, with a prejudice against the faith of the college, might find his prejudices melt away, and, before his or her course was over, would be admitted into the faith of the religious body to whom the college belonged.
The noble Marquess Lord Londonderry spoke in somewhat hard terms of what he described as the fining of denominational colleges which declined to exercise the conscience clause. The most rev. Primate did not go so far. He objected rather to the tone than to the substance of the regulations. The noble Marquess, having himself been at the Board of Education must know, and I am astonished at his forgetfulness in not noting, that to diminish the grant where a college or school declines to enforce the conscience clause is simply what has always been done under the Act of 1870 and under the Act of 1902. It is, in fact, the sole weapon which the Board of Education has at its command, and all that this regulation does is instead of doing what would be done in the case of an elementary school, which might be immediately struck off the grant-
50
receiving list, to warn the college in the first place by a fine, which is not to exceed the sum named in the regulations, and, then, on the second occasion, if the college offends again, to strike it off the grant-receiving list.
Then the most rev. Primate dealt with the question of hostels. Like him, I am very anxious not to wade through a number of technical details to the weariness of your Lordships, but I do just wish to say a word on the regulation which he mentioned—No. 57, I think it is, in the Training College Regulations—which allows hostels which are to be treated as lodgings to receive the lower scale of grants. The most rev. Primate stated that in the case of men this would mean to them a difference of £15 The most rev. Primate is taking part in a debate, and is, therefore, of course, entitled to put his case in its strongest form, but he did not mention that, in the case of women, the difference is only £5,. and I believe it to be the fact that a great many more women teachers are, and will be, inmates of these hostels than men.
Then on the question of social antecedents, the most rev. Primate very frankly expressed a desire—I hope I am not misrepresenting him—to be able to some extent to choose for the training colleges those who had had opportunities of acquiring a somewhat wider culture than would be possible for those with a certain kind of social antecedents. If it was a case of leaving it to the most rev. Primate, we should all be glad, I am sure, to trust his acumen and conscientiousness in such a case, but I confess that, applied by ordinary people, it does seem to me to be a somewhat dangerous practice. It does open the door to what one can only call a certain amount of social snobbery. I know, of course, that the most rev. Primate stated, and stated what everybody would have expected, that he for one would not place the slightest bar in the way of the intelligent poor child who, to his or her credit, had risen to the possibility of entering such a college. Yet, as I say, I am not quite so certain that all people who might be concerned in the matter would hold that view with entirely the same strength, or that they could, be

51
entrusted to exercise a perfectly sound and fair discretion in the matter.
The most rev. Primate also complained that these regulations had been suddenly sprung on the training colleges. I will admit that at first sight it does look as though little time were given for preparation, but my right hon. friend, in saying what he did about the register, did so, I am certain, simply and solely with the idea of reassuring the most rev. Primate and those on whose behalf he speaks, and it was very far indeed from his mind to subject them to any undue amount of haste in this matter. It is my right hon. friend's opinion, on the best advice he can get, that when the time really comes, the difficulties will not be found nearly so great as is anticipated. We are familiar with the sort of panic—not always quite of a reasonable character—which sometimes overtakes those responsible for the management of an institution when any change is threatened. I hope that the difficulties referred to by the most rev. Primate will prove to be far less serious than he anticipates.
One word with regard to the position of secondary schools. I am very glad, that so far no complaints have been made with regard to the provision of free places. The regulation states that 25 per cent. of free places should be given in schools receiving the grant, but it adds that that proportion may be reduced in particular places. I think it is a wise discretion, and one which ought to relieve the anxiety of some schools which have been concerned as to the possibility of their providing the full number of free places. It must be remembered, also, that these free places have only to be offered; they have not to be kept empty. If it is found, as it undoubtedly will be in some districts, that the full proportion of the free places are not being filled, then they may be filled up in the ordinary way. As regards the provision of schools, the noble Marquess admitted that the regulations were not quite so stringent as might be inferred, because all the conditions which affect religious teaching, although not those which affect free places, may be waived if the local authorities agree. Our hope is that that regulation will meet all the hardest cases.
52
There are, of course, a certain number of very valuable schools which are unable or unwilling to come under the regulations requiring full public control. There are others which cannot entirely divest themselves of their denominational character, or even to the extent required by the regulations. In those cases it is practically certain that the local authorities, knowing the good work they have done, will consent to waive the regulations, and consequently the very far-reaching effects which the noble Marquess thought would follow for those schools will be averted. The noble Marquess said that the denominational character of the schools would have to be abandoned. That is, surely, a considerable over-statement. First, there is this power of waiver, and then the kind of regulations which are applied to the elementary schools do not apply to these schools in important points affect-ting the denominational character. It is not unfair to say that the general effect of the application of these provisions will be to make these secondary schools rather nearer in character to the great public schools in which so many of your Lordships have been educated. They, as we know, are almost exclusively undenominational in character.
I should like to say in conclusion, that I do not think it is quite fair of the most rev. Primate to describe these regulations as being anti-religious. They are certainly not so in intention, and, as we think, not in effect. I can only say that His Majesty's Government have no desire or intention to imperil religious teaching, nor, as far as it is consistent with their views of what is demanded by the fact that these institutions are so largely supported by public money, to interfere with their religious character. It is perfectly true that His Majesty's Government rejected a secular system as applicable to elementary schools; and they did so in the belief that the country rejected it also. Both the noble Marquesses on the Front Bench opposite (The Marquess of Londonderry and the Marquess of Salisbury) cheer. I believe that that is the case; but whether it will always be the case is another matter. If the country wants a secular system, the individuals who compose His Majesty's present Administration may or may not grant it.

53
But if not it will be easy for the country to put other people in their place who will. I only say that because I feel strongly that if it is attempted, either in relation to elementary or secondary education, to insist too strongly on denominational needs, or even to press too hardly what may be considered the just claims of denominationalism for consideration, the time may come when those who, like myself, do not desire to see a secular system may be powerless to prevent it—a circumstance which, I believe, the whole of your Lordships' House would sincerely deplore.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, the most rev. Primate complained that those connected with training colleges had not had time enough given to them to prepare the action which they might think necessary to take in regard to these regulations. After listening to the speech of the noble Earl the Lord President it is evident that the Government have not given themselves time to prepare any defence for these extraordinary regulations. The groping perplexity with which we have approached this question has not been repudiated, but I venture to think is evidently fully shared by the noble Earl. In reply to the noble Marquess Lord Londonderry the Lord President said it was unfair to state that these regulations were introducing religious strife into training college administration and secondary education, and he said it was always very easy to avoid religious strife if those who might be expected to Indulge in it were given all they wanted and were amply supported by public funds.
*THE EARL OF CREWE: That is not what I said. I said it was very easy to avoid religious strife in any institution if you ensured that all those who studied i in the institution were of the same religious faith.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I am glad to hear the noble. Earl admit that if a training college is confined to one religion, strife will be eliminated from that institution. I venture to think that precisely what these regulations do is to bring about religious strife. Indeed,
54
they have already done so. Hitherto these training colleges have been provided almost entirely out of the funds of those bodies who are zealous for religious education. Those who have failed to make these sacrifices are now not only to have training colleges provided for them by the State, but are to have the doors of other people's colleges opened to them. That is what we feel to be a very great grievance. A letter by Dr. Macnamara has been read suggesting that, after all, the foundation of these colleges was no very heavy drain on voluntary sources, and that from that date forward they have been maintained from public funds.
As regards our own training colleges, I cannot state the full amount we have spent upon them. But in the case of one college alone, in Liverpool, £69,000 of voluntary contributions has been expended, and within I think the last four or five years £30,000 has been expended on the purchase of site and buildings for another, and £5,000 has been laid out upon it to make it more suitable for the requirements. In the last few years we have founded four or five training colleges, and throughout all those efforts a sum which, I believe, at the utmost amounts to £6,000 is the only help we have had from public funds. Moreover, as regards the maintenance and upkeep of these colleges we have ourselves found year by year an average of over 20 per cent. of the cost. That, I may say, without wishing in any way to blow our own trumpet, is considerably higher than the percentage found by any other body. While we spend 20 per cent. on maintenance and upkeep, those who desire what is commonly called Cowper-Temple religion, that religion which I maintain His Majesty's Government is now about to put upon a specially favoured basis "at the cost of other religious denominations, expend only 6 per cent., which is a very distinct difference.
We are sometimes told that we must not regard financial help as encouragement, but we have in many ways had great encouragement in our endeavour to carry on a great and important part of the educational work of the country. I admit it with gratitude; claim it as a justification for what we

55
have done, and for what we have a right to expect. We understand that those who maintain the charms and advantages of Cowper-Templeism are now to have colleges provided for them. I am very glad indeed to hear it; it is high time that was done. We have been making this provision all these years and they have not been doing so, but now it is going to be done for them out of the public moneys to which we ourselves contribute. We make no grievance of that. Let it be done by all means; let those who have not in the past shown the zeal which we have shown have at the eleventh hour their colleges. But why on that account should we, who have been foremost in the fight, and who have been encouraged to spend vast sums of money, be told that we are to open our doors to those whom we do not want? Why is this cuckoo policy to be pursued? We have built our nests for a special object; why are these cuckoo eggs to be laid in them by those who have built no nests at all? I should like that question carefully answered.
This is a practical grievance at the moment because we have not sufficient room in our training colleges for our own students. I would instance the case of our training college at Hull, which only holds ninety students and to which there were the other day 300 applicants. As j I understand these regulations, their Catholic students clamouring at our doors are to be set aside for non-Catholic students if the post happens to bring the application of the non-Catholic student before that of the Catholic student. We are to have no means of discrimination. When there are so many Catholic applicants why should any be set aside for non-Catholic students? It is a question which must be asked in the name of common honesty and decency, for if such a thing were to be done it would be a most monstrous breach of common decency and a gross injustice.
The noble Earl the Lord President mentioned the deputation, of which I had the honour of forming one, which waited upon the Prime Minister to-day. The Minister for Education was present as well as the noble Earl the Lord President. We had not the advantage of
56
hearing the noble Earl, but we did hear the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Education. The Minister for Education assured us that our fears were really groundless, that non-Catholic students would not come to our colleges, and that we need not be afraid; but the Prime Minister, on the other hand, seemed to take some satisfaction in thinking they would come, for he told us what a lot of good they would do us when they did come. That shows that the Government have not made up their minds as to what may be expected to happen—a perplexity which is shared by others. It was stated by a member of the deputation that someone imbued with an intense hatred of our religion might come into one of our colleges, and it has been said that in such a case we might convert him. I fear the annals of our education will not show that that is a general result. In my opinion it is unlikely that men who feel intense hatred of our religion will come to our colleges, but those superior individuals who sneer at the religion of those about them are more dangerous than the outward blasphemer, and the presence of a very few such would quickly break up the harmonious religious character which we wish to maintain in our training colleges.
It has been my lot for more than thirty years constantly to meet, on Committees of your Lordships' House, His Majesty's inspectors, and to hear their reports on our training colleges. I do not in the least wish to quote them as saving that what the Government suggests would be hostile to the good work done by training colleges; but those inspectors have year after year paid a tribute to the good work that has been done for culture and refinement in training colleges under nuns. The most rev. Primate spoke of the desirability of bringing to this work of education persons of refinement and culture. In our training colleges we have had to take many who were uncultured and not in the worldly sense highly-refined, and to bring culture and refinement to them, and report after report of inspectors of the Board of Education has shown that in that great work we have done excellently and well. This has been due to the fact that in these institutions

57
there is a harmony of religious belief and a fellowship in religious worship, a daily guiding by those in charge of the institution of the students under their care, a family life based upon religion; and we feel that this may be materially jeopardised and cruelly broken into if others who do not share these religious beliefs are allowed to come within our walls. I do not speak of them as individuals. If they are admitted on proper conditions, if they come with the request to be allowed to enter and agree to accept the discipline they find there, that is one thing; but if they have a right to demand admission and come there knowing that no one can say them nay, it is not taking a narrow and circumscribed view to say that that must have a deleterious effect upon the character of our colleges.
I will not now go into the question of secondary schools, but I may say that we have just over forty such institutions. We are a body who have had great difficulties to contend with, but we do believe that in our secondary schools we have taken not an ignoble share in the educational work of the country; yet the effect of the present proposals will be most harmful to those schools. The head of the Roman Catholic communion in this country felt obliged at to-day's deputation, in gentle terms, but with great firmness, to say distinctly to the Prime Minister that Roman Catholics felt these proposals to be an encroachment in the domain of conscience, and that we should be obliged to disregard some of these regulations. This determination has also been expressed in the strongest and most unequivocal terms by a largely-attended meeting of Catholic laymen, held in connection with the deputation and including many ardent supporters of the Liberal Party, who feel that a great wrong is being done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, the noble Marquess who opened this debate asked my opinion upon a legal question. He wished to know whether the Board of Education will have any legal power to distribute to local authorities any part of the sum of £100,000 recently voted for providing new public elementary
58
schools, until Section 96 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, has been repealed. There is no doubt that the Act and section to which he refers does provide that no Parliamentary grant shall be made in aid of the building, or enlarging, or improving, or fitting up any elementary school. That is a direction in an Act of Parliament in regard to what shall be done hereafter.
But it is an acknowledged maxim of law that this being what is called a sovereign Parliament, it can pass any law, or qualify or alter any law if it thinks fit. No section of an Act of Parliament can prevent subsequent Parliaments from doing what they think it right to do. Under these circumstances, an estimate is put down, and I believe a Resolution has been passed in the House of Commons for a sum of £100,000 for the building of new public elementary schools. This has not yet, I think, found its way into an Act of Parliament or a Bill. When it does, it will, I presume, follow the usual course of Appropriation Bills, and it will read—
"That the sums granted by the Act are appropriated and shall be deemed to have been appropriated ass from the date of the passing of the Act as mentioned in Schedule A for the services and purposes expressed in Schedule B annexed hereto."
That means that with the assent of both Houses of Parliament there will then be a direction to appropriate £100,000 to this particular purpose. As a matter of law—I am not speaking now of the constitutional question—any Court below will acknowledge and obey that as an Act of Parliament. It seems to me that that is plain.
Then comes the constitutional question. The noble Marquess asks me whether it would be constitutional, as apart from the strictly legal aspect. For my part I speak with all deference on these subjects and with some misgiving, because a few weeks ago I had the misfortune to state my opinion on a question of constitutional law, and I was mortified to find my noble friend Lord Halsbury took a different view. I regretted such a proceeding very much, for I do not like discord of that kind to appear. I do not think this can be called unconstitutional. It is a matter of opinion

59
whether it is improper or not—that is a question of propriety. I do not think there is anything unconstitutional or irregular in it, and for my part I do not think it is improper. The only precedent or analogous case that I can recall was a case in which, in the early years of the eighties, there was an Act which prescribed the maximum salary of magistrates in Ireland, and notwithstanding that Act, after a discussion in Parliament about 1883, Governments on both sides have passed and sanctioned by Appropriation Acts larger salaries than the maximum laid down in the earlier Act. That is the only precedent I can recall now. I did not know this question would be asked, and I have not had time to look the matter up.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I do not desire to intervene in the general debate, but merely to say a word with reference to the constitutional and legal aspects of the case. Of course we all recognise that Parliament has power to do almost anything by Act of Parliament, but I do not think that is quite the question. It is certainly only part of the question. Here is a great change suddenly sprung by the Minister for Education, without notice or warning, dealing not with a petty thing such as the addition of an extra £200 to the salaries of four of the magistrates of Ireland, but with a large sum of money and a large question of policy, and it is done by the Minister for Education with the knowledge that it is right in the teeth of the Act of Parliament. My noble friend on the Woolsack, who, I am sure, would never, in interpreting our laws, say anything which did not commend itself to his legal judgment, and for whose opinion I have the highest respect, did not, it was obvious, feel at all so strong as to the omnipotence of Parliament when he came to the constitutional aspect of the question. All that my noble and learned friend could bring himself to say with reference to that was that he would not say it was unconstitutional. That is a different thing from saying, "I am of opinion that, in constitutional law, this is constitutional." The Lord Chancellor has not said that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly never trimmed my language in that way. What I said I mean—that this is not in violation of anything that is constitutional in the full sense of the word.
LORD ASHBOURNE: I at once accept that statement. What is the meaning of "constitutional?" It means that a thing is in accordance with fixed usage and settled practice. I say that this is not in accordance with fixed usage and settled practice. The sudden statement of a great change in the educational policy of the country, and involving the expenditure of a great sum of money, deliberately, in the teeth of an Act of Parliament still on the Statute-book, cannot be said to be in strict accordance with fixed usage, and cannot possibly be called constitutional. In all the history of this country my noble and learned friend was only able to give one precedent. And what was that? Poor Ireland! It is always appealed to for precedents. The only precedent the Lord Chancellor could recall was that twenty-three or twenty-four years ago-four magistrates in Ireland were allotted extra duties and were given £200 extra salary. I maintain that that instance of a trifling payment is a very different thing from this. I contend that this cannot be fitly described as a constitutional proceeding.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I must apologise for rising so near the dinner hour, but I have a special reason for asking your Lordships to grant me your indulgence now. I do not pretend for a moment to discuss the legal question, but I think, after what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has said, everyone will feel that the action proposed by the Government is strictly legal. I also think it is bringing in a very big word to appeal to the constitution in connection with a Parliamentary practice which we happen not to like. It is very difficult to say what is constitutional. But to a certain extent I associate myself with the criticisms of those who do not like this method of amending an Act of Parliament by means of the

61
Appropriation Bill. I put it oil the ground of Parliamentary practice. I feel that if we are to amend a clause in a general Act that has gone through Parliament with full discussion, it is only fair that the other House—it does not affect your Lordships' House, which is not concerned with money matters— should have the same full control by power of debate at all stages. Therefore I, personally, regret the introduction of a practice which may constitute a very evil precedent in future years. In my opinion the course adopted is injurious to the efficiency of Parliamentary debate. But I do think if there was one person in this House who had no right to give expression to the very lofty language which ho used in condemning the action of the Government it was the noble Marquess opposite, Lord Londonderry. Here, in order to get over a difficulty, a method has been adopted of a peculiar character; but, at any rate, the method, if successful, does get out of the difficulty in accordance with law. But I would remind the noble Marquess of the line he took when he was Lord President of the Council in October, 1902, just on the eve of the Act of that year becoming law. When that Act became law it had the effect of exempting managers of voluntary schools from every financial liability except that of keeping their buildings in order. What did the noble Marquess do on that occasion? He called together a formal conference of all his inspectors and addressed to them an allocution as to the way in which they should discharge their duties; and in addressing the inspectors whose duty it would be to draw attention to structural deficiency and to support the action of the local authorities who called for structural improvements the noble Marquess told them that, without in any way wishing to lay down a hard-and-fast rule, he would deprecate a too rigid application of building rules and playground regulations. The noble Marquess called his staff together, and said that here was an Act under which voluntary managers would have to put their buildings in order, but he did not wish the rules to be rigidly enforced. I therefore maintain that the noble Marquess has put himself out of court in regard to complaining of the action now taken by the Government in this matter.
62
The important point in the debate has been the question of secondary schools and training colleges, and the position in regard to both is in many respects the same. The Government have provided, in the case of secondary schools, that in future there shall only be one type of school aided with public money—the type of school which is either under public management, or, at any rate, in which the majority of the governors are appointed by a public body; it shall also be a type of school in which what I may call the official religious instruction, if any, shall be of an undenominational character. Henceforward new schools may be established by denominations, and six out of thirteen of the governors may be denominational. I do not think that if Roman Catholics were to start a college in, say, Liverpool, and were to provide that there should be a governing body of thirteen, of whom six should be appointed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Liverpool and seven by the Liverpool Education Authority, they would have much trouble, and I have very little doubt that that new school would be worked on the lines that Catholic schools are worked on now. The only difference would be that, instead of everyone receiving Catholic instruction in the school who did not withdraw, the parents would have to make application for definite Catholic instruction. Curiously enough, that, from the passing of the Act of 1870, has been the practice in the board schools of Liverpool, that is, parents have applied for their children to receive religious instruction, not to be exempted from it. I do not think myself that persons who want to start denominational schools will find any practical difficulty. The secondary schools which receive Parliamentary grants are not the great residential public schools, but schools of a humbler character—day schools mainly. No one disputes the propriety of a conscience clause in a day school. I do not think that with regard to secondary schools these regulations will make a material alteration. The old schools will continue to receive the old grants from Parliament; the new and enlarged grants will be paid to new schools which conform to the new type.
I turn to the training colleges, in connection with which much more feeling

63
has been aroused among friends of de nominationalism than in connection with secondary schools. If the most rev Primate will excuse me, I will say that though he two or three times disclaimed the wish to deal with technicalities and ex-pressed the desire to deal with the broad aspects of the case, yet I think in fact his speech was too much occupied with technicalities, and he failed adequately to grapple with the broad aspects. The real question is, Are you prepared in the existing denominational training colleges frankly to accept students who do not belong to your denomination? That is the essential question. I read with very great interest the full report in The Times of the audience which the Archbishop and those who went with him received from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education, and I noticed that the leading representative of training colleges, Canon Morley Stevenson (Principal of Warring-ton Training College), who is this year Chairman of the Association of Training Colleges, was more liberal than the great bulk of the speakers. He said—
"They recognised that the time had come when some place must be found within their colleges for those who belonged to other denominations, and they accepted the spirit of the conscience clause."
I wish that the most rev. Primate could have spoken to us in the same words. If he had said that, we should have got much further on the way to agreement.
*THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I venture to think I did in substance urge the very same thing, and I not only expressed a desire for it, but contended that by our supplementary hostels it was being actually done.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY:I will tell the most rev. Primate why I think his profession fell short of what we desire. He limits his willingness to accept students to day students. There was no such reservation in the speech of Canon Morley Stevenson. The essential thing is that its should be recognised that in colleges largely maintained by public money meritorious students should be able to come in without being limited by the denominational character of the college. There is nothing very terrible in
64
that. Experience has shown that the conscience clause works very smoothly and quietly when it is once introduced. Will any right rev. Prelate familiar with the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge say that since the residential colleges were thrown open, without limitation of creed and sect, the life of those colleges has no been sweetened and the spiritual life improved? I have not looked up any quotations to justify myself in this, but I remember seven or eight years ago at a Church Congress an older don at Oxford than I was—the Rev. Mr. Ince—who was a pillar of the Conservative Party and opposed the reforms which threw open the University, making a speech in which he admitted that the abolition of the wrangles that existed at Oxford while tests were in force had been salutary and beneficial to the spiritual as well as the social life of the place.
The British and Foreign Colleges have lived perfectly happily, and have had as good a home lift among students of various religious belief as Church colleges. Good work has also been done by the Home and Colonial College, which has always admitted Nonconformists within its walls. One might multiply examples, and say that this conscience clause, which is to you such a bug-bear before you experience it, will, as a matter of fact, work very smoothly when you have it. Roman Catholics do undoubtedly stand a little outside the general pale of English life and English society. They are suffering because they have pooled their cause with the Established Church of England. Ten or twelve years ago if people had combined upon a national system of education free from ecclesiastical interference, terms for special groups of the population, like Catholics and Jews would have been willingly recognised; but if people will fight to the last with dangerous allies the time will come when they will go down with the allies with whom they have been associated.
The most rev. Primate talked of the large sums which have been spent, and which are now being spent, upon the colleges. We know, of course, the case of Kennington. We have heard it very often, and it is a very creditable instance of public spirit. But the great mass

65
of these Church training colleges were founded between 1840 and 1851, and does the House know what the state was as to public aid and private contributions at the time they were founded and after? In 1851, Canon Moseley, the inspector, reported that in regard to Church colleges for men the Government paid 10 per cent., the students 30 per cent., and voluntary subscriptions covered more than 50 per cent.; and at that time an official letter was written to Canon Moseley by Mr. Lingen, afterwards Lord Lingen, conveying the warning to Church colleges that they had no right to suppose that the grants they were then receiving were to be a vested interest, or that they could go on indefinitely relying upon State aid, while they were exclusively denominational in their character. That letter will be found on pages 213 and 214 of the Education Report, 1851–2.
The Established Church has never failed to get, never by year, better and better terms from the State. The Church has been what I may call the spoilt child of the State in matters of Parliamentary aid. In 1857, they had brought down their share of contributions from over 50 per cent. to 26 per cent., and the then inspector of Church training colleges for women, after giving the figures, wrote as follows—
"These returns corroborate the opinion I expressed last year. On the whole, the institutions arc prosperous. Doubtless some difficulty is experienced in keeping up the annual subscriptions, but the amount now received ought to not be diminished. It is a small contribution considering that these institutions belong to the diocese in which they stand, and are entirely managed by local authorities."
Suppose the Church had to find 25 per cent. from voluntary contributions. Why, they could not. subsist for a moment.
Every existing Church college is left practically undisturbed. The Church has the whole of the appointments of the staff, the whole of the domestic arrangements, and all that they are called upon to do is to accept students by merit without regard to faith. I agree with the most rev. Primate that if this were a Committee discussion on the details of this Code there are many points worthy of consideration. I agree with him that most serious difficulty is thrown on the
66
heads of training colleges by the abolition of all the old guides by which they were able to determine who were the best qualified of the students. Those things have greatly increased the difficulty of the authorities. Now it is suggested that we should go back to the class system. It is essential that that should be done, but if the most rev. Primate and those who act with him would come forward and say: "We will accept your principle, we will in good faith not have regard to the fact whether the applicant is a Churchman or a Nonconformist, but whether he or she is of good character, ability, and disposition for the teaching profession, and we will take them on those terms," then I feel certain that they could be met with all sorts of reasonable regulation is as to admission.
But it is no use dealing with these difficulties of detail when we are at a question of principle. I will make a further concession to the most rev. Primate. The Code contemplates that hostels will continue to exist, not under the name of hostel, but under the name of lodging-house. There are two words which I should like to see disappear from this Code—that women living in lodgings will be recognised "at present." I think that to put in the words "at present" with reference to a particular part of the Code is a sort of note of warning, a sort of threat of the possibility of withdrawal which does not apply to other parts of the Code; and I am anxious that every facility shall be given to these denominations to establish what in fact will be hostels, and if they are willing to establish hostels I should like to see the wording of the Code show complete impartiality in that matter. I think it is not unfair for the Board of Education to say that if you want to have your special atmosphere in your hostels you must not expect the Government to pay the whole of the cost; yet I think the difference which applies in the case of women of £5 is reasonable, and I should be glad if the same small sum were applied in the case of men. I have no objection to hostels if young people prefer to go into them. While I think that those who advocate this special advantage for the denomination should not expect the community to bear the

67
whole cost, yet I think if a very moderate difference were introduced that might meet the position. There are other things I would have said but for the fact that your Lordships are desirous of suspending the sitting for dinner.
Before sitting down I would emphasise the fact that it must be recognised at the present day that public opinion demands two things. It demands that the institutions for the public training of our nation shall be as far as possible under public management. The community is determined to assume control of its own education, and not to delegate it to ecclesiastical societies. And, secondly, the community is determined that, as far as possible, the career of the teacher shall be open to the most meritorious on equal terms. So long as there is a scarcity of accommodation in the training colleges the nation has a right to demand that the fittest shall have the first choice. Let us endeavour to secure a sufficient number of training colleges, and then have the most absolute belief that the natural disposition of the students will lead them to the institutions most congenial to them.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSsaid he would like, in beginning what he had to say, to ac-knowledge the very conciliatory tone of the noble Lord who had just spoken. He could not help feeling as he heard him that if they had to deal with him as the Minister for Education instead of with Mr. McKenna they would really have a better chance of coming to terms. There were many things which he said with which he entirely agreed in spirit, and therefore, while he was obliged to criticise the main conclusion at which the noble Lord had arrived, he desired to express a great deal of agreement with various points he had brought out in his speech. The main point which it appeared to him had been raised on behalf of the Government was the supposed obligation in reference to public; money of applying the conscience clause to the training colleges. He took the word "oblige" from the President of the Council, who said they felt obliged to apply the conscience clause to the training colleges and in that way, he (the rev. Prelate) would not say wholly to
68
undenominationalise them, but certainly with regard to the new colleges to insist upon their being undenominational. When did this argument of public money really begin to be realised? He ventured to say it was not realised at all last year. When did the Government wake up to the supposed obligation of imposing a conscience clause on the training colleges? Last year the President of the Board of Education in many ways gave encouragement to the training colleges. He explained that there was great misconception on the part of Nonconformists with reference to the position of the training college grants. He defended these grants as being grants not really made to the colleges, and not really to subsidise the religious bodies which provided them, but as grants given in the nature of scholarships which it would be wrong to prevent the owners taking to this or that college they chose to adopt. He ventured to say that the President of the Council went even further. He did not merely defend the training colleges, but he gave them every sort of encouragement in the policy they had suggested, which they were prepared to carry out, and had to a certain extent already carried out, and which he would call the hostel policy. They opened hostels in connection with their denominational colleges in which they might admit others than those of their own religious body, and in connection with the new training colleges which were wholly of an undenominational character they had been asked by the parents of a large number of students to open hostels of a religious and distinctly denominational character. Last year the Government had not come to a conclusion adverse to the training colleges, and he would ask their Lordships to notice that last year was after the General Election, when, surely if they had come to the conclusion that they had any mandate from the country at all, they must have come to it then. He maintained, therefore, that last year after the General Election, they had not come to any decision to undenominationalise the training colleges or to impugn the policy of their grants. What had caused this change of policy? Was it the failure of the Government to carry their Education Bill through the House?

69
Was it a general feeling in the country that had so stirred the Government as to induce them to adopt this new and revolutionary policy? He could only say for himself that he had never witnessed such an extraordinary feeling as pervaded and permeated the whole country last year in connection with that Bill, and he wholly failed to understand what had happened since to make it necessary to impose this new policy upon the training colleges at large. The policy of the Government, as was so well expounded by a Member of the Government last year, was not to subsidise the colleges as colleges, but to give scholarships to men and women who had earned them. What the Government required was the finished product. They were not able to produce it, and they wanted a teacher who had undergone a long training, who had been under discipline, who had learned to teach, and who had the morale which would enable him to give the necessary training and influence. When they had obtained that finished product; when he or she had received his or her parchment, then, and not till then, was the payment made by the Government. That was the policy on which hitherto the grants had been made, and it was, he ventured to say, a sound policy. Successive Governments had acknowledged that it was not in their power to produce this result themselves. They offered every inducement to other bodies to found colleges from which that product might issue, and, if the Church of England had to a large extent taken advantage of the requests of successive Governments to open colleges under the offers made to them and others had not, did she deserve to be mulcted in the way she was mulcted now, and was the Government justified in taking her colleges in order that they might do the work which the Government acknowledged they themselves could not do? When he came to the equity of the situation it seemed to him there were certain things which ought to be said. He was, first of all, entitled to say that there had been ever since 1839 a consecutive policy on the part of successive Governments in reference to the training college grants. He believed the first Order in Council was dated 1839, and that by it authority was given to give £10,000 to certain train-
70
ing colleges. Ever since that decision there had been Orders in Council and grants made, and there had been various codes formed with reference to the training colleges. Never, however, between 1839 and 1907 had there been any sort of variation in the policy under which Governments had administered the grants; and he submitted that on the grounds of equity they were entitled to ask why that confirmed policy, which had elicited from the religious bodies such large sums of money which would not have been given except upon the faith of it, had been abandoned, and what was the equity of the revolution they had in the regulations this year.
He wished to say a word with reference to the trust deeds. When the Government promised grants to training colleges in earlier years for building and in late years for maintenance, the one thing which they required was some satisfactory trust deeds. Those trust deeds were various, and they would all have to be very carefully scanned and examined. The Governments of the day, however, had given their grants upon the faith of those trust deeds, knowing perfectly well what they contained; and now by the regulations of the Government—not by any statute—the training colleges were to be asked to do things which were contrary to their trust deeds, on the faith of which the colleges were built, and on the faith of which the grants were originally given. He wanted to come to the question of the money itself. The noble Lord who preceded him made some capital out of the admission, an admission which he perfectly conceded, that in late years the contributions towards the maintenance of the training colleges had been gradually less. He said that they had become more and more dependent upon the Government for their maintenance. He (the Lord Bishop) conceded the fact that in reference to maintenance the ordinary subscriptions had been less than they were some years ago; but it was remarkable that it was just that period which had witnessed some reduction of the contributions given by the religious bodies to the maintenance of the

71
training college that had been marked by the most extraordinary advance in the subscriptions for plant. The most rev. Prelate referred to the sum, he thought, of £200,000 which had been subscribed in the last twelve years. He had tried to go into it as far as he could, and he noticed the following results. The sum of £92,613 was given by grants from the Government for the building of Church of England training colleges before 1870, and he found upon evidence given before the Education Commission of 1886 by a former Secretary of the Board of Education that the sum subscribed was three times the amount of the Government grant; giving the sum of £277,839. St. Gabriel's, Kennington, had been built at a cost of £60,000. It accommodated 160 students; and besides St. Gabriel's they had provided 1,390 other places since 1870 in their various training colleges. St. Gabriel's thus cost more than £300 per place, and the other 1,390 places could not possibly have been provided at less than £200 per place. He was speaking the other day to the superintendent of a lunatic asylum, who said they could not provide a place for a lunatic Under £200, and they were putting it very low for a training college if they put it at £200 per place. At £200 per place for 1,390 students they had the sum of £278,000, and this added to the other items made a total of £615,839, of which £338,000 had been given since 1870, the larger part in the last twelve years. When they were calculating what the Church of England had given for religious training colleges, it was not fair simply to say that only a small proportion had been given towards maintenance and that a decreasing proportion. They were bound to take into consideration the enormous sums spent upon plant; sums larger apparently as the ordinary subscriptions for the maintenance of the colleges had diminished. He ventured to say that on the grounds of the very large expenditure not only of the Church of England but of the Roman Catholics and other religious bodies the question of equity was one which pressed and that the revolution in policy was not equitable considering all the circumstances of the past.
72
He wanted now to say a word on what he might call the variety of type that was absolutely desirable whether in the training of teachers or of children. A policy of dead monotony was very bad. He believed it was a very bad thing to have only one type of school in the country. He was quite certain that the more they could vary their education and the more types they could have the better it would be for the country at large. There were two main types in reference to religious education. There was the denominational and the undenominational. He wanted to do justice to both. Out of the undenominational type as represented by the board schools they had had—and he gladly acknowledged it—very good results. He was not the man to decry what had been done by the board schools of the country or to decry what had come out of the undenominational type of school; but he did say that to crush the denominational type and exalt the undenominational was from an educational point of view absolutely unsound. They wanted a variety of types and not a dull monotony, and he believed the best kind of type came not from the undenominational but from the denominational side. Whether it was better or worse, however, he claimed that at any rate on the ground of the evil of monotony it was an absolutely bad thing to crush one kind of type in favour of another. This change of policy had interrupted real progress in filling up places and supplying fresh places for teachers. They were all entirely conscious of the desire, not only on the part of the teachers, but of all educationists that every kind of teacher should have the opportunity of being trained. He did not for one moment yield to Lord Stanley in the desire that every teacher, whatever his religious belief, should have the opportunity of being trained and of becoming as good a teacher as it was possible for him to be. Last year they were all bent upon the policy of providing hostels all over the country. They had, to a large extent, already begun in the college with which he was connected at Bishops Stortford. They had built a hostel for twenty young women; it was working extremely well, and they were prepared to enlarge it.

73
Other colleges had done the same, and last year they had every encouragement from the Board of Education itself to persevere not only in this policy but in founding denominational hostels in connection with undenominational colleges. If this had gone on, in a few years time they would have had a large accession to the training colleges and hostels, and would have had this want greatly supplied. The Government had now given them regulations which really provided no new places at all, which simply provided for a shifting of places, and would not add permanently to the educational efficiency of the country.
He wanted to say something on what he must call character. The regulations on this ground were very much to be lamented. They wanted not merely clever teachers, but teachers of brain and character, teachers who would be able to influence others, not merely by the way in which they taught religion, but by being religious teachers in everything. When they sent their own sons and relations to public schools, they looked out for schools where there were men who were able to inspire them, men who had character and were likely to mould the character of their sons as they would desire to see them moulded. Character was a very delicate thing indeed. It was far more than religious teaching. It came out in everything. A good teacher of high character showed his character in everything, in the way he did his work, in the consideration he showed for the child, in the way in which he gave a natural history lecture, and in countless ways, and that was what they wanted. If they were going to do anything to weaken character and to weaken the influences that made character, they would not be doing anything good for the country at large. If this was so, then by discouraging the denominational training colleges they were really inflicting a blow upon the character which was so delicate and of such untold value. He believed it to be absolutely certain that the highest and best character depended upon religious conviction, and, when they had religious conviction on the part of those who were concerned with the training colleges and yet a real liberality and desire to show every consideration to others who might be of a different form
74
of belief, he believed they had the best guarantee of the character they wanted to see planted in their children. From this point of view the regulations were singularly unfortunate. They really struck a blow at character, and for that reason they would take, in his judgment, a very retrograde step in the history of education. He gave credit to the Government for a real desire to do what they believed for the best of the country. He gave as much credit to them for their motives in the matter as he claimed for those with whom he more particularly agreed; but it was to them a matter so sacred and so essential, that the Government must pardon them if they protested against regulations which violated every policy that was sound and good, and which certainly in their judgment boded ill for the country at large.
LORD HERRIESwished to refer to the fact that under the regulations it would be necessary that 25 per cent. of the students in secondary schools must have free places. He had heard several authorities on the subject of secondary education, and they one and all condemned the necessity of having 25 per cent. of the places free in every school. It appeared to him quite possible, if not probable, that men who were well able to pay for the secondary education of their children would send them to a primary school in order to get them into a secondary school free afterwards. The result would be that the country would pay for the education of boys and girls whose parents were well able to pay for them themselves. He could not but think that that consideration had not been brought before those who had drawn up the regulations. It was an instance of the careless manner in which they had been drawn up. He was quite certain that if the country found out that they were paying for the secondary education of the children of those who could well afford to pay they would turn round on the county councils and say, "Why are we obliged to pay for the education of the children of those who can afford to pay?" All the county councils would be able to answer would be, "We are forced by the regulations of the Government." The regulations had been sprung upon the

75
country, and they were forced to accept them without any opportunity of refusing them. The fact was the Government was prepared to wage war against all denominational education, and, having been defeated in their direct attack upon primary education, they were now prepared by a flank attack to cut oft supplies. By undenominationalising the teachers, they were endeavouring to prevent denominational education being given in the country. If teachers were not brought up in denominational schools they would not be able to give in denominational schools that religious teaching which was naturally expected of them. Of course, it was quite right that there should be a conscience clause in day schools. No one had any objection to that. Would any member of the Government, however, be prepared to send his sons to a residential school, frequented by people of every denomination, if it was not necessary for them to attend any religious exercises whatever? He thought he would not, but would require that wherever he sent them they should be obliged to attend some religious services. When it came, however, to the question upon which the future of the country depended, they were told that they were going to any denominational college and could absent themselves from any religious exercises whatever. He was not sure they could not absent themselves from grace before meals. They might say it was a religious exercise. It was quite possible they would be students who were atheists or Mohamedans, or Jews, forcing themselves upon denominational schools and training colleges. How were they going to prevent them? If they applied first, they must under the Regulations be, accepted, providing in other ways they had a good moral character. They would perhaps have Mohamedans going about advocating polygamy, and the Jew objecting when he got pork or ham for dinner. These sort of things would go on in residential schools. There must be some religious bond to keep them together. He could not understand how anyone who believed in religious education could insist that people of all denominations should go to the residential training schools where they could get no benefit
76
whatever from the religious training and where it was quite possible they might do harm to those, around them. They were told that the teachers, even in all the public schools, would teach the Cowper-Temple clause. How would they be able to teach that amount of Christianity found in the Cowper-Temple clause if they received no religious training themselves? He would suggest that the. Government next year should insist that those who attended the training colleges should attend some place of worship where they could acquire some belief in a future life. The whole of our civilisation depended upon religion; it was the foundation of our morals, and, if they were going to have teachers in the schools of the future who would ignore this fact, how could they expect that the future generations would be worthy of the country they inherited, and able to transmit to their descendants that civilisation of which Englishmen were so proud, and to maintain that opinion which England had so well deserved in the world for the moral behaviour of her citizens? No one was more anxious than himself that the position we had in the world should be handed down to those who came after us, and when he saw the result of secular education in foreign countries, how crime increased and how life was no longer as sacred as it used to be, he was more impressed than ever with the necessity for having religion inculcated in the schools. He did not confine himself to his own religion but spoke of that religious spirit which he was happy to say existed throughout the country. He for one would be sorry to think it would ever diminish; he hoped it would always continue, but it could only do so through the medium of the schools of the country.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKsaid that it was satisfactory that the debate had shown that this was not a matter merely of administrative detail, but that it went deep into those principles upon which, whatever their different views, they thought that the national system of education should be based. He hoped that it had been sufficiently brought out that they were not in any way standing upon merely a property

77
claim or a historical claim. There was one remark of Lord Stanley which appeared to imply that it was because the Church of England and other bodies had done great things in the past that they were making this claim that night. The noble Lord seemed to impute that rather to the most rev. prelate. He thought everyone who had listened to the most rev. prelate's speech would agree that there was nothing upon which he insisted so little as that. He did indeed insist, as other speakers had insisted, on what had been done more recently and was being done at this very hour for the extension of church training colleges; but it was in no sense a cleaving to the past. It seemed to him that they might very fairly and boldy claim that the system upon which they had been working was an open system, and the system upon which they desired to work was an open system. The State insisted upon the training of the teacher. It made the training of the teacher possible by giving a grant to every teacher trained, but it left it to those who would to provide institutions in which the training should be given. Of course, there was a period up to a certain date when the State not only felt free and able to allow that to be done, but to help in the doing of it. That ended in 1870, and so far that was a change of policy, but since then it had been left free to everyone to provide teaching. They were going now to impair that system. It was quite true that if they described the existing system as an open system they would be met by.some rather sharp and ironical criticism. They would be asked: "Do you mean to say that the Nonconformist has hitherto had the same chance of getting a good residential training as a Churchman? Have you never heard that a better qualified more capable Nonconformist was unable to find a place when a less capable and less qualified Churchman found one? Have you never heard it said that the Nonconformist was exposed to a temptation of adopting in a temporary and shallow way the character of a Churchman? And you are responsible for putting that stumbling block in the Nonconformist's path." He did not think the case could be more strongly put than that. Were they justified, nevertheless, in saying
78
that the system was an open one? It seemed to him that they were. The field was open, only it was in great part unoccupied, and it had always been to him a matter of great regret that whilst the Church of England, and as they had heard the Roman Catholics, had done their part so effectually in the training colleges, so small an area comparatively was occupied by good men of other convictions. They did occupy an area certainly, for there were some excellent colleges of an undenominational character, but they formed only a small part of the whole system. He always felt inclined to put the question: Who was to blame for that? Was the Church of England or we e the Roman Catholics to blame for it? It seemed to him most unreasonable to blame them for doing their bit when the chance was given to people of all sorts of doing their bit also. He would not willingly say one provocative word on the subject: and certainly he would not wish to say any pharisaical word, and therefore as regarded the failure of Nonconformists to take an equal part, he would only say that they at any rate owed the Church the justice of acknowledging the part she had played. He could not himself but think that the Nonconformists might, if they would, have done and might do more in this direction. But he would go a step further. The Government was not encumbered by scruples which would entangle some of them in discriminating between one form of religious teaching and another. The Government, therefore, would have no difficulty, if they thought it right, in making a grant towards building undenominational colleges. In fact a grant was now made of as much as 75 per cent. to the building of new undenominational day training colleges. They would have no difficulty in going further, if they thought well, and undertaking the whole cost of building an open or undenominational or neutral re idential training colleges. If this residential accommodation were so much desired and if by the agreement of all it was valued so highly, the real remedy would be to increase the amount of it on various lines and not to harass those who, with an earnest conviction which, he thought, ought to command respect,

79
with a great deal of sacrifice, and with efforts which were fresh and living to-day, had provided their own part in their own way. It seemed to him it was hardly a fair way of dealing with the matter. Let them help in whatever they could to encourage the enlargement of the system, but let them not lay mauling hands on what other people had provided. That was not quite all they had to say. He thought there was a very reasonable field for difference of opinion as to the exact effect of a conscience clause in a residential college. The conscience clause was sometimes said to date back to 1870. He thought it dated back further than that. He remembered that in the recommendations of the Endowed Schools Commission of 1868 a strong distinction was drawn between a conscience clause in a day school and a conscience clause in a place of residence, where the admission of others who were not in harmony and sympathy with the spirit of the system made such a difference and hindered the full putting out by the authorities of these powers of training and help which they possessed. He therefore thought there was a strong case for saying it was no narrowness, but a lack of real efficiency in the higher kinds of training, which made them want not to see the residential system watered down. They had been given, he was bound to say, not much argument, but a certain number of consolatory anticipations. Among the pious hopes held out to them was one that after all there would not be very many from outside who would come into the colleges and that the system would go on very much is it was, and so forth. These were all mere speculations, and one objection they had was that the way in which the matter had been brought in had not given them time to think about it and had not-given the Government time to think whether the change could be made more considerate in this or that respect. Were they not bound to look at the change with regard to the conscience clause in the light of what lay behind it? Why, if they really wanted to maintain the equity of the system, if they really wanted to maintain, preserve, and continue the open system, had the Government issued these regulations? They
80
might have pressed upon them the conscience clause for the colleges of the future as it was pressed upon them with regard to the colleges they had now, but that was not the policy of the Government. They forbade any extension of the old system, those who desired denominational colleges would have no opportunity of acting upon their convictions in the matter. He felt that that was a great encroachment upon freedom. He would put it in two ways. An individual, not a child but an adult, say a Roman Catholic, wanted to be trained. The Government said: "We want to see you trained and we give you some money by which you shall be trained for the service of the State and education." The teacher wanted to go where he could find the training in the form he preferred. The Government said: "No, there have been Roman Catholic colleges in the past, but there are not to be any more." They there conflicted with the liberty of the individual. But further, he was not in the least ashamed to claim liberty for religious bodies. It seemed to him that a wise and tolerant State would give liberty to the religious bodies to do their work if it was a wholesome work. The building of St. Gabriel's, Kennington. was a task which was on a par with the work of some of the cathedral builders of the past in the amount which had been lavished upon it. It was not an easy thing to do. If, however, they had a Roman Catholic or a Church community willing to do it, why in the name of equity should they not allow them to do it? He felt that they were interfering with liberty. He wished they had an opportunity of speaking to Nonconformists. He would very much prefer to speak to those who held the strings than to those whose strings were pulled. Certainly, speaking of Nonconformists behind their backs, they should be very careful not to say one ungenerous or unjust word. He should like so much the opportunity of asking Nonconformists what they really hoped to gain by this policy. They had an admittedly valuable thing in the residential training colleges. If they (the Nonconformists) forced their sons and their daughters into them one of two things must happen. Either they would find that the influences there

81
were so warm, so strong, and so appealing that their sons and daughters might perhaps be drawn away from the principles they held dear; or (as the other alternative) they would damage that united sort of family life of which the noble Duke (the Duke of Norfolk) had spoken, and which they valued so much. He should very much like to ask them to consider that. They all agreed that the working of the educational system depended upon the teachers, but the teaching of one who would teach and the training of one who would train was an operation of the highest delicacy. They wanted to bring to bear upon it the noblest forces by which men and women were moved, they wanted to set up ideals to which they could aspire, and they wanted to bring to bear those influences which made discipline easy because submission was willing. They wanted teachers so trained not only, speaking as a Churchman, for their own schools, but for all the schools of the country, for the undenominational schools, and even if they were to have schools without a religious system they would still want such teachers if they knew their business as educators. They wanted people in whom the deepest springs had been touched and in whom the highest motives had been trained. He would therefore plead with them not to tamper with a system which had confessedly done such great things in the past. They had been told what the London School Board and the other great school boards in the past had done, and it was a matter of knowledge that whilst of course the undenominational colleges had contributed their contingent, a great deal of the best of that work had been done by teachers trained in Church colleges. It was not, he thought, a great step to add that they acquired a great deal of their excellence by that system which was congenial and normal in the colleges. When he had said these things to his Nonconformist friends, he should go further and say that if they could not agree with him in what he had said, could they not at least respect the feelings and the convictions of so large a body of their fellow-citizens as they knew the colleges represented? They represented great efforts in the past, and—
82
he wished strongly to emphasise this— they represented an amount of conciliatory action in the recent past which he thought was a very creditable achievement in the educational field. He thought the movement initiated by the Duke of Devonshire as Minister for Education, welcomed by Archbishop Temple and readily agreed to by all who represented the Church as a thing which they could and would do, ought to be recognised and accepted as a really great piece of conciliatory action. He would put it concretely by one more reference to St. Gabriel's College. They built it out of Church money, with lecture or public rooms capable of taking twice as many students as the resident Church students, who were the primary object of the college: and then those who built the college took pains and spent money in equipping an hostel outside it which was made entirely open and undenominational. He doubted whether there was any parallel to this. They had before them this conciliatory action, and he would very much like to ask why it was necessary to make changes which would not add to the number of places, which would admit Nonconformists to a doubtful share in advantages that they might damage by sharing them, and which would cause such infinite discomfort and distress to their fellow-citizens and fellow-Christians.
*THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid he did not think he would have intervened in the debate had it not been that he represented a diocese which had recently done its very best to meet all the requirements of successive Governments. At Salisbury they had built a second training college a little distance from the original one for the very purpose of meeting the difficulty of the conscience clause for Nonconformist students. There was another instance of conciliatory action. They had done their very best, and now they were thrown into such confusion that the principal of their college did not know in the least what he was to do. It was with regard to the secondary schools, however, that he was most personally concerned. Quite recently, under the direction of the county council and the Board of Education, he was party to a scheme for

83
a secondary school, and it had lately received the sanction of the Board of Education acting as Charity Commissioners. They did everything they thought could possibly conciliate those with whom they wished to work. They had no tests for teachers or scholars, but they had two safeguards. One was that the doctrine and worship of the Church of England should be taught every day in the school to those who desired to profit by them, and the other was that the elected governors and the governors appointed under the trust should be equal in number. Now they were told that that was to be changed, and that those two safeguards were to be swept away, Was it likely that he would have spent the considerable sum of money which he had spent in founding that school, if he had had the smallest idea that there would have been such a change so suddenly imposed upon this class of schools? It was really a very sad thing to perceive that it was no longer possible to trust His Majesty's Government to administer the law with fairness and equality. They were, as Churchmen, being almost forced to ally themselves with one political Party. He thought nothing could be worse for the Church or the country than that the Liberal Party should alienate the Church of England, and make it absolutely necessary that every good Churchman should be one of the opposite Party. He had never been a Party man, and he had done his best to discourage the clergy taking part in Party contests, but he really did not know that this would be possible in the future.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid they had waited for some time for the Government to reply, and it was with some astonishment that he noticed the reluctance of the Government to take part in the debate. Since the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack spoke before dinner they had listened to three speeches against the Government and not one word of reply had been made. He was not altogether surprised at the reluctance of the Government, but the House and country would observe that they were afraid of allowing the last word to those who spoke on that side of the House. The noble Lord who no
84
doubt would follow him would prefer to make his speech without any reply being made to him. He thought the country would form a just estimate of the strength of the case which could only be supported by methods of that description. There were two parts of the question which was put to the Government by his noble friend Lord Londonderry. He had very little to say with regard to the earlier part—the procedure of the Government in respect of the £100,000 grant. That had already been dealt with, being a legal question, by those in whose presence he should speak with the very greatest diffidence. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack delivered an opinion which he had had ample time to consider, he for one should not dream even of commenting upon it; but when the noble Lord left as it were the Judicial Bench and spoke of the propriety of the proceedings of the Government, then he was sure he would allow him to say with great respect that he did not speak as the highest Judge in the country, but as a partisan member of a partisan Government. The noble and learned Lord hardly dared to say it was a proper proceeding. There was just one cursory parenthesis in which he gave a verbal adherence to the propriety of the action of his colleagues.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid he would tell their Lordships the reason he did not enter upon it. He came and sat judicially at 10.30, and he had been fourteen hours at work. He had not had a minute to look into the question beyond the general approbation he gave some time ago. That was the only reason why he did not enter upon it. Otherwise, he would willingly have done his best to support his colleagues.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid he was very familiar with the difficulty of a Minister speaking under great pressure, and he was not surprised at the observation made by the noble Lord. He noticed that Lord Stanley of Alderley, who spoke without any official responsibility, frankly repudiated the proceeding of the Government, saying he thought it an improper proceeding and one which offered a precedent he was very sorry the Government had set up. The noble Earl the Lord

85
President referred to what Mr. Speaker had said in another place. He ventured to interrupt him to point out what Mr. Speaker had said. He was afraid he did not quote Mr. Speaker quite accurately. He had since referred to the statement and he found that Mr. Speaker said it was in the power of the House of Commons not to break the law but to disobey an Act of Parliament. The difference was not very great. Mr. Speaker went on to say that whether that was a proper proceeding he left to the conscience of the House of Commons. It would not be courteous to make any reflections on that organ of the House of Commons, he meant its conscience, but he had no doubt of the great respect every Member of that House paid to Mr. Speaker's opinion, and if anything would raise that conscience it would.
He had with regard to the other part of his noble friend's question noticed two tendencies about the Government. There had been, as it were, a hot fit and then there had been a cold fit. The action of the President of the Board of Education had, generally speaking, been an example of the hot fit; and the very stringent alterations in the position of the secondary schools from a denominational point of view no doubt emanated from him. The noble Earl the Lord President was very anxious to minimise the change which had been imported into the system of secondary schools, and he spoke with enthusiasm of the sort of dispensing power which would be left to the local education authority. Under the new regulations it was in the power of the local educational authority, by saying that a secondary school even with all its naked denominational character was essential for the due provision of secondary education in the district to save the school as it stood without the religious modifications, which the regulations would otherwise introduce. The Lord President said he thought that would be the common case. He wished to point out how absurdly the Government treated the law of the country. Under Section 4 of the Act of 1902 the local educational authority were not allowed to administer the rates which were in their power by making any distinction between school and school on account of religious considerations, but notwithstanding this the
86
Government were putting it in their power to make a complete distinction and differentiation in the administration of education in regard to the taxpayers' money. They left the local authority to say whether a school was or was not to receive money, to withhold it from one denominational school and to give it to another. In the matter of the taxes it was within their complete discretion, but in the matter of the rates it was not. Could there be any greater satire upon the administration of the law than that the Government should permit such a difference between the administration of rates and taxes by the same authority. Lord Stanley had made a most interesting speech, and he wished to make one observation in respect of one point in it. Lord Stanley had tried to make the distinction, with which they were very familiar last year, between the position of the Roman Catholics and of the Church of England. He knew that would be a point very interesting to Lord Fitzmaurice, because he recollected that last year he reproved him (the Marquess of Salisbury) in the most solemn manner because he accused the Government of making a distinction, which Lord Stanley, the only supporter of the Government on the back benches, said ought to be made in respect of secondary schools. Lord Stanley had told the Duke of Norfolk that the only mistake the Catholics had made was in throwing in their lot with the Church of England, thus coming in for the same condemnation. They had it now in the most positive manner from the mouth of one of the principal supporters of the Government, and from one who, above all others, understood and spoke with authority upon the education question, that, in his opinion, there ought to be a distinction made between the treatment of Roman Catholics and the treatment of the Church of England; that the Roman Catholics ought to have privileges in respect of denomination in secondary schools which they would be quite ready to deny to the Church of England. He hoped the country would take note that the Liberal Government thought that in these matters the Roman Catholics ought to have better treatment than the Church of England.
He must say one word about the treatment of trusts by the Government.

87
His noble friend Lord Londonderry pressed upon the Government the extraordinary róle which the Board of Education was playing in the matter of trusts; but he did not notice that the noble Earl said one word about it in reply. It was a very astonishing admission. The Board of Education, in respect of educational trusts, were the successors of the Charity Commissioners, who were the successors of the Court of Chancery. They always hoped, though some of them hardly believed, that when the transfer took place in 1899 of the powers of the Charity Commissioners in respect of educational endowments to the Board of Education they would be administered in the same spirit. It was a gloomy satisfaction to him that he was always a pessimist in this respect, and that when he had the honour of a seat in another place he, with a very small minority of Members, did his utmost to prevent the possibility of the Board of Education using their administrative powers for a purely partisan purpose. There was a great discussion at the time whether these powers were judicial, semi-judicial, or only administrative. It was more or less a verbal discussion, but he thought what was urged by the defenders of the new system was that at any rate those powers would be used fairly and equitably and not for partisan purposes. Yet they had in these regulations the Government offering what his noble friend called a bribe to trustees, who were bound by every rule which applied to trustees to administer their trust according to its terms, to go to the Board of Education for the purpose of having their trust deeds altered in a vital particular for the return of a sum of money, not, of course, to go into their own pockets, but for the schools of which they were the trustees. That appeared to him a most discreditable performance, and he would like to hear what possible defence the Government had for using the powers which the Board of Education had inherited from the Charity Commissioners for such a partisan purpose. Those schemes when they were altered had to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, and the Government must not complaint if. having regard to the origin of the alterations and the extraordinary indifer-
88
ence which the Government had shown to proper fairness in the matter, they were to scrutinise them with great care, and, if they saw fit, decline to give their consent thereto. He wondered whom the Government consulted about the changes in regard to secondary schools. He had been looking at the Act of 1899. It not only provided that the powers of the Charity Commissioners in respect of educational endowments were to pass to the Board of Education, but it also provided for the establishment of a Consultative Committee. That was one of the principal clauses of the Act of Parliament, and to the Consultative Committee were to be referred any matters of educational interest which the Board of Education chose to refer to them. Had they chosen to refer this question to the Consultative Committee? It was a statutory committee, not a private committee, and he would like to ask what was its opinion on the new policy of the Government. He would turn now for a moment or two to the subject of the training colleges. It was really hardly necessary to discuss it in detail, because the case had been stated with such unexampled force in the brilliant speech of the most rev. Prelate. The difficulties of applying the regulations in regard to the training colleges, however, were not worked out at all by the President of the Council. He believed the noble Lord the President of the Council was one of the officials of the Education Department. He was not quite sure whether in all the great changes that had been made the President of the Council still retained his locus standi in that Department. If he did, it was astonishing that he should not be in a position to deal with the administrative difficulties which the most rev. Prelate had pointed out; the immense difficulty, that was to say, of the method which the Government had prepared for selecting the particular students who were to go to training colleges. Their Lordships would recollect that the most rev. Prelate had pointed out that they came from a great variety of sources, that some had passed the ordinary examination, that others had matriculated at the London University, and so on. How were they to be

89
this one selected, and that one rejected, unless the authorities of the training colleges were allowed to have some selective power? There was an amazing list to be found in the register which Mr. McKenna told them they were to buy, in which the names were to be put precisely in accordance with the punctuality of the postman, and on no other ground whatever. That was the method which Mr. McKenna seemed to suggest they ought to adopt for selecting one candidate rather than another. This particular administrative difficulty was put before the Lord President by the most rev. Prelate, and yet they had not had a word in reply. Apparently the Lord President could not deal with it. He wondered whether the noble Lord who would follow him would be able to deal with it. He had his doubts. The regulations were the most absurd things that had ever been seen, and the expert who sat behind the Government had said so. Lord Stanley had said, not in such terms as he was using, but in terms sufficiently clear as coming from a friend of the Government, that these difficulties were perfectly real, and that the regulations as they stood could not be defended. There were some differences in the phases of the Government's mind, which he had called the hot fit and the cold fit in the matter of the training colleges. Mr. McKenna had approached the subject in a frame of mind of profound suspicion of the Church of England and other denominational authorities. No examination of any kind was to be allowed, for fear, he presumed, that an undue preference might be imported into an examination as between one candidate and another. Mr. McKenna's original intention, he thought, was that not even an interview should be permitted. At the deputation to the Prime Minister the President of the Board of Education defended this probable absence of examinations on the ground of the expenditure to which it would put the counties. When it was suggested to him that perhaps the denominations would be prepared to pay their fares to the place of examinaton, he roundly accused the denominations and the Church of England of not playing fair in the matter. If they were allowed anything of that kind, he said, there
90
was no doubt that injustice might creep in. The Lord President, representing the cold fit, approached the subject in a very different frame of mind. Speaking of the danger of the denominations not playing the game, he said that no aggressive member of any denomination was to be turned out neck and crop. He now went further and suggested that probably the atmosphere of the Church Training Colleges would induce the student to change his religious opinions. He was so astonished when he heard the noble Earl make that observation that he hardly knew what to do. His mind went back to the discussions of last year when the great charge brought against Church schools was that the atmosphere was of such a penetrating character that the children of other denominations would be proselytised. if they went there. Now, however, the noble Earl held it out as a desideratum in the case of the training colleges. He did not admit for a moment that they did proselytise in the elementary schools, but in the case of the training colleges the noble Earl had held out that very element of proselytising as a remedy for the injustice of the regulations. The extravagance of the argument showed what a weak case the noble Earl must have The truth was that Mr. McKenna was so terrified at the possibility of undue influence that he was hardly willing there should be any process of selection at all. He asked then what it mattered whether they got the better or the worse candidate; they all, he said, had to be educated. He went such lengths that he was positively reproved there and then by the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister did not know the pit falls so well as Mr. McKenna, and he, relying only upon his well-known Scottish shrewdness and common-sense, got up and said that what Mr. McKenna had said was perfectly absurd; it was eminently desirable that the best men should be selected. Lord Stanley, confirming the Prime Minister, said that that was the great object, as indeed any sensible man would say. The question was who were the best men. Evidently the best men were the most qualified or those likely to become most qualified to do the work they would be called upon to do. They were going to be called

91
upon to teach, not only a great number of secular subjects, but also religion. That was admitted. The noble Earl the Lord President had reiterated upon behalf of the Government the statement that they were opposed to what was called the secular system, and he went so far as to imply that if the secular system were carried out it would have to be carried out by a different Government from that to which he belonged. It was therefore part of the policy of the Government that the teachers should teach religion, and the Prime Minister said they were to select the best men, the men most qualified to do the work they would be called upon to do. It was consequently impossible to resist the conclusion which was absolutely exacted by the process of argument to which he had called their Lordships' attention, that some regard ought be to had to religious efficiency, or rather, as he should put it, to the probability of the students being able to give good religious instruction when they were selected. He saw no escape from that conclusion, and, if that was so, who would provide the religious training and who was to judge whether the students were so far grounded in religious knowledge that they were likely to make good teachers of religion? Would the State do it? Everybody knew that the State refused to do it. He would not enter into the question whether the State ought to do it. It was sufficient for him that every single member of the Government who had spoken agreed in repudiating the notion that the State could investigate the religious competence of a particular student. If the State would not do it, why did they refuse to allow other people who could and would do it to do so? How could that possibly be defended? Why did the Government resist the inevitable conclusion that the denominational authorities ought and must be allowed to make themselves responsible for investigations as to whether the student was qualified, and afterwards, when he had been admitted to the College, to give him that instruction in religion which was necessary to the due performance of his work hereafter? He had tried to state the case again because it was part of his duty, as it were, to sum
92
up the debate, and it now remained for the Government to give some answer to the argument. No answer had yet been given. They were perfectly willing to meet the Nonconformist grievance, and they had always shown themselves perfectly willing to meet it by the method of the hostels. Where there was a training college, either denominational or undenominational in character, it should be permitted to establish around it hostels either denominational or undenominational, as the case might be, to give that variety of religious training which was necessary in order to be fair to every religious persuasion in the community. That seemed to be a perfectly fair offer. It was a perfectly sound solution of the difficulty. Why would the Government do their best to interefere with it? Why did they lay it down that no future hostel on such lines was to be permitted? It passed the wit of man to understand how the Government could defend such a course as that. The Government perhaps, thought that by yielding to Nonconformist pressure in this matter they were out of their difficulties. Let them be at once undeceived. They had probably already realised, after listening to that debate, that that is only the letting out of the waters—that it was only the beginning of trouble.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it was precisely in the quarter from which he heard that cheer that the storm was likely in the first instance to arise. The noble Duke spoke for a body of men who were never afraid of their convictions, and he had told their Lordships in perfectly courteous language, but in perfectly distinct language, that if these regulations were enforced the Catholic body were determined to defy the law. What were they going to do then?
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I should disregard the regulations.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the noble Duke's language was always moderate, but his conclusions were always very firm. When the noble Duke treated the regulations in the way he had described, what were the Government going

93
to do? Were they going to shut up all the Roman Catholic training colleges? Were they really going to do that? Of course not. They would no more dare to shut up all the Roman Catholic training colleges than they would fly. No, no; the main motive in the Government's action in these matters was not courage. He need not be more precise as to what the particular quality was that generally governed them in matters of this kind. Undoubtedly the Roman Catholic colleges would not be shut up. Some device would be found, some method, some arrangement would be come to, and the example of the Roman Catholics might be catching. He would not be surprised. Let the Government, then, consider before they committed themselves too far. Let them realise that to oppress the conscience of the people never had succeeded, and never would succeed, in this country, and, whether it was some petty tyranny towards some Church school in a Midland town, or whether it concerned some training college, they would find that convictions were hard to deal with, and, while there was time, let them think better of it, and have respect for the religious convictions and consciences of the people of the country.
*THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAURICE): Before I enter upon the various points, some of principle and some of detail, which various speakers have touched in this debate, I deem it my duty in the first place to explain the reasons which induced me just now not to rise before the noble Marquess, because he has made some complaint that nobody rose to reply to him before he closed the debate. [Murmurs of dissent.] Yes, he claimed the right to close the debate. I have only very recently had the honour of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House and, therefore, I have no claim whatever to address your Lordships upon a question of procedure and practice; but I am informed by those who sit near me and have had a very long experience of this House—and quite as long an experience as the noble Marquess—that, in the days of the late Government it was the invariable practice of that Government to claim the right of reply in a debate of this kind. Of course, I would desire to add that I regret that the task
94
of closing the debate on the Government side of the House should not have fallen to one who has a greater claim than I have perhaps to address your Lordships, as I only hold a subordinate post in His Majesty's Government; but in matters of this kind those are called upon to speak whom their Leaders desire should speak, and as the task has been deputed to me for better or for worse to say what is to be said on behalf of the Government at the closing stage of this debate, I hope I shall not be prejudiced in your hearing merely because I did not just now rise before the noble Marquess.
It is always the fortune of the Liberal Party in either House of Parliament in an education debate to hear hard things said of themselves, and this debate has been no exception. At a very early stage of the debate the noble Marquess who introduced the subject, and who is not adverse to the use of metaphorical language, accused the Government of having armed themselves with the sword in order to trample the people of this country under foot.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am sorry to interrupt, but I was merely quoting the words of Mr. McKenna when I used the word "sword."
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I only wish to observe, expressing an individual opinion of my own, I am not in the least objecting to the noble Marquess's metaphor; but if I had a desire, which I have not, to trample the liberties of the people under foot, I think I should not have selected the sword with that particular object. That being so, I was rather relieved that the noble Duke who spoke with almost equal indignation did not himself adopt some metaphor to crush the Liberal Party, because, I remember that some years ago I was travelling in Italy, and I read an Encyclical from a very great and worthy man with strong convictions, Pope Pius IX., which was directed against the Liberal Party in Italy on the question of education; he compared the Liberal Party in various ways to many things, and finally he said, alluding to them—
"That a viper had come out of the sea, and threatened to swallow St. Peter's barque."
I was rather relieved that the noble Duke did not use that metaphor

95
against my noble friends and myself, all the more so that as his speech proceeded it became perfectly clear to me that, although he said nothing about the barque, he had a perfectly clear opinion that we were a set of vipers.
This debate, my Lords, has ranged over three topics. The noble Marquess just now, rather to my astonishment, returned to the question of the sum of £100,000. I had rather hoped, after what had fallen from the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack, that the consciences of noble Lords opposite might have been quieted, but that appears not to have been the ease. I can only say for myself that it strikes me as a very extraordinary thins; that the members of the Government, whether in this House or in the other, should have been called upon to prove what, I thought, was a universally accepted proposition, namely, that in every country there must be somewhere a supreme legislative power, and that in this country it resides in Parliament, and that where finance is concerned the real responsibility is not here but in the House of Commons. We do not require to bring down from our shelves the dusty volumes of Blackstone and Delolme, or the more modern volumes of Professor Dicey and Sir William Anson to prove that. These are things which we were taught in our schools of jurisprudence in our early days, and when I am told that Mr Speaker—and I as an old member of the House of Commons desire to express the greatest respect for every word that falls from his lips—said, as is alleged, that the House of Commons could disobey the law, he was simply stating the fact that although there may be an Act on the Statute-book, the House of Commons, by a Bill or Resolution in Supply, can lay the foundations of a change, which afterwards can be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. In so saying it appears to me that Mr. Speaker was only uttering what, I may almost venture to say, without any disrespect to his high office, is a platitude, which I should have thought everybody knew by this time.
Upon the constitutional aspect of this question I wish here to be allowed to say a very few words. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, whether a question is a grave matter of the Constitution or not depends very much upon
96
the size, importance, and magnitude of the legislative act or other act which is proposed, and he argued, evidently with perfect sincerity, that this was a tremendous new departure, and that we were doing something by this temporary Act of Parliament which constituted a grave and permanent infringement of the Constitution of the country. Now, my Lords, I cannot help thinking, and I say so with great respect, that if Lord Ashbourne had been as familiar with the working of English administration and of the English Education Acts as he undoubtedly is with the working of things in Ireland, he would not have committed himself to so rash a proposition, because, as a matter of fact, all that this change purports to do and can accomplish is to give effect to a very humble clause of the Act of 1902, for which we are not responsible, but for which noble Lords opposite are responsible. I claim that here we are really upon common ground with noble Lords opposite, and that this has a very great bearing upon constitutional questions, because clearly if it can be shown that some particular act or set of acts are really done upon common ground, and that the forms of the Constitution are not being used to override the views of one Party by the other, it is very difficult indeed in a case of that kind to support an indictment of anybody for unconstitutional action.
Now, what is this proposal? In the Act of 1902 there was a clause to which Mr. Balfour attached the greatest importance, as doing justice to the Nonconformist views upon this subject. He believed, and no doubt quite sincerely, that the ninth clause in the Act of 1902 would be of very great value to the Nonconformists. What was that clause? It was a clause under which even where there was a complete supply of school places in the district, and the borough council or county council would therefore be under no obligation to supply another school or school places, nevertheless, in order to do justice to the claims of an educational minority, presumably a Roman Catholic or a Nonconformist minority, it was to be within the power of the county council to set up another school, in most cases, no doubt, a rather small school, in order to meet the views of that religious minority. Mr. Balfour, as I have said, no doubt spoke with

97
perfect sincerity when he said that that clause would be used in practice, and would be of very great value. As a matter of fact, that clause has never proved of the smallest value, because there are conditions attached to its working which majorities have always been able to defeat. Sometimes the cry has been raised that the minority is not a sufficient minority, and other reasons have been given; but the great obstacle has been that the clause says that with regard to the working of it regard is to be had to the interests of economy, and the ratepayer has invariably come forward to say that on the ground of economy he objects to it. Now, what this clause will do is to give some chance to Mr. Balfour's clause. ["No, no!"] It is all very well to say "No, no," but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to conclude my argument. This clause of ours will give some chance, perhaps not a very large one, to Mr. Balfour's clause to become a reality, because when a small school of that kind is asked for by a Roman Catholic or Nonconformist majority, or it might be a Church majority — although I admit that is not likely—it will then be possible for the ratepayers to apply to the Board of Education to ease the burden of the ratepayer. These are the only cases in which this money can be used. I think the noble Lord opposite who said "No, no !" is probably under the common and mistaken apprehension that this money is to be used in a general way by the county council to build new schools wherever it desires to do so. That is not the case. The Lord President has already explained this, and I wish to say it again, that this money is not to be used to case off the burdens of the county councils in any case where they have a statutory obligation to supply a new school—that is to say, where the population may have increased and new school places may be required, but only in the cases which I have described. I now pass to what I quite admit are larger and more controversial issues. There is, I know, an idea, and not at all an unnatural idea—it was propagated in the first few days after these regulations came out—that this was an attempt to sweep completely out of existence all secondary schools which are not entirely managed by the representatives of local bodies. That is not the case. I hope that by this time it is fairly generally understood that what is pro-
98
vided for is that there is to be a majority on these bodies of the representatives of public bodies, and the reason why the Board of Education has come forward with these proposals—I shall state it quite frankly, and without any desire to make any concealment about it—is the desire to prevent in regard to secondary education that state of things growing up such as has been, and still is, such a terrible obstacle to the solution of the public elementary education question—Imean a monopoly of secondary education growing up in the hands of some particular religious body. They do not in the least desire to exclude any religious body. It is desired to prevent a monopoly of power becoming gradually vested, owing to the superior wealth, power, and influence, in some one denomination in secondary education, such as we tried to remedy last year, although we failed, in regard to elementary education. But, on the other hand, the Government equally desire to invite, and to have the co-operation of those men, to whatever religion or denomination they belong—and many of the noblest of them have been amongst members of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic body—who are anxious to promote education for the sake of education. My Lords, I listened with all that regard which I feel, and which every Member of your Lordships' House feels, to the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, and I listened to-him with peculiar respect because he is the Bishop of my diocese. He spoke of a school with which he is connected and with the fortunes of which I have in a way been connected, because in those negotiations to which he alluded and which he took as typical of the injustice which he said might occur, he and I wore both concerned. But I think I can remind the right rev. Prelate that in this scheme which we have before us there are clauses specially inserted, although some noble Lords seem to have entirely overlooked them, to meet the class of case which he described, and although I know nothing is so rash as prophecy even in regard to the associations of those with whom one is connected politically or locally, I would not be very much afraid to prophesy that that which has been inserted in Clause 43 to meet the case of schools of this kind, will be used by

99
the county council of which at one time I was chairman, and as chairman of which I negotiated with the right rev Prelate in regard to that school. I am quite aware that the success of those negotiations was mainly due to the conciliatory spirit of the right rev. Prelate, and he would grant, as he has publicly acknowledged, that he was met in a very willing spirit by the county council which at the time had a Liberal majority. If what I know from my own experience is possible in regard to a school in my own county, why am I to believe it is impossible everywhere else? Why are we to assume that everybody is to act in an unreasonable spirit? I, on the contrary, have arrived at the pleasant conclusion that, on the whole, in these matters there is a spirit of reason, and that Englishmen generally—I do not mind to what body they belong—when they meet together round a table to discuss this kind of question as practical men in local administration, find the difficulties which loom so large in the House of Commons and here, very largely disappear.
What will be the general view of the secondary education of a county when these regulations come into force? What will happen when the regulations have been at work for a certain number of years? It is, I think, tolerably easy to say that the majority of the schools would be schools with a large representative element upon them, but many of them will, no doubt, also have a very considerable minority representing the older interests of the founders, some dating from a remote past, and some, as in the case of the Bishop's School at Salisbury, of a more recent date. Then there would be some schools which I daresay will; have a distinctly denominational character and which will be brought in by way of exception. These last-named schools, no doubt, will have generous treatment under Section 43 passed with that object and to which I ask your Lordships' attention, because I think it has not received sufficient attention in these debates. Lastly there would be the schools, which so far as I know have not been mentioned in this debate, which will come into being—some have come already into being—under Chapter 8, that is to say, those schools which would not be receiving grants at all from the Government, and, perhaps, not even from the
100
county council, because they will be charging possibly very high fees, and these regulations deal chiefly with schools with comparatively low fees. They will probably be schools of a more directly denominational character; because some of the religious bodies will desire to keep up schools of this kind. Nevertheless, as Chapter 8 shows, they will all count towards the educational supply of the county, and there is nothing in these regulations, so far as I am aware, to prevent county councils doing what is done now in regard to schools of this kind. They may not subsidise them directly,; and the schools will receive no Government grant, but, nevertheless, scholarships are allowed to be held at the schools, and in that way they are brought in a very clear and direct manner within the purview of a county scheme. I will go back to the illustration of the school of the light rev. Prelate. Even if the Wiltshire County Council and the Government had never paid the school one shilling in grants, as both have done, there would have been nothing whatever to prevent the Wiltshire County Council saying that scholarships should be held at that school. There is the case of a Wesleyan school in the county to which the county council has always refused a grant for varied reasons. That school has, however, always been allowed to hold our county council scholarships, and in that way we have obtained a hold on it. Therefore, I say, there would be three classes of schools. If anyone wants a denominational school there will be the denominational schools, which I have described, under Chapter 8, no doubt not receiving a grant, but open to the public inasmuch as county council scholarships may be held there; there will be the schools under purely public management; and there will be the schools where there will only be a majority of public managers. I ask the noble Lord himself, does he see anything illiberal or unjust in the plan I have described? I cannot help thinking that if he does, he will find it hard to carry the same conviction to the minds of the great majority of the people of this country.
Now I come to that part of the question which I admit has attracted most attention this evening. I mean the training colleges. Here again

101
I am obliged to pursue what may be called a rather minimising line of argument. This is necessary because there has really been all through this debate a note of alarm and exaggeration which I think upon calmer reflection many noble Lords and right rev. Prelates will say has hardly been justified. If anybody had come into this debate as a listener, unaware of the main facts, and had simply tried to pick them up, while the discussion went along, he would, I am convinced, have gone away, if he had listened only to right rev. Prelates and to noble Lords opposite, with the belief that His Majesty's Government had issued a sort of ukase giving a date when all denominational training colleges in the country should be closed. But nothing of the kind has happened. All that has been done in regard to the existing colleges is to establish a conscience clause, such as has already been established in so many other educational institutions in the country. When we come to analyse carefully the able speech of the most rev. Prelate, what really does it come to? It reduces itself really to a very considerable number of criticisms of detail which my noble friend, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who speaks with so much knowledge and authority on this subject, has pointed out were matters which might fairly be described as arising rather at the Committee stage if we were on a Bill.
EARL CAWDOR: But we are not.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: They were matters, therefore, capable, after discussion, of adjustment, and possibly in some cases of improvement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will His Majesty's Government provide a Committee stage to enable us to discuss these matters?
*LORD FITZMAURICE: It is not, I would remind you, in my power to alter the forms of your Lordships' House. I was only pursuing the analogy of the speech of Lord Stanley of Alderley for which the noble Lord opposite has expressed such admiration. It has always been the practice when regulations in regard to education, whether elementary or secondary, have had to be considered to take the discussion of them as
102
a whole. No doubt from time to time alterations of detail are introduced and points of practice are cleared up. I quite sympathise with what we have been told about the feelings of the heads of some training colleges in being called upon at rather short notice to administer a system not entirely new, but new in some important respects. I quite sympathise also with the governors and managers of those training colleges. But what I would venture to ask them is: Are they really in a more difficult position at this moment of transition—and I admit that it is a moment of transition, attended necessarily with some difficulties—than any other public body which is called upon to administer a new and important Act of Parliament? Let me give your Lordships an illustration. Are they for example in a more difficult position than county councils were when they found themselves suddenly, in the early days of 1903, called upon to take up an entirely new duty—to administer one of the worst drawn Acts of Parliament which has ever been placed on the Statute Book of this country—the Education Act of 1903?.Again, I would ask, are they in a more difficult position than Courts of Quarter Sessions when in the following year—that is to say in 1904—they were called upon suddenly to undertake the administration of a new, though I admit a far more carefully drawn, Act on licensing? They are not, I am convinced, in a more difficult position. They are simply having those troubles which every person who undertakes to carry out legislation is compelled sooner or later to face. The task of taking over the work which I have described was an overwhelming task, which in many cases broke down the health as well as the patience of those who had to do it. Solvitar ambulando was the answer given to those who complained. As Lord Stanley of Alderley said, these points of detail which loom so large at the present moment will gradually settle themselves.
Far be it from me to say, however, that there is nothing in connection with these matters which cannot be slightly improved or possibly explained. My right hon. friend Mr. McKenna pointed out when he received a deputation the other day that nothing will be required for several months to come except to

103
purchase a register and have it in the hands of the wardens of the colleges on the 1st of August this year. He stated that no active steps would he taken until after the next examination, which I believe he said would not be until the beginning of December or January. It means, therefore, that the governors of these schools have a period of very nearly five months, if not more, to deal with all these questions. Accordingly, I venture in a spirit of perfect sympathy to say to them, "You have simply got to cope with those difficulties which invariably arise when you are dealing with what in an Act of Parliament are called transitory provisions." I know from my own experience that those provisions which often run through Parliament in a short time— sometimes with almost alarming rapidity —often excite little interest in the minds of Members. Every man, however, who is concerned with local administration is aware that those are the clauses which the local administrators look at with the greatest anxiety. I know that there are what may be called transitory provisions here; therefore, I say it is not unnatural that some complaint should be made and some anxiety expressed. But I would also venture to say that right reverend Prelates may have perfect confidence that those gentlemen of great experience and ability who are at the head of the training colleges will be well able to deal with the difficulties, and that they will not find them the terrific obstacles in their path which they imagine. And here, my Lords, I would have terminated the observations I have ventured at this late hour to make to you, had it not been for one particular question which I think I ought to answer before I sit down. I refer to the point that was raised, I think by the most reverend Prelate, in regard to the use of the words "for the present" in Subhead K, on page 4, of the definitions and conditions. He seemed to draw the conclusion that because those words had, as he said, been suddenly inserted there was some intention to take steps in regard to women day students, depriving them of rights and liberties which he considered it was very desirable to keep up. I understood that he was specifically alluding to the idea that it was the intention of the Board of Education to deprive these lady students of those payments made either to them
104
or on their behalf which would practically enable them to continue their studies by living in lodgings and receiving a grant and at the same time taking the lodging grant into the funds of a denominational hostel. In the first place I understand that the most rev. or right rev. Prelate, whichever it was, is mistaken in imagining that those words "for the present" are in any way a new insertion. I understand that they are a survival from the previous rules and regulations, and the reason they have been put in is one with which I think the right rev. Prelate will himself sympathise. The Board of Education, I am informed, consider that on the whole it is far better that these lady students should live with their parents or other relatives, if they have any, in the town where the training college is situated, and that failing them they should go into a hostel. These words were put in to show that the arrangement of going into lodgings must be a temporary one and was not the final solution of the question, or at any rate the solution the Board of Education looked on with the most favour. The words have nothing to do with any dark or villainous scheme, such as was adumbrated, on the part of the Government or the Board of Education, to deprive the hostels by an indirect blow of those grants which they now receive, if not in a direct at least in an indirect manner.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I must point out that the most reverend or right reverend Prelate to whom he refers was Lord Stanley of Alderley.
*LORD FITZMAURICE: I think the most reverend Prelate is mistaken; but I do not bring up the point in a controversial spirit. I have not claimed at all that Lord Stanley of Alderley supported the whole of these regulations, and I was bringing forward arguments on the merits of the proposals. It is quite unimportant for the purposes of my argument whether the criticism was made by Lord Stanley of Alderley or by the right reverend Prelate. All I am anxious to do is to relieve the apprehension by whomsoever it is felt. I know from personal conversations I have had that the regulation does excite considerable apprehension in the minds of those who represent the Church

105
of England in these debates, and therefore I am anxious to take this opportunity of relieving the minds of right reverend Prelates on the subject. I can assure your Lordships that I am anxious to find grounds of agreement where I can, being conscious that there are unfortunately plenty of grounds of disagreement. have only now to thank your Lordships for having listened to these rather prolonged observations. There have been undoubtedly many other incidental points raised, but I do not think it is necessary or desirable that I should plunge into a great number of them. Some of those points were, I thought, raised rather unnecessarily by the noble Lord, and partook a little of a form of argument of which I am not very fond myself, namely, trying to make out what may be called a series of tu quoque cases on some points. I desire to take these regulations as representing a larger educational policy. What I have been anxious to do—even if I have not succeeded—was to convince noble Lords opposite that these regulations represent a large and broad scheme. I have also desired to show that this is not a scheme intended to promote Nonconformity at the expense of the Church or of the nation. What we on this side of the House desire is national education, and, as last year, we absolutely decline to regard the whole of the education of this country as merely a set of petty quarrels between Nonconformity and the Church.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I must crave for an answer to the question which I asked. That question is: Are we to understand that the children of a denomination which has provided a college especially for them arc to be shut out in order to make room for students of another denomination which has not provided a college, and which has every opportunity of having a college provided out of the public funds?
*LORD FITZMAURICE: That is an argumentative question founded on Subsection (d).That point was fully gone into by my noble friend the Lord President of the Council. It was fully gone into by the Prime Minister and Mr. McKenna last Saturday, and also, I believe, to-day at a deputation at which the noble Duke himself was present. Tinder these circumstances I cannot imagine that any further interpretation
106
that I can place on those words or on the explanations which have been given by Cabinet Ministers would do more to satisfy the noble Duke than anything he has already heard.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I am very sorry to hear it.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CREWE: I beg to say that His Majesty's gracious Message with respect to Lord Cromer will be taken into consideration by the House on Tuesday next, and that it will have precedence of other Orders of the day. I am happy to be able to put down the Motion in the name of my noble friend, the Leader of the House, who I hope will be in his place on that day.
House adjourned a quarter before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow Ten o'clock.